Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

Wring again. The Commission as a body assumed that conception begins at fertilization. It wasn't just a "few" priests. It was the will of the body as a whole. The Commission took a vote on it.

I quote Bernas AGAIN:

The unborn's entitlement to protection begins "from conception," that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.

ohhh forgive me for the error. but then again, same story. it was an assumption and not a provision written down in our Consti.

It means we lack an enabling law against abortifacients. The act of "Violating the Constitution" does not carry an immediate penal provision. You need an enabling law or a law with a penal provision to punish someone. That's how the law works. But don't worry, an anti-abortifacients law is in the works.

THERE U GO... we lack a law. or shall we say there is nothing in our Consti that violated it. and lack of a law or provision means it is not in the Consti...and not even an assumption that u have been long flag-waving can stop it isn't it? ...no further questions ur honor.

It was quite misleading in that it was taken to imply support/non-support for the RH bill and you know it. Even the comments of you and your cohorts showed that.

quite? so can u explain how should that poll question be formulated then?

Looks like you have nothing to worry about then. You have the numbers to back you up, right?

the poll is a negative double bind question...The best response to a double-bind question is to treat it as an open question and respond to the assumption rather than the closed question.

Question: "What makes you think I might lie?"

Answer: "I have never beaten my wife and never will. I find assault of others completely repugnant, and assault of women especially so."

likewise,

Question: "Should abortion and abortifacients be legalized through the RH bill?"

Answer: "I don't think the RH Bill legalizes abortion."

...nothing further ur honor.

[mannyamador]

ohhh forgive me for the error. but then again, same story. it was an assumption and not a provision written down in our Consti.

The assumption IS the meaning of the provision in the Constitution. When there is any doubt as to the meaning, one has to look at the intent of the Commissioners. That is standard practice -- which you pretend not to know about.

we lack a law. or shall we say there is nothing in our Consti that violated it. and lack of a law or provision means it is not in the Consti.

Non sequitur. That does not follow. You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between a violation of the Constitution and a penal provision. The difference is in the specification of punishment. The Constitution does not have a penal provision for violations of the Constitution. It's not supposed to. It requires penal laws for that. But that does not mean that you can violate the Constitution. If we follow your logic, then the entire Constitution is invalid because it does not carry penal provisions. That's absurd.

So the Constitutional provisions still stands: it assumes that conception is at fertilization and protects human life from that point onwards. HB 5043 violates this provision.

By the way, your cut-and-paste response on double bind questions has an error. You should have checked it and understood what was being written before pasting it in. Read how nonsensical the sequence is. You're missing something.

[mich_pink03]

para nku, no jud.. luoy kaau ang mga babies ani oie na wlay sala..

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

ahehe. dili ing ana ang sakto nga logic...kanang fetus pre, na porma nana after implantation. so para nako, human life nana...killing it would be abortion and considered crime under our Phil abortion law including that separate RH Bill.

what i consider not yet a human life is kanang sperm ug fertilized egg nga wapa na implant sa uterus...

hahahaha.. bitaw... bisan ako dili sad ingon ana ang idea... lingaw lang ipagawa ang ingon ana na ideas... based na sa radical fem thoughts... hahahaha...

ganahan lang ko butang ang rad fem na side..

pero pro-choice ko... and abortion at some extent pero kahinanglan necessary gyud siya...

Abortion is about who has the better right... because both have rights... the fetus has the right to life and so is the mother but if the fetus was a result of rape of young girl aged 9...

what does a 9 year old know about childrering especially if the ftaher of her child is her own father... the fetus if born will have that stigma... so we are actually saving the fetus from genetics defects resulting from incestuous union and the rest of the population because that child can beacome a grown person and have his own family and beget other children carrying genetic defect from his mother and father's union...

hahahahaha...

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

That's because he IS a human person. Let's throw the question back at you: What's the difference between a newly-born infant (or almost-born infant) that is totally dependent on the mother and a parasite? The location? That's absurd.

If we follow your twisted logic, then you cannot establish the unique humanity of a newly-born child either (or adults for that matter). That's crazy.

a new born infant can get nourishment from a nurse maid... while a fetus cant.. unless you know a way which a nurse maid can nurse a fetus while still inside the womb... hahahaha!


twisted as it may be but hey that the most extreme form of pro-abortion... see pro-choice and pro-abortion do have difference...

so if you think pro-contraceptives people are worst kind please the are others who are worst...

giddyboy here is pro-choice if im not mistaken and im presenting here an idea which is actually insane but i believe hold water in a CAnadian Supreme Court... its a radical fem thought manny..

[mannyamador]

a new born infant can get nourishment from a nurse maid... while a fetus cant..

So? Changing the person who gives nourishment does not determine another person's humanity. And an almost-born child cannot be nursed by anyone else either. On the other hand, it's only a matter of years before cloning will come up with a method that does not require a mother to nurse the fetus at all. So is that a person all of a sudden? Your definition of when life begins is rendered arbitrary. You have zero basis for your assertions.

its a radical fem thought manny..

I know. I'm familiar with such selfishness. Murdering other people for the sake of one's convenience is sick. Good for Nazis maybe.

NO TO ABORTION! NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[giddyboy]

The assumption IS the meaning of the provision in the Constitution. When there is any doubt as to the meaning, one has to look at the intent of the Commissioners. That is standard practice -- which you pretend not to know about.

Non sequitur. That does not follow. You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between a violation of the Constitution and a penal provision. The difference is in the specification of punishment. The Constitution does not have a penal provision for violations of the Constitution. It's not supposed to. It requires penal laws for that. But that does not mean that you can violate the Constitution. If we follow your logic, then the entire Constitution is invalid because it does not carry penal provisions. That's absurd.

