Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

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

The plain condom is NOT abortifacient.

@mannyboy: another poster agreeing to my argument that the poll is misleading...@brownprose even said the poll question is ridiculous!

That's because they are pro-RH bill. hardly credible. On the other hand, some others think it's OK. And quite a number of people think the poll is worth taking. 46 so far. That's already more than those who took the poll on how the Church is handling the RH bill. And to think that this new poll has been up for a much shorter time!

As someone else said, all polls have assumptions. This one is based on the proven fact that the RH bill does promote abortion by funding (and forcing others to dispense) abortifacient contraceptives. Those who object to this fact are simply denying reality. That is not a good basis for attacking the poll.

This bill basically wants to promote information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods that are "medically safe and legally permissible".

That's what the pro-bill propaganda says. An examination of the actual bill itself, however, reveals some nasty provisions that violate our civil rights:

1. Section 21 (5) of the bill forces doctors and health workers to dispense abortifacient contraceptives or engage in actions to which they may object. IOf they so object, they are still forced to make referrals, which is a form of FORMAL COOPERATION in the objectionable act. The bill therefore violates freedom of conscience.
   
   
2. Section 21(e) penalizes those who speak out against the bill, under the pretext of "malicious disinformation". Such a concept has no legal basis and is undefined, leaving it wide open to be interpreted in any way that the bvill's proponents may see necessary to silence opposition.
   
   Furthermore, it protects an IDEA from criticism, which is absurd in a democracy. Libel laws and similar statues are supposed to protect PEOPLE, not keep ideas from being criticized. Thus, the proposed bill violates freedom of speech.
   
   
3. Section 17 of the bill forces employers to make available abortifacient contraceptives ro similar devices/services to which they may object. This too is a violation of freedom of conscience.
   
   
4. The bill explicitly funds abortifacient contraceptives. Thus it violates Section II, Article 12 of the Philippine Constitution which protects life from conception (which teh Constitutional Commission assumed occurs at fertilization).
   
   
5. The bill claims to desire to reduce maternal mortality, but then explicitly does not fund the one most effective means tyo do so: providing basic obstetric care and personnel. Instead, it resorts to the least effective and most controversial means: lowering fertility. The bill therefore treats pregnancy as a disease and ignores the real causes of maternal deaths.
   
   
6. The bill has skewed priorities. It provides for funding of contraceptives, which are non-essential, do not treat any disease, and which are used in purely elective (voluntary ) treatments. This siphons off scarce funds which could be used to provide medicines that treat real-world killer diseases such as malaria, TB, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The government does not provide free medicines to treat real killer diseases. Why should it waste scarce funds on contraceptives that don't cure anything?

NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTION PROMOTING RH BILL
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[showbiz101]

no way...........

[mannyamador]

Church, Constitution and the RH bill
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:08:00 10/13/2008
Church, Constitution and the RH bill - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

MANILA, Philippines - The debate on the reproductive health bill in Congress is by no means over. It should surprise no one that this is happening; after all, religion and the Constitution, both of which are involved in any evaluation of the bill, are very much at the heart of the life of our people.

I am not about to critique the entire bill nor am I going to say that we should not have a law which seeks to protect the health of women. What I want to do is simply to point out some areas that need further discussion.

Let me begin with the Constitution in so far as it is related to the right to life. We have in our Constitution a provision that assures protection for life. It says that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

Is this provision completely satisfied by the prohibition of abortion which the reproductive health bill reaffirms? It is true that the provision was discussed at a time when many were aware of the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy. The prevention of the adoption of the doctrine in Roe v. Wade was certainly one of the purposes of the provision. But Commission deliberations indicate that the provision goes beyond Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is usually defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus. Pregnancy for its part is the period of reproduction during which a female carries one or more live offspring from implantation in the uterus through gestation. Pregnancy begins when a fertilized zygote implants in the female’s uterus and ends once it leaves the uterus.

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 of the zygote. Although the constitutional 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. For this reason the Constitution commands that protection be given from conception, that is, from the fertilization of the zygote.

