Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[mannyamador]

---

i dont see anything wrong with being practical...

There's nothing practical about hiding one's head in the sand.

Eugenics IS a sick, arrogant form of human intervention into nature. There's nothing natural about it.

i cant stomach seeing those impoverished people endlessly multiplying...doing nothing but drink, gamble, and gossip all day...heck, they even have the guts to make heavy demands from the government...what part did they play in baking the pie that makes them worth having a choice piece of it?

First of all, who made them poor? Poor people generally work every bitas hard as you and I do -- no, they even work harder. I've seen them and have had the privilege or spending a little time with them. Only the most arrogant and foolish would have the gall to think that these people are inferior or do not want to work. They are not. They will work if given a fair chance, but thery are denied this by people who think like you do. Well, Jesus certainly chose to identify Himself with them inmstead of the selfish, tax-paying rich.

Filipinos are poor because of an unjust economic system that forces them to remain poor. We do NOT have a fair market system in the Philippines. The system is designed to allow the rich clans to keep their wealth and protect their interests. That is why it is so difficult for a poor farmer to get a title to his land (land ws the traditional sign and source of wealth). Government red tape and corruption makes it extremely difficult for the poor to run a legitimate business or get a decent loan -- so they resort to the black market. The money that is supposed to go for education is pocketed by corrupt officials or used to pay anomalous debts to rich countries. No wonder the people remain poor while a few rich get even richer.

Second, population control will NOT solve any of the above. It will just perpetuate the overpopulation myth, and allow the corrupt and the rich to keep the status quo. Population control does NOTHING about corruption, indiscriminate debt servicing, or greed. It is jsut a way of keeping the poor under control of the powers that be.

Nothing good or practical about that!

[cebu-future]

There's nothing practical about hiding one's head in the sand.

Eugenics IS a sick, arrogant form of human intervention into nature. There's nothing natural about it.



First of all, who made them poor? Poor people generally work every bitas hard as you and I do -- no, they even work harder. I've seen them and have had the privilege or spending a little time with them. Only the most arrogant and foolish would have the gall to think that these people are inferior or do not want to work. They are not. They will work if given a fair chance, but thery are denied this by people who think like you do. Well, Jesus certainly chose to identify Himself with them inmstead of the selfish, tax-paying rich.

Filipinos are poor because of an unjust economic system that forces them to remain poor. We do NOT have a fair market system in the Philippines. The system is designed to allow the rich clans to keep their wealth and protect their interests. That is why it is so difficult for a poor farmer to get a title to his land (land ws the traditional sign and source of wealth). Government red tape and corruption makes it extremely difficult for the poor to run a legitimate business or get a decent loan -- so they resort to the black market. The money that is supposed to go for education is pocketed by corrupt officials or used to pay anomalous debts to rich countries. No wonder the people remain poor while a few rich get even richer.

Second, population control will NOT solve any of the above. It will just perpetuate the overpopulation myth, and allow the corrupt and the rich to keep the status quo. Population control does NOTHING about corruption, indiscriminate debt servicing, or greed. It is jsut a way of keeping the poor under control of the powers that be.

Nothing good or practical about that!

What these couples do are just pasarap and then they just let their kids run all over the place without food, clothing, education, etc. I just want to ask you a personal question, how many kids do you have? Are you living in a big house or in a box.

Couples should make babies depending on how much they can afford. If they cannot afford 3 kids, they should not make 7 kids, that is sick.

Why do we believe in church when it is the most corrupt institution in the country? The church are good in collecting $$ from the people and take note, it is TAX free.

[johnny22aa]

Just because you choose to remian blind to the truth doesn't mean I have to "see" the same way you do.



You're burying your head in the sand. The companies that make those pills themselves already admitted that they cause a hostile endometrium. For example, the function of the Pill is described by one as "the rendering of the endometrium unreceptive to implantation"(ABPI Datasheet Compendium, Datapharm Publications Ltd., 1996-1997, (Femodene) p1007).

