Legalize Abortion?

[madmike]

---

big NO for me. coz im catholic

[raizene]

No for abortion...............

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

a supreme court decison judge a law to be within the bounds of the constituiton or not.. neither the lower court nor our reason can judge a law to be unconstitutional only thorugh a supreme court desicion... RH bill is not unconstitutional without such decision from the SC... now for the SC to derive such decision that the law is unconstituional base on "protection of fetus from conception" on the consti
it will in away create a domino effect allowing the sale of contraceptive to be also unconstituional... but the debate is still undergoing whether contraceptives are abortificient or not...

so the Sc must still decide whether contracpetives are abortificient or not...

now if the RH bill is found unconstitutional base on promoting contraceptives, it will jeopardize othe LGUs programs which are already ahead of the RH Bill in its implementation...

furthermore prior administrations has already supported such programs...

i think the Sc will decide against contraceptives without the numbers of doctors and specialist equally distributed between nay and yea still debating on the issue...

[jLuspoc]

Dili jud ko mo bilib sa taw nga mo yes sa abortion. for me, ang taw nga mo uyon ani... taw nga dakung IRRESPONSIBLE mahadlok ug obligasyon, pero perti kaau kung gus2 mgpalami.

Am not a CAtholic pero DILI ug DILI jud mo uyon aning himuon nga legal ang abortion.

Agree ko ni joshua259 NO to S*x nalang kung dili man dai gani panindigan ang resulta sa ilang gbuhat nga kalipay.

[PsYchBoY]

I say YES its a freedom to choose, But first we must EDUCATE.

[giddyboy]

a supreme court decison judge a law to be within the bounds of the constituiton or not.. neither the lower court nor our reason can judge a law to be unconstitutional only thorugh a supreme court desicion... RH bill is not unconstitutional without such decision from the SC... now for the SC to derive such decision that the law is unconstituional base on "protection of fetus from conception" on the consti
it will in away create a domino effect allowing the sale of contraceptive to be also unconstituional... but the debate is still undergoing whether contraceptives are abortificient or not...

so the Sc must still decide whether contracpetives are abortificient or not...

now if the RH bill is found unconstitutional base on promoting contraceptives, it will jeopardize othe LGUs programs which are already ahead of the RH Bill in its implementation...

furthermore prior administrations has already supported such programs...

i think the Sc will decide against contraceptives without the numbers of doctors and specialist equally distributed between nay and yea still debating on the issue...

pwerteng saktoha gyud nimo. that only re-iterates what i explained earlier. these anti-lifers just wanted to misleadingly omit those facts. Ramos during his term has espoused the use of contraceptives. remember the "Let's DOH it" program of Flavier? and I think Erap too. was it unconstitutional then? was there any SC decision at that time that says it was unconstitutional? i don't think so. and just because PGMA has made it her executive policy (in accordance to what the Church wants) to espouse only natural family planning (NFP), it doesn't make the use of contraceptives unconstitutional either...and even if they insist that the Commissioners assumed "fertilization is the moment of conception", thus also relatively assuming the use of contraceptives unconstitutional, still the SC has the final say on that. and was there ever a SC final say on that? i don't think so.

and to add, if things will go their way, other than it will jeopardize other LGU's (and NGO's too) reproductive health programs which are already ahead of the RH Bill in its implementation, it will also create a domino effect to the international treaty (CEDAW) signed by the Phils, thus effectively violating such treaty.

so if they have a beef with the RH Bill provision promoting Modern Family Planning or MFP (actually it's both MFP and NFP), why didn't they have a beef with all the laws before it? that's selective condemnation and objection. that's discrimination.

Thus, Lying thru omission they have made...and caught thru their teeth that is...

---000---

to re-iterate definitions and not confuse issues here:

Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death. (wiki)

Abortifacient - a substance that induces abortion. Some substances might prevent implantation and thus destroy the blastocyst, although their known primary effect is to prevent fertilization. The existence of these post-fertilization mechanisms is debated.(wiki)

Moment of conception - There is controversy as to whether pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, or at the moment the blastocyst implants in the uterine lining. American federal law and British law mark the beginning of pregnancy at implantation; thus, even if post-fertilization mechanisms were proven, these substances would still be labeled as contraceptives, rather than abortifacients in the United Kingdom and the U.S.(wiki)

Phil. Anti-Abortion Law - The Revised Penal Code (Act No.3815) - Abortion is illegal in the Philippines. The Code also penalizes other acts which are considered criminal in the Philippines, such as adultery, concubinage, and abortion.

