Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

some people here consider use of contraceptives as abortion..

That's because SOME forms of artificial contraception really are ABORTIFACIENT.

Such abortifacient contraceptives include the oral contraceptive pills, IUDs, injectables, implantables, and so-called "emergency contraceptives". These DO cause abortions. That is already established. One would have to be truly obstinate in their ignorance to deny it in face of all the evidence.


FACT: Contraceptives that prevent the fertilized egg from implanting have an abortifacient mechanism. This is a well-known mechanism of contraceptive pills and IUDs. It is false and untrue to claim that contraceptives can never cause an abortion.

• Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
  http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)
  
  
  “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would
  be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower
  doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are
  likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical
  literature does not support the hypothesis that
  postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
• The Physicians' Prescribing information for Yaz and Yasmin, two oral contraceptives
  http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/ht.../Yasmin_PI.pdf
  http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf
  
  
  Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins.
  Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation,
  other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the/QUOTE]
  difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces
  the likelihood of implantation).
• Do Contraceptive Pills cause Abortion?
  By Patrick McCrystal MPSNI / MPSI
  http://www.hliireland.ie/abortifacie...raception.html
  
  
  One of the ways by which the 'pill' works is by;
  
  

  "...the rendering of the endometrium unreceptive to implantation" (1)

  
  
  Put simply this means a newly created embryo is not allowed to implant in its mother's womb. This action takes place after fertilisation (conception), ie after a new life has been created. Thus it can be termed abortifacient (2,3) or abortion-causing. Indeed, the medical literature suggests this abortion-causing mode of action does occur during 'pill' use (4,5,20). Every chemical contraceptive preparation involving pills, injections, implants and intrauterine devices have this mechanism present as an inherent part of their birth control action.
  
  
• The Pill – How it works and fails.
  http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html
  
  
  Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?
  
  A. The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year.
  
  As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulation (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? I suggest that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implanation.
• Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects
  American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501086
  
  
  There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.
• CVS/Pharmacy
  http://www.cvs.com
  
  
  IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.
• Mechanism of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices and its relation to informed consent
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...ubmed_RVDocSum
  
  
  The purposes of this review are to evaluate the available evidence for the mechanisms of action of copper-impregnated intrauterine contraceptive devices and to describe the informed consent consequences of those mechanisms. The medical literature was reviewed with the use of the Bioethics and Medline databases (1966 to present). Reports that supported or refuted the two major postulated mechanisms (interference with implantation of the fertilized ovum or spermicidal inhibition of fertilization) were assessed for their relative strength and support for the exclusivity of one or the other mechanism. The analysis of the evidence strongly suggests that the contraceptive effectiveness of intrauterine contraceptive devices is achieved by both a prefertilization spermicidal action and a postfertilization inhibition of uterine implantation. Patient informed consent for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion should include a discussion of these mechanisms of actions so as to avoid their use in patients with moral objections to postfertilization contraception.

FACT: Increased contraceptive usage leads to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and an increase in demand for abortion.

• Increased access to contraception not linked to decrease in numbers of unplanned pregnancies, abortions
  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20761
  
  
  The belief that increased access to contraception will “reduce rates of unintended
  pregnancy and abortion” has “intuitive appeal, but the data prove otherwise,”
  Susan Wills, associate director for education for the U.S. Conference of Catholic
  Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, writes in a Washington Post letter to
  the editor in response to a Post opinion piece by William Saletan, science and
  technology reporter for Slate magazine.
  
  
• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  
  
  The persistence in sexual activity is such that policies that affect access to
  contraception will have very different effects in the short run than the long run.
  Our results suggest that increasing access to contraception may actually increase
  long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other
  and, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity,
  are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long run.
  
  
• Contraception – It’s time to stop ducking the issue
  http://www.noroomforcontraception.co...t/view/106/57/
  
  
  According to the study Trends in Premarital *** in the United States, 1954-2003,
  the increase in premarital *** amongst a group of teens turning 15 during the
  years 1964-1973 “may be partly due to increased availability of effective
  contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that *** would lead
  to pregnancy.” (Finer, 2007)
  
  
• Guttmacher Institute Study Casts Doubt on Contraception Use Reducing Abortions
  http://www.lifenews.com/nat5579.html
  
  
  But, Dr. Michael New, a University of Alabama political science professor, writes at National Review Online that Guttmacher’s own study shows how contraception doesn’t reduce the abortion numbers.
  
  “The link between abortion rates and access to contraception is not as clear as the Guttmacher report might indicate. Furthermore, Guttmacher’s own research suggests that there is little reason to believe that contraception subsidies would do much to affect abortion rates,” he explains.
  
