Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

Double post. Deleted.

[mannyamador]

I say she will given the choice to take an emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) within 48 hrs so that the pill can prevent fertilization of the egg. but the problem is, emergency contraception is still not available in the Phils.

Emergency contraceptives are ABORTIFACIENT. They do not lessen abortion. They actually induce abortions. The evidence is quite clear.

Even the manufacturers of these so-called 'emergency contraceptives" admit that they are abortifacient.


Plan B Manufacturer Admits Morning After Pill Can Cause Death of an Embryo
Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Prof. Richard Stith, PhD
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06090701.html

Recent publicity concerning Plan B has been seriously misleading. The Plan B morning-after pill has been referred to as "contraception," even though it may act after fertilization to cause the death of a human embryo. This is an important mistake because, whatever one's judgment on abortion may be, I think we all agree that no woman should be misled into doing what she would consider to be taking a life without realizing that she is doing so.

There has been a shameful disinformation campaign on Plan B for years, and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to demand candor. Perhaps the simplest way to discern the truth is to look very carefully at the manufacturer's own "information" for consumers, found on its website at http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html:

How does Plan B work (mechanism of action)?

Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant. Plan B is a contraceptive and cannot terminate an established pregnancy.

Will Plan B harm an unborn fetus?

There is no evidence that Plan B would harm a pregnant woman or a developing fetus if the product were accidentally taken during early pregnancy.... Plan B is not an abortifacient. It is an emergency contraceptive and should not be confused with RU486 or any other abortifacient.

Note that the manufacturer claims that Plan B is "contraceptive", "not effective if a woman is pregnant", will not "harm an unborn fetus," and "is not an abortifacient." Sure sounds like it doesn't destroy an unborn human life, and that's the message swallowed and spread by the media.

However, note also that the drug maker admits that Plan B "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium [i.e. the lining of the womb]." In other words, Plan B may cause a newly-conceived embryo to die (and be expelled) because it cannot implant itself in the lining of the womb. For this reason, some South American courts have found the Plan B drug to violate an unborn child's constitutionally-guaranteed right to life.

In light of the manufacturer's own admission, its other statements above may at first seem to be flat-out lies. But careful analysis reveals them to be deeply misleading rather than flatly false. Although many people (e.g. the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin) use the word "fetus" to refer to an unborn child at any stage of development, in medicine a developing human life is usually called an "embryo" rather than a "fetus" prior to implantation in the mother's womb. The statement that Plan B does not "harm an unborn fetus" is true if we use this technical medical definition of "fetus," even though it may be misleading for those of us who don't distinguish fetuses from embryos.

But if Plan B may work post-fertilization, may cause the death of a newly-conceived human embryo, how can the drug maker say that the pill is only a "contraceptive," is "not effective if a woman is pregnant," and "is not an abortifacient"? The short answer is that the manufacturer appears to rely on recent (and perhaps politically motivated) redefinitions of conception, pregnancy, and abortion: According to the new definitions, "conception" and "pregnancy" begin at implantation rather than at fertilization, and "abortion" means the termination of a post-implantation "pregnancy." The drug makers can claim, rightly, that their statements are true under these new definitions.

One large problem is that the lay readers of the drug information packet are not told up front that these special new definitions are being used. Thus this "information" is quite unfair and misleading to average men and women who may remember from high school biology that fertilization and conception meant the same thing and that fertilization marked the beginning of pregnancy.

Moreover, the drug maker's insistence that Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy is a red herring to begin with. Nobody has any qualms about terminating pregnancies per se. After all, that's what birth itself does! What pro-life women and men don't want to do is to have an "abortion" in the ordinary sense of terminating LIFE. When the drug maker tells them not to worry because they are not terminating a pregnancy, they may conclude incorrectly that Plan B cannot cause the death of their unborn child. When they find out too late that they were misled and may have taken the lives of their own children, they may be devastated. And the drug maker, the media, and the FDA will be responsible.

In making this potentially lethal pill more easily available, the FDA should at least have required the drug maker to come clean, to say prominently on its label something like "WARNING: THIS DRUG MAY CAUSE THE DEATH OF AN EMBRYO." Its users would then be able to exercise informed consent about whether to take a chance on destroying a developing human life.

