Legalize Abortion?

[xinevirtucio]

---

naku bnfsupin... huwata tubag ni manny.

OT: ********r, patay tang manny ron kai ng off topic ta, strict raba ang management.

anyway, the debate is getting tiresome, either way there is no perfect solution to the problem that has plagued us for centuries.

i am not in agreement with abortion, because i think it is the easy way out.

For the RH issue, i am still with it, we have to understand that each individual sees things differently, what one sees as something beneficial the other might see it as something harmful.

and as educated individuals we have the tendency to stick to our opinions, it is our opinion anyway, no one can force us to change our views, unless we voluntarily admitted that we were on the wrong side at the start of this tiresome debate.

as for the issue of the RH bill forcing the dispensation of contraceptives.

i think mr. amador is referring to the punitive part of the bill.

but then again we have to consider which right should we consider more, the right of the patient or the right of the medical personnel dispensing the drug.

if a patient, begs as in begs for that artificial contraceptive because other than it is given for free or at a cheaper price in the health center (i am not sure about this, this is based on what i think, not entirely a fact, i am merely citing a situation.) it is the only type of family planning that she finds applicable to her daily lifestyle, since she finds the cervical mucous method or basal body temperature too confusing or she is uncomfortable with it, should the medical personnel deny the patient simply because it is against her belief, and that after explaining to the patient about the pros and cons of artificial contraception, the patient still insists on getting it, should the medical personnel still deny the patient's wishes?

we have to remember that the patients have rights, right to choose and they are entitled to choose which type of family planning they want whether modern or natural.

and denying them that, is denying their right.

[reptoid]

NO to population explosion!

YES to informed choice!


Big YAY for meaningful debate! Well done istorya, this is one of the very few forums here in the Phils where this thorny issue is being debated intelligently.

[xinevirtucio]

ngano diay naka violate sa parent's rights ang RHB??

religious freedom....hmmm...diba separated nmn jd ang church and state, naa mn gali na sa constitution....

affected ang church??kai?murder of unborn children, even before the RHB dghan nmn intawon ang na-abort, pila na kabata ang gilabay sa ilang ginikanan?pila na kabata ang gibilin sa sapa or sa dalan aron mamatay.

dghan nmang innosente ang nangamatay maski wala pa ng bill. dghan nsad ngpaabort.

nya naa ba gbuhat ang church and other pro life groups to counter this even before the birth of the RHB


no ***, since time immemorial humans have been having s3x minyo or dli.

even those who vowed celibacy are not exempted. ( i don't mean to be blasphemous or whatever, but then again it is a fact and there is no denying it.)

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

ngano diay naka violate sa parent's rights ang RHB??

religious freedom....hmmm...diba separated nmn jd ang church and state, naa mn gali na sa constitution....

affected ang church??kai?murder of unborn children, even before the RHB dghan nmn intawon ang na-abort, pila na kabata ang gilabay sa ilang ginikanan?pila na kabata ang gibilin sa sapa or sa dalan aron mamatay.

dghan nmang innosente ang nangamatay maski wala pa ng bill. dghan nsad ngpaabort.

nya naa ba gbuhat ang church and other pro life groups to counter this even before the birth of the RHB


no ***, since time immemorial humans have been having s3x minyo or dli.

even those who vowed celibacy are not exempted. ( i don't mean to be blasphemous or whatever, but then again it is a fact and there is no denying it.)

sakto gyud sis..

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

kini na debate kay bati na kaayo... equate man ni manny na ang RH bill kay legalization na sa abortion...

[mannyamador]

as for the issue of the RH bill forcing the dispensation of contraceptives.
i think mr. amador is referring to the punitive part of the bill.

Correct. Specifically, Section 21, number 5 of the proposed Bill (HB 5043)

but then again we have to consider which right should we consider more, the right of the patient or the right of the medical personnel dispensing the drug.

The "patient's" (actually, a requestor) rights are NOT involved. No one is preventing the requestor from going to another person who will dispense the contraceptive (for free or at a cost). The doctor who refuses to dispense contraceptives is only INHIBITING HIMSELF from carrying out a medically unnecessary act.

No matter how much a person claims he/she wants a contraceptive, birth control is an ELECTIVE (meaning voluntary and initiated by the requestor) procedure. It does not cure any disease since pregnancy is NOT a disease.

It is important to remember that if the requestor insists on using contraceptives, he/she can always go to someone else. There are many persons who will gladly dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. There is no need whatsoever to FORCE a doctor who does nto believe in them to dispense them.