  New says “there exists no consensus on the correlation between the availability of contraception and the incidence of abortion.”
  
  “In fact, in 2003, Guttmacher released an article in ‘International Family Planning Perspectives’ that showed simultaneous increases in both contraceptive use and abortion rates in the United States, Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea,” New points out.
  
  
• The Role of Contraception in Increasing Abortion
  By Ruben Obregon
  http://www.noroomforcontraception.co...d-Abortion.htm

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AND THOSE OF THE UNBORN!
NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the online petition AGAINST the Reproductive Health/Abortion Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[ecpflesh]

i think better jud e-educate ang mga taw bahin aning abortion....

[AmorsoloX]

i think better jud e-educate ang mga taw bahin aning abortion....

nindot jud tana.. and if naa, dili tana kanang purely catholic.. kanang impartial and unbiased...

[Epitaph]

no way... go grab a condom then...

[cebulifer]

Login | Facebook

Found this in facebook! Hahhaa!!!

[mannyamador]

S3x education in the RH bill
By DR. BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
November 26, 2009, 5:50pm
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/231317...cation-rh-bill

One of the possible harmful effects of the Reproductive Health Bill being discussed in the Philippine Congress will result from the way the framers of the legislation ape the *** education movement in schools in the US and other Western countries. *** education is brought to the classroom and children are exposed to all types of contraceptive devices, purportedly to prevent teenage pregnancies. A book written by a medical doctor entitled "You're teaching my child what? A physician exposes the lies of *** education and how they harm your child" describes in detail the dreadful consequences of indiscriminate *** education in American schools. The author, Dr. Miriam Grossman, was interviewed by Peter Jon Mitchel, Research Analyst, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, and was recently published in the online magazine, Mercator.net (September 24, 2009).

Dr. Grossman worked for 12 years as a psychiatrist for students at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) campus. She reports: "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 behavior, they took alarming risks, and that was perplexing. I began to question these students carefully and I examined how campus health and counseling centers approach sexual health issues."

In her book, Dr. Grossman argues that *** educators and activists dismiss the fundamentals of child development, and omit critical findings of neurobiology, gynecology, and infectious disease. In her words: "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 judgment. And there is only thing that will bring that: time."

Provisions in the RH Bill on *** education make the same wrong assumptions. They start with the premise that kids 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.

According to Dr. Grossman, this message promotes sexual freedom (or more exactly, sexual license) and not sexual health. This is ideology, not science. When sexual license 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.

The RH bill can also easily fall into the duplicity unmasked by Dr. Gross man. 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 materials directed at kids, the message is altogether different. In one of these materials used in US schools, an online booklet for kids called All About *** 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."

These findings of an American psychiatrist should forewarn Filipino parents about the dangers inherent in the RH bill. I hope that our legislators can focus on other more urgent matters that will positively approach the eradication of poverty in the Philippines, such as rural and agricultural development, social housing, microcredit, quality education in the elementary and high schools, vocational or technical education, and so many other non-controversial solutions. The RH bill is full of dangers to our youth and to future generations of Filipinos. Because it may instill the contraceptive mentality into our youth, it can lead to the problems of demographic suicide 20 years down the road. It, therefore, goes against the very principle of sustainable development, i.e. to solve the problems of today without harming the welfare of future generations.

NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the Reproductive Health/Abortion Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[wendell_angel]

ruiz nawng ug kwarta.......................

[Bisayang_manok]

no not a good idea. teach the people how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and the grueling consequence that goes along with it.

legalizing such horrible act is like licensing misguided kids to commit terrible sin that can have devastating effect on their lives.

[wakkanakka]

Even Noynoy has found serious flaws with the stupid RH bill!!!

Noynoy softens stand on RH bill | ABS-CBN News Online Beta

At the ABS-CBN News Channel's Presidential Youth Forum at De La Salle University (DLSU) on Friday, Aquino said he still wants Filipinos to be educated on the various methods of family planning and be free to choose which method they prefer.

However, instead of his strong categorical statements in favor of making contraceptives available in all government hospitals, Aquino said he now believes the pending RH bill must be amended.

“There are provisions that I cannot support,” Aquino said. “I was mistakenly labeled as co-author [of the bill]. Actually, I’m listed as interpellator, and I’m waiting for my opportunity."



YES TO FREEDOM!!!
NO TO ABORTION!!!
NO, NO, NO TO ANTI-DEMOCRACY RH BILL!!!

[iLuvEmoSoMuch]

no.. i dont want na oi. better educate na lng tanan taw sa contraceptives oi. and if ur a parent. bantayi imo anak hehehe