Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

Population and Feeding the World
http://www.globalissues.org/article/...ding-the-world

"World hunger is extensive in spite of sufficient global food resources. Therefore increased food production is no solution. The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Therefore measures solving the poverty problem is what is required to solve the world hunger problem"

-- It is a myth that world hunger is due to scarcity of food

The food scarcity part of the argument in the population debate is an interesting one—people are hungry because they cannot afford food, not because the population is growing so fast that food is becoming scarce.

As discussed further in the Genetically Engineered Food section of this web site, international trade and economic policies that have lead to immense poverty and hunger, not food scarcity due to over population. In other words, this is a political problem, not necessarily a shortage problem.

Oftentimes, people make the argument that population increases increases the lack of food or ability to provide enough food to sustain such growth. However, for many decades food production has more than kept up with population growth. As Greenpeace has noted, most hungry people live in countries that have food surpluses rather than deficits.

When weighing the impacts on demands by populations versus the way large chemical companies and industrial agricultural businesses promote certain types of agricultural practices, and the serious threat of top soil loss (which will affect yields in the future, where large populations could feel an additional burden), it is less certain that populations and “over” population is the main cause.

Land Rights
http://www.globalissues.org/article/201/land-rights

Whoever controls the land controls its use

One important aspect about the causes of hunger is often ignored; that is, land ownership and who controls the land.

The following passage summarizes it very well, asking "Is It Overpopulation or Who Controls the Land?"

"The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that "there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously since.

Through repeated acts of enclosure the peasants were pushed off the land so that the gentry could make money raising wool for the new and highly productive power looms. They could not do this if the peasants were to retain their historic entitlement [emphasis is original] to a share of production from the land. Massive starvation was the inevitable result of this expropriation.

There were serious discussions in learned circles about overpopulation as the cause of this poverty. This was the accepted reason because a social and intellectual elite were doing the rationalizing. It was they who controlled the educational institutions which studied the problem. Naturally the final conclusions (at least those published) absolved the wealthy of any responsibility for the plight of the poor. The absurdity of suggesting that England was then overpopulated is clear when we realize that "the total population of England in the sixteenth century was less than in any one of several present-day English cities."

The hunger in underdeveloped countries today is equally tragic and absurd. Their European colonizers understood well that ownership of land gave the owner control over what society produced. The most powerful simply redistributed the valuable land titles to themselves, eradicating millennia-old traditions of common use. Since custom is a form of ownership, the shared use of land could not be permitted. If ever reestablished, this ancient practice would reduce the rights of these new owners. For this reason, much of the land went unused or underused until the owners could do so profitably. This is the pattern of land use that characterizes most Third World countries today, and it is this that generates hunger in the world.

These conquered people are kept in a state of relative impoverishment. Permitting them any substantial share of the wealth would negate the historic reason for conquest -- namely plunder. The ongoing role of Third World countries is to be the supplier of cheap and plentiful raw materials and agricultural products to the developed world. Nature's wealth was, and is, being controlled to fulfill the needs of the world's affluent people. The U.S. is one of the prime beneficiaries of this well-established system. Our great universities search diligently for "the answer" to the problem of poverty and hunger. They invariably find it in "lack of motivation, inadequate or no education," or some other self-serving excuse. They look at everything except the cause -- the powerful own the world's social wealth. As a major beneficiary, we have much to gain by perpetuating the myths of overpopulations, cultural and racial inferiority, and so forth. The real causes must be kept from ourselves, as how else can this systematic damaging of others be squared with what we are taught about democracy, rights, freedom, and justice?"

-- J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, (New World's Press, 1989), pp. 44, 45.

Many have pointed out over the years that even the US Founding Fathers understood this very well, to the effect that some elites were able to affect the Constitution in this manner:

"Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of the American Revolution and an attempt to place a proclamation in the Constitution for a "common right of the whole nation to the whole of the land," the powerful looked out for their own interests by changing Locke's insightful phrase: "all men are entitled to life, liberty and land." This powerful statement that all could understand coming from a well-read and respected philosopher was a threat to the monopolizers of land, so they restructured those words to "life, liberty and [the meaningless phrase] pursuit of happiness." Knowledge of the substitution for phrases in America's Constitution which would protect every person's rights with phrases that protect only the rights of a few should alert one to check the meaning and purpose of all laws of all societies carefully."