These contraceptives do not always suppress prevent ovulation or prevent conception. That is clearly the case as there is evidence of "breakthrough pregnancy". But this pregnancy rate is far, far below the rate of breakthrough ovulation. This wide discrepancy is a clear indication that at least some (and probably a significant number) of the fertilized eggs -- newly-concieved life -- are lost due to abortifacient action. See the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------
Contraceptive    Rate of Ovulation    Breakthrough Pregnancy
------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Pill    up to 5%             0.1***
Progestin-only
   Pill          40-60%               0.3
IUD              Up to 100%           0.6 
Norplant         10-50%*              0.09
Depo-Provera     1%**                 0.3 
------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
*   Rising with each consecutive year of use
**  Derived from 0.3-0.7% breakthrough pregnancies per year
*** Figures for 1st year of use given perfect usage

J. Kippley also estimated that the Combined Pill causes one early chemical abortion for every 88 menstrual cycles of a woman who continually uses it (Kippley, J., "The Pill and Eearly Abortion", All About Issues, 8, Aug-Sept 1989, pp22-23). This translates to 1.4 million pill-incuded abortions in the US in 1989, given around 10 milion users, according to Patrick McCrystal of Pharmacists for Life International.

A contraceptive is an abortifacient if any of this happens at all. The actual rate of abortion is irrelevant. Whether it's high or low, an abortion is an abortion. If the contraceptive causes it at all, then it is an abortifacient.

Finally, even if you are irrationally obstinate in your doubt, you must still err on the side of life. If there is any doubt, then you cannot assume that an abportion dopes not occur because we are talking about human life here. The value at stake is too great for reckless judgement. If you err on the side of caution, you preserve life. Even if you are wrong (and the contraceptive is not an abortifcient), no life is lost. But if you are not cautious, and the contraceptive is abortifacient, then you KILL someone.




A method that deliberately discards several newly-concieved lives (the fertilized eggs) in order to implant just one is certaoinly abortifacient. You kill several lives just to make one more. And you think that's not abortifacient? Get real.




Now that's just a matter of interpretation. When is the growth rate too high? Can you actually show that is does cause poverty on a national scale? No one has been able to do so, and neither can you. The studies show otherwise: population growth does NOT cause poverty or significantly affect it in any way. The evidence is pretty clear on that. But I suppose you will just ignore it.

Take note that decrease in population growth rates also leads to population ageing, which we are NOT prepared to handle. There are no mechanisms anywhere in the country to do so. In fact, we do not even know how to handle it. Population control has dangerous economic consequences that you have totally ignored as well.



Only because you choose to remain blind to the fact that many of these methods are abortifacient.



You're burying your head in the sand again. The figures speak for themselves. The Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion group, estimates that 60% of abortions are by women who were on some contraceptive when they became pregnant. That litte fact effectively sinks your argument completely.



Calling it crap doesn;'t change the facts. Your eally should try to find a real argument instead of resorting to foul language. You will look less silly that way

You really don't know much about NFP, I'm afraid. NFP doesn't rely on the old calendar method. It also uses the mucus method and basal body temperature method (BBT). All three combined are very accurate and it works even for women who have irregular periods. Of course this presumes that you know your partner, which pronotes commitment and fidelity -- and your irrational tactic of calling it "crap" doesn't change that fact.

You accuse the Church of lying, but is clearly YOU -- and those like you -- who who are lying. You can't even get your facts straight. And when your errors have been exposed, you resort to foul language. That is really a very clear indication that you don't have any rational arguments to stand on.




Why should he? Dispensing condoms is NOT a mandatory medical prtactice. It never has been. Killing may be part of a solfier's job, but contraception is NOT necessarily a doctor's or health worker's job. They have always had the right to refuse. Dispensing contraceptives is a NEW requirement being imposed by this anti-life bill. That is something you have convenienelty forgotten.

