Legalize Abortion?

[fratbaxxx]

---

hahahah mao2 jd!!

[AmorsoloX]

No. Scarcity is also caused by mismanagement and improper distribution. This pccurs because of unjust economic structures. The size of the population has nothing to do with it. The solution is to manage and distribute resources properly. If this is not done and the unjust structures mitigated, scarcity will persist no matter how small the population. Injustice will continue to cause poverty.

you said "also" yes, i agree, but the existence of corruption and wastage is only natural.. kung sa kurente pa, its called "system loss" or "friction".. we live on a democratic and free market.. if you are against that, then you sir might possibly be a communist. nabuhi nlang og namatay si Kristo, kana imu corruption wa ghapon na na wala..

corruption itself is abstract.. lets tackle with what is concrete

Take note that population control exacts a VERY HIGH toll on the people in terms of human rights violations, coercion, and increased suffering because the causes of poverety remain UNaddressed. It is also very expensive, which diverts resources from urgent needs.

their is a fine line between exercise of rights and abuse of rights.. poverty is not caused by corruption alone.. poverty is a very complex thing.. to say that it is purely from corruption is quite absurd to the point childish..

Let's get real. You love yourself moe than you love your parents. It seems you are just making up excuses for continued INGRATITUDE.

i really wonder if you have children.. i would say sir, that your statement is an insult to parents.. as a parent, out of love, i would give the best that is within my capacity ti my children without expecting in return.. i will never demand that they will take care of me because i know it would be a burden to them..

you sir, are a very selfish person.. kung love nimu ang usa ka tao, di ka mag expect.. Christ died to save your soul without expecting to be loved back... katoliko man kaha ka sir, i suggest you look at Christ's love as a model

In any case, this is not a personal matter. The elderly must have support structures since most of them cannot support themsleves after retirement (not everyone can retire wealthy). These support structures are often in the form of publicly-funded benefits. Someone has to pay for those. It is the working class that pays for it through TAXES.

i would agree on the part that support structures are not in place.. but the truth is, it is already in place for quite sometime, its just that the people arent educated to utilize it.. i have lots of workers who dont understand how their SSS works...

the working class should pay for its own retirement plans.. no man should carry the burden of another.. y should he? parehas ra sila tao... i say educate the people

Population ageing, however, will increase the burden on the working-age persons. There will be more retired aged persons vis-a-vis working-age persons.

this is true, if the working class pays for the retirement of the old people instead of using their own pensions.. this is what is happening in the US (the poorests and debt-ridden country on the planet). the old people should use their own savings for their retirement..

So if you really love your children as you claim then you must prevent population ageing by rejecting population control.

this is our big difference:
ME: i love my children and i dont want to be a burden to them..
You: I love my children because they will support me when im old..

[AmorsoloX]

kinsa may bright ninu dire beh....

tubaga ni...

aha mas saun buhion? gamay ra anak o daghan anak?...

lets stop th BS bout graft n corruption, what the so-called experts say, blah, blah, blah..
lets keep it simple





aha mas saun buhion? gamay ra anak o daghan anak?...

[peewee_toot]

^^akoy tubag ana beh...

depende.

naa ra mn jd na sa diskarte sa tao...

[mannyamador]

corruption itself is abstract.. lets tackle with what is concrete

Corruption is very concrete. Walk into an LTO office and try to get something done.

the working class should pay for its own retirement plans.. no man should carry the burden of another.

That only works for the privileged few who have retirement plans. The poor do NOT have their own retirement savings because of the unfair economic structures that made them poor in the first place. Thus they are dependent on govrnment benefits like SSS, GSIS, etc.

This is a fact even in the developed world. Working-age persons support the non-working elderly through taxes. And this is only fair and just since the elderly have alrready made their contributions to society. The younger working classes are benefitting from their work.

ME: i love my children and i dont want to be a burden to them..

But by bringing about population ageing (through population control) you are INCREASING their burden.