-- J.W. Smith, Subtly Monopolizing Land

Food production and population growth

The Washington D.C-based World Resource Institute point out that "[f]ood production has more than kept pace with global population growth. On average, food supplies are 24 percent higher per person than in 1961, and real prices are 40 percent lower. Over the same period, the global population has doubled from 3 to 6 billion people. Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific." (The World Resource Institute quote the report "World Resources 2000-2001-- People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life" that was prepared by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank, and the World Resources Institute.)

However, they continue to then importantly also point out that this "may mask negative trends in the underlying biophysical capacity of agroecosystems, e.g., nutrient mining, soil erosion, and overextraction of groundwater resources." Basically, while population numbers do have an impact on land, by making additional demands, current (industrial) agricultural methods are damaging to the land and the environment, which affects us all.

As Peter Rosset points out, the methods of requiring more pesticide use etc from larger industrial farms is harmful to the environment, and smaller farms may be more efficient and at the same time friendlier to biodiversity and the ecosystems. Vandana Shiva, in her book Stolen Harvest (South End Press, 2000) for example, also points out how industrial farming methods, using monocultures (single crops) result in a tremendous loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, excessive water usage and so forth.


Causes of food scarcity and food security

Another impact of land ownership, and the concentration or control of it (especially the latter in the global sense) has led to those who are powerful to be able to influence international economic and trade agreements in their favor. This also impacts food production, its distribution and its consumption, which in turn affects the food security of many nations.

• In many cases where food is grown, it is often for exports.
• In some cases, while local people may be going hungry, they are growing food to export for the hard cash that would be earned.
• However, this increasingly export-oriented led policy for the poor is being promoted and heavily pushed to the poorer countries by the wealthier North, IMF and World Bank, as detailed in the Structural Adjustment section on this site.
• The result of this is that the wealthier nations would benefit in cheaper products and food being exported to them, while poorer countries would lose out. Their land goes to growing food, but not for themselves.
• Additionally, because so many poor countries are doing this, there is a lot of food being grown, more than needed normally by the rich nations and a lot of it going to waste through either discard, or through wasteful consumption. Valuable land is therefore misused, as described in the poverty section's page on hunger.
• As well as misused, land may be well used, but not to meet people's needs -- for example, as also detailed by that previous link, much land is used up to grow cattle (for beef etc in fast food restaurants), lots of sugar, tobacco, tea, coffee and other "luxuries turned into necessities". Not that we need to do away with all of these things (maybe tobacco!) but that these are grown disproportionately to real needs/demands. They are grown for over-consumption based demands of wealthier countries. This hints at the enormous waste in land use. Already this therefore questions the simple observation of hunger and large populations being related issues. (We will see a lot more detail on consumption issue versus population numbers to explain major causes of environmental degradation in the next part on this issue of populations.)
• Further, hunger itself is not addressed -- in some cases it will continue, and in others it can get worse.
• There are of course, chances that improved economies will result, allowing better affordability of food. However, as also detailed in the structural adjustment section of this web site, most have not fared will from these SAPs. Besides, if the rich are being fed by the poor, who will feed the poor?
• These free trade agreements that reduce subsidies on local farms etc, has a worse impact on developing countries with few resources. We hear of these subsidies being "barriers" for foreign investment. Yet, the nature of the foreign investment isn't to help promote self-sufficiency etc. It is to follow on from what the SAPs opened up -- that is, SAPs opened up these economies, companies etc can go in and now help "export" base foods and commodities. Yet, the wealthier nations realize the importance of food security and heavily subsidize their own farming infrastructures:
  
  
  "While subsidies are viewed as barriers by companies outside the region, they are critical incentives for the smallholder farmers especially those in southern Africa, most of whom are still using traditional methods and are only just beginning to acquire vital modern technology. Large-scale commercial farmers in Europe and the US have been modernized for decades and have benefited from similar subsidies from their own governments for many years.
  
