Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[diatabz]

---

Bro, I don't get why we should teach them safe ***. In my highschool years. I can only count students who are so sexually liberated. They were the exception rather than the rule. This will give the wrong signal actually. If I was taught about safe *** in my highschool years, then this will give me a hint that its ok to have *** as long as I am using condom. Right? And the more students who will indulge in ***, the more problem we will have. Right?

Sexual education helps teens in deciding on whether or not to even have ***. Teens are having *** at a more younger age, trust me on this. Should we choose to educate them when they're of age? When *** ed becomes long overdue? Or now, when they've yet to make serious choices regarding ***? Many teens have had unsafe *** simply because they don't know how to use contraceptives. Educating teens on contraception, sexual myths and all sorts of other things can influence their decision to have ***. That could either mean *** later, at a better time, or *** now, but with protection. Most teens even have different definitions of ***! Depending on who you talk to, sexual contact can even include a handshake. Also, open discussions on moral and religious issues will go a long way.

Some teens have never even heard of gonorrhea or chlamydia. If they don't know about ***, who knows how many more of them would contract HIV or drop out of school because of pregnancy?

Also, it doesn't make sense for the poor students to learn about how to use a condom, since we already know that they are poor and their parents couldn't afford to provide them condom (Ulbo ang kaspa sa parents bro kung ang bawn ipalit ra diay ug condom). Right? And problems will just compound bro if this poor students will treat *** as if it is a need (like food) for how can they get constant supply of this contraceptives?

But would you rather have them having unprotected ***? Besides, if ma-educate sila ug tarong, they would understand that having *** under the circumstances is irresponsible, thus making an educated choice on ***.

My point is, teens have a right to know. It's basic risk management. If we do nothing, kids have unprotected ***, leading to STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc.. But if we chose to educate them, teens could opt to abstain until marriage or have *** with protection.

[wng]

@bcasabee
Simple cost-benefit analysis: 6,000 pesos in maternity benefits for someone who gives birth due to an UNWANTED pregnancy. Also, around 1,000 pesos in vaccines alone provided for free by the DOH. Not include possible NFA rice subsidy and others. Easily can cost taxpayers 10,000 pesos. That's not even including how many years of education the child will have. Now you compute how many months of condom supply you can get with that.
Kung ganahan ka ug yearly budget ug unsa pa na, ikaw pag research diha. Kung ganahan ka makasabot, ikaw pag basa diha sa bill. Si kinsa ba gaingon nga apil na sa bill nang mo hatag ug condom sa mga teenagers ba. Ka hilas pud nimo. Kung di ka uyon ani nga bill nga di nimo basahon ug tarong, nganong imo pa man ko ipa compute anang estimates ug unsa pa. Am just a taxpayer who's willing to pay some of my tax money because I see too many poor large families whose children go hungry but whose number of children are increasing every year. That's why I support the bill. Wa ko manghangol anang free contraceptives gikan nimo. Wala koy benefit nga makuha diri kay wa ko mamaligya ug contraceptives. Willing lang ko mo allocate ug gamay para maka provide ug contraceptives sa mga pobre, kay para di na kaayo modaghan ang malnourished street children.

[wng]

@mannyamador
Why should we even bother translating something for someone who cannot understand that microeconomic situations somehow find their way into macroeconomic data?
Anyhow, we are talking about millions of families, and millions of children who go hungry everyday. Some only have rice, salt, and the occasional MSG to fill their stomachs. And you're concerned about emotionally distressed health workers who cannot sleep at night fearing they might go to hell because they just dispensed a contraceptive (or referred the patient to someone else who eventually did)? I respect health workers very much and am friends with many of them both here and abroad. And I certainly have listened to them emotionally broken when they lost their patients or if some patients just cannot get medical attention because they are not financially capable. Perhaps it will be appropriate that you will be the one to give us an estimate on how many health workers suffer from this contraceptive dispensing fate who rank this as their #1 complaint in immediate need of rectifying?

[mannyamador]

Why should we even bother translating something for someone who cannot understand that microeconomic situations somehow find their way into macroeconomic data?

Another lame excuse for not showing proof!

You totally ignore the fact that microeconomic principles do NOT translate directly to macroeconomic principles. Your microeconomic model totally fails to consider aggregate capacity for production, efficiencies of mass production, distribution, and consumption, and innovation from increased interactions. In other words, your model totally fails to jibe with reality. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

The bottom line: You must show that the hunger and poverty that afflicts millions of people is caused by population and not by anything else. YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. MISERABLY.

