Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

if u want proof that i am not gay, you can come here to Cebu and watch me and my wife make love

Dude, does your wife know you want to turn her into a porn star?

By the way, I AM in Cebu. But that does NOT mean I want to take a look at your "ehem", even though you seem to have this strange compulsion to show it off to other men. Are you a gay exhibitionist as well?

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

I asked for the SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS, meaning the actual names of the docs or at least the URLs to the data. You did NOT provide these from the start. I had to extract it from you.

And no wonder! YOUR VERY OWN SOURCE also inadvertently admits that this "correlation" does NOT justify population control (trying to lower family size). Here is Dr. Virola's statement:

Nonetheless, even as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt which between poverty and family size is the cause and which is the effect, the strong correlation between the two variables is unmistakably clear.

Now, if family size cannot be determined to cause poverty, then why should it be manipulated? The "correlation"may not be two-way! This alone destroys your justifications for population control.

Take note that I have no problem with seeing poverty as causing large family size. It is plausible (and implies a one-way correlation). But we have already shown that the reverse correlation (that family size can influence poverty) is a myth! So the RH bill has no statistical justification whatsoever.

Dr. Virola -- again your own source -- also says:

Statistics also very convincingly point to the importance of education in addressing poverty reduction and population management. This should be more than enough information to inform our decisions.

Maybe, as a US politician says, our time for change has come! PopCom, instead of spending on condoms should probably spend a big part of its budget to promote reading as a hobby, don’t you agree?

Dr. Virola is generally correct here. I do NOT agree with all of Virola's assertions, of course. He fails to rule out intervening factors that can affect the correlation. But statistical criticisms will be the topic of another post. It is important to note that Virola's statement, however, does NOT square with Lagman's assertions either. Lagman uses the "correlation" to justify population control, which implies a cause-effect relationship. As we have seen, this is simply NOT true. So, again, both you and Lagman are wrong -- and LYING.

You just shot your self in the foot again!

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

You are taking my statement out of context. Your "counterfact" is true only if there is no relation at all, like looking for a correlation between family size and loudspeaker efficiency. Obviously there is zero correlation. But we are talking about factors where there is some ALLEGED relationship. You are taking my statement out of context. Which, of course, is deceptive. Just like a real LIAR.

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.

That is illogical and contrary to the facts. The Constitutional Commission took a vote and they approved the assumption that conception begins at fertilization. Therefore that assumption is the clear intent of the Commission and our present Constitution.

Our friend Wakkanakka did not use the proper terminology. He should have said that the Constitution assumes human life begins at fertilization or something similar. But he is still far more correct than you.

As for your being a liar, that has already been amply demonstrated here. More of your lies won't change that. We aren't blind. We can read your previous posts, you know.



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

[mannyamador]

There is an ongoing smear propaganda campaign to discredit the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) Bill by calling it pro-abortion.

This is another one of your LIES. The smear campaign is actually being conducted by the pro-RH fanatics against the Church! They deliberately fabricate scientific data or overllok scientific evidence in order to sugarcoat the so-called RH bill and to HIDE the fact that the bill explicitly supports and promotes a form of abortion: CHEMICAL ABORTION THROUGH THE USE OF ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.

I shall post evidence again for the benefit of those Istoryans who are new to this thread of who may have missed it. Take note that the pro-RH fanatics have NOT been able to refute the scientific evidence.

It is false and untrue to claim that contraceptives can never cause an abortion.

• Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
  http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)
  
  
  “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would
  be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower
  doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are
  likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical
  literature does not support the hypothesis that
  postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
• The Physicians' Prescribing information for Yaz and Yasmin, two oral contraceptives
  http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/ht.../Yasmin_PI.pdf
  http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf
  
  
  Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins.
  Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation,
  other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the/QUOTE]
  difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces
  the likelihood of implantation).
• Do Contraceptive Pills cause Abortion?
  By Patrick McCrystal MPSNI / MPSI
  http://www.hliireland.ie/abortifacie...raception.html
  
  
  One of the ways by which the 'pill' works is by;
  
  

  "...the rendering of the endometrium unreceptive to implantation" (1)

  
  
  Put simply this means a newly created embryo is not allowed to implant in its mother's womb. This action takes place after fertilisation (conception), ie after a new life has been created. Thus it can be termed abortifacient (2,3) or abortion-causing. Indeed, the medical literature suggests this abortion-causing mode of action does occur during 'pill' use (4,5,20). Every chemical contraceptive preparation involving pills, injections, implants and intrauterine devices have this mechanism present as an inherent part of their birth control action.
  
  
• The Pill – How it works and fails.
  http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html
  
  
  Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?
  
  A. The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year.
  
  As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulation (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? I suggest that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implanation.
• Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501086
  
  
  There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.
• CVS/Pharmacy
  http://www.cvs.com
  
  
  IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.
  
  
• Mechanism of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices and its relation to informed consent
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...ubmed_RVDocSum
  
  
  The purposes of this review are to evaluate the available evidence for the mechanisms of action of copper-impregnated intrauterine contraceptive devices and to describe the informed consent consequences of those mechanisms. The medical literature was reviewed with the use of the Bioethics and Medline databases (1966 to present). Reports that supported or refuted the two major postulated mechanisms (interference with implantation of the fertilized ovum or spermicidal inhibition of fertilization) were assessed for their relative strength and support for the exclusivity of one or the other mechanism. The analysis of the evidence strongly suggests that the contraceptive effectiveness of intrauterine contraceptive devices is achieved by both a prefertilization spermicidal action and a postfertilization inhibition of uterine implantation. Patient informed consent for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion should include a discussion of these mechanisms of actions so as to avoid their use in patients with moral objections to postfertilization contraception.

The evidence is clear. These contraceptives are abortifacient.



NO MATTER WHAT THE PRO-RH SIDE SAYS, THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THE CONTRACEPTIVES IN QUESTION ARE NOT ABORTIFACIENT. AT MOST THE PRO-RH SIDE CAN ONLY TRUTHFULLY MAKE THE CASE THAT THE ISSUE IS UNRESOLVED. IN WHICH CASE WE MUST TAKE THE SAFER APPROACH AND ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION SO AS NOT TO RISK DESTROYING HUMAN LIFE.


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

[Luskan]

Manny has a point, The RH bill is full of flaws. I'm starting to think twice about the bill.

[fritz1000]

dakoAng sala ana oi kng eLegalize ang abortion... mortal sin gud na...

[mannyamador]

Here's an interesting bit of information.

Contrary to the claim that abstinence "doesn't work" or that it simply cannot be expected of the youth, here's a study that actually shows otherwise. ABSTINENCE IS A REALITY FOR MOST TEENS.

http://www.abstinenceworks.org/image..._abstinent.pdf

I've made a photo of the original PDF and posted it. Click on the thumbnail below to check it out. I also quoted some of the text below.

What 
the Data Shows: 
A large majority (2/3) of high school students in the U.S. are not currently sexually active and most students (52%) have never had sexual intercourse. While the past two years have seen a slight increase in teen births (+3% in 2006, +1% in 2007) the overall teen birth rate is down sharply (34%) since 1991.

Abstinence is a reality for most teens.



--

We should give our kids abstinence education, not condom/contraceptive "education". Abstinence works.

On the other hand, studies show that contraceptive usage INCREASES unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortions. And yet abstinence is exactly what the RH bill doesn't support. Instead, it funds artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. -- precisely the methods that DON'T reduce teen pregnancies or abortions overall.