So the Constitutional provisions still stands: it assumes that conception is at fertilization and protects human life from that point onwards. HB 5043 violates this provision.

ayawg pataks ug pasagad oi. dili ang Commissioners ang mohimo ug standard practice. it is the Court. the first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation.

Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent. Ambiguity is a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of being understood in more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time. A statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or more possible meanings, in which case, the Court is called upon to exercise one of its judicial functions, which is to interpret the law according to its true intent.

---000---

The 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees the rights to liberty, health, equality, information and education for all citizens, as well as the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their personal religious convictions. These basic principles, reinforced by several pieces of legislation, create the foundation under national law for a right to reproductive health, including access to contraception. In addition, international treaties that the Philippines has ratified and that are part of Philippine law impose clear obligations on the government to ensure access to a full range of family planning services and information.

so before ka mgpaka hero to propose a new law banning the condom, pill, or IUD, just be sure that it won't conflict w/ other Phil laws (including international treaties) as well.

i suggest as a first step, u ask our Mayor Tomas to enact an EO banning all forms of contraceptives within Cebu City and let us see what happens...mag ala Mayor Atienza bah. Pretty likely that he will receive summons in court...

By the way, your cut-and-paste response on double bind questions has an error. You should have checked it and understood what was being written before pasting it in. Read how nonsensical the sequence is. You're missing something.

and by u saying that doesn't mean u r automatically correct...i can even say u r also missing something.

and to cut the story short by making a closed question:

question: "is the poll misleading?"
answer: "yes."

--00---

and don't forget these glaring facts:

(1) The Arroyo government is the first administration since 1969—the beginning of family
planning policies in the Philippines—to weld its policies not to medical standards, but to
the moral standards of the Catholic Church.

(2) and like the President, the leadership of the DOH is heavily swayed by the bidding of Catholic
organizations.

(3) In 2001, the DOH, without public notice, banned the emergency contraceptive Postinor in response to the allegation of a conservative Catholic group that Postinor is an “abortifacient.” The ban was maintained despite the findings of a DOH technical committee that Postinor is not an abortifacient and should be re-listed. The DOH secretary at the time—who was also the main sponsor of NFP in the DOH—publicly deprecated artificial contraceptives, citing the intrauterine device as another possible abortifacient. Under this secretary, the DOH contracted with a lay Catholic organization CoC to implement the Department’s NFP program, granting them 50 million pesos to promote and teach NFP.

[mannyamador]

When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation.

Any part of the Constitution can be disputed and interpreted as any party pleases. That's why the courts also refer to the records of the Commission for guidance. Even the clearest procedures in our Constitution have been "creatively" interpreted by those who have the motivation.

The Philippine Constitution, however, is still clear: human life deserves protection from the moment of conception. And the Constitution ASSUMES that conception begins at fertilization, in accordance with the vote of the Constitutional Commission. That is clear from the records of the Commission.

i suggest as a first step, u ask our Mayor Tomas to enact an EO banning all forms of contraceptives within Cebu City and let us see what happens...mag ala Mayor Atienza bah. Pretty likely that he will receive summons in court..

Haha! And the case will be THROWN OUT as was the stupid case against Mayor Atienza. Such legal maneuverings by anti-life forces has little use except to mislead.

But then Mayor Tom isn't going to be mayor for long. No need to bother him. Better to find someone else.

and by u saying that doesn't mean u r automatically correct...i can even say u r also missing something.

Still at it? You made a mistake in quoting. Correct it if you must, but at least be mature and admit it. That will end the issue. And while you're at it, quit whining about a poll just because you can't manipulate it.

[giddyboy]

Any part of the Constitution can be disputed and interpreted as any party pleases. That's why the courts also refer to the records of the Commission for guidance. Even the clearest procedures in our Constitution have been "creatively" interpreted by those who have the motivation.

EXACTLY!!! but it only applies if it is ambiguous. For guidance but not necessarily to accept hook line and sinker! so again, it is not the Commissioners but the Court gihapon na mo ending dong...

and so again, ngano man walay nadakpan nga namaligya ug condom, pills or IUD dre beh? what proviso could they be violating aber?

Haha! And the case will be THROWN OUT as was the stupid case against Mayor Atienza. Such legal maneuverings by anti-life forces has little use except to mislead.

But then Mayor Tom isn't going to be mayor for long. No need to bother him. Better to find someone else.

hahaha. what misleading? i am only suggesting a similar scenario into Cebu City that did happen in Manila. unya misleading na? of course the case was thrown out. im not denying that. op kors hapit na mahuman ang term ni Tomas. no argument about that...but panahon na cguro that u walk the talk pre.

Still at it? You made a mistake in quoting. Correct it if you must, but at least be mature and admit it. That will end the issue. And while you're at it, quit whining about a poll just because you can't manipulate it.

no, i do not think i made a mistake on the double bind thingy. ingna lang gud nga nasakspan na imong strategy and it will end the issue. resorting to ad hominem won't work. and just because i insist i am right is immature na...wrong logic there my friend.

[wakkanakka]

and so again, ngano man walay nadakpan nga namaligya ug condom, pills or IUD dre beh? what proviso could they be violating aber?

I think it has been pointed out so many time already, bro! The Constitution protects life from the moment of conception! Amd it has been shown that this means from fertilization, as assumed by the Commission. Are you blind? You just keep insisting on your interpretationm which has no basis! None at all! At least the other saide has the vote of the Commisison. You don't even have that!


Finally we have a poll that faces the RH issue squarely! The HB5043 is supporting abortion becuse it promotes avbortifacient contraceptives. So the poll is presenting the real situation and asks people to make an opinion. What's wrong with that?

All polls have assumptions. If you don't agree with the assumptions of a poll, then don't vote on it! But don't try to be like Lagman the undemocratic trapo and try to shut people up because they don't agree with you!