  Paradoxically, the European Union, one of the leading proponents of trade liberalization has one of the most protected agricultural sectors in the world through its Common Agricultural Policy. Such is the double standard of the EU that it forces developing countries, through the western-dominated World Trade Organization (WTO), to open up their economies when Europe's agriculture sector is the most highly subsidized in the world."
  
  -- Munetsi Madakufamba, Unequal 'freetrade' threatens food security, The Mail & Guardian (a South African national newspaper), August 13, 2001

The poor are hit the worst, as a result:

"[Farmers] producing [fruit and vegetables] for export markets has recently become more common. TNCs are increasingly involved in the production of crops that have traditionally not been exported. But export crops are replacing staple foods in some areas, resulting in food scarcities and rising food prices that hit hard at the poorest." (Emphasis Added).

-- John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p. 64

The above quote also indicated a cause of food scarcity -- political economics. I have only touched here how politics and economics impacts hunger. This is important, as there is often the claim that hunger is because of overpopulation and growth rates outpacing our ability to provide enough food etc. However, as the next section details, it is a "myth" that we have too many mouths to feed and the causes of hunger are not in "over" population, but in issues to do with economics and politics. This therefore hints where priorities should be placed by those concerned about world hunger related issues.

To be continued. Stay tuned! Just remember that population is NOT correlated with unger, poverty, or any other negative economic effect. We don't need population control.



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

[wakkanakka]

(the parasite that grows in the womb for 9 months) We must "err on the side of caution" so as not to inadvertently cause the unborn parasite to be killed.

It's not a parasite bro. It is a human. If it was a non-human parasite, then how did it become a human? Or are babies parasites too?

Just because it depends on the mom doesn't make it a parasite. If it is, then even old people that depend on oithers are parasites. And so are little kids. Can we kill them because of that?

Because That is abortion: killing people!

[wakkanakka]

the issue is not undecided. the issue is decided two ways: there are those who claim that contraceptives are abortifacient, but there are those that claim they are not.

So it IS UNDECIDED! That is why there is a controversy, because two sides don't agree. Can't you even see that? Blind now?

you cannot force people to use only NFP mannyboy! wake up from your little world!

But that doesn't mean the government should promote those abortifacients either! And that is what the RH bill will do. So YOU should wake up.

The risk of dying within a year of using pills is 1 in 200,000

Bro, the risk is to the unborn child! I think they already showed it happens 1-2% of the time with abortifacient contraceptives. Look at the figures given by @mannyamador. Your numbers are missing the point!

@mannyamador

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?

Haha! I bet he doesn't have an answer! Contraceptives should be low priority because there are like you said KILLER diseases that we cannot even afford to give free medicines for. So hwo is it we can suddenly afford to give free contraceptives that dont cure anyhting? Stupid kaayo ang priorities ni Mr. RH!

Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform | Abortifacient Facts

Wow! This has answered all of the lies of @giddybioy poiint for point! This for me is really convincing. No doubt at all: those contraceptives are abortion-causing!!!

[wakkanakka]

AND BY THE WAY @mannyamador,[/b][/size] 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?

Below the belt ka! I have an uncle who is even older (over 50) and he's not married But he's not gay. You are judging a book by its cover. That's stupid.

Ha! Maybe YOU are the one who's gay. And maybe you have a super crush on @mannyamador because he always beats you. Masochist! Does your wife know do guys too? Or do you lie to her also?

Grabe! You're too much. Liar na, closet gay pa, and then you accuse others of being gay even! Take a sip of your own medicine then!

[Deathnote]

tsk tsk tsk...abortion should never be the answer

[giddyboy]

Below the belt ka! I have an uncle who is even older (over 50) and he's not married But he's not gay. You are judging a book by its cover. That's stupid.

Ha! Maybe YOU are the one who's gay. And maybe you have a super crush on @mannyamador because he always beats you. Masochist! Does your wife know do guys too? Or do you lie to her also?

Grabe! You're too much. Liar na, closet gay pa, and then you accuse others of being gay even! Take a sip of your own medicine then!

i am just making a point...

im not gay. i have a wife and a kid. im not against gays but im against those who says they know more about matters concerning married couples or partners when in fact they are not even married in the first place, or worse, didn't even experience making love to the opposite ***! unless lang cguro if he is a priest! but then again, a priest need not promote the use of condoms but should not ban them.

so what's being below the belt here? what's below the belt is accusing me of being a liar!