--

Of course the pro-RH fanatics hide this by claiming that human life begins at implantation. Fortunately, the Constitution assumes that life begins at fertilization. This is also clear from actual witness/participants in the Constitutional Commission.

Let's note that planned rape crisis centers like those are not meant for rape victims to abort their unborn child coz abortion is illegal.

But if the so-called crisis center administers an abortifacient like your beloved "emergency contraceptives", then they do commit abortions. That's why women should be careful NOT to go to centers run by pro-RH fanatics. How to know? Just as k if they dispense abortifacients like "emergency contraceptives."

Unlike the pro-RH abortionists, Pro-life groups instead put up pregnancy crisis centers that actually help women (instead of the pro-RH-type centers which assist women to abort their unborn children). The Kahupayan Center at Sto. Rosario Parish is one of them. It is also being used as a model for a plan to set up similar centers in ten other dioceses



--
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the online petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[mannyamador]

Let’s All Be One in Silence:
Participate in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity!
http://www.prolife.org.ph/news/index...ne-in-silence/

Since January 22, 1973 over 50,000,000 babies have had their voices silenced through surgical abortion in the United States alone. Over 4,000 children have their lives taken each day in the name of choice. Over 4,000 women are emotionally damaged every day.

Here in the Philippines, there are an estimated 560,000 cases of induced abortions per year, resulting in some 90,000 women being hospitalized for post-abortion care; and about 1,000 deaths a year in the country.

We at Pro-Life Philippines Foundation believe that there is a need to do something about these horrifying statistics. As such, we are encouraging everyone especially students to participate during the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity set on October 20.

This annual event involved schools and students in the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand through the efforts of the Stand True group. Our campaign here in our country will be done simultaneously with these other countries.

For more details on this event, download this PDF file so you would know how you can participate.

http://prolife.org.ph/home/uploads/silentday.pdf

Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity
http://silentday.org/

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

lets take this debate at the practical level since laws are made not based on religious or moral sentiments, if laws are created base on those why do you think playboy and penthouse exist and why cannabis is legal is some parts in Europe and even assisted suicide is allowed.

first lets put ourselves in the shoes of a rape victim, and got pregnant, are you willing to take care of the child of rapist? a constant reminder of an event you wish to forget?

now lets say you're a minor and a rape victim, how would you take care of the child? your parents? what if you have 5 other siblings, another mouth to feed. adoption? how many children that are put up for adoption that are actually adopted?

what if you're a minor and victim of an incestuous rape? who would take care of you child? can you take care of the child when you yourself need to be taken care of. your mother? would she? it would be a constant reminder of her husband's sin.

Who would take care of these children? YOU? lets be real.
manny filipinos opt to adopt children they know who the parents are or children of relatives in the province that cant take care of their children. We believe in the saying "ano ang puno siya rin ang bunga".

lets just be practical, this not a question about morality. yes we have two conflicting rights here. the rights of the mother to physical and mental health and the right of the unborn. whose rights has more weight?

the child? who is yet to be born
or the mother who has already suffered

[felixjr]

dli maau bro nga himoong legal ang abortion...very very very bad...i repeat very very very bad.....once again very very very bad...

[mannyamador]

lets take this debate at the practical level since laws are made not based on religious or moral sentiments, if laws are created base on those why do you think playboy and penthouse exist and why cannabis is legal is some parts in Europe and even assisted suicide is allowed.

That's only in some parts of the world where people have become selfish and don't care about right and wrong anymore. But the rest of the world cares about morals, and religion informs moral decisions.

first lets put ourselves in the shoes of a rape victim

Better yet, let's think about the INNOCENT CHILD TO BE MURDERED in abortion. Only then will things come into perspective.

how many children that are put up for adoption that are actually adopted?

Practically ALL are accepted for care. They may not find adoptive parents right away, but they are cared for, and their other needs are met. That's a lot better than killing them.

the child? who is yet to be born
or the mother who has already suffered

Wrong logic. The child is to be MURDERED. The mother only suffers hardship.

Loss of life is worse than difficulty. Suffering can be mitigated, death cannot.

That is why we must oppose the RH/abortion Bill. The Bill will sneak in a form of abortion through the funding of abortifacient contraceptives. Some pro-RH fanatics even want to legalize outright abortifacients (also known as "emergency" contraceptives).



