Legalize Abortion?

[cebulifer]

---

sterilization?

[raski]

hmm on the contrary.. money is well spent on contraceptives and education.. excessive production of babies produces more waste of our limited resources

get your math right!
20 pesos condom is a lot cheaper than raising a child (unless of course you have no idea what it is), gatas pa lang 200 pesos nah... kung gi condom pa na (10 boxes X3 per pack = 30), 30 rounds nah...

so what do you propose instead of contraception? mura ra bag ikaw mo supporta sa new born babies.. ipasa raman gani nimu sa goberno or sa simbahan..

im not paying taxes so that some other person can reproduce his species maski dili nya kaya financially.. mahal na man gani kaau magsupporta imu own family, unsa pa mo supurta sa uban.. but i will be happy to think that my taxes are used to prevent the reproduction of unproductive people..


naa ko theory what kind of person sir manny (and some of he anti-rh guys) is:
1.) the raski theory - hes a 40 year old unmarried virgin , possibly gay.. coz hes got no idea on raising children.. (logical man pud mo explain si raski beh)
2.) he is a priest, that explains why he is unmarried and is die hard anti-rh
3.) his a businessman whose products include baby products, kay malugi iya biz kung mogamay new babies..
4.) he's just a plain catholic fanatic blinded by the truth his fellow filipino suffers from..

support noynoy! support RH-bill! save the philippines!

I think all 1-4 can apply, it's not necessarily multiple choice.

[cebulifer]

gibutangan naman gyud ug picture! Bwahahaha!!!

[mannyamador]

I think all 1-4 can apply, it's not necessarily multiple choice.

Still projecting your insecurities onto others?

Projection
http://changingminds.org/explanation...projection.htm

Description

When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.

You seem to have very serious problems in dealing with the issues you project onto those you hate. Here's the number of Kahupayan Center (Crisis Intervention Center for Women and Children).

Landline: 2554272.
Office hours: 9:00-11:30am and 2:00-6:30pm, Mondays through Saturdays

You need their help.

Also, you do realize the "evidence" you quoted comes from a TABLOID right? The same tabloid that says aliens from outer space exists

Nope. The source is NOT a tabloid. Can't you even get your facts straight? Your seething hatred seems to have impaired your rational faculties. Please call Kahupayan Center. They are quite good.




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/

[mannyamador]

hmm on the contrary.. money is well spent on contraceptives and education.

How can spending money on methods that actually increase the incidence of unplanned pregnancy be considered well spent? Multiple studies have shown that increasing contraceptive usage leads to more promiscuity and risky behavior, more unplanned [pregnancies, and more demand for abortion.

I suggest you get your math right. A person produces more than he/she consumes. In fact, I was surprised to learn that even the poor in Third World countries on average begin to produce more than they consume by the age of 15. Of course that is because they have to work early to help their families. That is not in itself good, but it illustrates the economics of population: PEOPLE PRODUCE MORE THAN THEY CONSUME EVEN WITH MEAGER PERSONAL RESOURCES.

Now poverty exists because people's production is hampered or wasted by other factors such as massive corruption and economic mismanagement. These factors are NOT productive, People, however, ARE productive overall. It makes no sense whatsoever top reduce a productive factor instead of reducing a non-productive factor.

Address the real causes of poverty and stop wasting time and money on population control. That is the only workable alternative.


Curb the Population Myth
By Nicholas Eberstadt
5 Feb 2009
http://www.criticalopinion.org/articles/187

WASHINGTON -- President Obama has ended the ban on federal funds imposed by the Bush Administration on groups that promote or perform abortions abroad and on the United Nations Population Fund. He must take this opportunity to put pressure on the UNFPA to concentrate on the health of women and babies — and to stop wasting money assaulting the poor with wrongheaded population-control schemes.

“Continued rapid population growth poses a bigger threat to poverty reduction in most countries than HIV/AIDS,” the UNFPA said in an hysterical statement on World Population Day, last July. This is plain wrong: it is not human numbers that cause poverty, but bad economic policies, laws and institutions.

