Legalize Abortion?

[icon_king]

---

ug legalize ang abortion , legalize pod ang killing. mada ba kaha ni?

[giddyboy]

All Filipino values are Catholic values!

sorry but i believe u got the wrong logic there. Not all Filipino values are Catholic values.

anyways, our topic is about abortion.

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

---000---

@mannyamador: sorry kau girl, but your smear campaign against the RH Bill and pulpit-bashings are already futile at this point. all you can do now is to convince Gloria to veto the bill. but remember others are also convincing her to do otherwise. "matira ang matibay" nlng, they say.

RH bill’s supporters outnumber critics
Saturday, July 25, 2009

A CEBU City congressman said yesterday the lawmakers who support the Reproductive Health Bill can now muster a quorum and perhaps even a majority in support of it.

Deputy House Speaker Raul del Mar (Cebu City, north) said that with no hope of stopping the bill in both chambers of Congress, it would be up to President Arroyo to stop the controversial bill from being passed into law...

The congressman attended yesterday afternoon’s March for Life held in the Fuente Osmeña circle, and told reporters the fight against the bill has become an uphill battle.

...Del Mar revealed that more lawmakers have become co-authors of the bill.

He said he expects majority of the Senate will support the bill (Sen. Manny Villar and Chiz Escudero already supported the bill), save for Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., who has expressed his opinion against it.

The bill seeks, among others, to provide for family planning methods such as tubal ligation, vasectomy and intrauterine devices in all national and local government hospitals; to consider contraceptives as essential medicines that should be regularly purchased by government hospitals and clinics; and to provide for mandatory age-appropriate Reproductive Health Education starting from Grade 5 to fourth year high school.

full article:
RH bill?s supporters outnumber critics, ?but GMA may veto it? | Sun.Star Network Online

well, doesn't the good Rep del Mar know too that the fight in support of the bill has also become an uphill battle?

[joshua259]

the MINORITY cannot implement "Abstinence" to the MAJORITY because that is their HAPPINESS and their RIGHT.

[giddyboy]

the MINORITY cannot implement "Abstinence" to the MAJORITY because that is their HAPPINESS and their RIGHT.

sakto gyud ka kaayo. on the same breadth: No one should insist on forcing their morals upon others.

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

---000---

AND BY THE WAY @mannyamador, if i'm not mistaken Manoy, you are 47 YRS OLD, gi uban na halos tanan buhok, but still no wife and kids. all along I could be right about you. again, if i'm not mistaken, you are gay, right? I don't have anything against gays, old singles, or childless people. In fact, i am supporting gay rights. I am supporting senior citizens coz my mom and dad are already one.

but you should not insist on forcing your morality upon others. how can you even talk about matters concerning reproductive health, matters concerning married couples, and what couples should teach their children when you yourself haven't experienced it at all!?!

[mannyamador]

NO TO THE RH BILL AND NO TO ABORTION!!!
Cebu and the Philippines belong to God! All Filipino values are Catholic values!

Well said! The pro-RH fanatics are trying to impose immoral and selfish rules on the Filipino people.

They even want to impose a non-scientific and arbitrary definition of when human life begins!

Take note that the RH fanatics here have NOT even been able to give a reason why any other point after fertilization should be considered the beginning of human life (or their idea of "conception"). If the fertilized ovum is just a clump of cells, what suddenly make it human life? There is not logical reason why any point after fertilization should be the beginning of human life.

In the case of the Phils., contraceptives are only available in pharmacies lately.

This is an OUTRIGHT LIE. I just saw condoms (which are contraceptives) available in ordinary retail stores last weekend -- right beside the section where teen and kids' comics were sold! They are available all over the place.

It is amazing how low you will stoop -- even resorting to bald-faced lies -- to promote your deadly agenda!



NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the deadly Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

coz that's because he based "conception" from the definition of pro-lifers and his borrowed articles which is during fertilization when the sperm meets the egg.

If you think there is a better definition, pleas show us why it is better. What suddenly makes a "clump of cells" become a human being simply because it is now in a different place (attached to the uterus)? I have been asking you to prove your claim for months. So far, NOTHING. NO ANSWER. All you do is make claims, but cannot prove them.

they even went as far as saying that the use of condoms is against nature. so that means to err on the side of caution is we should not even use condoms daw.

You are such a LIAR. I never said not using condoms was "playing it safe" in the above context. Using condoms is against nature, that is true, but so is using all artificial contraceptives. That is not involved in the issue of "playing it safe." So your statement is irrelevant. The idea of "playing it safe" involves the use abortifacient contraceptives, and as I have said many times, the condom is NOT abortifacient.

but some would argue that is not the case coz even during menstruation, many fertilized egg fail to implant on the uterus. so if we follow their logic, many fertilized eggs were unintentionally aborted diay during menstruation. but of course they would argue that death is a natural phenomenon.

It is. This above statement is therefore irrelevant. There's no "playing it safe" if it occurs without you being abkle to do anything about it. There's no way to "play it safe"..

