What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[migzz]

---

ive been there... two patients in one bed... kewl!

[Deus]

try working in a government hospital setting.i.e.VSMMC,CCMC.......

ask pregnant patients how many children they have, and ask what r their means of living/ livelihood, ask how they can support their children's needs........

then u willÂ* see how sgnificant this bill is....

coz, iv been working here in VSMMC as a staff nurse for 3years, and i say this bill is very sgnificant......

Bingo. Everything scales. A rule which applies to the smallest person also applies to the largest economies.

[mannyamador]

We're really getting nowhere. I keep asking you to PROVE that overpopulation exists, and it seems to me that you keep avoiding the issue.

But I sense that there's a serious MISUNDERSTANDING going on here. So for the sake of others reading this thread, I will discontinue the delightful tit-for-tat repartee which, although amusing, really does not help educate.[/b]

Besides, I've noticed some interesting "concessions" on your part (notice the quotation marks), so I have DELETED much of my initial reply and will instead confine myself to the substantial portions of it, sans the sarcasm. I hope that you will reciprocate.

> And I proved your definition was mindless since it is misleading, leading to
> wrong attribution of causes.

And to that I gave my defense.

And this was the defense offered:

>>> I gave my defense, in which for the purpouses of my argument,
>>> the resources remain constant. It is the population that grows,
>>> not the resource that shrinks.

I do not see how this makes your definition any less misleading. It STILL attributes wrong causes to the effects. If you want YOUR definition of "overpopulation" to be accepted you have to present a good reason for doing so. And you must also refute my reasons for accepting the authoritative one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (not encyclopedia).

Lessee... A large population doesn't consume a large amount of resources? More people don't consume more resources?

But it also PRODUCES MORE! It does not necessarily cause poverty. Neither does it necessarily come anywhere close to depleting resources. If you think it already has, you have to PROVE that. That's what I've been asking for.

Thus, me positing that's it's good (according to you) to cram people into every square foot of the earth is a valid Argumentum ad Absurdum

I never said we had to cram people into every square foot of the earth. But, OK, if that was the IMPRESSION I gave, then I will correct it. I do not advocate flooding the earth with human beings to the point that its resources can be depleted. That WOULD be "overpopulation", as per M-W's definition. I think this will be more agreeable to you, right?

Either extreme is completely against my argument, while yours (in your contention that rising populations do not cause overpopulation) has the glaring hole that it CAN be raised to an extreme.

Well, good! Either extreme is not my wish either. I do not advocate underpopulation or overpopulation. My contention is that the upper extreme (overpopulation) has not been reached. It is also my contention that the danger of the lower extreme (underpopulation) is for more real than most people realize. I don't think you don't disagree with these statements, do you?

What DOES matter is available resources and how it is allocated to the population, and how this population produces money in relative to the resources allocated to it.

But was this statement ever in contested? May I suggest we clarify exactly what we are taliing about? I don't disagree with the above, but I do not see how this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Philippines is "overpopulated." That is why I keep asking you to prove that the levels of population density and growth cause poverty. If you think the levels are too high, educate me and PROVE that they are. That's all.

In other words: Simply saying that resources are finite does not prove that the population level is anywhere near depleting them. You don't disagree with this, do you (correct me if I'm wrong)?

May I now add these charts for everyone's perusal.

US Census Bureau: World Population Growth Rates.
[img width=626 height=482]http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldgr.gif[/img]
Please notice how the growth rate is DROPPING

Here's the US Census Bureau's charts which show population ageing in the Philippines.

Population Pyramid: Philippines

Please notice how the old-age brackets 70-74, 75-79, and 80+ brackets will grow to several times the current levels. There are NO preparations at all for this kind of dramatic shift. The continuing decline in TFR (which can be aggravated by population control) will most certainly NOT improve this situation.

[img width=501 height=251]http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyr.pl?cty=RP&yr=1980&maxp=5621970&maxa=80&ymax =250[/img]

[img width=501 height=251]http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyr.pl?cty=RP&yr=2000&maxp=5621970&maxa=80&ymax =250[/img]

[img width=501 height=251]http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyr.pl?cty=RP&yr=2020&maxp=5621970&maxa=80&ymax =250[/img]

[img width=501 height=251]http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyr.pl?cty=RP&yr=2040&maxp=5621970&maxa=80&ymax =250[/img]

[img width=501 height=251]http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyr.pl?cty=RP&yr=2050&maxp=5621970&maxa=80&ymax =250[/img]

Here's a link to an animated version of the Population Pyramid charts to illustrate the ageing more clearly (the animation won't work on Istorya.Net so you have to open it in another window):

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/id...out=d&ymax=250

As to the "other causes", I agree to them all, except to the debt servicing part. (Yeah, I hate it too, but what? You won't pay your debts?) as well as family planning misappropriation.