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

[giddyboy]

We should give our kids abstinence education, not condom/contraceptive "education". Abstinence works.

kinsa man kunoy nag ingon that we don't want abstinence and values education to our kids aber? as a Filipino culture in general, all we want for our sons and daughters is remain a virgin until they're married. but take note that is not necessarily the same mindset to all parents.

and even if we do, sometimes things do not happen as we hope to be. some teenagers defy their parents and have premarital ***. that is why even if it is against our beliefs to educate them about s3x, it is their right to have it for their own good and perhaps prepare for their future. otherwise, we parents will already be guilty of withholding necessary information.

as u already knew, the RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith.

On the other hand, studies show that contraceptive usage INCREASES unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortions. And yet abstinence is exactly what the RH bill doesn't support. Instead, it funds artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. -- precisely the methods that DON'T reduce teen pregnancies or abortions overall.

The RH Bill funds and supports both abstinence methods (NFP) and artificial methods (MFP). don't make up your own story or lies...

"The reproductive health (RH) bill promotes information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of informed choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs.

The bill does not have any bias for or against either natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptive methods. Their common purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies." ~ Rep Lagman

but of course, u always try to call it lip service. it's up to you.

[giddyboy]

Manny has a point, The RH bill is full of flaws. I'm starting to think twice about the bill.

No law in the Philippines is perfect...even our Constitution is not perfect. and when majority approves a law or Consti, it doesn't mean the law is fixed to the letter. Provisions can always be amended or changed according to the demand of the times. God Bless!

[giddyboy]

YOUR VERY OWN SOURCE also inadvertently admits that this "correlation" does NOT justify population control (trying to lower family size). Here is Dr. Virola's statement:

Nonetheless, even as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt which between poverty and family size is the cause and which is the effect, the strong correlation between the two variables is unmistakably clear.

c'mon. don't try to beat around the bush here and raise argumentum ad ignorantiam. if u say strong correlations doesn't justify action, why have we even tried to come up w/ the concept of "family planning in the first place? is this just for show? why are we even trying to acknowledge the correlation between corruption and poverty in the first place? AFAIK, the relationship between corruption and poverty is being shown via correlation too! Both has strong correlation! and even as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt which between corruption and poverty is the cause and which is the effect, the strong correlation between the two variables is unmistakably clear. which of this statement don't u understand?

and u still did not defend your stand that there is no correlation do you? or perhaps u try to avoid it?

Now, if family size cannot be determined to cause poverty, then why should it be manipulated? The "correlation"may not be two-way! This alone destroys your justifications for population control.

Take note that I have no problem with seeing poverty as causing large family size. It is plausible (and implies a one-way correlation). But we have already shown that the reverse correlation (that family size can influence poverty) is a myth! So the RH bill has no statistical justification whatsoever.

ah, just shows u don't understand what statistics of correlation means...

Dr. Virola -- again your own source -- also says:

Statistics also very convincingly point to the importance of education in addressing poverty reduction and population management. This should be more than enough information to inform our decisions.

Maybe, as a US politician says, our time for change has come! PopCom, instead of spending on condoms should probably spend a big part of its budget to promote reading as a hobby, don’t you agree?

Dr. Virola is generally correct here. I do NOT agree with all of Virola's assertions, of course. He fails to rule out intervening factors that can affect the correlation. But statistical criticisms will be the topic of another post. It is important to note that Virola's statement, however, does NOT square with Lagman's assertions either. Lagman uses the "correlation" to justify population control, which implies a cause-effect relationship. As we have seen, this is simply NOT true. So, again, both you and Lagman are wrong -- and LYING.

the RH Bill is not only about family planning.

mao btaw Lagman and his co-authors uses "correlation" as one reason to justify encouraging family planning and education just like what Dr Virola said. and that is the national population policy intended.

The bill does not impose a two-child policy. It does not promote a compulsory policy strictly limiting a family to two children and no punitive action shall be imposed on parents with more than two children. This number is not an imposition or is it arbitrary because results of the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey show that the ideal of two children approximates the desired fertility of women.

coz if we follow ur false logic that strong correlation doesn't justify action, then even the concept of "family planning" by couples won't make sense! heck even your tireless promoting of natural family planning won't make sense at all!

and from there, YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT!!!

