Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

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!

u cannot even answer my question squarely coz obviously there isn't. u don't have a provision in the Consti particulary the Penal Code or even our Abortion law that proves the selling of condoms, pills and IUD is illegal.

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!

yeah right. the poll faces the RH issues squarely by having a double bind question?...ilara ko tits!!!..clearly w/ ur frame of mind u can't see what's wrong.

mas sakto unta nga question is a closed question that doesn't maliciously use double binds. just like these:

"do u agree that the RH Bill legalizes abortion?"

"do u agree on the term "abortifacient contraceptives"?"

"do u agree that artificial contraceptives are abortifacients?"

mao nay mga sakto nga mga pangutana bay, walay bias, dili double bind, ug neutral...actually this is elementary my dear. resorting to negative double binds shows how desperate your anti-lifer friends are fast becoming nowadays.

i already challenged u to re-formulate these questions below into what u think is better so as to justify ur thoughts that these are "quite" misleading:

"What is the Role of the Church in the Reproductive Health Bill?"

"Do u agree on how the Church is handling this RH Bill issue?"

pls walk the talk...

HALA TINGNI!

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

oK lang yung uso namn na CHa-CHa basin ma-change ang consti... hahahaha! musugot na ug condtional abortion...

ok ra me sa contraceptives wag lang abortion for convenience unless its to avoid a greater evil or injury...

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

u cannot even answer my question squarely coz obviously there isn't. u don't have a provision in the Consti particulary the Penal Code or even our Abortion law that proves the selling of condoms, pills and IUD is illegal.



yeah right. the poll faces the RH issues squarely by having a double bind question?...ilara ko tits!!!..clearly w/ ur frame of mind u can't see what's wrong.

mas sakto unta nga question is a closed question that doesn't maliciously use double binds. just like these:

"do u agree that the RH Bill legalizes abortion?"

"do u agree on the term "abortifacient contraceptives"?"

"do u agree that artificial contraceptives are abortifacient contraceptives?"

mao nay mga sakto nga mga pangutana bay, walay bias, dili double bind, ug neutral...actually this is elementary my dear. resorting to negative double binds shows how desperate your anti-lifer friends are fast becoming nowadays.

i already challenged u to re-formulate these questions below into what u think is better so as to justify ur thoughts that these are "quite" misleading:

"What is the Role of the Church in the Reproductive Health Bill?"

"Do u agree on how the Church is handling this RH Bill issue?"

pls walk the talk...

HALA TINGNI!

sakto gyud ni... sayop man gud ang pagkabuhat sa topc dili hino-on magkasinabot.. hahahaha... misleading man gud...

sige alng samok-samok lang me diri...

i dont agree the RH bill legalize abortion...

i dont agree on the term "abortificient:... becuase statistical chance are slim that ita can actually cause abortion...

i dont agree that contraceptives med are abortificient, although i agree that too much caffeine can do that...


second batch of queston..

role of the CHurch? mag homily...

gi-unsa diay nila ug handle...


*the rh bill i thnik makes reproductive health as a national priority, beacuse even without the bill there are already existing LGUs that have their own RH programs and are actully fully implemnted...

so if say RH bill is unconstitutional wont that make the other programs done by other LGUs unconsti as well?

[davies107]

i believe dili abortion ang using condom. abortion gani naa nay sulod ang tiyan, how come maging abortion sya when walay cell na nag unite sa babae?

NO to Abortion ko pero PRO contraception ko and family planning.

[wakkanakka]

u cannot even answer my question squarely coz obviously there isn't. u don't have a provision in the Consti particulary the Penal Code or even our Abortion law that proves the selling of condoms, pills and IUD is illegal.

Ooooppsss, bok. You're confusing the subject. The prolife side says that the RH bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That means the law is invalid as per Article II, section 12. That is different from being illegal, which means there is a punishment for a specific crime. You're confusing the two. A law can be declared unconstitutional. That isn't the same as saying that an act that the law promotes has a punishment.

Grabe bro, how you're always trying to fool people. Why cant you even make honest arguments?

yeah right. the poll faces the RH issues squarely by having a double bind question

Aw cmon. You're just being "pikon" because your side is LOSING in this poll by a LANDSLIDE!

"do u agree that the RH Bill legalizes abortion?"
"do u agree on the term "abortifacient contraceptives"?"
"do u agree that artificial contraceptives are abortifacients?"

Those are the facts that have been proven over and over again. Those are also the assumptions of the poll. Yoi don't like it? Then stop whining and don't take the poll.

mao nay mga sakto nga mga pangutana bay, walay bias, dili double bind, ug neutral

Then why do you keep bringing up the SWS poll before. That was biased and proven to be biased. But did you care about it then? NNNOOOOOO!!!! You only cry about bias and fairness when YOUR side is LOSING. What a hypocrite!