I even wonder why a priest is included in making our Constitution.

it is the right of priests to participate in such activities. Fr. Bernas is a Filipino citizen. The Philippine Constitution does NOT prohibit priests from participating in such. You only want to keep them out of public life because priests are able to expose the lies of your pro-RH fanatics.

the exact term he used then was "play it safe". and even though our Consti did not specifically say "moment of conception" is during fertilization, he wants us to "assume" that it is.

The Constitutional Commission EXPLICITLY MADE THAT ASSUMPTION. It assumed that human life began at fertilization so that they could "play it safe". They even took a vote on it! But of course you omitted that part. Such deception!

other definition of "conception" is not during fertilization but during implantation when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus. but of course, pro-life groups would insist the definition is arbitrary.

If you say youtr definition is not arbitrary then prove that it is a better definition, as I have been asking you to do for months now. Why should the simple transfer of location (for example, from the fallopian tubes to the uterus, etc.) suddenly make a "clump of cells" human life? So far you have NOT been able to giver a single logical reason why we should accept your definition. So it is therefore ARBITRARY.

Pro-life groups even consider invitro-fertilization as committing abortion.

That's because IVF involves discarding many fertilized eggs -- which are living human embryos. This is abortion, plain and simple, even by YOUR definition of the term.

All your reasons have been shown to be irrelevant and deceptive. You've been buried by the truth.


NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the deadly Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Aren't pro-lifers trying to impose morality?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life011.html

Some abortion-rights advocates argue that it is simply wrong for anyone to “force” his or her own view of what is morally right on someone else. Consequently, they argue that pro-lifers, by attempting to forbid women from having abortions, are trying to force their morality on others.

What's wrong with this argument?

First, it does not seem obvious that it is always wrong to impose one's morality on others. For instance, laws against drunk driving, murder, smoking crack, robbery, and child molestation are all intended to impose a particular moral perspective on the free moral agency of others. Such laws are instituted because the acts they are intended to prevent often obstruct the free agency of other persons; for example, a person killed by a drunk driver is prevented from exercising his free agency.

These laws seek to maintain a just and orderly society by limiting some free moral agency (e.g., choices that result in drunk driving, murder, etc.) so that in the long run free moral agency is increased for a greater number (e.g., less people will be killed by drunk drivers and murderers, and hence there will be a greater number who will be able to act as free moral agents).

Therefore, a law forbidding abortion would unjustly impose one's morality upon another only if the act of abortion does not limit the free agency of another. That is to say, if the unborn entity is fully human, forbidding abortions would be perfectly just, since abortion, by killing the unborn human, limits the free agency of another. Once again, unless the pro-choice advocate assumes that the unborn are not fully human, his or her argument is not successful.

Although it does not seriously damage their entire position, it is interesting to note that many abortion-rights advocates do not hesitate to impose their moral perspective on others when they call for the use of other people's tax dollars (many of whom do not approve of this use of funds) to help pay for the abortions of poor women.


Some people argue that it is not wise to make a public policy decision in one direction when there is wide diversity of opinion within society. This argument can be outlined in the following way:

Premise

1. There can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on any issue on which there is widespread disagreement.
   
   
2. There is widespread disagreement on the issue of forbidding abortion on demand.
   
   
3. Therefore, any law that forbids people to have abortions is unjust.

In reality, there is not widespread disagreement on the question of whether abortion on demand should be forbidden.

Polls have shown that a great majority of Americans, although supporting a woman's right to an abortion in the rare “hard cases” (such as rape, incest, and severe fetal deformity), do not support the pro-choice position of abortion-on-demand. In other words, they do not agree that abortion should remain legal during the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason the woman deems fit.[1]

Furthermore, if the “widespread disagreement” premise (a) were true, then the pro-choice advocate would have to admit that the United States Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, was an unjust decision, since the court ruled that the states which make up the United States, whose statutes prior to the ruling disagreed on the abortion issue, must behave uniformly in accordance with the Court's decision. But since the pro-choicer denies that Roe was an unjust decision, he or she must also concede that it is false to hold that "there can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on any issue on which there is widespread disagreement."

If the "widespread disagreement" premise (a) were true, then the abolition of slavery would have to be regarded as unjust, because there was widespread disagreement of opinion among Americans in the nineteenth century. Yet no pro-choicer would say that slavery should have remained as an institution.

If the “widespread disagreement” premise (a) were true, then much of civil rights legislation, about which there was much disagreement, would be unjust.

If the “widespread disagreement” premise (a) were true, then a favorite pro-choice public policy proposal would also be unjust. Many pro-choicers believe that the federal government should use the tax dollars of the American people to fund the abortions of poor women. There are large numbers of Americans, however (some of whom are pro-choice), who do not want their tax dollars used in this way.

And, if premise (a) were true, then laws forbidding pro-life advocates (e.g., Operation Rescue) from preventing abortions would be unjust. One cannot deny that there is widespread disagreement concerning this issue. But these are the very laws which the pro-choicer supports. Hence, his or her argument is self-refuting.

REFERENCES

1. Ethan Bronner, "Most in US Favor Ban on Majority of Abortions, Poll Finds," The Boston Globe (31 March 1989), pp. 1, 12.