The densely-populated Netherlands and Japan are prosperous but poor in resources, while much of impoverished Africa is thinly populated but rich in resources. The United States rose to affluence with one of the world’s highest long-term population growth rates, while now-prosperous Ireland had negative long-term rates. Clearly, neither human numbers nor natural resources are keys to the modern story of global wealth and poverty.

The UNFPA talks of “women’s empowerment and gender equality” and “universal access to reproductive health” but, despite this politically-correct discourse, it remains committed to its original purpose of reducing population growth: reproductive healthcare is “the most practicable option for slowing population growth,” it says, equating this with poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation.

These fallacies hark back to the 18th century economist Thomas Robert Malthus. Like many other pressure groups and NGOs, the UNFPA continues to commit elementary analytical errors: ignoring evidence staring us in the face.

The 20th century saw human numbers quadruple to more than six billion but food production widely outstripped population growth, average life expectancy doubled to well over 60 years, while global GDP per capita more than quintupled.

In the 1960s, alarmists such as Paul Ehrlich predicted imminent mass famine around the world. Indeed, in the last couple of years global food prices briefly shot up — maize, wheat and rice all doubled or tripled in a short time — but fell back again. In fact, the long-term trend in real grain prices over the past century has been heading steadily downward, at an average of seven to 10 percent per decade (depending on the product).

To be sure, a horrifying number of people today still live in squalor, scourged by disease and hunger — but the correct name for this is poverty, not “overpopulation.” In countries where people cannot securely own property, cannot sell their produce freely and get scant protection in law, government is poverty’s handmaiden.

Population alarmists and their allies in the UN are deluding themselves when they claim government intervention can reduce fertility rates and “stabilize” population. Their mantra is that education, high literacy and cheap birth control lead to lower birth rates.

Health, literacy and voluntary contraception are meritorious objectives in their own right, irrespective of any influence on population growth. But it is misleading to claim they predictably reduce birth rates.

Take literacy. The adult literacy rate in 2006 was about a third higher in Malawi than Morocco (54 percent vs. 40 percent), yet fertility levels in Malawi were double. Family planning campaigns are similarly unpredictable: in 1974 Mexico started a vigorous campaign to cut population growth and got fertility levels down by 56 percent but Brazil’s fertility level fell by 54 percent with no campaign at all, in the same quarter century. These are not cherry-picked examples: there is simply no way of knowing in advance the impact of family-planning programmes on birth rates.

It turns out that the single best international predictor of fertility levels is the number of children that women say they would like. The only proven way of curbing population growth is coercion, as in India briefly in the 1970s and in UNFPA-client China today. There is no other assured way of accomplishing immediate and dramatic birth reductions through population policy — period.

Many organizations, including the World Health Organization and UNICEF, already work to promote the health of women and children internationally.

Plainly, many global health threats, from maternal and neonatal deaths to diarrhoea, malaria and other infectious diseases, are creations of poverty.

Only economic growth and freedom, not deceitful population programs from the UNFPA, can empower women and spare them poverty and premature death.

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/

[raski]

Hmm how strange. In order for me to be projecting i would have to be older than 40 yrs old, a virgin, never touched by a woman and a religious freak.. Feefifofum i smell an old bitter man picking fights with younger folk who beat his near senile intellect..

And i think the one who hates women is the one advocating a medieval inquisitorial and parochial stance against them. I love women maybe not children so much (thats what condoms are for ol chap so one does not accidentally father one but since you never are going to have premarital *** or get married u dont have to worry about this harhar) thats why i dont want to judge them just because they take a morning after pill unlike a certain anal retentive homo..

Speaking of hatred against women didnt you pick a fight with one in this thread? Toink!

Anyone who says the daily mail of london isnt a tabloid shoulnt be taken seriously.. Even the daily mail consider themselvea a tabloid.. Only a ***** would claim otherwise oO

BY the way i was responding to that other guy but the fact you thought the picture was of you when i never said it was amuses me to no end! Hahahaha...