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[haiasi]

i watched boston legal...the case(which they won)about
a rape victim suing a catholic hospital for not
administering her with emergency contraceptive and
consequently became pregnant...

i like attorney schmidt's line here:

Shirley Schmidt: One of our many rights in this country is what is called informed consent. Every patient has
the right to decide what happens to his or her body. And to make that decision a patient needs to rely on her
doctor to disclose all available options. Do you want chemo therapy or surgery for a brain tumor? Do you
want to amputate below the knee or hope for the best and risk death from gangrene? Do you want to
prevent pregnancy or have your rapist’s baby? Amelia Warner didn’t get to chose. She was deprived of a
crucial medically relevant option because her doctor did not approve of it. She didn’t choose to receive
health care restricted by religious doctrine. She was taken to the ER unconscious. She relied on her doctor
at St. Mary’s to provide her with proper care or refer her elsewhere and he failed her. Twenty-five thousand
women will become pregnant from rape this year. If all of those women took this emergency contraception,
twenty-two thousand of those pregnancies could be avoided. Doctors provide a crucial public benefit to a
diverse society and we cannot condone it when they impose their own religion on patients whom they are
professionally obligated to serve. Especially patients in their most vulnerable states. A teenage for example,
brought in to an emergency room after a brutal rape. A teenage who is now left to choose in violating her
own moral principals in terminating the pregnancy or postponing college to deliver this child. A child
conceived against her will, a direct result of the most traumatic ordeal she has ever endured.

US FDA approved this drug called morning-after pill
or Levonorgestrel...It can help reduce the chance of
pregnancy if the woman isn't already pregnant.
Levonorgestrel has no effect on the mother or the fetus
if the woman is already pregnant. RU-486, or mifepristone,
is a completely different drug that performs a chemical
abortion early in a pregnancy.*
Levonorgestrel could either prevent or delay the release
of the egg...

in my understanding, since the egg and sperm does not meet
in the fallopian tubes, there is no fertilization and thus there is
no abortion...

i'm catholic, and i've always been morally opposed to abortion
but sometimes i think religious doctrines should make some exceptions...

[giddyboy]

my previous post: There is an ongoing smear propaganda campaign to discredit the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) Bill by calling it pro-abortion.

This is another one of your LIES. The smear campaign is actually being conducted by the pro-RH fanatics against the Church!

what lie? that i lied by saying there is an ongoing smear propaganda campaign to discredit the proposed (RH) Bill? were u born yesterday or trying to be? THAT'S HILARIOUS! YOU ARE EVEN A LIVING PROOF!

do u want me to refresh ur memory?

Here are fallacies that the propagandistic proponents against the RH Bill have been saying:
(1) The bill is anti-life.
(2) The bill interferes with family life.
(3) The bill legalizes abortion.
(4) It will lead to the legalization of abortion.
(5) Contraceptives have life-threatening side effects.
(6) The bill will promote contraceptive mentality.
(7) The bill imposes a two-child policy.
(8.) Sexuality education will spawn “a generation of *** maniacs” or breed a culture of promiscuity.
(9) The bill claims that family planning is the panacea for poverty.
(10) Family planning will lead to a demographic winter.

need i say more? QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM! THAT IS PROOF OF YOUR NTH LIE!!!

kuyawa ah! gibali naman hinuon nimo ang storya pare, aw mare diay...

---000---

here's a reply below from one poster on those in your list of smear propaganda (By jadedsecret, hubpages.com). and mind u, this is not a smear campaign against the church but a mere personal opinion:

Opinion counts: The Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
against fallacy (1) & (2): "I cannot interpret the RH bill as "anti-life." My definition of anti-life would be to completely deprive of the people of access to such knowledge. The Church claims that it is the parents' responsibility to educate their children on these delicate issues. If one would allow that claim is based on the assumption that every parent in the country is already educated, well-informed and updated, as well as emotionally and mentally prepared to discuss such information to their children, I think critics should bite their tongues and take into consideration the great number of citizens, especially those in poverty lines, who did not have the opportunity to learn , much less discuss, anything about sexual health.The opportunity to be educated about nutrition, family planning, parental responsibility and healthcare in full, honest and appropriate disclosure is hindered because the Church has been hysterically opposing it as unacceptable and un-Catholic to do so.

