Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

Elevators get crowded because people want to get in them. The actual population of he entire neighborhood hardly counts. It's not population, it's management that counts.

As for land, you can also look out the window on your next airplane flight. Most land is uninhabited and unused.

Land and living space are NOT something we will run out of because of population growth. Mismanagement, however, and other factors such as war, can ensure we will never have enough of anything. So, why address population (which won't matter) when the other factors are far more relevant?


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

[giddyboy]

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?

gosh, humana ta ani manny. The bill did not say it is basing its assumption on overpopulation. Overpopulation is a myth. and all of us already know that.

what is implied here is the correlation of two variables such as family size and poverty. Take note that i am not talking about overpopulation. and we already discussed that long before: there is a correlation between family size and poverty incidence, between family size and poverty gap, between family size and poverty severity, and between family size and poverty vulnerability.

There is also a correlation between population density and poverty incidence just like when you say there is a correlation between corruption and poverty. again, i am not talking about overpopulation here.

Correlation does not imply causation but it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise.

that's why the RH Bill simply recognizes the verifiable link (or correlation) between population and poverty. The connection (correlation) between population and development is well-documented and empirically established. again, it does not talk about overpopulation.

[giddyboy]

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?

how do u know it's a waste of money when under our present setup, LGU's are even implementing by themselves their own varied RH programs? they are already there even before legislators thought of an RH Bill!!! but the problem is, the programs they have is not yet national and comprehensive in scope. EVEN WITH NFP, THE GOV'T ALSO HAVE TO SPEND! so pasabot diay nimo if the gov't spends for contraceptives is a waste of people's money but if the gov't spends for NFP it is not? for all i know, the gov't might not even spend for contraceptives coz many NGO's whether local or international might give it to them for free.

and do u know how much our gov't will spend on health and on medicines? how much piece of the pie will the free contraceptives or other forms like NFP be compared to medicines that cure sicknesses once this bill will be passed?

did u even know that not a single centavo was spent by the gov't on contraceptives since Gloria? and did you know that the gov't funded the Couples for Christ (CoC) w/ 50 whooping million pesos just to promote NFP? and asa naman na? unsa may resulta sa ilang promotion? did they even liquidate the expenses properly? wala gyud nyor! in fact, murag gikaso man gani ang top heads sa CoC tungod ani ky murag tua sa personal lifestyle expenses napadung ang wawarts!

so first things first, before you complain, you should first know the figures!!!

dili man sab cguro tonto ang mga legislators noh to prioritize RH over other more important concerns noh? it is just a matter of listing priorities in order of importance. but nevertheless, they should be in the list! they should be in the budget!

[mannyamador]

what is implied here is the correlation of two variables such as family size and poverty.

And I have already shown that such a correlation DOES NOT EXIST. That is what we mean when we say overpopulation is a myth.

Correlation does not imply causation but it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise.

A consistent, regular, and predictable correlation is, in a practical sense, the same as a cause. If the correlation is NOT regular, predictable, or consistent, then it is INSIGNIFICANT and as such is not a valid basis for public policy.

The presumptions of the RH bill are NOT based on any verifiable and established scientific facts, There is NO NEED for a population control policy because population size and growth has no negative effects. Population size and growth have never been a problem and they never will be. This is already an established fact in the First World. We have to disabuse people of the antedeluvian mindset and get into the modern world.

IS POPULATION GROWTH A DRAG ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/...es/CATONEW.txt

For many years until recently, it was thought by "development economists" that population growth is a drag upon economic development in poor countries. And even after a considerable shift in professional opinion in the 1980s, population growth is commonly believed to hinder development. This belief was the underlying assumption at the United Nations' World Population Conference in Cairo in 1994 just as it was at previous World Population Conferences and as it probably will be again at the World Population Conference in 2004, irrespective of respectable scientific opinion.

In accord with the earlier professional opinion, since the early 1960's official institutions such as the U.S. State Department's Agency for International Development (AID), the World Bank, and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), have acted on the assumption that population growth is the key determinant of economic development. This belief has misdirected attention away from the central factor in a country's economic development: its economic and political system. This misplaced attention has resulted in unsound economic advice being given to developing nations. It also has caused (or allowed) the misdiagnosis of such world development problems as supplies of natural resources, starving children, illiteracy, pollution, and slow growth.

From the 1970s through the date of this publication, the U.S. government directly and indirectly has been spending
hundreds of millions of dollars annually in foreign assistance for family planning and other programs aimed at slowing population growth in the poorer countries. Not only could these funds have been put to other purposes, but in some cases, the population control programs funded by U.S. taxpayers have involved coercive policies designed to reduce birth rates in LDCs.