[kit_cebu]

if you can't feed your children, legalize abortion only ONCE per family...

what should be legalized? euthanasia... it is so unfair for the brain-dead to keep him alive without him knowing it...

if euthanasia will be legalized, i'll be the first one to make a final will with that in the first paragraph...

[mannyamador]

u don't have a provision in the Consti particulary the Penal Code or even our Abortion law that proves the selling of condoms, pills and IUD is illegal.

Still lying through your teeth? Hehe... well, even @wakkanakka was abe to point out that the RH bill violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. It states:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Now of course you falsely claim that the Constitution does not construe "from conception" as meaning "from fertilization". But as I have pointed out, when in doubt, the Constitution is to be interpreted as the Constitutional Commission intended. And the Commission -- after taking a vote -- chose to ASSUME that conception is at fertilization so as to err on the safe side. This is clear from the record and as stated by one of the Commissioners, Fr. Bernas, who I quote 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.

Having been blown out of the water, now you make the absurd claim that the non-existence of penal clauses or an enabling law means that such intent is absent from the Constitution! Well, there's no penal provision for making a law that violates Article 6 either (Separation of Church and State). In fact, there are NEVER penal clauses for proposing any law. Does that mean any law is therefore Constitutional?

The logic you use is absurd.

yeah right. the poll faces the RH issues squarely by having a double bind question?

Well, as @wakkanakka also pointed put, you never objected to the TRIPLE BIND question posed by the SWS in their survey on the RH bill either, did you? That question lumped IUDs, pills, and CONDOMS as abortifacient. It therefore contained a factual error (condoms are NOT abortifacient) which would of course lead to an expected negative answer. Oh, but you conveniently overlooked that, didn't you? Not a single peep of protest from you, as far as I can recall.

You're now in a bind. If you insist that double bind questions should not be in a poll, you will invalidate your beloved SWS surveys too (SWS made that error several times, by the way).

Sorry, but you just shot yourself in the foot with that one. You could avoid that, you know.

The bottom line: HB 5043's promotion of abortifacient contraceptives is unconstitutional. The bill directly promotes chemical abortion. It also violates our civil rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

But I guess you don't really mind who gets hurt as long as you can get those free contraceptives. Oh well...

NO TO ABORTION! NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTI9NG RH BILL (HB 5043)!

[giddyboy]

Still lying through your teeth? Hehe... well, even @wakkanakka was abe to point out that the RH bill violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. It states:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Now of course you falsely claim that the Constitution does not construe "from conception" as meaning "from fertilization". But as I have pointed out, when in doubt, the Constitution is to be interpreted as the Constitutional Commission intended. And the Commission -- after taking a vote -- chose to ASSUME that conception is at fertilization so as to err on the safe side. This is clear from the record and as stated by one of the Commissioners, Fr. Bernas, who I quote 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.

Having been blown out of the water, now you make the absurd claim that the non-existence of penal clauses or an enabling law means that such intent is absent from the Constitution! Well, there's no penal provision for making a law that violates Article 6 either (Separation of Church and State). In fact, there are NEVER penal clauses for proposing any law. Does that mean any law is therefore Constitutional?

The logic you use is absurd.

this is a classic example of beating around the bush. i was asking you if you can cite any provisions that says selling of condoms, pills, and IUD are illegal. This is not about the RH Bill. I asked u a specific question and here u r making a different answer.

isn't this called lying to ur teeth or shall we say absurd?

and by the way, that part of the Consti u mentioned is ambiguous, and by ambiguity, the Courts have a final say in it, not you, not the Church, not the anti-lifers...

Well, as @wakkanakka also pointed put, you never objected to the TRIPLE BIND question posed by the SWS in their survey on the RH bill either, did you? That question lumped IUDs, pills, and CONDOMS as abortifacient. It therefore contained a factual error (condoms are NOT abortifacient) which would of course lead to an expected negative answer. Oh, but you conveniently overlooked that, didn't you? Not a single peep of protest from you, as far as I can recall.

You're now in a bind. If you insist that double bind questions should not be in a poll, you will invalidate your beloved SWS surveys too (SWS made that error several times, by the way).

again, that's beating around the bush. ayawg palaban ni @wakkanakka or citing another topic about SWS. u said the previous poll about RH is "quite" misleading, so i threw a challenge to you on how they r supposed to be re-phrased then. but here u r again w/ ur usual squid tactic. no clear answer...

and by the way, i did not deny the SWS polls is flawed. why do i have to ridiculously defend it when the flaw was pinpointed and written all over the newspapers? what i cited instead was the Pulse Asia survey, not the SWS. so why do u have to keep insisting on that?

[dark_phoenix]

Kita ko CNN ganiha. Naa doctor gi patay coz I think he does abortion to women nga kanang risk na gani sa mother basta something like that. Dr. George Tiller iyang name.

[sir_shrek]

abortion should not be legalized... abortion is not the root cause of the problem... for it is only the quick and no sense way of taking of "RESPONSIBILITY out of the picture".... think about the life you deprive...