Then the contentious part is whether "overpopulation" actually exists, right?

I will say again, "Population Density" is not my issue. I don't give a crap about Population Density. What I DO care about is available resources being able to provide for a population. Any population, NO MATTER WHAT DENSITY OR SIZE - just as long as you have the resources to support them.

Well, yes. DO WE REALLY DISAGREE ON THIS?

Quite true. It's actually it's quite impossible to completely deplete nonrenewable resources like oil at current usage levels. More nonrenewable resource sources are being found. But the article doesn't really explain what kind of sources they are.

Good. Let me add, however, that certain resources are easy to use now, and some are to costly to even use now. But history has shown that this can change dramatically. New technoligies make methods of extraction cheaper and thus even more resources can be accessed.

The real question, therefore, is whether an imbalance of resources (aka shortage and in the presence of an aggregate of these, poverty) is actually a function of the population size, or can be traced to other causes, the minimization of which will releive the imbalance?

Looking at it another way: will checking population growth really relieve the shortage, or is it just a band-aid that doesn't address more significant causes? For overpopulation to exist, the CAUSE of the imbalance or shortage must really be population density and size. If there are other causes, you may well have another instead of overpopulation.

Bingo. Everything scales. A rule which applies to the smallest person also applies to the largest economies.

Not necessarily so. Large economies behave quite differently from household economies because of the benefits brought about by high population density.

Gross profit (which is what GDP is) vs. net profit. I believe I discussed it. And did poverty decrease in response to a higher population or did a population increase due to increased growth? Cause if it's the latter then it's a wise use of resources, which is what I've been advocating.

No one disputes that we should use resources wisely. Why should anyone dispute that? But what is disputed is whether the increase in population necessarily leads to poverty. History has shown that it can be seen as doing the opposite: population growth (and high population density) can be beneficial and actually lead to economic development.

True, and "a large and increasing population" is not my concern.

I really wonder... what exactly do we disagree on? Like I said, your replies confirm something I suspected early on: that this LONG series of tit-for-tat posts is more a result of MISUNDERSTANDING than fundamental disagreement.

With that, here's hoping we BOTH generate more light than heat on this issue.

[Deus]

But I sense that there's a serious MISUNDERSTANDING going on here. So for the sake of others reading this thread, I will discontinue the delightful tit-for-tat repartee which, although amusing, really does not help educate.[/b]

That's good. I dislike throwing mud around anyway, much too messy.

I do not see how this makes your definition any less misleading. It STILL attributes wrong causes to the effects. If you want YOUR definition of "overpopulation" to be accepted you have to present a good reason for doing so. And you must also refute my reasons for accepting the authoritative one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (not encyclopedia).

The reason a definition from a dictionary (my bad) cannot be counted on in an argument is that many, many definitions from many, many dictionaries exist. And these definitions, being made by liguists and not scientists, really don't have any standing in the scientific community. Just typing "overpopulation definition" in a websearch gets you several other definitions from several other dictionaries (some of which agree on MY definition). And that's just on the internet. Just opening another dictionary will most probably get you a different definition than from Merriam-Webster. Dictionaries are helpful, but they aren't the end-all of knowlege.

But it also PRODUCES MORE! It does not necessarily cause poverty. Neither does it necessarily come anywhere close to depleting resources. If you think it already has, you have to PROVE that. That's what I've been asking for.

I have no doubt it produces, the question is whether it produces enough to create surplus and thus resources for investment. The guy who got P20 off his P100 investment still got P20, but it's not nearly close enough to the guy who invested P20 and got P100. It's not just about resources currently existing, it's also about investment for future resources. Filipino's aren't actually starving. All of us can eat at least a meal a day. But do we export? And in doing so, do we raise enough money to cycle again into further money-making enterprises? Apply this to education, or jobs. Remaining in subsistence level is all well and good, it keeps you alive. But it still gets you nowhere.

As for evidence, I am well aware that my scenario's are theoretical. But a theory, well grounded and supported, can be as good as proof. Much like mathematics really doesn't exist, but does.

I never said we had to cram people into every square foot of the earth. But, OK, if that was the IMPRESSION I gave, then I will correct it. I do not advocate flooding the earth with human beings to the point that its resources can be depleted. That WOULD be "overpopulation", as per M-W's definition. I think this will be more agreeable to you, right?