One reason that population growth has been viewed as a villain is that poor countries tend to have a high birth rate. And it seems "common sense" that if fewer babies were born, there would be more of the supposedly fixed quantities of food and housing to go around. Furthermore, in earlier decades most economists did not have another persuasive explanation of growth and wealth. Population growth became the villain by default.

The belief that population growth slows economic development is not a wrong but harmless idea. Rather, it has been the basis for inhumane programs of coercion and the denial of personal liberty in one of the most valued choices a family can make -- the number of children that it wishes to bear and raise. Also, harm has been done to the U. S. as donor of foreign aid, over and beyond the funds themselves, by way of money laundered through international organizations that comes back to finance domestic population propaganda organizations, and so on. This topic has been addressed in detail elsewhere (Simon, 1981, Chapters 21, 22)

This paper makes two points. First, there is persuasive explanation for why some countries grow faster than others, and the explanation has nothing to do with population growth. This factor leaves little room for population growth to be the cause of slow growth. Second, there is persuasive direct statistical evidence that population growth is not associated negatively with economic development in the short or intermediate run, and may well be a positive influence in the long run. A corollary is that a more dense population does not hamper population growth.

In the very short run, additional people are an added burden. But under conditions of freedom, population growth poses less of a problem in the short run, and brings many more benefits in the long run, than under conditions of government control.

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

[cypher86]

Elevators get crowded because people want to get in them. The actual population of he entire neighborhood hardly counts. It's not population, it's management that counts.

As for land, you can also look out the window on your next airplane flight. Most land is uninhabited and unused.

Land and living space are NOT something we will run out of because of population growth. Mismanagement, however, and other factors such as war, can ensure we will never have enough of anything. So, why address population (which won't matter) when the other factors are far more relevant?

>>1st part: Your answer doesnt address the issue. Chewbacca defense.
>>2nd part: But those lands are mostly already owned
>>3rd part: sorry, economics and simple mathematics tells me othewise
>>4th part : why address population? why not? So what if there are other factors, population is still one of them.

WAR can never be avoided because we as humans, often have different views with matters that would eventually create conflict, resentment and eventually war.

Mismanagement(aka maldistribution; further known as corruption) also cannot be avoided, and can never be corrected because humans by their very nature are greedy whores

[mannyamador]

how do u know it's a waste of money when under our present setup

That is irrelevant. Contraceptives are a waste of money no matter if it is the LGUs or the National Government that spends. They do NOT cure any real disease. Again I ask (and you will probabkly refuse to answer like you have refused before):

WHY SPEND BILLIONS ON FREE CONTRACEPTIVES THAT DO NO CURE ANY DISEASE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT EVEN AFFORD TO GIVE FREE MEDICINES TO CURE REAL KILLER DISEASES? YOUR PRIORITIES ARE SKEWED!

Unlike contraceptives, NFP has real benefits that go beyond mere population control. For example, NFP can help enhance committed relationships, This is is very much the opposite of artificial contraceptives which encourages causal relationships (this effect of contraceptives has been proven by many studies).

• Increased access to contraception not linked to decrease in numbers of unplanned pregnancies, abortions
  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20761
  
  
  The belief that increased access to contraception will “reduce rates of unintended
  pregnancy and abortion” has “intuitive appeal, but the data prove otherwise,”
  Susan Wills, associate director for education for the U.S. Conference of Catholic
  Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, writes in a Washington Post letter to
  the editor in response to a Post opinion piece by William Saletan, science and
  technology reporter for Slate magazine.
  
  
• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  
  
  The persistence in sexual activity is such that policies that affect access to
  contraception will have very different effects in the short run than the long run.
  Our results suggest that increasing access to contraception may actually increase
  long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other
  and, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity,
  are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long run.

Stable families result in less crime and juvenile delinquency. NFP is also far more cheaper in the long run than artificial contraceptives. Thus NFP is a good investment for the state. Contraceptives are NOT. In fact, state-fudned contraceptive programs are often COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!

• “Comprehensive” *** Education is Ineffective: Abstinence Works, Major National Study Shows
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html
  
  
• £6 Million Government Reduction Program Resulted in More than Twice as Many Teen Pregnancies
  More than half of UK teen pregnancies end in abortion
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070904.html

The RH bill will cause untold suffering and mangle our health system. More people will die because of your misplaced priorities -- all because you want to fulfill your selfish desires. That is grossly irresponsible.

