Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

[list][*]Where is the data? What are the specific sources of your data so we can examine it? You gave three general sources, but no actual documents, so how do we know you aren't comparing apples to oranges? You could be hiding any number of errors by NOT providing the data and sources. This alone totally negates any value of your graphs,

ARE YOU BLIND? the data came from nscb.gov in the form of tabulations. i even provided some footnotes:

Source: Basic data come from the 1997, 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO.
Note: The values were computed using a Stata do-file for computing FGT measures. Except for the weights, the sampling design was not used to generate the values, in an attempt to facilitate comparability of the figures.

if u want to see the tables, here is the link:

NSCB - Statistically Speaking... The Poor Have Bigger Families: A Matter of Choice or Circumstance? by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

[*]Did you make these graphs? What software did you use to create the graphs? Or did you ask someone to do it for you? or did you just pluck it off some other website without the data?

i made the graphs based on the tabulations i mentioned above in simple and ordinary Excel file. then i uploaded them on a photo server so that i can post it here. you can even make your own graphs based on the tabulated data too!

[*]How do you define poverty gap (which is the Y axis of your graph)?

just follow the link i posted above. it's there. i think it uses Poverty Gap Index from The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) measure.

[*]More importantly, what is your definition of a significant correlation? Zero, of course, means absolutely no correlation, which is a theoretical value.and doesn't happen often int he real world.

Your post is some of the most unbelievably SLOPPIEST RESEARCH I have ever encountered. Unless you can provide what's missing it proves NOTHING.

hahaha. now u talk as if u r better than our National Statistics Office. that's totally absurd of u!

of course, zero means no correlation.

YOUR NTH LIE: there is no correlation between family size and poverty. COUNTERFACT: there is. and i have just shown you.

YOUR 2ND NTH LIE: Zero correlation doesn't happen often in the real world. COUNTERFACT: it does. and it doesn't even need explaining.

NOW THAT IS HILARIOUS!

NOT ONLY DO U BLATANTLY LIE here, u girls also lied in the streets by deceiving innocent students! ur group also lied by false claims about the condom!

AND I'M NOT LYING! THAT'S A HISTORICAL FACT!

@wakkanaka: take note on that...

[giddyboy]

I never said that the Constitutional Commission FIXED the moment of conception at fertilization. I said that it ASSUMED such.

well, maayo na maklaro.

@wakkanaka was the one who said it. here it is:

"But is not the definition usind in the Phil. Consti. We define life as beginning at fertilization."

I am not the one lying! I was just pointing to his/her lie. but since u seem to be defending him/her, u r guilty of that as well.

Ok then, you said the Consti never fixed conception as fertilization. that's true.

you then said the Con Com assumed it is and that assumption we should follow. now that i can disagree.

coz by logic, you are already implying that we should also assume and therefore follow conception as fertilization, to which should not be the case. that is never the intent of the entire Con Com. u just want to make it look like it is coz that is what u believe in to fit ur own agenda! AND THAT IS NOT A LIE!

yes, u r quoting Fr Bernas that said:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.”

Indeed, the same authority’s opinion expressly recognizes that even the idea or concept of when “conception takes place” could not be defined or pinpointed by the Con Com. BUT THAT IS NOT ALL! AND I'M NOT LYING!

Coz in the same manner, the opinion of the Constitutionalist Bernas should also be read together with his other commentaries on the subject matter.

In the 1997 edition of his book, Constitutional Structure and Power of Government, he states:

“Moreover, the overriding purpose in asserting that the protection begins from the time of conception is to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, US 113 (1973) which liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time during the first six months of pregnancy provided it can be done without danger to the mother. The understanding is that life begins at conception, although the definition of conception can be a matter for science to specify.”

so the "safer approach" Fr Bernas implied actually is to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, which liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time during the first six months of pregnancy provided it can be done without danger to the mother. AND THE RH BILL NEVER INTENDS TO ADOPT THAT DOCTRINE! IN FACT, IT IS AGAINST IT! The RH Bill explicitly treats abortion from pregnancy as a crime (unless it is done to save the life of the mother)! THAT'S NOT A LIE!

Obviously, the statements made by Father Bernas, as quoted, have to be analyzed in the proper context in which they were said.

Furthermore, Constitutional intent (or the lack of it) can best be gleaned from a reading of the actual statement of positions stated by the Con Com members.

It is a primary rule of statutory construction that if the text is vague or lends itself to varied interpretations regarding the definition of a word, the record of the deliberations, in this case of the Con Com, is the proper source for clarification.

The adoption of the word conception was a compromise position precisely because of the unacceptability of one very controversial Catholic position to extend the right to life to the “fertilized ovum”.

NOW READ CAREFULLY.

The original provision being supported by Father Joaquin Bernas made use of the term “fertilized ovum” in the following context and formulation: “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum. ”

Commissioner Suarez asked Commissioner Bernas if the fertilized ovum was going to be elevated to the category of a person as to enjoy a constitutional right.

To this, Father Bernas replied:

“My own thinking would be that it is not a person yet. That is my own thinking, so that perhaps this whole sentence must be modified to express it in such a way that it is not an assertion that this begins to become a person from the very first moment or nine months before birth. As I said, I am in search of a proper way of expressing this. Perhaps you should say, “protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum.” (17 July 1986 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, VOL.1, p.690)

At this point, a lengthy discussion and expression of differences ensued on whether to actually use and adopt the term “fertilized ovum” and in so saying, extend to it, the constitutional right to life or not.

The Con Com voted on the proposed amendment with 30 members voting, without opposition, in approval of the Romulo amendment.

HEP, WE ARE NOT YET FINISHED...

Yet, even this unanimously approved amendment was later further revised. The exact wording of the Constitutional provision eventually abandoned the term “moment of conception,” and instead merely referred to the life of the unborn from conception.