That is the difference between you and me. I advocate effective poverty alleviation programs that work and policies that are backed up by evidence. You are blindly adhering to population control ideology that has been fed to you by foreign-funded NGOs and propaganda groups. Why not take your own advice and become educated on tis issue so you can disabuse yourself of this ideology?

[RMK711]

Since when has SSS, pag-ibig or the GSIS alleviated poverty? Talk about corruption being concrete.. have you tried making a philhealth claim when hospitalized? What you are advocating is communism.

The problem you are talking about (underpopulation) due to extremely low fertility rates which is happening in Japan, Singapore and Korea makes me laugh and wonder what's going on in your head. Which is a worse problem I wonder.. having too few people as these countries have or having too many people. What's the point if a parent has 10 kids but all of them are unemployed, who is gonna foot the bill, certainly not your masters in the catholic church who don't pay a single cent in taxes. Oh that's right its gonna be people like amorsoloX and me who will be forced (coerced) to pay taxes to prop up dole-out institutions just so you can shove your morality up our *sses.. no thank you. The RH Bill is going to happen eventually, if over your dead body then so be it.

[mannyamador]

Clear and present danger
Capital View -- By Mercedes B. Suleik
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=20114

In promoting contraception, the so-called Reproductive Health Bill is an oxy*****... a misnomer. Reproduction means to give life. Contraception means to abort life. It’s as simple as that. I am not about to tote up what media and other supporters of the bill call religious objections. After all, some non-Catholics, non-Christians, atheists, and agnostics somehow get apoplexic when God enters the picture.

What I would like to call attention to is that this bill, couched though it be in innocuous language, is riding on the wrong premise that the Philippines is over-populated, and worse, there are just too many poor people, and the only solution is to stop these poor people from reproducing.

Let us be honest for once, and admit that the "population management" program is rooted in the Kissinger memorandum of 1975, which advocated population control measures and the promotion of contraception among the 13 most populous countries, among which was the Philippines.

The overt rationale was that population growth is deemed inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries; the covert reason was that rapid population growth in these less developed countries was seen to be against the national interests of the United States. In fact, from 1997 to 2003, the USAID had been shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities (read contraceptives) which amounted to US$3 million annually. When that dole-out ended, the Department of Health embarked on the "Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy" which arranged for the replacement of these donations with domestically provided contraception.

In fact, that policy already makes moot what the RH bill is trying to do, not to mention the fact that the Local Government Code allows local governments to put it into effect themselves, as some LGUs have already done.

What the RH bill does is really to make contraception a state policy, doing violence to the rights of the nation’s citizens to decide on their own family sizes and their children’s upbringing, as well as to the conscience rights of medical and health workers, educators, and employers in light of the coercive sanctions in the bill.

There is a "clear and present danger" to all of us if this bill is passed in this coming Congress, as its proponents swear they will do so.

It might be good for them to remember that this bill has gone through 23 congresses, and somehow, it never got passed...must be an unseen Hand? Okay, I promised no religious overtones.

Let me just tell you why there is a "clear and present danger," and propose that there really is a true conspiracy to depopulate the world, but especially the less developed countries. For sure, once the bill is passed, we shall have effectively entered the loop of the Obama administration’s policy of promoting worldwide abortion, no matter how the bill’s proponents claim that in our country abortion is "still a crime." Take note of the word "still" -- how easily that caveat can eventually disappear.

I grant that there are those who are sincere about poverty alleviation but are misguided, or indeed deceived, about the means and methods to help the poor.

The danger is that there are those who are malevolent in their intentions and devious about their methods, who have advocated the unthinkable -- they are the ones who are ultimately behind the advocacy for "family planning" and "reproductive health."

The Millenium Challenge grant that PNoy so deliriously claimed as the bacon he brought home ostensibly seeks to help fight corruption, improve education, etc., etc. and alleviate poverty via, please take note, "reproductive health measures." Nothing apparently wrong with that, except that Obama’s Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton’s, definition of "reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion." It follows that whatever definition the framers of the RH bill has of reproductive health, access to that green gravy will find its way to eventual access to abortion.

