Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

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.

strawman tactic kau na. ingna lng gyud nga selective inyong condemnation or objection. dili mo moangal sa BFAD approving contraceptives pero angal mo sa mga Congressman mo approve ug contraceptives. unsa ngayo mo ug commission?

These are addressed by the proposed anti-abortifacients law.

are addressed or will be addressed? has it been submitted na sa Congress o wala pa? and why act on it now when dugay naman ni nga mga lawha?

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 don't even need to believe Lagman. i only need to read the Bill and believe in it. and that's a matter of my own opinion. i know ur opinion is the opposite.

and by the way, in case u didn't know, although not substances, and therefore not technically abortifacients, the following techniques have also been proposed to sometimes prevent implantation of a blastocyst:

* Fertility awareness methods — a philosophy professor has speculated that intercourse during the less-fertile times of the cycle might create embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization).
* The lactational amenorrhea method may cause a luteal phase defect (LPD). LPD may interfere with the implantation of embryos.
* In vitro fertilization

so if we follow ur "fertilization is beginning of life" thingy, these methods can be called abortifacients too...

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

wow! mas ngilngig na diay ta ani ron sa ubang countries? are u saying other countries like the US of A and UK committed mistakes when they allowed the use of contraceptives? by the way, did they say they made a mistake?

mind u, our situation is different from theirs...it's like saying they committed a mistake by being non-Catholics...

just try selling bibingka to US and then try to sell it here. will the results i.e. sales, demand, etc be the same? not.

What sexual behavior is considered socially acceptable, and what behavior is "promiscuous", varies much among different cultures, and within a culture different standards are often applied to people of different gender and civil status.

---000---

MYTH: Contraceptives are the main culprit in the tragic increase in sexually transmitted infections (STI), teen pregnancies, and other prominent sexual phenomena of the past 30 years. Contraception in all its forms—condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, etc.—are all responsible in various ways for creating a “false sense of security” that encourages people to engage in promiscuous sexual behavior.

FACT:
(1) After years of claims that condoms do not protect against HPV, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine proves that condoms are very helpful for preventing it.

(2) The number of teenage pregnancies has continued to drop over the past 10 years as contraceptive knowledge and prevalence has increased.

(3) A 2006 comprehensive global study (analysing data from 59 countries worldwide) found no firm link between promiscuity and STD's, with poverty and mobility being more important factors. This contradicts other studies.

MYTH: Sexuality education leads to promiscuity.
FACT: A global review of studies on sexual behavior shows that *** education improves awareness of risk, knowledge of risk reduction strategies, increase self-effectiveness and intention to practice safer ***, and delays rather than hastens the onset of sexual activity.

MYTH: HIV come from sexual promiscuity.
FACT: HIV does not just come from sexual promiscuity, it comes from many other things — contaminated blood, for one.

[xinraarnix]

its a no no..

[mannyamador]

are addressed or will be addressed? has it been submitted na sa Congress o wala pa?

You haven't read my previous posts on that, have you? It has been submitted, but it has to make its way through the long process. The anti-life RH bill has been around for something like ten years or more. So the anti-abortifacients bill will probably take a few years too.

Fertility awareness methods — a philosophy professor has speculated that intercourse during the less-fertile times of the cycle might create embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization).

Are you still peddling this BS? That guy's ridiculous "study" has been refuted multiple times. I posted it on on this and the other thread.

• Hogwash in the guise of research
  Joan C Clements
  http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355#570
  
  
  Thus, Bovens’ detours via these three assumptions are all found to be dead ends.
  One lane of his dual-lane carriageway is found to be impassable – his “science” is
  flawed. The other lane – philosophy – goes by way of direct action (presumably as
  opposed to indirect action) and what he terms action/omission doctrine, though he
  says “this is not the place to turn to this discussion”.
  
  Sounds to me as though the carriage has ground to a halt – maybe the horse has
  run out of oats. And we must be travelling by horse and carriage, because the really
  glaring flaw in his argument, is that no-body now seriously advocates the Rhythm
  Method, nor has done for at least forty years. It was in the early 1950s that research
  began into a scientifically-based, clinical-proven alternative. The Billings Ovulation
  Method of natural fertility regulation, has a success rate, for avoiding pregnancy,
  equal to any chemical or surgical method, and a success rate for achieving
  pregnancy which is substantially better than any interventionist technique currently
  available.
• 'Rhythm Method Killing Embryos' Study is False on Science and Morality
  By John-Henry Westen
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06060508.html
  
  
  Dr. John Shea, MD, FRCP(C), the medical advisor for Campaign Life Coalition, told
  LifeSiteNews.com that Bovens is wrong in that "'Rhythm Method' was not a method of
  contraception and in fact, is no longer used. It failed to recognize the natural variation of
  cycles which almost all current natural family planning (NFP) do."
  
  Dr. Shea also points out that Bovens is far short of the mark on his science. "The
  generally accepted figure for spontaneous abortion is not 50%, but 10 - 15 %. Ninety
  percent of all such abortions are due to rejection of a maldeveloped embryo or fetus,"
  notes Dr. Shea.
  
