Legalize Abortion?

[joshua259]

---

it's clear naman nga ang RH bill kay anti-abortion pero ang naka pait gud sa PRO-LIFE and Church Extremist people kay apilon ang contraceptives. nya mura raba og dili sila mo gamit aning mga produkto...

og kuhaon ninyo ang contraceptives sa mga tao tabla ra ninyo gi kuhaan og kalipay ang mga tao.

[raizene]

waaa kalipay jud .....lol

[mannyamador]

it's clear naman nga ang RH bill kay anti-abortion

You obviously haven't read the entire RH bill. Please read it completely.

• The RH bill directly promotes abortion through the funding of abortifacient contraceptives. The abortifacient mechanism of these contraceptives is well-documented and even admitted by the contraceptive manufacturers themselves.
  
  The bill also therefore directly contravenes our Constitution. Whether it also contradicts other laws is irrelevant. That's because If the RH bill is passed ti will supersede any other contradicting laws except the Constitution. No ordinary law can supersede the Constitution.
  
  
• The RH bill also FORCES doctors to dispense such abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience, or forces them to refer so-called patients to others who wiil do the same (forced formal cooperation).
  
  
• Section 21(e) of the bill penalizes people for even talking against the bill (under the pretense of preventing "disinformation"). This violates free speech.
  
  
• The bill wastes scarce funds on dispensing non-therapeutic drugs for free (contraceptives), taking money away from basic health care and medicines for real killer diseases. It mistakenly treats pregnancy as a disease (which it is most certainly not) and ignores more basic and urgent needs and real killer diseases.

The only extreme thing here is the RH bill itself. It should be dumped along with the trapo congressmen who sponsored it.

[mannyamador]

The Role of Contraception in Increasing Abortion
By Ruben Obregon
http://www.noroomforcontraception.co...d-Abortion.htm

It’s a common assumption that contraception reduces the need for abortion in the United States. Yet the history of contraception and abortion in the 60s and 70s shows this assumption to be incorrect.

In the 60s, the legal status of contraceptives and the ability of married couples to use them varied from state to state. Most states had restrictions on how contraceptives could be distributed and who could use them. The United States Supreme Court would play a pivotal role in the increased access to contraception during this period by declaring various state restrictions unconstitutional.

Though it started much earlier, the sexual revolution started to make serious inroads in the mid 60s. The introduction of the birth control pill brought the revolution to new heights. The pill rapidly gained acceptance, and by 1965, 42.9 percent of married teens were using or had used oral contraception.(1)

Contraception became more accessible for married couples in 1965, when Supreme Court ended Connecticut’s restrictions against contraceptive use and possession by married couples. (Griswold v. Connecticut) This landmark case provided the framework for later contraception and abortion decisions. In fact, one could argue this very framework led to the court overturning state abortion restrictions. From a legal standpoint, the framework for legalized contraception led to legalized abortion in the United States.

Despite state restrictions, married women weren’t the only ones taking the pill. In 1965, Brown University’s student newspaper broke a story of a campus physician that prescribed oral contraception to two unmarried students.(2) By 1966, twelve institutions were prescribing oral contraceptives to unmarried students.(3) College students were not the only ones participating in the sexual revolution either -- high school teens jumped on the bandwagon.

Unlike the various forms of contraception used in the 50s, the pill offered convenience. While the pill didn’t cause the sexual revolution, it certainly amplified it and changed people’s perception of the purpose of s**. If the sexual revolution had been in its embryonic stage in the 50s, the advent of the pill brought it to its maturity in the 60s.

The pill sold society on the idea of s** without procreation, and the contraceptive mentality took root.

Teens were not immune from this new view of s**. Due to state restrictions, contraceptives were not as easy to come by for teens as they are today, but that didn’t stop the momentum of the revolution amongst them. This was reflected by the continual rise in the percentage of women aged 15-19 who engaged in premarital s**.(4) Depending on their circumstances, contraception wasn't technically illegal for many teens. In many states, teens were able to get contraception during these years if they were married or had the consent of their parents. (5)

Though many forms of contraception were available, it wasn’t until 1972, with the Court's Eisenstadt v. Baird decision, that contraception became widely available unmarried women.

During this period, state legislatures were lowering the age of majority from 21 to 19 and 18, which in turn allowed more teens to access contraception.(6) At the end of 1974, at least 45 states and the District of Columbia had established the right of 18 year old unmarried women to consent for contraception.(7) Additionally, 23 states and the District of Columbia recognized the right of minors under 16 to obtain contraceptive care.(8)

New York remained the sole state prohibiting the sale of non-prescription contraceptives to minors under 16. This would change in 1977 when the Supreme Court overturned these restrictions with its Carey v. Population Services International decision.(9)

During the course of these legal developments, the percentage of women aged 15-19 who ever engaged in premarital s** continued to rise. The figures rose from 30.4% in 1971 to 43.4% in 1976, and rose again to 49.8 % in 1979. (10)

As the number of younger and younger teens became sexually active, and as both married and unmarried women had increasing access to contraception, the abortion rates rose.