Another cause for my feeling about "clear and present danger" is that Obama’s crew includes John Holdren as advisor for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Who is John Holdren?

He is the one who, in a 1977 book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply contamination, mandatory body implants to prevent pregnancies, particularly to people deemed as causing "social deterioration."

Shades of Adolf Hitler! His co-authors are Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. In case our RH proponents who rationalize their stand on the over-population bogey, have forgotten, or never have heard of him, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome in the 1960s raised the idea of the "population bomb" and "limits to growth" theories (which have consistently been proven to be as hilariously true as the corner soothsayer’s proclamation that "the end is near").

Another version of this theory is the "overloaded lifeboat" theory of the earth. Despite his dire prediction that eventually the world would run out of resources (taking off from the discredited Malthusian theory), the world has stumbled on, discovering new resources and technologies, and actually has progressed.

Of course there are pockets of poverty everywhere, even in the rich countries, but is the solution to decimate population?

If that were so, how can the RH proponents claim that their bill is "pro-poor" -- why, they are saying the poor who "breed irresponsibly" should be given pills, condoms, and whatelse, so that they would stop procreating, thus lessening the number of poor people.

Goodness, why don’t they just line up all the poor in Luneta and execute them for "economic sabotage"?

Let me just cite a summary of some of the things this new science advisor of the Obama regime proposes in that book, which scares me to death...which could eventually support and form part of the anti-life program of the US (little brown brother, take heed):

• "Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
  
• "Legalizing "compulsory abortions," i.e., forced abortions carried out against the will of pregnant women, as is commonplace in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby (Note: this book was published in 1977 when China had the one-child policy...which they are rethinking now).
  
• "Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
  
• "Implementing a system of "involuntary birth control" where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.
  
• "Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem to have already had too many children or...who have contributed to ‘general social deterioration’.
  
• "Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one-child policy of Communist China.
  
• "This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized ‘Planetary Regime’ that would utilize ‘global police force’ to enforce the measures outlined above. The ‘Planetary Regime’ would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world."

If it wasn’t so scary, we could just dismiss it as the ramblings of a mad scientist from fiction, but that book exists (Holdren actually had a picture taken of him with his book).

Holdren and his colleagues, it has been reported, moreover are now at the forefront of efforts to combat "climate change" through "similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet."

They are reportedly also advocating "large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth," such as "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays." Golly gee!

I don’t know about you, but as a child star once said, "Takot ako" about these shocking and draconian population control plans, the horrors that population control, sterilization, and genocidal culling programs that are now underway little by little. Let us not be mesmerized by the glitter of the gold that is being offered to us in exchange for the very life of our people.

As I said earlier, perhaps the motives of people supporting the RH bill in their desire to solve our country’s poverty problem are sincere, but let them not be deceived and taken up to the mountain to view the riches of the world to be had, if they would only fall down and worship the evil one.


Please sign the online petition supporting the pro-life bill (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/

NO TO THE RH/ABORTION BILLS ( HB 96 and SB 2378 )

[RMK711]

I'm Christian and I get apoplectic when stupid people say contraception = abortion. Keep peddling that trash though.

[mannyamador]

I'm Christian and I get apoplectic when stupid people say contraception = abortion. Keep peddling that trash though.

That's because you are UNINFORMED. And it is obvious you did NOT even read Ms. Suleik's entire article. That is why you are uninformed.

There are certain forms of contraception that are abortifacient. Not all of them though. Plain condoms are not abortifacient.

Hormonal contraceptives, IUDs, and so-called "emergency contrceptives," however, are abortifacient.

• 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
  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.

[RMK711]

Oh well I still don't agree that even birth control pills are equal to abortion. There's a debate going on between scientists on that issue, I'll let them thresh it out. But I'll stick to my view that if it ain't formed like a baby, it ain't one yet.

Anyway thanks for the Business World link, that article was no good, but there was one other article in there that was pretty good (regarding our Supreme Court).