Correct.

Well, good! Either extreme is not my wish either. I do not advocate underpopulation or overpopulation. My contention is that the upper extreme (overpopulation) has not been reached. It is also my contention that the danger of the lower extreme (underpopulation) is for more real than most people realize. I don't think you don't disagree with these statements, do you?

It's not just that the upper extreme has been reached. People can make do even it it has. A budget can be stretched, resources can be shared, portions can be cut, and people still go on. But at a lesser capacity than before. That lesser capacity would be enough to hinder growth. As for underpopulation, I have no doubt that it is real, and is a very looming threat over much of the developed world. But we aren't in the developed world and our problems are much different. We treat different problems with different solutions.

But was this statement ever in contested? May I suggest we clarify exactly what we are taliing about? I don't disagree with the above, but I do not see how this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Philippines is "overpopulated." That is why I keep asking you to prove that the levels of population density and growth cause poverty. If you think the levels are too high, educate me and PROVE that they are. That's all.

Adressed above.

US Census Bureau: World Population Growth Rates...

And even with dropping population growth rates the total population still continues to rise. Those same statistics show a total population of 9 billion people, up from a total of 6 billion. Those same stats will also show a greater proportion of population aging. But then aside from Europe (which I admit population aging is a major threat), most of the world would still be relatively young (with much more than half still in their 30's and 40's). Projections show 75% people within working age in 50 years, and 70% in a hundred. Aside from a very screwed Europe, I see no problems for the rest of us.

Please notice how the old-age brackets 70-74, 75-79, and 80+ brackets will grow to several times the current levels. There are NO preparations at all for this kind of dramatic shift. The continuing decline in TFR (which can be aggravated by population control) will most certainly NOT improve this situation.

I've seen it before actually, and even with a several fold increase in the 70-74, 75-79, and 80+ brackets, the remaining 60- brackets are more than enough to take care of the economy as they are still the overwhelming majority. By a very large margin. More than 70% is still below fifty. There are no preparations at all for this kind of shift because we don't need to.

Not necessarily so. Large economies behave quite differently from household economies because of the benefits brought about by high population density.

Actually no. A large family has benefits from having many hands around. More hands mean more work, which mean more money. Everything scales. But then more hands mean more mouths also, and we have to take that into consideration.

No one disputes that we should use resources wisely. Why should anyone dispute that? But what is disputed is whether the increase in population necessarily leads to poverty. History has shown that it can be seen as doing the opposite: population growth (and high population density) can be beneficial and actually lead to economic development.

Certain cases in history. It is by no means universal. The fall of the Maya empire being an example.

I really wonder... what exactly do we disagree on? Like I said, your replies confirm something I suspected early on: that this LONG series of tit-for-tat posts is more a result of MISUNDERSTANDING than fundamental disagreement.

Fine. Ending in a compromise is acceptable to me.

[mannyamador]

Underpopulation and Population Ageing

As for underpopulation, I have no doubt that it is real, and is a very looming threat over much of the developed world. But we aren't in the developed world and our problems are much different. We treat different problems with different solutions.

OK, now I think it's my turn to attempt to prove my claim: that this is a real (future) threat in the Philippines. The evidence I will present CANNOT, of course, provide syllogistic, math-like proof that underpopulation or debilitating population ageing MUST occur in the Philippines. But I think it makes it far more probable than the occurence of overpopulation.

I took the liberty of creating charts from the Philippine population/TFR data you provided. I think it shows very clearly the corellation of TFR and population growth rates. Coupled with the population pyramids provided by the US Census Bureau, the evidence points to looming population ageing and population stagnation.

But then again, projections are just that: projections.

[img width=554 height=333]http://www.phnix.net/rp_tfr.jpg[/img]
[img width=553 height=333]http://www.phnix.net/rp_pop_growthrate.jpg[/img]
[img width=454 height=334]http://www.phnix.net/rp_pop.jpg[/img]
[img width=553 height=333]http://www.phnix.net/rp_pop_increase.jpg[/img]

I've seen it before actually, and even with a several fold increase in the 70-74, 75-79, and 80+ brackets, the remaining 60- brackets are more than enough to take care of the economy as they are still the overwhelming majority. By a very large margin. More than 70% is still below fifty. There are no preparations at all for this kind of shift because we don't need to.