  "As Dr. Mark F. Whitty pointed out in an eLetter published by the BMJ's JMEOnline, it is
  not true that the mythical 'old sperm' or 'old ovum' reduce an embryo's survival chances,
  or that there is such a thing as 'heightened fertility.' The ovum lasts 12-24 hours and the
  sperm 3-5 days. Any conception is as viable as the next unless there is genetic or
  developmental defect of the embryo," explained Dr. Shea.
  
  
• Are these results of a study or suggestions only?
  Guenter Freundl, Prof. Dr.
  http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355#548
  
  
  There is no evidence that a conceptus has reduced survival chances if conception
  occurred on the fringes of the fertile period looking into data concerning the first 6 weeks
  of pregnancy (see also (Raith, E, Frank, P. et al. 1999; Freundl, G, Gnoth, C. et al. 2001;
  Frank, P., Freundl, G. et al. 1985). Also no association was found between aged
  spermatozoa and early pregnancy loss (Wilcox, A. J., Weinberg, C. R. et al. 199. In the
  late 1980s, the issue of aging gametes and pregnancy outcomes was thoroughly
  investigated, although the author does not seem to be aware of this literature (Simpson,
  J. L., Gray, R. H. et al. 1988;Simpson, J. L., Gray, R. H. et al. 1997). Bovens fails to make
  the necessary moral distinction between natural loss of an embryo and loss caused by
  deliberate human intervention. Natural Family Planning does not cause loss of the embryo,
  and is not intended to do so. On the other hand, the oral contraceptive pill, the
  morning-after pill, Norplant, and the IUD all may cause abortions because one of their
  mechanisms of action is to impede implantation of the embryo in the uterine endometrium.
  Alcom (in the reference listed cited as Alcorn!!), who was cited in the paper (Alcom, R 2005;
  Alcom, R and Larimore, WL 2006), stated that regardless of the likelihood of implantation
  failure under such circumstances, any such failure is spontaneous, not induced, and thus, for
  Alcorn, is a miscarriage, which he does not consider ethically problematic.

The fact that you're still bringing up this repeatedly-refuted garbage is an indication of your terrible lack of honesty.

mind u, our situation is different from theirs

Now you're in denial. Sorry bubba, the numbers speak for themselves.

Multiple studies show that your claims are false. At best, you simply have no conclusive evidence that contraceptive usage lessens unwanted pregnancies or the demand for abortion. So why waste billions on a "solution" that cannot even be shown to work?

NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL.

[joshua259]

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.

so if taking contraceptives IS an abortion act, we can also say that Masturbation is also an abortion act. thus we can be sued if we were found masturbating.

[vp-rakista]

murag layo ra man ABORTION sa MASTURBATION bro... dili man ma-relate...

[joshua259]

murag layo ra man ABORTION sa MASTURBATION bro... dili man ma-relate...

and having s3x with a woman using a condom is also not related to abortion/abortifacient?

please back read sa para maka hibaw ka sa storya.

[vp-rakista]

magamit sab diay ka condom mag masturbate ka? ahehehe peace bro... without even reading from the start, klaro man na ang abortion nag-involve na og life while ang masturbation wala man

[fleur_66]

What we need is to educate people about the risks of getting pregnant thus avoiding complications that might lead to maternal deaths with linkage to abortion which is very much unsafe to unborn babies as well as the mother itself.

[fleur_66]

No to legalized abortion!!

Pity to those innocent babies who were aborted by their cruel parents, they are unwanted. To those couples involved, beware and be protected.

[giddyboy]

You haven't read my previous posts on that, have you? It has been submitted, but it has to make its way through the long process. The anti-life RH bill has been around for something like ten years or more. So the anti-abortifacients bill will probably take a few years too.

if im not mistaken, i only remembered u mentioned that there is a "plan" to submit, and not "already submitted". of course i know it would take a few years...

i also know that other versions of the RH Bills has been around for few years pud. Thanks to the effective lobbying of the church against them. and because demand says so, it is high time to pass a comprehensive RH Bill noting that 6 out of 10 Pinoys support it, the church and ur anti-life barkadas can only watch the inevitable. no disinformation and smear campaign from peeps like u can stop it.

Are you still peddling this BS? That guy's ridiculous "study" has been refuted multiple times. I posted it on on this and the other thread.

The fact that you're still bringing up this repeatedly-refuted garbage is an indication of your terrible lack of honesty.

OT:
wow! mind ur language pre...ayaw nasab ipakita dre imong pgka arrogante ug holier-than-thou antics...sorry but i just came across that part of article and not intended to be dishonest about it. and mind u, this is i think the first time i posted it. unsaon mura naman gud ug libro ning imong gibuhat dre sa thread...

let me ask u this. what's in the RH Bill pertaining to use of contraceptives that are different from those 2 existing RAs i posted? u myt say coz this bill makes the gov't fund contraceptives, right? well, does it matter if it's gov't or private entity? remember, private entities have been dispensing contraceptives to the public since time immemorial. so why complain if our gov't does the same? where were you during the time of Ramos when he openly promoted contraceptives via "Let's DOH It" campaign huh? is it because Ramos is a Protestant? and now, is it because Gloria is under de bunal sa church thus she made a policy of promoting only NFP?

NO TO ABORTION!

YES TO INFORMED CHOICE OF FAMILY PLANNING METHODS!

YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!