By the way, the hippocratic oath taken by doctors obliges them to nurture life, not destroy it, Again, that is yet another thing that you and the authors of this coercive anti-life bill have forgotten.

brader manny. my god. check ur references again. that was 10, 20 years ago. unsa na man tawn karon. maybe u forget how sophisticated medical breakthroughs right now. and its happening from time to time. just like celfone. the one u are using right now is no longer trendy in the next few months. and so w/ medical technologies. correct ka dat time birth control was very risky to take ky ubay2x jud ang side effects. but right now, it has really become safe and safer to take. take for example depo provera, karon u can now take (im not sure, its inject man tngali) as little as 100++ mg na lng. (before murag dako2x man daw). ug kanang mga daily pills imnon. in just 2 or 3 mg, its already as effective as its counterpart few years back wen it had more mg. that means, less ang mg, more & more tolerable for human consumption, safer & safer to take, and its getting more and more effective. il help u remember that this birth control scare began w/ thalidomide. u know how really frightful the side effects were (ka2ng babies nga way braso ug paa pag-anak nila). gradually, as the most studied drug in the world (again, according to dra abesamis chan - a well known obgyne here), birth control pills has a long way to go just like how it is so safe to take right now and is now fit as an everyday drug to serve its purpose.

ur references are WRONG. therefore ur argument here is ALSO WRONG & NOT VALID. ur mother shoud've taken thalidomide too before she made u.

[baby_grace]

Educating the people is the very first thing that should be done to resolve the issue on population. Instead of educating the people on the use of contraceptives or condoms, why not inform the people on the consequences of unwanted pregnancies which cause the population to increase every year? The stand of the President in not favoring artificial birth control methods is just in line with the policy of the Catholic Church against the same. But the Church should not just talk and talk, instead it should educate its own people on population or even the implications of man's sexual urges and earthly desires.

[johnny22aa]

btaw, PGMA was not in favor of artificial birth control as what mentioned sa SONA. quite disappointing for me. but this bill still needs to push through. go ghpon. go. as in go.

[wng]

Just because you choose to remian blind to the truth doesn't mean I have to "see" the same way you do.

You're burying your head in the sand.

I also don't have to see it the way you do. That doesn't mean am blind. And it doesn't mean am burying my head in the sand. Do you sincerely believe in what you post? Like you're calling something that there's a 1.1% chance of an embryo failing to implant as abortion? And calling all users as anti-life? That we need to increase our population as high as we can so that we can achieve economic prosperity?

How about treating ectopic pregnancies? You call that abortion too and we should not treat it? When it's a fertilized embryo that has 0% chance of surviving?

No one even conducted a study on it, but do you think all fertilized embryos will implant 100% of the time? For those women with infertility problems due to endometriosis and other ailments, they should prevent them from having *** altogether because it may be abortifacient?

A method that deliberately discards several newly-concieved lives (the fertilized eggs) in order to implant just one is certaoinly abortifacient. You kill several lives just to make one more. And you think that's not abortifacient? Get real.

It actually is multiple fertilized eggs implanted in an IVF. Because the success rates are low. Some just won't implant. If you want to call women who had IVF anti-life, go ahead as well... I don't they're desperately trying to conceive new life and you call them anti-life?

Now that's just a matter of interpretation. When is the growth rate too high? Can you actually show that is does cause poverty on a national scale? No one has been able to do so, and neither can you.

If you're reading any news at all, not those written by Catholic priests and not 10 to 20 years old, you will know that the Philippines has one of the highest birth rates while its HDI is actually dropping. Here's one of the quote from a news article: A recent ADB study shows only 23.8% of Filipinos families with 4 children are poor, compared with 48.7% of families with 7 children. The poverty gap and severity of deprivation in basic needs further worsen as family size increases.

You can also go through the list of countries according to birth rate: List of countries by birth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We're at #63 according to this list. But good luck trying to find a country whose economy you would like to emulate among those from #1 to #62. And it's no coincidence that you can see a lot of prosperous countries with lower birth rates.