But don't you think you're underestimating the effects of an ageing population? As far as I know, almost no nation in the world today has 20% of its people above 60. The UN Population Division already predicts dire consequences for even lesser scenarios.

But IF, we suppose, that level is still acceptable, that would seem to undermine the claim that the Philippines will be overpopulated. Not absolutely, of course.

I have no doubt it produces, the question is whether it produces enough to create surplus and thus resources for investment.

True!!! But this is the point that has to be proven. Those who claim that overpopulation currently exists (or will exist) have to prove that the population doe snot produce enough, and that this lack of production is natural to that population and not caused by other factors (such as massive corruption, etc.). In addition, I would also cite the findings of the UA&P study which shows no correlation between populaiton growth and GDP.

Dictionaries are helpful, but they aren't the end-all of knowlege.

Of course. But I think the M-W definition is good in this argument for the reasons I've cited before. It certainly forces us to investigate the causes of poverty, etc. before we attribute it to overpopulation. I really haven't seen a better one yet.

[iloveyou4ever]

ive been there... two patients in one bed... kewl!

sir you havent responded to this idea

[mannyamador]

ive been there... two patients in one bed... kewl!

sir you havent responded to this idea

I don't see how this proves overpopulation. It may show the lack of hospitals, but that can also be traced to massive corruption which siphons off 30-70% of government tax revenues. Such shortages can be caused by many other things.

[iloveyou4ever]

ive been there... two patients in one bed... kewl!

sir you havent responded to this idea

I don't see how this proves overpopulation. It may show the lack of hospitals, but that can also be traced to massive corruption which siphons off 30-70% of government tax revenues. Such shortages can be caused by many other things.

I strongly believe that massive corruption is the cause of this too. I repeat, CORRUPTION. Check my www and leave a comment there.

[mannyamador]

Pro-lifers from the US and Canada are here!
http://www.prolife.org.ph/article/articleview/613/1/91/

Our four guests from the United States and Canada are in town! Molly White, Denise Mountenay,
Karen Bodle and Luana Stoltenberg are visiting as part of the celebration of Pro-Life Month.



[img width=100 height=87]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/335-100x100.jpg[/img]
Molly is the Executive Director of Living the Redeemed Life Ministry-USA and is a speaker
on abortion and its negative impact on the lives of women, men, families, the Church and
society. Reflecting on her personal experiences, she sheds God’s light on a dark and sensitive
subject. She is a psychologist by education and is a trained PACE (Post-Abortive Counseling
and Education) counselor. She and husband Ronald live in Texas with their family.



[img width=70 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/336-100x100.jpg[/img]
Denise is the Founder and President of Canada Silent No More, an organization that aims to
reach women hurt by abortion. She authored "Forgiven of Murder…A True Story,� which took
her 12 years to complete. She’s been candidly sharing her testimony since 1987, talking about
her experiences at conferences and youth rallies, in schools, and on TV and radio. Some of the
traumatic events in her life include being raped at the tender age of 13, becoming an alcoholic
and drug addict, then choosing to undergo abortion several times. Her story of restoration,
therefore, is something that she uses to help other women find healing after the trauma of abortion.


[img width=91 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/338-100x100.jpg[/img]
Karen is the International Director of Operation Outcry, a movement of women hurt by abortion
who are speaking out about the pain and consequences they have endured. She also serves as the
movement’s Pennsylvania State Leader. “Women are created to love and nurture their children, not
have them ripped from their wombs and thrown away. There is a disconnect in every woman’s heart
and mind when she consents to abortion. Although she tries to forget the abortion and suppress the
memories, eventually she will face the reality that her own child was mutilated by abortion.�


Karen stated those words in a testimony she had given, adding that her own denial lasted 21 years. Finding out
that she was pregnant as a college student, the baby’s father ended their relationship immediately, leaving
Karen feeling alone and ashamed. Pregnant and unmarried, she thought that abortion would solve her problem.
But she spiraled downward into chronic depression, suffering a nervous breakdown due to the fear that she
would never have any children again. She also regretted believing the lie that her preborn child -- nearly 12
weeks at the time of the abortion -- was a mere blob of tissue that could be discarded. When finally she faced
the truth, the crying came uncontrollably, thereby starting a journey of healing.