[mannyamador]

Hmm how strange. In order for me to be projecting i would have to be older than 40 yrs old, a virgin, ...

Are you forgetting that you are continually making the accusation of homosexuality and fanaticism? Those are the things you are projecting onto those you hate. Is your hatred affecting your memory too?

Anyone who says the daily mail of london isnt a tabloid shoulnt be taken seriously.. Even the daily mail consider themselvea a tabloid.

The story was carried by Lifesitenews. The primary source of the story was the Guttmacher Institute. See here: http://www.lifenews.com/int1356b.html. Neither are tabloids. The latter isn't even a newspaper but a pro-abortion organization. Anyone, of course, can quote them, but that doesn't change the source.

Perhaps you are referring to ther story of the assault by a crazed abortion advocate? The story came from Lifesite news as well. it is here: http://www.lifenews.com/state4511.html. Where's the Daily Mail of London there?

The only story that mentions the Daily Mail is: http://www.lifenews.com/int1355.html. The facts referred to are not only found in the Daily Mail, however, and have been referenced in other stories. The story itself is quite factual. By the way, the tabloid format does not necessarily mean that all stories in a newspaper are non-factual, although many tabloids are quite sensational. Perhaps you are thinking of The Sun? In any case, you are clutching at straws -- and citing no evidence of your own!

Don't you do any research at all?

BY the way i was responding to that other guy but the fact you thought the picture was of you when i never said it was amuses me to no end! Hahahaha...

Oh, but I did NOT react to your picture. I reacted to your statement, which I clearly quoted. You will also see that I did NOT include the picture in the quote. Your statement was:

I think all 1-4 can apply, it's not necessarily multiple choice.

But the fact that you think I was reacting to the picture is a clear indication of your intentions. It makes very clear what you are projecting onto those you hate. Looks like you just stuck your foot in your mouth on this one.

Please get help for your prejudice, hatred, and the issues you project onto others. Kahupayan Center is a very good place for women and children in crisis. They can help you. Seriously.




“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)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[mannyamador]

Guttmacher Institute Study Casts Doubt on Contraception Use Reducing Abortions
October 20, 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5579.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new study by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute continues the claim that expanded use of contraception and birth control reduces abortions worldwide. Mainstream media outlets and writers like Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic are using the report to say pro-life advocates should push for contraception.

Sullivan became the latest in a long line of commentators to criticize the pro-life movement for not being more contraceptive-friendly.

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.

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AND THOSE OF THE UNBORN.
REJECT THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the online petition AGAINST the RH/Abortion Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[AmorsoloX]

I suggest you get your math right. A person produces more than he/she consumes. In fact, I was surprised to learn that even the poor in Third World countries on average begin to produce more than they consume by the age of 15. Of course that is because they have to work early to help their families. That is not in itself good, but it illustrates the economics of population: PEOPLE PRODUCE MORE THAN THEY CONSUME EVEN WITH MEAGER PERSONAL RESOURCES.

Now poverty exists because people's production is hampered or wasted by other factors such as massive corruption and economic mismanagement. These factors are NOT productive, People, however, ARE productive overall. It makes no sense whatsoever top reduce a productive factor instead of reducing a non-productive factor.

hmm.. nagka failure of intellect na si sir manny... mas barato daw 200 pesos nga gatas kay 20 pesos nga condom.. tsk3x

dili man kaonon condom.. aw.. i dont know bout you sir manny, but its not for eating,...

dili mkaon ang condom, pero kung wala condom, modaghan jud kaau pakaonon...

jee... bad na diay mi ni misis kung maglabing2x mi for fun? wtf... you really need to get laid... big time.. with a female...

[AmorsoloX]

kini si sir manny layo na kaau og imagination.. iya mga articles gikan sa tate's or other far places... dili lang cya motanaw sa squatters nga local.. tsk tsk tsk.. for someone who promotes life and progress, this is a big hypocrisy..

kini si sir manny kay usa ka dreamer... nindut iya goals og ideals.. di lang tinuod...

you wont last long on the streets! life is harsh sir.. considering your 40+ year old, you should have know that from experience...