Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

Actually you are worried that people will discover that the RH bill is unconstitutional and a huge FRAUD.

u r just unbelievable. putting words into my mouth won't do u any good.

AFAIK, 6 out of 10 Pinoys do not consider the RH Bill as unconstitutional. Majority of congressmen do not consider the RH Bill as unconstitutional. U need reality check here. U can begin by going outside ur little world there my friend. Smell the breeze...it's inevitable.

[giddyboy]

I do not recognize your false definition of abortion and when human life begins. Your definition of when life begins has zero scientific or logical basis. It is an arbitrary, politically-motivated definition. I say that anything that destroys the fertilized egg -- even before it implants -- is an abortion.

My definition is backed up by science, logic, the Philippine Constitution (Section II Article 12) and the vote of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the Constitution. That's a lot more than what you've got!!!

ohoho!! mine is a false definition of abortion? yeah urs is backed up by science, logic, or ur twisted version of the Consti, all concocted up by ur kind. and don't forget to include personal and religion definition too.

wikipedia - An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.

medicine.net - Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus.

free online dictionary - Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.

merriam webster - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

British and American laws and WHO are in congruence to those definitions that life begins during implantation - the onset of pregnancy - and not during fertilization, thus preventing implantation is not an abortion. and if u personally don't recognize those definitions, it's up to you.

and by the way, the 1987 Consti (Section II Article 12) did not back you up on ur definition. It is the Con Com. there's a big difference there. Your deception has been exposed.

---000---

and did u even bother to look at ur article? it says here:

"Many reproductive scientists have defined pregnancy as occurring at the point of or at some point after implantation. However, this definition does not change the fact that some patients, for personal, scientific, moral, or religious reasons, identify the start of human life at fertilization. (SEE IT EVEN STATED THE DEFINITION) For such patients, a form of contraception that allows fertilization and then causes loss of the pre-embryo or embryo may be unacceptable. Regardless of the personal beliefs of the physician or provider about the mechanism of OCs, it is important that patients have information relevant to their own beliefs and value systems.

However, the objective presentation of the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs may be complex;

One possible approach to this complex issue might be to inquire of the patient whether she desires this information."

and here:

"However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. Despite the lack of quantitative data, the principles of informed consent suggest that patients who may object to any postfertilization loss should be made aware of this information so that they can give fully informed consent for the use of oral contraceptives.

and here:

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent.

INFORMED CONSENT THAT IS. it has been repeatedly exhausted in ur article.. and it is written down in the RH Bill, explicitly. ur article didn't even say throw out use of OC's but suggested informed consent as the key.

[benj04]

mga bro, bisan ug di pani ilegalize, its a fact nga alot are still going for abortion nowadays.
someting na cgro ni nga never na ma stop.

[giddyboy]

Lets stick to the facts.

SOME CONTRACEPTIVES LIKE THE PILL, IUD, INJECTABLES, AND IMPLANTABLES, ARE ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.
[*]Section 10, which makes artificial and abortifacient contraceptives "essential medicines" even despite the fact that they don't cure any disease;

u r just twisting the facts. Contraceptives that are medically approved and legally permissible are not abortifacients. Their primary effect is to prevent pregnancy. It is only due to "debatable" post-fertilization mechanisms that you say these are abortifacient based on some expert studies (while some experts also say otherwise) and your belief that life begins during fertilization. that's why informed consent is needed to those want to use contraceptives. THAT IS THE FACT.

"Essential medicines" are not only those that can cure diseases but most of them do. Per WHO, essential medicines are those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population. The essential medicines list is an inventory of medicines that treat pressing global health concerns. They are selected with due regard to public health relevance, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. Contraceptives are available in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. The list review takes into account cost-effectiveness research of the type identified, as well as evidence-based guidelines. THAT IS THE FACT.

[*]Section 9 which forces hospitials to insert IUDs (which is abortifacient);

again, a debatable assumption that IUDs are abortifacients or not. W.H.O. do not consider IUDs as abortifacients. it's part of the WHO Essential Medicines list.

[*]Section 17 which forces employers to dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience; and... [*]Section 21 which forces doctors to also dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience.

don't twist it here again. it said u "refer to other doctors who will, if u refuse so." and even if u say "referring" is also a kind of forcing against the conscience, ang mga Congressman nlng ang bahala ana. im not a lawyer.

well, actually, im amenable to changing those provisions. i even believe it is not "forcing". it's a referral system instead. but even if so, that doesn't mean discrediting the entire bill. that's why there are series of hearing and amendments taken before a bill is finally passed into law.