Take note that decrease in population growth rates also leads to population ageing, which we are NOT prepared to handle. There are no mechanisms anywhere in the country to do so. In fact, we do not even know how to handle it. Population control has dangerous economic consequences that you have totally ignored as well.

I guess you are the one who needs to get his facts straight. I am aware of Japan having population aging. And also Singapore. Both are trying to encourage people to conceive more babies to prevent the problem. Why are we even trying to prepare for this problem when it is non-existent here? Those countries have birth rates way below the replacement level. Our birth rate is like 3 times more than theirs! Why do we need to prepare for population aging?

You're burying your head in the sand again. The figures speak for themselves. The Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion group, estimates that 60% of abortions are by women who were on some contraceptive when they became pregnant. That litte fact effectively sinks your argument completely.

Am asking you to give me the reason why the Catholic church does not allow vasectomy and ligation. They clearly have nothing to do with abortion. And am also asking you to give the abortion rate of MARRIED couples who already have children and where the husband and wife are the BIOLOGICAL parents of the conceived baby. I know NO abortions of this kind here in the Philippines. Do you? Whether they're using contraceptives or not, these people are NOT going to have an abortion!

Calling it crap doesn;'t change the facts. Your eally should try to find a real argument instead of resorting to foul language. You will look less silly that way

You really don't know much about NFP, I'm afraid. NFP doesn't rely on the old calendar method. It also uses the mucus method and basal body temperature method (BBT). All three combined are very accurate and it works even for women who have irregular periods. Of course this presumes that you know your partner, which pronotes commitment and fidelity -- and your irrational tactic of calling it "crap" doesn't change that fact.

Yeah, calling it crap doesn't change the fact that NFP has a high failure rate. Why don't you publish your data to compare NFP with other methods so everyone can be convinced that it really works? Checking for cervical mucus will promote commitment and fidelity? Or charting your spouse's chaotic temperature? Ask your spouse and ask your ob/gyne. After a woman gives birth, a lot of things in her body changes. So you're asking a woman who gave birth to 4 children already and who is currently taking care of all 4 small children to go to bed around the same time every night, to not vary her night routines, and to get her temperature around the same time every morning. And you think that's accurate? What if one of her kids have the fever. She might also have the fever? Oh, I forgot, just abstain the entire month until the next period.

You accuse the Church of lying, but is clearly YOU -- and those like you -- who who are lying. You can't even get your facts straight. And when your errors have been exposed, you resort to foul language. That is really a very clear indication that you don't have any rational arguments to stand on.

So what's so nice about NFP that it is sacrilegious to call it a piece of crap? I have provided links and references here. At least my articles are few weeks old and the statistics I provided are few years old. And if you read the other articles, what's so honest about a church lecturer telling people that babies are born with IUDs stuck to their heads? That is not my quote, it's from a news article.

Why should he? Dispensing condoms is NOT a mandatory medical prtactice. It never has been. Killing may be part of a solfier's job, but contraception is NOT necessarily a doctor's or health worker's job. They have always had the right to refuse. Dispensing contraceptives is a NEW requirement being imposed by this anti-life bill. That is something you have convenienelty forgotten.

By the way, the hippocratic oath taken by doctors obliges them to nurture life, not destroy it, Again, that is yet another thing that you and the authors of this coercive anti-life bill have forgotten.

Condoms are NOT abortifacient! So what's with the destroying life reasoning over a mere piece of rubber? Everyone should just take a honest look at themselves. If an ob/gyne doctor will not even recommend any contraceptive, and will not even talk about ligation despite a woman having had 4 CS deliveries already, then you might be nice enough to provide the names of those "pro-life" doctors so that we can AVOID them. And thanks for those names of "pro-life" senators on the other thread. Now I know who I am NOT going to vote for.

[mannyamador]

brader manny. my god. check ur references again. that was 10, 20 years ago.