Un-Catholic, is it, to inform the youth, couples and families about their sexual health? I think people have the right to know and be completely aware of their reproductive biology, the odds of infertility, the responsibility and possible complications of pregnancy/child-rearing, their capability to prevent STDs and HIV/AIDS, or the understanding what unwanted pregnancy and abortion could lead to? How is it un-Catholic, exactly, to show people how to properly manage their sexual well-being?

against fallacy (3) & (4): I am a Roman Catholic, but I think it is completely ridiculous when the Church are scared off their wits just hearing the terms "abortion", "*** education" or "contraceptives" like parents suddenly get uptight when a kissing scene comes up on the TV screen and command their sixteen-year-old to close his eyes until it's over. The Church is screaming bloody murder, saying the bill would lead to the legalization of abortion. The RH bill "expressively provides that abortion remains a crime and prevention of abortion is essential to implement" the program. How do we prevent abortion? By not mindlessly engaging early in sexual activities that would lead to unwanted pregnancies. The best way to delay these early initiations to sexual relations is to instill correct sexual values along with the knowledge.

Ironic, isn't it, that the Phils is the most Catholic-dominant country in Asia yet it manages to have one of the highest abortion rates around? Of course, I'm not saying that it's the Church's fault that abortion is at large, but I strongly suggest that they let go of the narrow concept of sexuality education being unacceptable simply because they do not understand how this knowledge would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the number of abortions in the country. I do not want our future generation to suffer from their irrationality, suspicion and overall mistrust to their own country.

against fallacy (6): Another criticism to this bill would be that sexuality education will "spawn a culture of promiscuity." The message they're relaying is that: this bill will teach the youth to have ***. If they're taught to have *** accompanied with the use of artificial contraceptives, we will spawn a generation of *** maniacs.

This is a very disappointing, black-and-white view of how the Church sees the youth today. Keep the youth ignorant so that they won't engage in sexual activities? What they don't know won't hurt them? I think people who are opposing on this bill flew off the handle when they read that the RH education program would discuss these "delicate issues" to Grade 5 elementary students up to 4th year high school students and neglected the key word "age-appropriate" written with it. The bill does not promote the youth "to have ***." It simply seeks to quench their curiousity with appropriate information and proper guidance before they turn to incompetent sources for answers to what's happening to their bodies.

Tell me what does promote a culture of promiscuity- ignorance or honesty?

More than 50 percent of Filipinos favored a "population policy, including family planning." So I'm wondering if the Church has the best interests of their people at heart, or they're simply voicing out their idealistic views for the sake of voicing it.

A previous headline in the Phil Inquirer was "Bishops quit RH bill talks." The CBCP (Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Phils.) representatives have walked out of Senate discussions on the RH bill, saying that their views are "only duly noted" and that lawmakers "invited us just for the sake of consulting us." Congressman Lagman poignantly reminds, commenting on the remarks of one of the representatives, that "you are not invited here to get what you want, but to give your views. If your views would not be consistent with what legislators think should be the national policy, you have to defer to the legislators."

Tasked to sponsor the bill on the Senate floor, Senator Biazon defended the government's right to pass this bill, responding that (this is my fave portion of the news article): "this is an affair of the State. The State must respond to the needs of the people. If the teachings of the Church are against the use of modern artificial contraception, the Church should touch base with their flock. They should go to the pulpit, and teach. I hope they're fair when they do this."

Frankly, the CBCP wouldn't probably understand a thing or two about family planning until each of them are raising children of their own."

full article:
Opinion counts: The Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!