--
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the online petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[mannyamador]

You’re teaching my child what?
A psychiatrist exposes the harm done to children in the name of s3x education.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/...my_child_what/

The following is an interview with Miriam Grossman, MD, author of the recently-released You’re teaching my child what? A physician exposes the lies of *** education and how they harm your child. The interview was conducted by Peter Jon Mitchell, Research Analyst, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada and is published here at Mercatornet with permission.

IMFC: What was your motivation for this new book?

Miriam Grossman: Frankly, I wrote it because I was fed up. As you know, I worked for twelve years as a psychiatrist for students at the UCLA campus here in California. During that time, thousands of kids came through my office. I was alarmed at how many of them had sexually transmitted infections and concerned about students, mostly young women, whose sexual lifestyle placed them at risk for disease, emotional distress and even infertility later in life. I was frustrated to see patient after patient in similar situations, yet my hands were tied. There wasn’t much I could do for them. These were young people who were otherwise well informed and proactive about their health. They were careful about what they ate, they exercised, avoided tobacco, and so on. But in this one area, in their sexual behaviour, they took alarming risks, and that was perplexing. I began to question these students carefully, and I examined how campus health and counselling centers approach sexual health issues. Those findings were discussed in my book Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Harms Every Student.

This new project was an extension of that. I went deeper into the field of *** education, looking at exactly what kids are taught, and at the history of *** education in the United States. I went online and explored the websites, books, pamphlets and videos created for kids and young adults. What I discovered was deeply disturbing, and that’s what this book is about.

IMFC: In the book you argue that *** educators and activists dismiss the fundamentals of child development, and omit critical findings of neurobiology, gynaecology and infectious disease. You suggest this has profound consequences, particularly for girls. How so?

MG: Absolutely. We have a wealth of new science that’s omitted from *** ed. For example, in the past decade our understanding of the teen brain, and how it reasons and makes decisions during moments of high stimulation has grown tremendously. We didn’t know until recently that the brain area that is responsible for making rational, thought-out decisions, the area that considers the pros and cons and consequences of decisions, is immature in teens. The circuits aren’t complete; the wiring is unfinished. *** educators insist that, like adults, teens are capable of making responsible decisions, they just lack information about sexuality and access to contraceptives. So the way to fight sexually transmitted infections and teen pregnancies, these authorities argue, is to provide teens with information and contraceptives, and teach them skills like how to say “no” and how to put on a condom. But current neuropsychological research does not support this stance. We know now that teens’ poor decisions are likely due not to lack of information, but to lack of judgement. And there is only one thing that will bring that: time.

Another example of critical information omitted from *** ed: a girl’s biological vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections. The cervix of teen girls is covered by a layer that is only one cell thick. That area is easily penetrated by the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. (The human papillomavirus is the STI we now have a vaccination against, and that’s another controversial issue.) With time, the surface is covered by cells that are 30 to 40 layers thick, and is therefore much more difficult to infect. Girls need to understand this from an early age. We have dramatic images [of the immature cervix] that we must show girls so they can grasp the importance of delaying sexual behaviour. These kids must be informed that putting all questions of morality aside, if they are sexually active at a young age, they are at risk for infections that could impact their physical and emotional well-being over the course of their lives.

A third point is kids aren’t told that oral *** is associated with cancers of the throat. Needless to say this is important, and indeed life-saving, information yet it is withheld from kids, and that is the height of irresponsibility. One of the points I make in the book is organizations such as Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US) claim to be providing up-to-date, medically-accurate information. But they do nothing of the sort.

Instead, these organizations teach kids that they are “sexual” from cradle to grave, that adolescence is the natural time to explore sexuality and that kids have the right to express their sexuality in whatever manner they choose. This message promotes sexual freedom, not sexual health. This is ideology, not science. When sexual freedom is the priority, sexual health suffers. And indeed, the statistics in the US on sexually transmitted infections, HIV, teen pregnancy, and abortion are mind numbing.

IMFC: Where do these organizations place the role of parents in their ideology? What are they saying to kids about parents?