Again, at this particular juncture, the Con Com had another lengthy discussion about the determination of pregnancy, the beginning of life, and exceptions to the ban on abortion to save the mother’s life.”

These discussions clearly reflected the lack of a consensus among the Constitutional Commissioners to categorically settle the discussion of when human life begins and when the Constitutional provision on the right to life may be invoked.

Eventually, the Con Com had to vote on the amendment proposed by both Commissioner Rigos and Padilla to drop the phrase "moment of conception."

While Reverend Rigos proposed an amendment to use "unborn child from conception," Padilla proposed "unborn from conception," in effect to avoid the result of having the Con Com to have to fix the precise moment of conception (whether days before or after conception, since some members expressed the belief that life begins even before conception).

Needless to say the Padilla amendment was approved with 33 voting in favor of the same.

This clearly establishes the lack of any constitutional intent to establish conception as fertilization let alone categorize a precise moment when "conception" takes place.

AND IF YOU don't have the want to read the entire post, it's up to you. I don't even care if you refuse to digest what it meant. and in effect, i am showing proof that you lied thru omission by citing only 1 part of the ConCom deliberations!

@wakkanaka: I'm not scared. ngano gud tawn. IF U ARE ASKING ME FOR the source of these articles, u can come to my house and borrow my books. Or perhaps go to a public library. I cannot just scan it and post it here just for your own satisfaction. ngiga gud nimo...otherwise, mangayo na ko nimo ana ug fee...

HB 4643
BUHAY HAYAAN YUMABONG PARTY-LIST

AN ACT BANNING THE USE, PRODUCTION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION OR DISPENSATION OF ABORTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES, DEFINING THE SAME, PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR AND AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLES 256 AND 259 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

You've shot yourself in the foot again!

This is just too easy...

dear madam, how can i shoot myself in the foot when i was just asking evidence from you? well, u showed proof alright. all i can say is, "good luck!"

but i think u omitted another one of their proposed bill: HB 2626 AN ACT DEFINING THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE, RECOGNIZING RIGHTS THEREUNDER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

why, coz it will contradict ur arguments?

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[Undercoverlover]

stop abortion... luoy kaayu ang mga walay buot nga babies

[joshua259]

awts... dili gud ni mahuman inyong lalis... if dili gud pwede sa church ang pag gamit sa Contraceptives, Condoms, etc... why not CONDEMN the users and EXCOMMUNICATE them/us from the church. para mahuman na inyong lalis...

[giddyboy]

awts... dili gud ni mahuman inyong lalis. if dili gud pwede sa church ang pag gamit sa Contraceptives, Condoms, etc... why not CONDEMN the users and EXCOMMUNICATE them/us from the church. para mahuman na inyong lalis...

mao gyud. mura ranig lalis sa relihiyon bah di gyud maghuman. Ang climax ra gyud ani is when the RH Bill is finally made into law or otherwise. abangan...

Our RC church can always do what they believe (threaten their flock w/ non-communion or worse, excommunication) but they should be sensible and open-minded unta about it. even if it's their right, dili nlng unta nla paka uwawan ug i-demonize ang politician nga ni suportar sa bill by openly saying in public that this so and so should be denied holy communion...asa naman diay ang virtues of compassion ug understanding, wala nlng diay? let's remember that only few Catholics are supporting the church's anti-contraceptive and anti-s3x education stance. though it's not a popularity contest, but that's the fact.

but anyways, bsan unsaon pa nla, the RH Bill should be a matter of national policy and not of faith. That draws the line between Church and State.

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[Ritchie D. Nolasco]

I support legalizing abortion. Women should be granted that liberty and no religious sect should be allowed to influence national and provincial policies.

[giddyboy]

I support legalizing abortion. Women should be granted that liberty and no religious sect should be allowed to influence national and provincial policies.

sorry my friend but i think u r confused here. Nobody wants to legalize abortion in this forum. our Phil laws explicitly treats abortion from pregnancy as a crime. There is no law in the Phils that legalizes abortion from pregnancy, unless it is needed to save the life of the mother like the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

there is no effort to legalize abortion in the Phils. but some quarters want to make it look like there is.

There is an ongoing smear propaganda campaign to discredit the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) Bill by calling it pro-abortion. One actual and glaring example is in fact the poll question in this forum.

But the authors and co-authors of the RH bill vehemently denied this. The bill is anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-poor, and for pro-quality of life.

fact of the strong support for this bill is that 130 lawmakers out of 256 already signified their support. Pulse Asia survey also found out that 6 out of 10 Pinoys are in support of this bill.

The Roman Catholic church hierarchy and pro-life lobbyist groups are the main proponents who have a long-standing policy opposing any type of artificial means of family planning included in any of our national policies. they are against it so it is natural that they are also against the RH Bill.

But as many lawmakers say, "The RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith."

And as a national policy, this is a matter of drawing the line between the affairs of the Church and affairs of the State.

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[joshua259]

i say EXCUMUNICATE and CONDEMN the CONTRACEPTIVE, CONDOM, etc Users/Catholics/Christians.

[giddyboy]

i say EXCUMUNICATE and CONDEMN the CONTRACEPTIVE, CONDOM, etc Users/Catholics/Christians.

kung ipatuman gyud na, basin wala nay mahabilin nga Katoliko diri sa Pinas bro...

[joshua259]

kung ipatuman gyud na, basin wala nay mahabilin nga Katoliko diri sa Pinas bro...

nyahahaha mao gud pero saon man sila man ang nag spear head aning campaign nila so ma affected gud ta...

wala pa gani ta kahibaw nga ang offerings sa mga USERS kay maoy gi gamit sa ilang campaign...