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

[mannyamador]

>>1st part: Your answer doesnt address the issue. Chewbacca defense.
>>2nd part: But those lands are mostly already owned
>>3rd part: sorry, economics and simple mathematics tells me othewise
>>4th part : why address population? why not? So what if there are other factors, population is still one of them.

Responses to respective numbered items:

1. Non sequitur. Your elevator example never addressed the issue either.
   
   
2. Owned lands can be sold and used; re-sold and re-used. We're not running out of land.
   
   
3. Economics and mathematics reveals the exact opposite of your claim. Try reading Julian Simon, an economist. I posted one of his articles above.
   
   
4. You have not been able to show that it is a factor at all. In fact, expert economists like Simon and Kuznetz say population growth is not a negative factor at all.

Some food for thought:

• Overpopulation: Myths, Facts, and Politics
  http://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml
  
  
• Beware the population alarmists
  http://www.criticalopinion.org/articles/64
  
  
• Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth
  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/colu...erennial-myth/
  
  
• What Women Want: Not Reproductive Oppression
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07113009.html

WAR can never be avoided because we as humans, often have different views with matters that would eventually create conflict, resentment and eventually war.

Historically, many wars can and have been avoided. Wars are not a fait accompli.

Mismanagement (aka maldistribution; further known as corruption) also cannot be avoided, and can never be corrected because humans by their very nature are greedy whores

There are well-managed economies with less corruption, both in the small and large scale. Mismanagement can -- and has -- often be minimized to the point where it is not a major debilitating factor.

[giddyboy]

And I have already shown that such a correlation DOES NOT EXIST. That is what we mean when we say overpopulation is a myth.

A consistent, regular, and predictable correlation is, in a practical sense, the same as a cause. If the correlation is NOT regular, predictable, or consistent, then it is INSIGNIFICANT is not a valid basis for public policy.

ok mannyboy, if u say there is no correlation, can u please show us a correlation chart between family size and poverty incidence that shows a coefficient of zero, meaning there is no correlation?

remember, in stat, the closer the coefficient is to either −1 or 1, the stronger the correlation between the variables. but if the variables are independent then the correlation is 0, or near to 0.

statistician man kha ka? ayaw na anang rhetorics, show us the statistical way! prove that the coefficient is zero!

as for me, i will try to find one that will prove my stance.

[mannyamador]

ok mannyboy, if u say there is no correlation, can u please show us a correlation chart between family size and poverty incidence that shows a coefficient of zero, meaning there is no correlation?

Since you are the one claiming there is a correlation, YOU must provide the evidence. You do know what argumentum ad ignorantiam is, don't you?

Furthermore, that evidence must stand up to critical scrutiny. One author tried to provide such a statistical correlation before, and we debunked it quite thoroughly. Perhaps you will regurgitate that same faulty "evidence"? I still have the PDF. Hehehe...

And you still have no response to my question above. You have been avoiding it for months! Will you ever have a response? Hehehe

Here it is again, restated to make it easier:

Please give a reason why any other point after fertilization should be considered the beginning of human life. If the fertilized ovum is just a clump of cells, what suddenly make it human life just because it has a change of location (attaches to the uterus, as per your idea of "conception")? There is no logical reason why any point after fertilization should be the beginning of human life.

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

[bcasabee]

Ning hatag na pud ka ug good example brad nganong wala jud gamit ang RH Bill to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Kay tan-awa ragud, pwerteng nimong pagkasipyata, pasinganlan pang uyab nga kamo man duhay nagbuhat, pero in the end, no regrets ra diay gihapon.

Imagina ra gud bro, kung tanang tawo sa pilipinas mag pills unya libre gikan sa gobyerno unya mangasipyat ra gihapon diay, pwerteng pagka alkanseha? Ang gobyerno, mura ra ug gahikog anang sitwasyona. Ang solution lagi ana, dili lagi padala sa biga^. Hay, mao rang walay asenso ang Pilipinas kay ang mga tawo gusto ra pahayahay. Disiplinadoha pud inyo kaugalingon uy, antos pud mo gingagmay.

ngek... nganong imo mang apilon ang RH bill? nga human error man ang nahitabo... hahaha why man mangita og lusot para ma blame ang RH bill? tinu-od careless akoang uyab pero dili na pasabot kay tungod walay gamit ang RH bill. FYI sad my son is very health little boy and i have no regrets about it.

ad baya ni mr. mannyamador kay "The Pill Kills".