MG: This is another disturbing feature of the *** ed fiasco. I discovered a duplicity exists. When speaking to the media, and in their material for parents, *** educators state that *** education should start at home and that parents should be the primary *** educators of children. But in material directed at kids the message is altogether different. Here’s what SIECUS says in an online booklet for kids called All About ***. It opens with eight pages on sexual rights: “Every human being has basic rights. Still, adults may say and do things that make young people feel like they don’t have rights. It’s important for you to know your rights so you can stand up for yourself when necessary.” Then a bit later: “You have the right to decide how to express your sexuality at every point in your life. You can choose if and how to express your sexuality.”

Ninety per cent of parents want their kids to delay sexual behaviour, and they expect *** educators to enforce that message. Organizations like SIECUS promise to do so, but they don’t. All About *** is a good example of what really goes on. The goal is for the young person to realize that, sure, adults may have their opinions, but kids of all ages have the right to their own ideas about sexuality, as well as the right to behave in any way they like. Nowhere in this pamphlet are kids told: we urge you to delay sexual behaviour because that’s the healthiest choice.

IMFC: The book will be an eye opener for parents. What can concerned parents do?

MG: The situation is sobering but my overall message is positive. The good news is that all these sexual health problems are 100 per cent avoidable. And there is so much parents can do to protect their kids. We know that young people are profoundly influenced by their parents, the messages they get from their parents, their perceptions of what their parents believe in, their parents’ values, and what their parents’ expectations are. There are many studies that I go through in the book that demonstrate that a parenting style of being warm and supportive and yet having high expectations and firm rules has profound influence on children and teens and the decisions they make. Obviously parents need to be informed. They need the information in this book; they are not going to find it anywhere else. I’m a medical doctor and I scoured the literature for the latest on sexually transmitted infections, how girls are more vulnerable emotionally and physically than boys, what kids are told about same-*** attraction, gender identity, and many other topics. My book is not politically correct, but it is medically accurate. I explain biological truths that are not discussed elsewhere. For example, kids are being told that they can be male, female or something else; that there are more than two genders and that it is natural to question who you are at any time in your life. This is madness. It’s not only medically inaccurate, it confuses our kids and it leads them into a minefield of emotional and physical hazards.

IMFC: What would you say to government policy makers?

MG: They must find the courage to challenge the status quo. People need to stand up, be politically incorrect, and acknowledge the truth of biology. Certain groups will object, because what is seen under the microscope and on brain scans contradicts their vision. It’s going to take that courage to change policy, to have an extreme makeover of our approach to *** education. You see, *** educators have institutionalized 20th century theories and social agendas, but hard science from this century completely discredits those theories and agendas. *** education needs to come into the 21st century and leave behind ideas that are remnants of the sexual revolution and feminism.

--
Copyright © Miriam Grossman. Published by MercatorNet.com..



--
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043).
Please sign the online petition AGAINST the so-called "Reproductive Health" Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

you're wrong manny.. cared for? naka-adto ka paria-an? dinha sa may usc? tell me unsa na klase cared for ana..

may magulang pero wla namna makain..

walang magulang may makain nga pero ano naman klase ng kinabukasan meron?

iba-iba perspewctive yan.. epro it hink you shoul learn to respect other peole's perspective especially if it concern their life-- physical and mental health...

a constant reminder of an event could be damaging to woman's mental health...

[pinkshop]

ok ra if rape victim or recommended sa physician

[giddyboy]

am i missing something here? i don't even think fertilization can already take place within 24 hrs after s3x or rape. so what is there for the ECP to abort nga wala pamay naporma nga fertilized egg?

and what if the rape victim is 9 yrs old? and what if the rape just happened less than 24 hrs ago? ingnon lang sa pro-life, "bear the child my dear. it is God's will"?

pag chure oi!

wa cla kuyapi? in cases like this, how can one put more focus on the welfare of an egg rather than the physical, psychological and mental welfare of a real person, to which is the rape victim?

likewise, how can one put more focus on a presidentiable's support for the RH Bill as the only basis for not voting for them rather than the overall leadership traits, qualifications, experience and other aspects more important for a voter to look for a presidentiable?

usa ray tubag ana: tunnel vision...misplaced priority...

NO to Abortion!
YES to the Reproductive Health Bill!