To reiterate, the "patient's" rights are NEVER denied when a doctor inhibits himself from dispensing an elective and morally objectionable treatment. But the RH/abortion Bill DOES deny the doctor';s rights when it forces him/her to dispense abortifacient and artificial contraceptives against his/her conscience.

dghan nmang innosente ang nangamatay maski wala pa ng bill. dghan nsad ngpaabort.

That does NOT justify the legalization of chemical abortion through this Bill (HB 5043). If we follow your twisted logic, we might as well legalize homicide, corruption, and theft since all these also existed even before our nation existed. That reasoning is absurd.



DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS! NO TO THE COERCIVE, TOTALITARIAN RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

naa man mga legal na pagpatay manny...

kana diay gibuhat sa mga sundalo sa Mindanao.. legal mana...

kanang euthanasia kung dili ka afford nag pamilya sa life support...

kini lang ako masulti manny maypa maghimo ta lain thread kay ang mga taw ambi nila about legalizing abortion ni diri bisan dili kay about RH bill...

[mannyamador]

naa man mga legal na pagpatay manny...

You are confusing MURDER and KILLING. The two are different. Murder is a subset of killing. There are many other types of killing. Some are legal and some are not.

Murder is killing of the innocent and is NEVER justified. Abortion kills the innocent, unborn child It is MURDER.

This is relevant to the RH/abortion Bill issue because the Bill directly funds and forces persons to dispense abortifacient contraceptives (these are contraceptives that can caused an abortion).

I have already proven -- using scientific evidence -- that certain contraceptives are abortifacient. The URL to the evidence is:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post5227827

Now, even if for some irrational reason you refuse to accept the evidence, at best for the RH side it can only show that the issue is UNRESOLVED. In which case we should take the SAFER APPROACH which is NOT to use possible abortifacients because they can might kill innocent lives.

You do not shoot a gun into a public area unless you are sure no one will be hit. if you cannot be sure, then you should NOT shoot.

Same with abortifacients. Unless you can prove that these contraceptives can NEVER cause an abortion (and so far you have ZERO evidence for this) then the government should take the safer approach and NOT promote them.




“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Proverbs 31:8
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Conscience and Uncontroversial Truths
May we insist that health care professionals violate their deepest beliefs?
By Janet E. Smith

5. Freedom of Choice

Our democtratic society has generally recognized that it is best to have people have their conscience and their desire to live by the truth that they know, be their ultimate guide for their behavior. We know that mandating that people blindly obey the law and make the law the final determinant of their behavior does not, in fact, produce model citizens but possibly dangerous ones.

One area in which most of us have been familiar with rights of conscience is the conscientious objection that has been permitted in times of war when the military draft has been in place. We permit those who have a conscientious objection to killing to serve in other ways.

We believe there is something really valuable in protecting the conscientious views of people who refuse to kill, even though we as a culture believe it is moral to kill in self-defense.

As mentioned earlier, we allow practitioners of many professions, such as lawyers, to refuse to serve clients. At times, of course, getting a good lawyer is just as essntial to one's well-being as good health care, but we do not force lawyers to violate their consciences and defend those they choose not to defend. We don't force lawyers, simply because they are licensed by the state to operate as "hired guns." We honor their autonomy in practicing their profession.

So let me briefly turn to the example chosen for this article: whether we should allow pharmacists who have a conscientious objection to dispensing drugs that can kill a human embryo to refuse to do so.

Let us get straight here that the pharmacist is not refusing to dispense the drug because of disapproval of what the one purchasing the drug is going to do. Rather the pharmacist is refusing to dispense the drug because she thinks it would be morally culpable evil action; that she would be assisting another in taking an innocent human life.

Accountabale to her conscience for what she is being asked to do, she refuses to perform an action she believes to be immoral. It is her own evil action that she does not want to perform.

I stated earlier that it is not correct to classify abortion and contraceptives as health care. Abortion is nearly always an elective procedure and use of contraceptives is rarely directed at dealing with any physiological malady. if doctors are forced to do procedures that are elective, we would be forcing them to be "hired guns" or "technicians for hire."

Should doctors be forced to amputate the limbs of healthy people? There are such people. They want to be amputees; some of them claim it is essential to their sense of identity and well-being. They need a surgeon to hep them achieve that sense of well-being.

Almost everyone who becomes a physician does so to save lives and reduce suffering. Should physicians be forced to act against this deep core value of their profession to satisfy the lifestyle choices of their patients?