In 1972, the abortion rate for all women aged 15-19 was 19.1 per 1000 women (including married women). This figure jumped to 34.3 in 1976, and to 42.4 in 1979. (11)

Abortion rates did not decrease with increased access to contraception – they increased instead. So did the pregnancy rates – the only thing that decreased was the birth rate (due to increased abortion).


This brief history shows a relationship between contraception and abortion, but it doesn't explain how contraception leads to an increase in abortion.

The contraceptive mentality holds that s** is primarily for pleasure, and that offspring are optional. This is the glue which binds contraception and abortion. This mentality led to an increasing number of unmarried men and women engaging in pre-marital s** at younger and younger ages during the 60s and 70s.

This mentality fostered a false sense of security in regards to preventing unplanned pregnancy and a lax attitude about the risk of pregnancy in general. Concern over pregnancy, something that used to prevent many from having premarital s**, slowly eroded.

Contraception is imperfect, and even with perfect use of it women still got pregnant. This is a critical factor in how widespread contraception use resulted in increased abortion rates.(12) The increasing number of sexually active teens combined with the failure rates of contraception and the rejection of an unexpected pregnancy fueled the demand for abortion during the 60s and 70s. History shows that while contraception does not result in an abortion for every unexpected pregnancy, the rise in the numbers of unexpected pregnancies resulted in a rise in abortions.

The fact that an increasing number of people engaged in pre-marital s** without even using contraception also factored into the increase in abortions. Paradoxically, the contraceptive mentality does not foster increased contraception use or perfect use of it. Instead it fosters increased pre-marital s**, with or without contraception.

The 60s and 70s demonstrate that contraception doesn’t reduce or make abortion rare. Instead this period of time proves that contraception drives the demand for abortion in our culture. Contraception advocates seem to forget this when they call for increases in contraceptive spending. Interestingly enough, the same arguments they used in the 70s are being repeated today: Easy access, better compliance, and more contraceptive funding – a formula that has failed miserably at reducing abortion over the past three decades.

(c) 2006 by Ruben Obregon, all rights reserved.

It’s anticipated that responses to this article will cite the reduction in abortions during the early to mid nineties. That is beyond the scope of this article, and a separate article will address the reduction of abortions during that timeframe.


Footnotes

1. Ryder N, Westoff C, Use of Oral Contraception in the United States, 1965, Science magazine, 9 September 1966, Volume 153, Number 3741.

2. The Pill: A Prescription for Equality, Part 3, Excerpted by David Allyn Available at The Pill: A Prescription for Equality, Part 3 : Make Love, Not War

3. Goldin C, Katz L, The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women's Career and Marriage Decisions, Journal of Political Economy, Fall 2001, Department of Economics Harvard University, National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/contacts/m...02lecture2.pdf

4. Hofferth S, Kahn J, Baldwin W, Premarital Sexual Activity Among U.S. Teenage Women over the Past Three Decades, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 2, March/April 1987.

5. Goldin, op. cit.

6. Goldin, op. cit.

7. Paul E, Pipel H, Wechsler N, Pregnancy, Teenagers and the Law, 1976, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 1, January/February 1976.

8. Ibid

9. High Court Rules Minors Under 16 Can Buy Contraceptives; Overturns Restrictions on Contraceptive Sales, Advertising, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 4, July/August 1977.

10. Hofferth, op. cit.

11. U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics:National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity, Guttmacher Institute, “Table 2.3 Rates of birth, abortion and pregnancy, per 1,000 women, and numbers of births, abortions, miscarriages, pregnancies and population, all among women aged 18–19, by year, 1972–2003”, Page 6. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

12. Marston C, Cleland J, Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence, International Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 29, Number 1, March 2003. Available at: Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ruben Obregon is the the President and co-founder of No Room for Contraception. He has worked in the pro-family movement for the past 16 years on issues ranging from education to marriage.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

it's clear naman nga ang RH bill kay anti-abortion pero ang naka pait gud sa PRO-LIFE and Church Extremist people kay apilon ang contraceptives. nya mura raba og dili sila mo gamit aning mga produkto...

og kuhaon ninyo ang contraceptives sa mga tao tabla ra ninyo gi kuhaan og kalipay ang mga tao.

sakto ka, mr.joshua. what's there in contraceptives na mo-bukal man jud ilang dugo? wala man silay ma-gain or ma-loss ana kay mga celibate man na sila. daw. basta, it doesn't apply to them.