THAT'S PRECISELY MY POINT!!! As long ago as that, the abortifacient properties of these "contraceptives" were already PROVEN. What makes you think these methods have really changed their primary method of operation? The Pill's main active ingredient is still progestin, as is with the Mini-Pill. The IUD still works the same way -- it doesn't even prevent ovulation at all. Norplant and Depo-provera are illegal in other countries so these old drugs are being DUMPED here in the Philippines, so obviously we have to use the data will be older. Please open your eyes,

ur mother shoud've taken thalidomide too before she made u.

More ad hominems masquerading as arguments eh? That would seem to be a more accurate indicator of whose mother took thalidomide.

[mannyamador]

How about treating ectopic pregnancies? You call that abortion too and we should not treat it? When it's a fertilized embryo that has 0% chance of surviving?

The Christian thing to do is to try to save both the baby and mother in cases where both are in danger. But if from the beginning it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to save the baby (like you said, 100% certain death), then where's the issue? What is there to do? By the way, this is rarely the case. You're merely engaging in obfuscation. This is irrelevant to the issue of abortifacients.

The fact remains that abortifacients have a DIRECT action that is DESIGNED AND INTENDED to cause a chemical abortion. How often it does so is actually irrelevant. The great majority of bullets fired in a war actually miss their targets -- some Army studies found that in Vietnam, American soldiers fired an average of 3000 rounds just to cause a single enemy casualty!. They have a far higher failure rate than abortifacients. Does that mean bullets aren't designed to kill? And if they kill the innocent, is that not murder?

Here's a Protestant perspective on the issue of abortifacients:

Birth Control Pill

No one even conducted a study on it, but do you think all fertilized embryos will implant 100% of the time? For those women with infertility problems due to endometriosis and other ailments, they should prevent them from having *** altogether because it may be abortifacient?

That's a strawman argument. What you cite are natural occurrences, often unpredictable and even unavoidable in some cases, and NOT directly intended or caused by direct human intervention. Having *** does not cause the miscarriage. Where these conditions ARE known, however, women should have them treated. You are ignoring the DIRECT INTERVENTION and INTENT of an abortifacient. That is why it cannot be compared to natural occurrence.

If we follow your flawed logic, then people should not cross a street because they might get hit by a car (the probability of accidents, by the way, is just as high as some diseases). That is absurd and that is NOT the reasoning I use against abortifacients.

It actually is multiple fertilized eggs implanted in an IVF. Because the success rates are low. Some just won't implant. If you want to call women who had IVF anti-life, go ahead as well... I don't they're desperately trying to conceive new life and you call them anti-life?

You make the same non-argument and the same error: you deliberately kill several people in the hope that one might live. That's like forcing a group of other people to die (certain death) so you (or someone else) can live. That's pro-life to you? Talk about distorting the meaning of words!

The poverty gap and severity of deprivation in basic needs further worsen as family size increases.

This is another common error. You assume a cause-effect relationship that is actually the reverse fo reality. Prosperity is not caused or made possible by low fertility or population. It is a long-established and well-known fact that it's the other way around: prosperity brings about lower fertility. There's even a name for it: demographic transition. Sheldon Richman explains it thus:

Thus, the world's population has been heading toward stabilization for 30 years. The population controllers will credit that to their efforts (while complaining that not enough is being done). But there is a simpler explanation: as economies develop and people become better off materially, they have fewer children. That phenomenon, known as the demographic transition, is well established in demography. It explains what happened in the West, where today the fertility rate is 2.0 or lower--below replacement rate. The demographic transition makes perfect sense. In preindustrial, agricultural economies, children provide farm labor and social security (sons care for their elderly parents); children are wealth. In a developed economy, parents invest resources (for education and the like) in their children; they are an expense. As societies become Westernized, and as modern consumer goods and services become available, people find sources of satisfaction other than children. So they have fewer kids. A falling infant-mortality rate also reduces a society's fertility rate.

And it's no coincidence that you can see a lot of prosperous countries with lower birth rates.

