Legalize Abortion?

[miss istorya.net]

---

If a parent's or doctor's reason for abortion cannot be justified it's always going to be a NO Poor Innocent Babies

[cebulifer]

kung doctor na nagrecommend ug abortion i would think it would be justified na. usually kung at risk ang mother.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

We should have law on specific situation wherein abortion is justified or applicable...

and there should be government mandated clinics to do just that.. there should be process to be followed.. para maiiwasan yun pag-pa abort nang wlang magandang dahilan..

[peewee_toot]

kung doctor na nagrecommend ug abortion i would think it would be justified na. usually kung at risk ang mother.

i agree with this. lisud na kng ang both ang ma at risk...

[giddyboy]

We should have law on specific situation wherein abortion is justified or applicable...

fact is, we have specific laws for that. abortion can only be allowed if the pregnancy places the mother at risk of dying. an example for that is ectopic pregnancy.

another is a case like if a mother attempted to abort her baby by taking an abortive pill or herbal pamparegla, nagka complicate, ug nag bleeding na cya ug gidala sa hospital nya found out that the induced abortion is irreversible na, meaning, dili na gyud ma save ang bata. of course, the only logical thing to do is to save the life of the mother. assist nlng gyud ang doctor sa situation. the doctor may not be held liable for assisting the situation but the mother can if established she tried to abort the baby.

[mannyamador]

please lets not equate the RH bill as legalizing abortion...
thats plain stupid... cognitive miser...

Unless, of course, the RH/abortion Bill DOES promote some form of abprtion. Then it would be far more stupid to deny that the Bill actually promotes abortion.

We must remember that there are many forms of abortion aside from those done through surgical means, herbs, and through "hilot."

One way to induce an abortion is through ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.

I have posted the scientific evidence proving that hormonal contraceptives (which include the pill, mini-pill emergency contraceptives, injectables, and implantables) and IUDs are actually abortifacient (they can induce an abortion). They do this by preventing the fertilized ovum (which is already a human being in embryonic form) from implanting in the uterus. With nowhere to implant, the unborn child eventually dies.

I am posting the evidence below again for those new to this thread.

It is therefore false and untrue to claim that contraceptives can never cause an abortion and that the RH/abortion Bill does not promote abortion. The Bill directly promotes early-term chemical abortion through abortifacient contraceptives.

• 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.

The evidence is clear. These contraceptives are abortifacient.

NO MATTER WHAT THE PRO-RH SIDE SAYS, THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THE CONTRACEPTIVES IN QUESTION ARE NOT ABORTIFACIENT. THERE IS A REAL CHANCE THAT THEY CAN INDUCE ABORTION.

AT MOST THE PRO-RH SIDE CAN ONLY TRUTHFULLY MAKE THE CASE THAT THE ISSUE IS UNRESOLVED. IN WHICH CASE WE MUST TAKE THE SAFER APPROACH AND ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION SO AS NOT TO RISK DESTROYING HUMAN LIFE.


--
NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[GemWArrioR]

manny layo kaayo ang legalize abortion at RH Bill, na unsa naman ka, toinks.

[mannyamador]

The Bill explicitly funds certain abortifacient contraceptives. Please read the evidence above first.

The Bill also forces doctors and health workers to dispense them despite the fact that contraceptives do not cure any disease (pregnancy is NOT a disease). Birth control is an ELECTIVE procedure and is not medically necessary to save life or cure any disease or infirmity.

The Bill therefore effectively legalizes certain forms of abortion: induced chemical through abortifacient contraceptives.

What makes it even worse it that it numerous studies have proven that increased usage of artificial contraceptives actually leads to more unintended pregnancies and increased demand for abortion! The RH/abortion Bill won't solve the problem of increasing abortions, as Giddyboy pretends. The Bill will make the situation even WORSE.

I have compiled some evidence for this in a blog post:

The Evil Cousins: Contraception and Abortion
http://mamador.wordpress.com/2009/02...-and-abortion/

Open your minds to the truth. Don't remain stuck in the pro-RH/abortion ideology.




“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)

[Jerry Michael]

Padayon Mr. Manny Amador! I support your stance on this issue. Thanks for all the reading materials.

[mannyamador]

Padayon Mr. Manny Amador! I support your stance on this issue. Thanks for all the reading materials.

You're very welcome. I'm glad you have an open mind and wish to be informed about the truth behind this Bill.


Free to Choose
http://johndborra.blogspot.com/2009/...to-choose.html

I recently read the article, Reiterating the CBCP Position on Family, and I was struck by the reaction of the people both for and against proposed RH Bill 5043. It seems that much of the discussion for or against the Bill has taken a decidedly "religious" dimension, and not in a good way. Allow me to offer my humble opinion on this very important issue by making my opposition to the RH Bill 5043 very clear:

As a practicing Catholic, I am well aware of the Church's stand on, to borrow from Archbishop Lagdameo's letter to the Filipino people, "truth and morality, the value and dignity of life, family and marriage".

As a citizen of the Philippines, with the demonstrated ability to doom any presidential candidate I vote for with the ignominy of defeat, I would like to summarize my objections to the Bill as follows:

1. . Like Archbishop Lagdameo, I believe that "The Bill dilutes and negates Section III (1) Article XV of the Constitution which provides 'The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood.'"
   
   
2. . In particular, Sec. 21. (a) 5 seems to be a violation of our duly recognized right to practice religious and civic freedoms:
   
   
   The following acts are prohibited:
   
   a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
   
   5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work; Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.

How can a practicing Christian's health care worker's religious freedoms be respected if that health care worker is required by law to turn over persons seeking care and services not consistent with the practice of his or her faith to someone who surely will?

Many friends have told me that once the Bill is passed, certainly, amendments may be made. But after consulting with experts on the legislative process (who have no position whatsoever on the proposed RH Bill 5043) taking out or amending key portions of the Bill are close to impossible, or at best, unbelievably difficult due to the legislative process itself. Perhaps other people can take that chance, but I can't. Not when so many brave people have sacrificed so much to provide me with the freedoms my family and I enjoy.

Any proposed law or piece of legislation that forces a person, regardless of personal belief, to do something contrary to their legally upheld beliefs, is despotic. The Catholic Church, at most, can only excommunicate. This only affects you if you're Catholic. But a proposed law like this doesn't discriminate: it applies to everyone regardless of belief. It is anti-freedom, which our beloved former President Cory Aquino helped restore in our country not too long ago.

Allow me to end by saying that if there is one thing, among the many, that both people for or against RH Bill 5043 can agree on it is this: we must find a viable solution for the widespread poverty in our country. In my experience though, solutions that unite people, as opposed to divide people, have a better chance of helping more people. Shall we allow ourselves to be prisoners to ideology? Or shall we try to find a way for equally well-meaning people to get on with the business of helping people?

We're still free to choose.

--
NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)