[img width=96 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/337-100x100.jpg[/img]
Luana Stoltenberg has been a board member, treasurer, and media spokesperson for the Life and Family
Coalition. Though also involved with the pregnancy care centers in the Quad Cities in the past, she is currently
active in Operation Outcry: Silent No More. She also does public speaking and shares her testimony, wherein
she talks about what the Lord has done in her life. She loves to share how the Lord literally rescued her from
a life of drugs, alcohol, and abortions. One thing about Luana is that when she was 26, that’s when she got
the news from her doctor that she will no longer be able to conceive due to the abortions she underwent
earlier in her life. For a long time, part of her anguish stemmed from her difficulties in telling her family about
her abortions. “I called my family together and told my mother and father that they had three grandchildren
that they would never hold. I told my brother and my sisters that they had nieces and nephews that they
would never meet and that would never be part of our holiday gathering and family photos. I asked them to
forgive me for altering our family tree and removing generations from our family lineage. I asked them to
forgive me for changing what was meant to be, and ‘playing God’ with life,� she stated in a testimony in
October 2005. Luana and her husband, Steve, have been married since 1985 and live in Davenport, Iowa
with their son Zachary, whom they adopted from India at the age of two. They attend and are in leadership
at Calvary Church of the Quad Cities.


Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa, Pro-Life Philippines National Coordinator, believes that having these women discuss their
experiences with various local audiences and conduct training abortion recovery training seminars would be
beneficial to many.

“By having them talk about their experiences and the lessons they have learned, we will encourage the women
who have experienced the damages of abortion and contraception, to speak out strongly that abortion is never
the answer,� she says. “Our foreign guests relate their experiences of a promiscuous and carefree life in
connection with their abortion decision. They have strong messages, challenging us to intensify our value
formation for the youth, abstinence programs and respect for women.�

Sr. Pilar added Pro-Life’s desire to stop the attempts of the government and pro-population control groups to
insidiously influence people to accept contraception and abortion.

The guests will take part in a dialogue with pro-life congressmen and Family and Life workers on Feb. 15, 2-4pm
at St. Peter Parish, Quezon City. They will also conduct a training seminar on post-abortion healing on Feb 17,
8am-5pm at the Campus Crusade for Christ Bldg., South Triangle, Quezon City.

For details, call 911-2911 or 422-8877.

[mannyamador]

The Contraceptive Revolution, and its Fruits

by John T. Bruchalski, M.D., FACOG
(Source: LIVING WORLD, Winter/Spring 1998, Vol. 11, No.1, p.12)

As the century comes to a close, we are experiencing the fallout from a revolution which may have
involved our parents or our children, altered our view of the marketplace and the family, "liberated"
literally millions of women, helped redefine the purpose of government, and divided policy and praxis
in our church. This is the so-called sexual revolution, of which the contraceptive mentality has been
the foundation.

As one who sees the human person as both body and soul, I want to examine some of the medical
fruits of the contraceptive revolution, particularly the literally exploding number of sexually-transmitted
diseases and negative contraceptive side effects. But I also want to call attention to a revolution I am
witnessing in the heart of people struggling against the prevailing contraceptive mentality. In my
practice at the Tepeyac Family Center, they have become for me living examples of Augustine's
observation that our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

Sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), a major consequence of the sexual revolution and the widespread
use of contraceptives, have become standard topics at gynecology conferences. Exclusivity and
permanence are no longer the norms of sexual involvement. The relentless march of the contraceptive
movement has encouraged such activity, worsening a problem that human beings have dealt with since
prebiblical times.

The estimated total number of people newly infected annually with symptomatic STDs is about 13 million.
Its consequences include relentless suffering, infertility, even death, on a scale far wider than most
imagined. It is not possible to quantify the value of lives lost due to STDs, fully one-third of all reproductive
mortality in the nation.

Sadly, STDs have a predilection for young people. Individuals under 25 account for the majority of cases,
with 66% of reported cases of gonorrhea and chlamydia occurring in this age group.

Having briefly examined STDs as a physical consequence of the sexual revolution which, ironically, promised
health and happiness, let us turn to the side effects of the contraceptives themselves.

Among the 58 million American women of reproductive age, about 60%, or 35 million, use some
contraceptive method. Sterilization of women and men is the most common form of contraception today,
followed in use by oral contraceptive pills, condoms, and Depo-Provera. Intrauterine devices (IUDs) and
implants are each being used by only 196 of the reproductive age population.

Well over 4 million men choose vasectomy as their method of birth control. Studies show that many of
them regret having used this permanent method of contraception.

Over 9 million American women have undergone sterilization. Their regret over having been sterilized is
greater depending on the age of the woman and a change in her marital status, and on whether the
procedure was done around the time of a pregnancy or an abortion; regret is also greater among poor
women; women of Hispanic origin, and women who eventually divorce.