Time for some history. I'll tell you what's no coincidence: those developed countries achieved their greatest economic success precisely when they experienced very high population growth. Again, I quote Sheldon Richman:

History makes the same point. The West grew rich precisely when its population was increasing at an unprecedented rate. Between 1776 and 1975, while the world's population increased sixfold, real gross world product rose about 80-fold.

In our own century we have seen a replay of the Industrial Revolution. After World War II the population of Hong Kong grew more quickly than that of 19th-century England or 20th-century India--at the same time that resource-poor island-colony was growing rich.

The increases in population and wealth have not been merely coincidental. They are causes and effects of each other. Today, with few exceptions, the most densely populated countries are the richest. Any mystery in that is dispelled by the realization that people are the source of ideas. The addition of people geometrically increases the potential for combining ideas into newer, better ideas. As the Nobel laureate and economist Simon Kuznets wrote, "More population means more creators and producers, both of goods along established production patterns and of new knowledge and inventions." A growing population also allows for a more elaborate division of labor, which raises incomes. Those who wish to stifle population growth would condemn hundreds of millions of people in the developing world to the abject deprivation that characterized the West before the Industrial Revolution.

Why do we need to prepare for population aging?

You're obviously no Boy Scout. How long do you think it will take to prepare for population ageing? A couple of years? Japan knew about this phenomenon nearly two decades ago. And even with all its money, technology, and power, they were caught flat-footed. Have they any answers after two decades? NADA. What in the world makes you think the Philippines will be prepared for it when the developed countries don't have any real solution (except the one that's too late for them: stopping the use of contraceptives and population control programs)?

Am asking you to give me the reason why the Catholic church does not allow vasectomy and ligation.

First of all, this is not an exclusive Catholic teaching. ALL other major Christian denominations were against contraception too until well into the 20th century (1930 actually). And because of the disastrous consequences of their shift in doctrine, many of these other denominations are rethinking the issue. The Church didn't make that mistake.

I don't know if you're Catholic, but if you are then maybe you ought to get back to your basic doctrines (assuming you were taught that in college; I'm not referring to childhood catechism). You cannot separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act without disastrous communal moral consequences. Don't make the mistake of taking the act in isolation. You should read up on the doctrines before we continue this specific matter. see the following (note tha these are Catholic sources since you asked about Catholic doctrine):

• Birth Control
  Birth Control
  
• Contraception and Sterilization
  Contraception and Sterilization
  
• Sterilization: Catholic Teaching and Catholic Practice
  Catholic Culture : Library : Sterilization: Catholic Teaching and Catholic Practice

And am also asking you to give the abortion rate of MARRIED couples who already have children and where the husband and wife are the BIOLOGICAL parents of the conceived baby. I know NO abortions of this kind here in the Philippines. Do you? Whether they're using contraceptives or not, these people are NOT going to have an abortion!

I am sincerely happy that you have been protected from the harsh realities of this world. I know of several such abortions. It happens for all sorts of reason -- some of which are even trivial and lame. It is an unpleasant reality and it is sickening to know about such details. Consider yourself blessed, despite the fact that you are no longer ignorant of the fact that it does happen.

The Guttmacher Institute figure of 60% includes married women using contraceptives whose husbands fathered the aborted children. These weren't all the results of casual ***. Many married women (and husbands) commit abortions. What documented evidence do you have that the probability here will be zero? None, right?

Yeah, calling it crap doesn't change the fact that NFP has a high failure rate.

More immature, foul language. Tsk, tsk... What do you really know about NFP? Do you know that it also encompasses EBF? Do you know what methods are involved? Judging from your statements, apparently you know next to nothing about it.

Let's start with the basics:

• NFP How-To Manual
  NFP and more.org
  
• NFPI Standards
  NFP and more.org
  
• The Effectiveness Of Natural Family Planning: Method Effectiveness
  Method Effectiveness - Natural Family Planning
  
• The Effectiveness Of Natural Family Planning: User Effectiveness
  User Effectiveness - Natural Family Planning Effectiveness

Take note that the studies show that when actually used, NFP effectiveness is as high as 99%! Even when imperfectly used, it is as high as 85%-99%. That's still better than most artificial and abortifacient methods.