[giddyboy]

^^^why can't they just air their complaints to BFAD? BFAD man ang mo approve or disapprove ug brand sa contraceptives. if they say that certain contraceptives are abortifacients, then by all means contest it w/ them, and even as far as the pharma companies are concerned.

we already have one law which regulates the sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices which was made basis for BFAD internal rules. why didn't they contest that law if they are against contraceptives? (i tried to google it but couldn't find any complaint contrary to what somebody said that they did. if he can show an article, then good)

we already have another law that regulates the practice of pharmacy and setting standards of pharma education w/ provisions relative to dispensing of abortifacients or anticonceptional substances and devices. why didn't they contest it if they are against contraceptives?

and just because we have the proposed RH Bill that dispenses contraceptives, they are complaining with it selectively (coz this is a hot issue?). AFAIK, moagi man gihapon sa BFAD approval ang contraceptives even if this law is passed.

they say that contraceptives are already available in the free market and there is no need for the gov't to make it more available to the public especially to the poor. what the? they tolerate private companies into selling contraceptives but don't want the gov't to dispense the same? unsa na cya double standard?

besides, the RH Bill did not specify any contraceptive brand to promote. it only said the bill is promoting both modern family planning (MFP) and natural family planning (NFP) w/o bias. if we talk about funding, if people demand more of MFP over NFP, why not? is that being biased? ngano pugson man gyud ug 50-50 funding kung lesser ang demand sa NFP? is that a way to say "money talks"?

i also want to disagree that increased access to contraceptives will lead to promiscuity. were those studies shown by somebody done here in the Philippine setting? i don't think so.

if assuming the RH Bill becomes a law, just imagine a farmer in a far-flung brgy who is given by the brgy (for the very first time in decades) access to contraceptives as a way of family planning coupled w/ education. he then has another alternative tool now to space his birth, control his family size, and prevent STDs. does that mean his continued use of condoms will lead him to be promiscuous? hahaha. now in another note, offering him the natural method as insisted by the Church and pro-life groups would do good too. but the question is, do we have to curtail his freedom to choose?

do we have to keep saying to him that contraceptives are abortifacients even if they are approved by his doctor, approved by BFAD, approved by USFDA and approved by WHO? kung mao man gani, apply nlng kha ka ug pgka doctor ani niya...

[Hellblazer 2.1]

contest the bill based on what? religion? nah, i don't think so. even religionists these days are politicians part-time.

[giddyboy]

contest the bill based on what? religion? nah, i don't think so. even religionists these days are politicians part-time.

they also contest the contraceptive part of the RH bill based on "other expert studies". kuno. did the WHO and US FDA even acknowledge those studies in the first place? asa man diay ta tuo ani? ani nla or ang international authorities that are experts on these matter?

nya moingon lagi dayon cla nga WHO is biased, blah blah blah. well, manamin sa cguro cla sa ilang kaugalingon kung dili ba sab cla biased...

the only connection w/ this topic "legalized abortion" w/ the proposed RH Bill is their allegations that contraceptives are "abortifacient". mao na.

well, obviously they overlooked one thing. HERBAL ABORTIFACIENTS. pangpa regla ba. u can find them even around our churches and been sold harap harapan. in fact, it's been commonly used by our poor fellow Pinoys para pang abort. how about that? was there any noise against it? Nada, zilch. kasi walang pera involved...mao na.

[mannyamador]

^^^why can't they just air their complaints to BFAD?

Because some trapo congressmen introduced the so-called RH bill, which is far more dangerous than BFAD regulations. The bill even has provisions that violate our civil and human rights. But you ignore these, of course.

we already have one law which regulates the sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices...

we already have another law that regulates the practice of pharmacy and setting standards of pharma education w/ provisions relative to dispensing of abortifacients or anticonceptional substances and devices

These are addressed by the proposed anti-abortifacients law.

besides, the RH Bill did not specify any contraceptive brand to promote. it only said the bill is promoting both modern family planning (MFP) and natural family planning (NFP) w/o bias.

Thaty's only if you believe Lagman's BS. The fact is that the bill funds artificial and aboetifacient contraceoptives and gives little more than hot air for NFP. That is NOT "without bias".

i also want to disagree that increased access to contraceptives will lead to promiscuity. were those studies shown by somebody done here in the Philippine setting? i don't think so.

Quite irrelevant. We have to learn from the mistakes of other countries.

NO TO ABORTION. NOT TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i am against abortion. and to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. and to prevent unwanted pregnancy is to have safe S3X, and NOT abstinence.