BY THE WAY, do u want a RH Bill or not? if then, what is your own version that fits your agenda? You keep on saying no and complaining to the provisions but keeps short on telling the details of what u really want. Hala iladlad day!

You keep pointing to the fact that the bill doesn't legalize SURGICAL abortion. but you hide the fact that THE RH BILL EFFECTIVELY LEGALIZES CHEMICAL ABORTION THROUGH ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.

No i didn't hide the fact. i am just saying i am disagreeing to your opinion that post-fertilization effects of certain contraceptives are tantamount to abortion.

Here's the fact: SOME ARE SAYING CONTRACEPTIVES ARE ABORTIFACIENTS. BUT SOME WOULD SAY IT IS NOT. and u are clearly hiding this fact by saying yours is the absolute fact.

The RH bill is an abortion-promoting, population control bill. It is deadly and violates our civil rights. it should be junked along with the trapo tongressmen that filed it.

Your lies have been exposed again.

again, that is only your opinion w/ propagandistic value. My opinion says otherwise: I BELIEVE The RH Bill is NOT ABORTION-PROMOTING. I BELIEVE IT EXPLICITLY TREATS ABORTION AS A CRIME. I BELIEVE IT IS FOR PRO-QUALITY OF LIFE. saying an opinion is not telling a lie. and i do hope u respect that.

YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!!

[davanitz]

ok ra ang abortion kung naay medical reason, but for a reason nga you don't like the kid then it is absurd

[giddyboy]

ok ra ang abortion kung naay medical reason, but for a reason nga you don't like the kid then it is absurd

yup. basta in life-threatening cases, emergency abortion is needed to save the life of the mother like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. as for other reasons, abortion remains a crime under our laws.

[mannyamador]

Let's look at YOUR definitions:

wikipedia - An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.

medicine.net - Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus.

free online dictionary - Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.

merriam webster - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE AGREES WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT ABORTION ONLY OCCURS IF THE CONCEPTUS IS DESTROYED AFTER IMPLANATION!

You just blew your foot off!!!

All of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo. Well, the fertilized egg fits that description, UNLESS you arbitrarily re-define what it means. That is what happened when some politically-motivated groups re-defined "pregnancy".

Fortunately, the Philippine Constitution does NOT agree with their (and your) re-definitions. And in the Philippines, the Constitution is above US and British laws or any other treaties.

By the way, you still have not been able to answer my question:

If a newly-fertilized egg is just a "clump of cells" then why should it suddenly become human life simply because it attaches to the uterus? Since when does a change in location or addition of a physical connection define human life? Your "definition" is quite arbitrary.

and did u even bother to look at ur article? it says here:

"Many reproductive scientists have defined pregnancy as occurring at the point of or at some point after implantation. However, this definition does not change the fact that some patients, for personal, scientific, moral, or religious reasons, identify the start of human life at fertilization. (SEE IT EVEN STATED THE DEFINITION) For such patients, a form of contraception that allows fertilization and then causes loss of the pre-embryo or embryo may be unacceptable. Regardless of the personal beliefs of the physician or provider about the mechanism of OCs, it is important that patients have information relevant to their own beliefs and value systems.

Do you have trouble understanding English? It precisely says that your re-definitions of pregnancy are beside the point. There are those who do not agree with it and the beliefs of these people mus be taken into consideration. But these people are NOT being informed of the abortifacient mechanisms of abortifacient contraceptives. The RH bill and its fanatic proponents do not address this issue at all.

INFORMED CONSENT THAT IS. it has been repeatedly exhausted in ur article.. and it is written down in the RH Bill, explicitly. ur article didn't even say throw out use of OC's but suggested informed consent as the key.

Not only can't you understand English, you're being hypocritical as well.

The RH bill and its proponents don't really care about having doctors or health workers inform people about the abortifacient effects of these contraceptives, or even about their harmful medical effects. In fact, the pro-RH fanatics hide these facts! That goes against the article you just quoted:

Therefore, it seems clear to us that failure to inform patients of a possible
postfertilization mechanism of an OC is a failure to provide informed consent.

It's obvious that you, the pro-RH fanatics, and the bill's authors couldn't care less about informed consent.

And let's not forget this choice quote:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would
be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower
doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are
likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical
literature does not support the hypothesis that
postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”

Your lies have been exposed. For the umpteenth time!!!

--
NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[giddyboy]

Let's look at YOUR definitions:

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE AGREES WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT ABORTION ONLY OCCURS IF THE CONCEPTUS IS DESTROYED AFTER IMPLANATION!