Once other factors can be shown to cause poverty, or impact the situation in some significant way, then the case for blaming population is logically diminished. Get that into your thick skull.

Perhaps it will be appropriate that you will be the one to give us an estimate on how many health workers suffer from this contraceptive dispensing fate who rank this as their #1 complaint in immediate need of rectifying?

Are you so eager to demonstrate once again that you can't even read? Please show me where it said that this was their "#1 complaint". You CAN'T, eh? I said this was "one of the primary reasons for opposing the bill," NOT "it is THE primary reason". There's a pretty big difference. Try understanding what's being said before displaying your tremendous capacity for making vacuous statements -- AGAIN!

In any case, the fact that you choose to ignore a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, along with the right to life of the unborn, shows you are totally incapable of making meaningful moral decisions of any kind. If anyone should be a victim of your callousness and lack of rational thinking, it should be yourself alone. The you can whine about caring too much about a certain group's rights.

Other topic

As for cost-benefit analysis, let's not forget that people produce far more than they consume (even poor people can do that). And that the aggregate economic activity of people results in increased taxes which can outweigh their use of tax funds provided these funds are not stolen. If there is any lack, you should blame bad governance, not population, for that.

@diatabz

I agree that teens should be educated about ***. The issue is HOW we teach them and WHO does the teaching. I guess that's another complex issue worthy of its own thread even.

[bcasabee]

Its good that everyone agrees generally about giving some form of *** education to teens and above that age.

[bcasabee]

Bro....please your not defending your bill.....
Well, at least vaccines are just one time investment. Once a child is vaccinated, he will never again undergo such process. Correct me if I'm wrong. But with condoms, its a recurring process. Every time manoy wants to enter, you should supply that condom. And remember how many manoys are there who wants in everyday. Ang problema kay nahutdan ug supply sa condom unya dili na ka pugong si manoy, aws, mabdos na pud, back to square one, ka useless.

@bcasabee
Simple cost-benefit analysis: 6,000 pesos in maternity benefits for someone who gives birth due to an UNWANTED pregnancy. Also, around 1,000 pesos in vaccines alone provided for free by the DOH. Not include possible NFA rice subsidy and others. Easily can cost taxpayers 10,000 pesos. That's not even including how many years of education the child will have. Now you compute how many months of condom supply you can get with that.
Kung ganahan ka ug yearly budget ug unsa pa na, ikaw pag research diha. Kung ganahan ka makasabot, ikaw pag basa diha sa bill. Si kinsa ba gaingon nga apil na sa bill nang mo hatag ug condom sa mga teenagers ba. Ka hilas pud nimo. Kung di ka uyon ani nga bill nga di nimo basahon ug tarong, nganong imo pa man ko ipa compute anang estimates ug unsa pa. Am just a taxpayer who's willing to pay some of my tax money because I see too many poor large families whose children go hungry but whose number of children are increasing every year. That's why I support the bill. Wa ko manghangol anang free contraceptives gikan nimo. Wala koy benefit nga makuha diri kay wa ko mamaligya ug contraceptives. Willing lang ko mo allocate ug gamay para maka provide ug contraceptives sa mga pobre, kay para di na kaayo modaghan ang malnourished street children.

[r3roble]

for those who support this bill, why do you think most well off families have small number of children than those that are not?

what do they have that other don't have?

do you think this bill can answer my question?

[mannyamador]

for those who support this bill, why do you think most well off families have small number of children than those that are not?

Economic prosperity and urbanization normally leads to less need for many children. Urban, agricultural families, for example, see children as an investment since they provide labor on isolated farms. When they have money for mechanization or move to cities, they don't need as many children. Richard Sheldon, Julian Simon, and others have noted this phenomenon in their writings. I do NOT support this useless, coercive and destructive Bill, though.

[r3roble]

Economic prosperity and urbanization normally leads to less need for many children. Urban, agricultural families, for example, see children as an investment since they provide labor on isolated farms. When they have money for mechanization or move to cities, they don't need as many children. Both Richard Sheldon and Julian Simon notef this phenomenon in their writings. I do NOT support this useless, coercive and destructive Bill, though.

thanks for sharing your thoughts even though you do not support this bill, just like me...

[cebu-future]

for those who support this bill, why do you think most well off families have small number of children than those that are not?

what do they have that other don't have?

do you think this bill can answer my question?

That should be the proper way. COUPLES should only make babies up to HOW many they can AFFORD. They should be RESPONSIBLE and NOT abusing their RIGHTS.

I pity those kids who have no food to eat, no clothes to wear, etc because of IRRESPONSIBLE couples! Pataka anak og dili kaya buhion!