Reproductive Health Bill (HR 5043) - THE BILL IS NATIONAL IN SCOPE, COMPREHENSIVE, rights-based and provides adequate funding to the population program. The bill promotes information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. The bill does not legalize abortion. It expressly provides that “abortion remains a crime” and “prevention of abortion” is essential to fully implement the Reproductive Health Care Program. While “management of post-abortion complications” is provided, this is not to condone abortion but to promote the humane treatment of women in life-threatening situations.

RA 4729 - AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE, DISPENSATION, AND/OR DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES. Many contraceptives and contraceptive devices are approved and registered with the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD). These are not considered abortifacients.

RA 5921 - AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. This Act affirms RA 4729. Section 37, which reads: “SECTION 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abortifacients or anticonceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.”

[ioch]

Does anybody know if there's a law regarding abortion for ectopic pregnancies as an exception?
BTW, I am not trolling for pro-choicer's but it's an honest question that if there aren't any laws that protect the physicians who terminate such kinds of pregnancies, they could technically be held to the same sanctions that applies to abortionists.

[giddyboy]

Does anybody know if there's a law regarding abortion for ectopic pregnancies as an exception?
BTW, I am not trolling for pro-choicer's but it's an honest question that if there aren't any laws that protect the physicians who terminate such kinds of pregnancies, they could technically be held to the same sanctions that applies to abortionists.

Ectopic pregnancy is an exception to our anti-abortion laws. The proposed RH Bill also provides “management of post-abortion complications”, not to condone abortion but to promote the humane treatment of women in life-threatening situations.

An ectopic pregnancy is a complication of pregnancy in which the fertilized ovum is developed in any tissue other than the uterine wall. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. The fetus produces enzymes that allow it to implant in varied types of tissues, and thus an embryo implanted elsewhere than the uterus can cause great tissue damage in its efforts to reach a sufficient supply of blood. An ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to the death of the woman.

Ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening, emergency situation and thus must be treated via surgical or non-surgical methods.

In Catholic moral theology, the event of an ectopic pregnancy is one of the only cases where an abortion would in principle be allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion.

(source: wiki)

[mannyamador]

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.

Now you're talking! There are fine points of distinction and even Catholic moral theology takes note of that.

Ectopic pregnancies, for example, are not direct abortion. One removes malignant tissue to save the mother and the baby -- which CANNOT be saved -- is unfortunately affected in an adverse manner. But in such a case, since the baby CANNOT be saved, what can be done for him? There is no decision to abort. The decision has already been made for us. The baby just cannot be saved.

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?

No. I said a LAW allowing abortifacient contraceptives would be unconstitutional. But the act of dispensing an abortifacient contraceptive, although it is contrary to the Constitution, is not immediately illegal. To make them illegal you need a specific law. And to punish them, you need a penal provision in that law. In other words, there is a difference between declaring something as illegal and declaring something as unconstitutional.

Remember, the issue we are discussing is whether the proposed bill in unconstitutional, not whether the act of dispensing abortifacient conttraceptives is illegal. That is another issue which the pro-life movement has attempted to address through a proposed anti-abortifacients law.

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.

There's an error there. They may not be illegal yet, but that does not mean these contraceptives are not abortifacient. The fact of their being abortifacient is established by science, not by the law, The law only decides if something is illegal, which is an entirely different matter.

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?

The pro-life movement has questioned BOTH. You have just chosen to ignore this. The Buhay Party-List, by the way, has already sponsored an anti-abortifacients law. But just like the RH bill, it has to make it's way through Congress.

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

[butitoy]

Ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening, emergency situation and thus must be treated via surgical or non-surgical methods.

In Catholic moral theology, the event of an ectopic pregnancy is one of the only cases where an abortion would in principle be allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

as much as possible , the doctors should try to save both life as they are sworn to save lives..

then if it happens that the baby cant be save, then its not their call anymore.

they are just doctors.humans not GOD.

the most important is the doctors judgment and action in dealing with the case