You just blew your foot off!!!

All of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo. Well, the fertilized egg fits that description, UNLESS you arbitrarily re-define what it means. That is what happened when some politically-motivated groups re-defined "pregnancy".

WHAT?!? a fertilized egg is a fetus? did u somehow miss ur biology or anatomy class? does the seminary where u belonged to have these subjects by the way? knock, knock, hello!

per wiki, in humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development begins about eight weeks after fertilization (8 WEEKS NANA HA! WALA PA NA NA-IMPLANT DODONG?), when the major structures and organ systems have formed, and lasts until birth.

To correct you, POR DIOS POR SANTO, a fertilized egg is not yet a fetus. A fertilized egg is called a zygote, an oocite, or a blastocyst. This typically occurs between 6 and 8 days after ovulation.

Zygotes will develop into an embryo, and then a fetus.

You just blew your foot off!!! no wonder. i won't be even surprised if u won't admit that fatal and deadly mistake...

and by that mistake alone, there is even no more need for me to even talk w/ u on other more complex matters coz basics pa lang gani daan, yabo nka!

(gotta grab my beer now coz it's a friday. and by the way, alcohol in beer is abortifacient pud for naturalist geeks like u. )

If a newly-fertilized egg is just a "clump of cells" then why should it suddenly become human life simply because it attaches to the uterus? Since when does a change in location or addition of a physical connection define human life? Your "definition" is quite arbitrary.

just because a fertilized egg has DNA means it is a live human being na. Even fossils do have DNA...a piece of cell for cloning do have DNA. try freezing and thawing a fetus, can u revive it compared to a fertilized egg?
(and oh by the way, before doctors throw out unspent or dead invitro-fertilized egg, you tell them to get a priest first and give these eggs proper burial... )

if u say "Conception takes place as soon as the soul within the sperm fertilizes the egg", i don't buy that crap. sorry.

[mannyamador]

WHAT?!? a fetus is a fertilized egg? did u somehow miss ur biology or anatomy class? hello!

I said a fertilized egg is an EMBRYO. Or did you ignore that too? You were probably asleep at anatomy class -- and when you read my post!.

This is what I said:

All of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo. Well, the fertilized egg fits that description, UNLESS you arbitrarily re-define what it means. That is what happened when some politically-motivated groups re-defined "pregnancy".

In case you don't know, an embryo is from the first cell division until about eight weeks after. Then it is called a fetus. So the fertilized egg BEFORE it implants is already an embryo.

And destroying the embryo, as per YOUR definition, is an ABORTION.


Do some research. You will look less silly that way. Let's look at some:

• From wikipedia, one of your often-cited sources:
  
  
  ... is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.
• What Is An Embryo?
  http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-embryo.htm
  
  
  An embryo is an organism in the early stages of development which cannot survive on its own. The precise definition of an embryo varies; in humans, for example, a fertilized egg may be considered an embryo until around the eighth week of pregnancy, at which point it is termed a fetus. The study of embryos is known as embryology, and it makes up part of a larger branch of science which is interested in reproduction and development.

per wiki, in humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development begins about eight weeks after fertilization (8 WEEKS NANA HA! WALA PA NA NA-IMPLANT DODONG?), when the major structures and organ systems have formed, and lasts until birth.

I think you have just demonstrated that you do not understand English! The fertilized egg is an EMBRYO. An EMBRYO is what is also destroyed during an abortion. Gets mo?

To correct you, a fertilized egg is not yet a fetus.

It is an EMBRYO, as per YOUR own cited source. And YOUR definition of abortion includes destroying the embryo!

just because a fertilized egg has DNA means it is a live human being na. Even fossils do have DNA...a piece of cell for cloning do have DNA. try freezing and thawing a fetus, can u revive it compared to a fertilized egg?

You seem to forget that fertilization is the FIRST TIME that a person's UNIQUE DNA are determined. This DNA is not determined any time later. A unique human is defined at that time of fertilization, not at implantation (implantation does NOT determine any unique DNA),

So you still have NOT been able to answer my question: Why should a "clump of cells" (as you describe the fertilized egg) suddenly become human life just because it attaches somewhere?

Your definition of when human life begins (at implantation) is therefore ARBITRARY. You use this unscientific and irrational definition it because it selfishly justifies your deadly practice of using abortifacient contraceptives.