This is reflected in one of the exchanges during the debate. Since the protection of the unborn was to begin from conception, Reverend Cirilo Rigos asked when the “moment of conception” was. Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, who was the principal sponsor of the provision, answered that the conception took place with fertilization since “it is when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life.” When Commissioner Fely Aquino observed that at that point there would only be biological life, Bishop Teodoro Bacani did not contradict her but said that there would already be biological human life even if there was as yet no “person.”

From this it can be seen that the intention is to protect the “life” even before implantation in the uterus, that is, from the moment biological life begins. The constitutional intent, in other words, is to play it safe lest human life be destroyed and to impose the protection even before implantation in the uterus.

This brings us to the question whether the reproductive bill allows or even prescribes the use of birth control methods which have the effect of blocking a fertilized zygote from being implanted in the uterus or of expelling a fertilized zygote before implantation. This is a question which, while it has constitutional, religious and moral implications, must first be answered by medical science. Has this question been sufficiently explored in the course of the debates over the reproductive health bill? My impression is that it has not. And if the law is passed as proposed, the question will most certainly reach the Supreme Court.

Another important element in the debate is the freedom of religious belief. The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. And this freedom is violated when one is compelled to act against one’s belief or is prevented from acting according to one’s belief.

In our society, while people of good faith may find near unanimity on the matter of abortion, there clearly is a sharp division in the matter of contraception. The division is drawn along religious lines. The law as proposed will require people of good faith to act or not to act contrary to what they believe. Concessions must be made so that religious liberty will not be violated. The law must allow for the conscientious objector.

I would make special mention of the requirement of s** education. s** education is a matter closely related to religious morality. Our Constitution allows the teaching of religion to children in public schools, but it requires that it be done only with the written consent of parents. A similar respect for the desire of parents should be provided for in the law. Our Constitution says: “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.” As for s** education in private schools, any law on this should respect academic freedom which is also protected by the Constitution.

I have also scanned the penal provisions of the proposed law. My initial impression is that, if passed, they will encounter problems in implementation along lines of criminal due process.

[chad_tukes]

i am for women's right to choose what they want to do with their bodies.

[mannyamador]

Sounds nice. As long as they don't mess with the unborn child's life and body! That's where the woman's right to her body end sand the unborn child's rights begin.

[tatadeasis]

rights comes with responsibility dapat. a person might have the right to decide for him/herself taking in to consideration the effects. a person has the right to decide for himself but never for others.

[gilokgilok]

di jd na sakto ang abortion. bsan unsaon pa ug bali-bali.. maypang ang marijuana. natural pa. kna cguro pwede ma legalize.. kulongo byag utok ni atong mga politiko.

[chad_tukes]

Sounds nice. As long as they don't mess with the unborn child's life and body! That's where the woman's right to her body end sand the unborn child's rights begin.

doesn't matter. too much peanut butter on a bread is STILL bread.

[Dorothea]

^Hehehe, dong Chad, gigutom na hinuon ko sa imong analogy dah! FaeeTtt! Apili ug jelly, dong. Peanut butter without jelly is like Sharon without Gabby.

Anyways, I don't necessarily condone or agree with abortion, but I dispense Plan B, otherwise known (albeit erroneously) as the morning-after pill. There are far too many abused, abandoned and uncared-for children in the world already. All this procreating has gotten out of hand, enough already, people!

[giddyboy]

That's because they are pro-RH bill. hardly credible. On the other hand, some others think it's OK. And quite a number of people think the poll is worth taking. 46 so far. That's already more than those who took the poll on how the Church is handling the RH bill. And to think that this new poll has been up for a much shorter time!

such strawman and ad hominem tactic u got there. shesh.

mura nag ing ani ay:

Person A: the poll question is misleading coz it's a double bind question.
Person B: No. those who says so is hardly credible. many think the poll is worth taking blah blah blah.

u seem to refuting it, but without ever having actually refuted the original position...

the poll question is misleading coz it assumes the RH Bill legalizes abortion to which is not (or still under debate)...Period.

---000---

I am against abortion.

I am for the Reproductive Health Bill. I don't see any illegality in the dispensation and use of condoms, pills, and IUD. RA 4729, RA 5291, and BFAD rules provides all these. plus it is provided under international treaty where the Phils is a signatory such as CEDAW. and there is no reason why these cannot be made available in the RH Bill. The RH Bill also explicitly treats abortion as a crime.