[giddyboy]

So it IS UNDECIDED! That is why there is a controversy, because two sides don't agree. Can't you even see that? Blind now?

just because 2 sides don't agree means the issue is undecided...which authority says that it is undecided? the church? pro-life orgs? do they even have the authority then when it comes to State affairs? I don't think so.

the more correct thing to say is that different States have already decided. some already decided in favor of contraceptives. some not.

Our State has already decided in favor of dispensing medically and legally permissible contraceptives via 2 RA's. but because of PGMA's executive powers, she decided to promote only NFP in public health centers while pharmacies are free to dispense or sell contraceptives. are you blind now?

all of that has been decided!!!

what is undecided pa on this matter instead is the RH Bill! it's because the bill is not yet a law.

now whether you talk about 2 sides that doesn't agree about the definition of conception and whether contraceptives are abortifacient or not, the authority we should look into is W.H.O., US FDA, and our BFAD. they already decided that certain contraceptives are not abortifacients! they already decided to put them in the list of essential medicines! and if there are any needed changes on those, it's up to them to decide but it doesn't mean they are undecided...so who is blind now?

[giddyboy]

Haha! I bet he doesn't have an answer! Contraceptives should be low priority because there are like you said KILLER diseases that we cannot even afford to give free medicines for. So hwo is it we can suddenly afford to give free contraceptives that dont cure anyhting? Stupid kaayo ang priorities ni Mr. RH!

The RH Bill is not only about contraceptives. heck it's not even all about MFP or NFP. there are other lots of issues that the bill addresses. and i am not saying that we have to put the RH Bill more priority than those that needed more attention. i'm not stupid you know. the Congressmen are not stupid too!

if you say contraceptives should be low priority, then i think the legislators knew that well too. like i said, the RH Bill is not only about contraceptives.

So even if you say contraceptives should be low priority, it can't be a good reason why the RH Bill can't be passed. all bills should be passed on merit whether low priority or high.

btw, asa naman ang gipanghambog ni manny nga anti-abortifacient bill? was there papers submitted? or ga mugna mugna ra nga naa? pls show proof that you have submitted one to Congress! pls show transcript of records! otherwise, i will have to call you a BIG FAT LIAR.

in the meantime while i wait for an answer, i will give you some questions instead:

How do you want to address the fact that out of 10 Filipino women who die during childbirth, 6 deaths are due to lack of maternity facilities, midwives, and obstetricians in depressed and rural areas? By a national policy or your religious dogma?

How do you want to address the fact that Filipino couples, especially those who are needy, doesn't have access to information and services on safe and legally accepted family planning methods, whether natural or artificial? By a national policy or your religious dogma?

How do you want to address the fact that unwanted pregnancies and criminal abortions have been increasing in our country? By a national policy or your religious dogma?

How do you want to address the fact that decision should be left to each Filipino couple to determine how to space and how many children they can support for a decent life and education?

[giddyboy]

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.

I didn't specifically say condoms. i was talking about contraceptives in general. Prescription contraceptives like pills and IUD are only available in pharmacies and not from public health centers per PGMA's exec policy. You know that.

if u talk about condoms, yes they are not only sold in pharmacies but also in gas stations and other convenience stores. that is a fact. i know that. in fact, im against that.

but that even shows not only your bigotry but also being a hippo. you yak and yak about contraceptives in the RH Bill but didn't even make a budge about why condoms are sold everywhere in the first place. you didn't even make a budge when asked why herbal pampa regla is proliferating in the streets and even near churches. that's having a double standard my friend...

[giddyboy]

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.

i didn't say i want to keep priests out of public life. don't put words into my mouth. i was just wondering why. can't you even tell the difference?

I know that the Consti does not prohibit priests from participating in such. but i just found out the more correct answer is that Cory during that time appointed 50 members to the Commission. The members of the Commission were drawn from varied backgrounds, including several former congressmen, former SC Chief Justice, a Catholic bishop, film director, and perhaps a couple of priests too.

so to answer the "why" is that members have to be drawn from varied backgrounds...