Checking for cervical mucus will promote commitment and fidelity? Or charting your spouse's chaotic temperature?

Are you imagining that you can check these things during casual ***? Get real. You can only practice NFP with someone you know and to whom you are committed. NFP is less effective for casual ***, but is highly effective for committed couples who actually practice it. NFP requires self-sacrifice and self-giving, concepts that are seem quite foreign to you.

So what's so nice about NFP that it is sacrilegious to call it a piece of crap?

That's like asking: "What's so nice about you that I shouldn't call you a piece of crap?" You should learn how to conduct a rational and civil debate. Using foul language just makes you look immature. More important, it reveals that you DON'T have a rational argument to stand on.

Condoms are NOT abortifacient!

Kindly show me where I said condoms were abortifacient. I NEVER included the condom whenever I listed abortifacients.

This another one of your strawman arguments. If you want to conduct a proper discussion, you should at least have the decency to be intellectually honest. Strawman arguments essentially misrepresent your opponent's arguments so you can pretend to debunk them. It is dishonest and a clear sign of desperation on your part.

Now, to answer some other posts:

Why do we believe in church when it is the most corrupt institution in the country? The church are good in collecting $$ from the people and take note, it is TAX free.

Kindly show me the documented evidence that the Church is the MOST corrupt institution. Do you have comparative corruption figures for the Church, the government, and the private sector?

NO? I though so.

You're just making false accusations without any evidence whatsoever to back it up. Hardly an honest or responsible thing to do.

But the Church should not just talk and talk, instead it should educate its own people on population or even the implications of man's sexual urges and earthly desires.

I agree 100%! Even the Pope agrees with you! Of course, when you consider that the ratio of priests to the population is sometimes as high as one priest for 5,000-10,000 faithful (depending on the locale), the teaching job is going to be extremely difficult. We have to do our part. That's why I've started posting here again.

God bless!

[snussy]

nganong ang uban tao di man maka gets nga maka tabang nato tanan ang family planning bill? for the future maka tabang nato tanan ug sa whole philippines..would you guys go for this or would you prefer na mag pa tuu sa church unya padayon atong mga fellow filipinos or even members sa atong family be a victim of crimes that comes from this controversy?
tan-awa gud na ang mga nahitabo karon, naay gipang massacre na family, mga gipang tulis nga wlai kaluuy gipang patay pajud tawn unya celfone ra diay ang gpanguha, mga bata as early as 2 years old gipang kawat para ipang baligya for slavery or para ipa **** sa mga foreigners..all these for money/poverty..would you think of the future or diha raka mulihok kung imong ka pamilya na ang ma biktima ani atong problema sa nasod?

[florascent]

On the contrary, these so-called "modern" contraceptives are unhealthy and are actually abortifacients. The IUD, pill, mini-pill, Depo-Provera, and others all have a baackup method in case they fail to prevent ovulation. They change the uterine wall, creating a "hostile endometrium", which does not allow the fertilized egg (which is already a human being) to implant. With nowhere to cling to, the baby is eventually flushed out and destroyed. This is an early chemical abortion.

There are also medical side effects to these chemicals and devices. There have been reports of bleeding, increase in the likelihood of cancer, depression, mood swings, etc.

These abortifaceints should be banned. They directly violate the Philippine Constitution which explicitly recognizes and protects the life of the unborn from the moment of conception (Article II, Section 12, Philippine Constitution).

Overpopulation is a myth. The real causes of poverty are massive corruption, inidscriminate debt servicing, war, and greed. We have all of these in the Philippines right now. Population control will do NOTHING to solve these causes. Population control wastes resources on such useless measures that do not address the real problems and in fact takes attention away from them as well.

/salute ko nimo sir!