The U.S. Supreme Court some decades ago decided to decriminalize abortion. All 50 states had had law against abortion. Many religions and most of Western civilization have believed it is wrong to kill the innocent human life in its mother's womb.

The understanding of many that life begins at conception is not idiosyncratic; there is abundant scientific evidence to bolster that conviction. Indeed, many of those in the pro-abortion movement concede that life begins at conception but insist that a woman's right to choose trumps an embryonic human's right to life. Our country is still deeply divided over the issue of abortion.

How can we insist that physicians and pharmacists do something that violates the deepest code of their profession?

Don't we desperately want citizens who will refuse to do something that they understand to be killing an innocent human being. Won't we be driving away form the professions of physician, pharmacist, and many others, those who are precisely the kind of principled people we need to have in such professions; those who think justice and protection of innocent human life are among the most important values of all?

--
Dr. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at sacred Heart major Seminary in Detroit. She is author of Humane Vitae: A Generation Later, editor of Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader. She has puboished many articles on ethical and bioethics issues.


More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS! NO TO THE COERCIVE, TOTALITARIAN RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Pamphlet Exposes Contraception's High Stakes
U.S. Bishops Offer Life Issues Educational Packet
http://www.zenit.org/article-26651?l=english

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUG. 21, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Many teens see contraception as a quick fix, but most do not read the fine print or hear about the high stakes involved.

This was affirmed in a pamphlet that is part of a newly released Respect Life Program, produced by the U.S. bishops' conference Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.

The program packet aims to increase public awareness of life issues by offering materials such as pamphlets, prayers, liturgy resources and clip art. The annual program begins on Respect Life Sunday, the first Sunday in October.

In a pamphlet titled "Contraception: The Fine Print," Susan Wills, the secretariat's assistant director for education and outreach, outlined the risks of several popular contraceptives.

She affirmed that contraceptives have encouraged many people to "engage in sexual relationships that are unfaithful, selfish, short-term, and altered to be sterile, not life giving."

These "uncommitted relationships" often lead to other problems, Wills asserted, such as abortions and sexually transmitted diseases.

She reported that almost 90% of "sexually-active American women 'at risk' of becoming pregnant are using contraception."

However, she added, a 2006 report from the Guttmacher Institute, a "research institute which supports abortion and contraception," stated that there is no correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates.


Failed attempts

The pamphlet reported Guttmacher's findings, that 17.4% of people who use condoms were pregnant within a year.

It added that for teenagers, this number jumps to 23.2%. Among teens who cohabit and are more sexually active, 71.7% got pregnant within the year.

Wills reported that the condom failure rates in protecting against sexually transmitted diseases are "even worse."

She stated that in the United States alone, there are 19 million new cases of these diseases each year.

The pamphlet explained, "Those who mistakenly believe that contraception protects them from pregnancy and [diseases] are more likely to become sexually active at an earlier age and to engage in riskier activity, such as having more sexual partners."

Wills dedicated another section to talk about the scientifically documented risks of hormonal contraceptives, including various types of oral pills, Norplant, the Ortho Evra patch, Yaz birth control pills, implants and injections, and Plan B.

She pointed out that the more successful these methods are at disrupting ovulation, "the more risks they pose to a woman's overall health."

"Rather than protecting girls and young women, contraception risks their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being," she said.


Successful means

The pamphlet acknowledged that there are methods, however, that do work.

It noted that many married couples "remain unaware that modern scientific methods of [natural family planning] enable them to space the birth of their children and, for sound reasons, limit the size of their family, in a way that is lovingly obedient to Jesus Christ and his Church, while avoiding the sin of contraception."

For single people, a growing population of teens who are choosing to postpone sexual activity shows that abstinence works to decrease abortions.

From 1991 to 2001, the number of U.S. teens who reported having had *** decreased by 16%, and the number who described themselves as "sexually active" went down 11%.

The pamphlet continued: "Greater abstinence means fewer abortions. Between 1984 and 2004 the abortion rate dropped more than 60% among girls under 18 and decreased almost 48% for girls 18-19."

Wills appealed on behalf of "our daughters and sisters" who "deserve to grow up healthy and free of preventable diseases that can last a lifetime."

"For their sakes," she asserted, "we must reject the contraceptive-based approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions and support sound abstinence education."

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Respect Life Program: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/

© Innovative Media, Inc.



“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Proverbs 31:8
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)