Author: Francis J. Beckwith. Adapted from a series in Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991. Provided with permission by Summit Ministries and the author. Edited for this publication by Paul S. Taylor, Eden Communications.

Copyright © 1995, 1998, Christian Research Institute, 1991, 1998, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.



NO TO ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL! NO TO ABORTION!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the deadly Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

The RH Bill does not claim that family planning is the panacea for poverty. It simply recognizes the correlation between population and poverty

This is another erroneous assumption of the pro-RH fanatics. There is no such correlation. Overpopulation is a myth. And if you can't solve poverty with population control, why waste money on it?

Ironically, even some sectors of the Communist government in China are slowly and BELATEDLY recognizing that overpopulation is a myth too. But our local pro-RH fanatics are still stuck in the Malthusian antedeluvian age of "overpopulation"!

Shanghai Starts Backpedaling One-Child Policy in Face of Demographic Implosion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072411.html

Although 2009 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the one-child policy, China's second largest city is not celebrating. Far from it. The Times Online reports that far from fearing overpopulation, the city of Shanghai has pleaded with married couples to help them stave off the looming crisis of demographic implosion by having a second child.

Shanghai has announced pro-procreation policy, that contrasts sharply with the rest of the nation's strict enforcement of the "one couple, one child" policy that has inflicted forced abortions, involuntary sterilizations, and catastrophic fines inflicted on the local population to limit the growth of its 1.3 billion persons. Yet the fewer numbers are exactly what has Shanghai worried, because the city is faced with not enough young men and women to sustain its aging population.

besides, health is everybody's concern. health is a gov't concern.

And wasting money on free contraceptives takes money away from REAL medicines that cure real killer diseases. This is an issue that you have been dodging for quite a while. Still no answer?

Emergency abortion used to treat ectopic pregnancies is legal and in no way immoral as it is meant to save the life of the mother in life-threatening situations.

This is actually a very rare occurrence compared to the total number of pregnancies. Most cases of "emergency contraception" involve aborting the child so the mother will not be inconvenienced by the pregnancy. This is a fact that you are trying to ignore because it undermines your claims. The RH bill actually IGNORES the crime of abortion and does not mandate that women who have had abortions will be reported. it simply sweeps these murderous crimes under the rug.

so you are now turning this forum into a malicious hate thread against foreigners diay ha.

Telling the truth is NOT spreading hatred. YOU are just trying to sidetrack the issue. We know you want to hide the real motives behind the foreign financial supporters of the RH bill. They believe abortion is a "right"and want to legalize that sick and murderous practice all over the world -- including the Philippines.

sakto gyud ka kaayo. on the same breadth: No one should insist on forcing their morals upon others.

So why are you FORCING the immoral and undemocratic provisions of the RH bill down our throats? Make no mistke about, the RH bill violates our human right and IMPOSES a deadly, anti-life "morality" upon our doctors, health workers, and employers. This has already been pointed out by many doctors!

Med experts slam birth-control bill
http://www.varsitarian.net/news/med_...h_control_bill

BIOETHICS experts, doctors, and other health professionals criticized Reproductive Health Bill 5043 for reducing maternal health into a matter of “pregnancy prevention” or fertility control and for styling itself as anti-abortion while promoting birth-control methods that are “potentially abortifacient agents.”

The RH bill violates doctors' and patients' rights (the unborn child is a patient protected by the Constitution)!



NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the deadly Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[cypher86]

Yet again, and again. It all boils down to who decides which actions are immoral or not, and what punishments are due to those who commit those acts.

In this country, where a vast majority of people are Catholics, Its very easy for the Tide to sway in favor of pro-lifers.

But consider this. In the middle east, women found to have relationships with men outside of marriage are stoned to death. Now that hardly seems "just", but to them it is. In their soceity, that is the social norm thats accepted throughout the land.

What I'm trying to say is that, everything, EVERYTHING. is conventional. what the majority of people agree upon becomes the law of the land, while the minority's opinion is simply muted.

Luckily for us(or unluckily, well let history be the judge of that), a growing number of filipinos are becoming more and more open minded(or blinded as how conservative groups put it). Straying away from the Hive Mind and begin think of their own accord and not just what is being spoon-fed to them as right and wrong.

hmm.. well see how this topic goes in a couple more years when newer generations discover this thread.. well see how and what they think with regards to all this ruckus ^_^

[cypher86]

This is another erroneous assumption of the pro-RH fanatics. There is no such correlation. Overpopulation is a myth. And if you can't solve poverty with population control, why waste money on it?

I mean no disrespect but uhhh..

You've never been in a crowded elevator have you?

Quote from Superman Returns:

Lex Luthor: Kitty, what did my father used to say to me?
Kitty Kowalski: You're losing your hair.
Lex Luthor: Before that.
Kitty Kowalski: Get out.
Lex Luthor: He said: You can print money, manufacture diamonds, and people are a dime a dozen, but they'll always need land. It's the one thing they're not making any more of.

-Lex Luthor; Superman Returns