Legalize Abortion?

[butitoy]

---

yes... freedom should not be construed as doing whatever and whenever you like...

for me, it should be within the boundaries of culture, morals and traditions...

sakto!

freedom comes with great responsibility

[jLuspoc]

a BIG NO for me.

Para nako, dili lalim mag himo ug bata. dagku nman jud ta kabalo namo kung unsa ka hasol, unya pgka human kung mka buo, ipa kuha na hinuon? pgka dakung oplok nato ana.

Dako kaau nga sala ang bata nga pasipad-an. wala bya na cla sala. matud pa sa mga katigulangan, Anghel kana nga ana-a sa imong sabakan. mao dili dapat pasipad-an.

Ato nlang unta huna²-un nga mao jud na ang resulta kung mobuhat sa bulohaton nga pang minyo . so kung dli gus2 mabuntis, dli nlang mag himo d ba? mag antus mong duha

[akoctin2]

malason sa iyang kinabuhi ang babaye na mag pa abort.tnx

[butitoy]

a BIG NO for me.

Para nako, dili lalim mag himo ug bata. dagku nman jud ta kabalo namo kung unsa ka hasol, unya pgka human kung mka buo, ipa kuha na hinuon? pgka dakung oplok nato ana.

Dako kaau nga sala ang bata nga pasipad-an. wala bya na cla sala. matud pa sa mga katigulangan, Anghel kana nga ana-a sa imong sabakan. mao dili dapat pasipad-an.

Ato nlang unta huna²-un nga mao jud na ang resulta kung mobuhat sa bulohaton nga pang minyo . so kung dli gus2 mabuntis, dli nlang mag himo d ba? mag antus mong duha

sakto!

ug dili pa ready sa responsibilidad, ayg enter!

aron walay madamay nga inosente...


pero ganahan gyud ka pa abort...usa ra ako masulti nimo....

unsa kaha ug ikaw pay gpa abort?

[raizene]

ayaw na abortion oi..bad na...

[gikapoy]

no. dili raman morals ang ma apektahan ani
basin mo abot na ang time nga s3x imbalance nah
parihas sa china nga daghan na kaayo ang laki
mo prefer ang parents ug laki nga anak kay sa babae

[joshua259]

magkatawa gud ko sa mga debate ninyo woi... hahaha ang una kay NO TO ABORTION then ang sunod NO TO CONTRACEPTIVES...

mas maayo pang mo sulti mo og NO TO S3X... para dili maka gamit og contraceptives and dili maka abort ang mga tao...


NO TO S3X nalang...

[khalil]

it's a No for me

[giddyboy]

Hahaha!!!! NO LAW IS NEEDED to declare something unconstitutional. In fact, no law can declare something unconstitutional. You really don't know how the law works, do you?

Admit it, you're just trying to obfuscate the issue. The issue is whether RH 5043 is unconstitutional (and the basis for saying whether it is or isn't). NOT whether there is another law saying certain contraceptives are "illegal" (since this was never asserted), therefore making it unconstitutional. A law that makes something ikllegal does NOT necessarily make that same thing unconstitutional. In fact, it is laws, statutes, or regulations themselves that can be declared unconstitutional. The actions that are proscribed by laws are illegal (but not necessarily unconstitutional). This is an important distinction that your are deliberately overlooking.

Your logic is wrong, and you're just using it to obfuscate the issue.

OK, OK, i myt be missing some technicalities here. but this thread is all about asking if we should legalize abortion or not. I said NO. but my answer is exempting emergency cases that surgical abortion should be made to save the life of the mother if threatened w/ death. and our Abortion law obviously agrees with me on that.

then u said in ur opinion that prescribing, selling or using pills and IUDs, except the condom are also tantamount to committing abortion, specifically coined by u as "chemical abortion", and thus considered unconstitutional, right?

let's then distinguish the thing i just mentioned as a separate issue to the RH Bill. My argument on this is that the pills and IUDs have been there already long ago even before the RH Bill is being proposed lately.

Now, if we consider the existing laws, these contraceptives are all legal and nothing whatsoever in them says that these are chemical abortifacients, abortifacients, or abortifacient contraceptives. that's why they are being sold to the public as medically and legally permissible. That is a fact.

so why are u questioning the constitutionality of the proposed RH Bill provision promoting contraceptives when in fact you should be questioning first the existing laws that approves the selling and prescribing of these contraceptives? isn't this what u call a double standard? or perhaps lying thru omission?

to refresh ur memory, these are the existing laws that approves these contraceptives:

national laws:

(1) RA 4729 - AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE, DISPENSATION, AND/OR DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES

(2) RA 5921 AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

international treaty where the Phils is party of:

(3) The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

so pasabta kno ko ngano ang RH Bill inyohang target nga naa may precedent laws supporting it and vice versa?

unsa selective diay inyoha style?...

so before u whine about the proposed RH Bill, u should have whined about the other existing laws first! where were u when these laws have been passed before? oh i get it. u were not yet born pa tingali. but surely i was not born yesterday...

[giddyboy]

But the RH bill also promotes chemical abortion by funding abortifacient contraceptives. Another contradiction.

i am not going to counter argue on the meat of my answer coz i was instead explaining the technicalities of how to answer the poll question. remember, i was proving that the poll question is misleading via a tricky double bind question.

pre, bsan pa sumpayan pa nako ang akong "No" answer ug "it's because the carabao blah blah blah..." it still demonstrated best on how to answer a tricky double bind question by treating it as an open question and not in any way a closed question so as not to fall into ur trap.

coz if i just treat it as a closed question by voting YES or NO, wala gyuy dag-anan bsan asa nga choice... if i vote NO, that would mean i also voted NO to the RH Bill which is not my case. if i vote YES, then u know na. thus "Damned if you do, damned if u don't". Tricky. Very very tricky one u got there my friend...

now for the nth request, u counter argue w/ that. for the nth request, palihug ayaw gamiti ug nokus2x...