PROMOTING ABORTION THROUGH THE RH BILL

Now how does all of this relate to the RH Bill? Well, although the bill gives some lip service about not legalizing SURGICAL abortion you hide the fact that THE RH BILL EFFECTIVELY LEGALIZES CHEMICAL ABORTION THROUGH ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.

This is found in various parts of the proposed bill:

• Section 10, which makes artificial and abortifacient contraceptives "essential medicines" even despite the fact that they don't cure any disease;
• Section 9 which forces hospitials to insert IUDs (which is abortifacient);
• Section 17 which forces employers to dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience; and...
• Section 21 which forces doctors to also dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience.

Dump this deadly bill!

--
NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[giddyboy]

I said a fertilized egg is an EMBRYO. Or did you ignore that too? You were probably asleep at anatomy class -- and when you read my post!.

In case you don't know, an embryo is from the first cell division until about eight weeks after. Then it is called a fetus. So the fertilized egg BEFORE it implants is already an embryo.

And destroying the embryo, as per YOUR definition, is an ABORTION.

Do some research. You will look less silly that way. Let's look at some:

• From wikipedia, one of your often-cited sources:
  
  
  ... is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.
• What Is An Embryo?
  What is an Embryo?
  
  
  An embryo is an organism in the early stages of development which cannot survive on its own. The precise definition of an embryo varies; in humans, for example, a fertilized egg may be considered an embryo until around the eighth week of pregnancy, at which point it is termed a fetus. The study of embryos is known as embryology, and it makes up part of a larger branch of science which is interested in reproduction and development.

I think you have just demonstrated that you do not understand English! The fertilized egg is an EMBRYO. An EMBRYO is what is also destroyed during an abortion. Gets mo?

It is an EMBRYO, as per YOUR own cited source. And YOUR definition of abortion includes destroying the embryo!

Oh God, now u don't want to admit u said a fertilized egg is a fetus. now u say u only said embryo. here's what u said:

"All of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo. Well, the fertilized egg fits that description, UNLESS you arbitrarily re-define what it means. That is what happened when some politically-motivated groups re-defined "pregnancy"."

c'mon. i can read English. to simplify it, u mean a fertilized egg fits the description of a fetus or embryo. that's elementary my dear!

and i know a fertilized egg becomes an embryo before it becomes a fetus. but an embryo can be an embryo either before attaching in the uterus or after attaching to the uterus.

what is clearly defined in those dictionaries is abortion by removal of the fetus or embryo. that assumes it is during or after implantation. coz if not, they wouldn't have to bother including the word "fetus" there. and if u wanna check out the entire article in wiki and other dictionaries i mentioned about the term "abortion", nowhere did it stated that it includes contraceptives as abortion.

c'mon. we both know that we have differing beliefs: u believe life begins during fertilization while I believe life begins during implantation. u also believe contraceptives are abortifacients while i believe it is not. u r against the use of condoms while i am in support for it. u r only for NFP while i am both for NFP and MFP. u r against the RH Bill while I am supporting it.

Two things lang are common w/ us both: we both are Catholics and we support NFP.

let's just keep it that way...let's respect each other nlng...

---000---

“If taken as prescribed, contraceptive pills prevent ovulation or the production of an egg, so that there is nothing for sperm cells to fertilize, hence there is no pregnancy and there will be no abortion,” he explains. “If you analyze the reproductive chain, there is nothing to abort. Before prescribing contraceptive pills, the doctor makes sure that the patient is not pregnant, using reliable diagnostic procedures. There is no pregnancy, much less abortion. If the pills are taken as prescribed during the first five days of menstruation, the possibility of accidental ovulation (not pregnancy) is very small, and this is addressed by advising the patient to add seven days more of abstinence, or to use another contraceptive method during those seven days.”

He adds, “When a particular hormone pill in use is too weak for an individual patient, there is bleeding, signaling that escape ovulation may become a risk in a few days. The patient is advised to abstain or use a second contraceptive method to avoid only even the risk of escape ovulation, and not pregnancy.”

According to the highly respected ob-gyne, the term “contraceptive” is actually a misnomer, since contraceptive pills actually prevent ovulation, not conception. “It would be more accurate to call them anti-ovulation pills or anti-ovulants rather than contraceptives,” Dr. Del Rosario points out. “Those who oppose the reproductive health legislation have often repeated that contraceptive or hormonal pills are abortifacients. This is not correct. It spreads wrong information about contraceptive pills by calling them abortifacients. This disinformation can confuse and mislead lay people.”

source: Noted ob-gyne says contraceptives not abortifacients, Dr. Santiago del Rosario