Legalize Abortion?

[raski]

Also I question one of your studies regarding abstinence. I have actually lived in the United States for several years and I can attest to the fact that the most promiscuous women tend to be Catholic and they clearly must have had some form of abstinence education during their indoctrination in Catholic schools. But that of course is just based on my personal experience with such girls =P

[mannyamador]

But as far as I know, nobody has been prosecuted for taking prescribed birth control pills nor has the same been ruled illegal.

That's because there is a difference between something UNCONSTITUTIONAL and being ILLEGAL.

Laws can be declared unconstitutional. For something be illegal, however, you need an enabling law of some kind (aside from the Constitution). Also, one cannot be punished unless that law has penal provisions.

Constitutions do not generally specify penal provisions. Ours, at least, is does not generally do so (unless you count the impeachment procedures). Our Constitution relies on other laws which are in consonance with the itself (the Constitution) to do so.

The purpose for contraceptive pills is to prevent conception, not abort. I am quite certain that even the normal menstrual cycles of a woman sometimes causes this unintended "aborting" of an ovulating egg.

The intent would still be beside the point, really. There are some substances that are first thought of as safe, and then later banned because some undesirable side-effect was found. The same can happen with some contraceptives. For example, Levonorgestrel was banned in this country when the Bureau of Food and Drugs found it to be abortifacient. This substance is used certain oral contraceptives, IUDs, so-called "emergency contraceptives", and in Norplant.

That is just splitting hairs and it can easily be argued that this is not what the Constitutional provisions protecting from conception means as it is a ridiculous assertion to even argue that this was within the purview of the drafters as they would not have been aware of such an eventuality.

The members of the Constitutional Commission were very much aware of the existence of abortifacient contraceptives. Commissioner Bernie Villegas made very sure of that. Briefing papers on this very issue were distributed during the deliberations. Jo Imbong also mentioned that protection from fertilization was discussed int he article I posted earlier ("Reckless and irresponsible", http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquirer...acts-fallacies).

But that of course is just based on my personal experience with such girls

--
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]

Catholics Cannot Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience
A response to the position paper "Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience"
http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2009...h-bill-in.html

To the community of the Ateneo de Manila University:

We, alumni of our alma mater, wish to respond to the position paper authored by 14 members of our faculty. We laud our professors for a wide-ranging presentation on the Philippine social situation, most especially the undesirable effects of an unmanaged population growth to women, the poor and our young people. We commend their dedication to the integral human development of the Filipino people in these troubling times. However, with respect and fraternal charity towards them, we respond that Catholics cannot support the RH Bill in good conscience.

The question of which method Catholics can and should use in the regulation of birth has been resolved in the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (quoted as HV)of Pope Paul VI. “…the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles” (HV 16).

Several questions—and indeed objections—arise from this teaching. We ask, “Is this teaching of the Holy Father definitive?” While the fact remains that Pope Paul VI did not issue the above-mentioned encyclical ex cathedra, it is also a fact that the Pope and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium 25). “The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teaches the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2034).

We therefore distinguish between a solemn magisterium of the Church and an ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Code of Canon Law 750). Catholics are exhorted to believe those things which are “proposed as divinely revealed either (italics ours) by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium” (ibid.). “All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines” (ibid.). Since Humanae Vitae is an exercise of the ordinary teaching faculty of the Holy Father, we can rely on it to be a truthful and faithful interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

A second question arises, “How did Pope Paul VI arrive at such a pronouncement?” An extensive commentary on the encyclical is beyond the scope of this letter, but it will suffice for the moment to say that the Holy Father considered two points: the social situation of his time (and indeed of ours) and an authentic interpretation of the moral law. Very early in the encyclical, Pope Paul VI recognizes that “the changes that have taken place are of considerable importance” (HV 2). He comments on the rapid increase in population and the incommensurate increase in resources, and therefore the difficulty of raising a large family.

However, he is quick to clarify that while the Church encourages parents to be responsible in planning their families, responsible parenthood “concerns the objective moral order which was established by God and of which a right conscience (italics ours) is the true interpreter” (HV 10). Neither the Church nor the Pope can invent the truth about the sanctity of human life and the divine gift that is the sexual faculty. They can only articulate and clarify it, but never create it. In our effort to be a Church for the Poor and to look at reality from the poor’s perspective, we remember that it is only Jesus who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6) and we look to the Church and the Pope, to whom the keys were given, for guidance and counsel.

A third objection surfaces, “What of the primacy of conscience?” The position paper of the professors states, “Catholic social teachings similarly recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities” (page 13). While it is true that our conscience always bids us to follow its voice, “in the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him in obedience” (Gaudium et Spes 16).

Following one’s conscience is therefore not a matter of what one “feels” or “thinks” to be right or wrong. Rather, conscience must stand as a “witness to the authority of truth (italics ours) in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 177). The Catechism quotes John Henry Cardinal Newman who says, “[Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives” (ibid. 1778). The task of conscience is therefore not to invent truth, but to discern what is true by listening to the voice of Jesus echoed by and through the Church.

It is important to understand that this argument does not lead to a “wooden compliance to directives.” Our faith, in St. Anselm’s words, is a faith that seeks understanding, fides quaerens intellectum. Catholics therefore do not blindly obey teachings just because they come from the Church. Rather, their faith bids them to seek to understand the mind, heart and spirit of the Church and make them his own.

In the Gospel of St. John, when the Lord told the crowd, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (6:51), some of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can accept it?” (6:60). “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him” (6:66). GK Chesterton poetically articulated this attitude when he said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

We are similarly faced with a “hard saying”—a faithful and true saying, but hard nevertheless. The Church is not blind to the plight of women, the poor and our young people, but as Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales recently affirmed, this issue is not simply a matter of demographics, economics or sociology. “It’s an ethical issue… It’s a moral issue.” The Church cannot alter the truth about the sanctity of life and the sexual faculty to provide a ready answer to our social dilemma. Catholics whose consciences are good and well formed, and are docile to the honest but firm voice of the Church are bound by conscience not to support the RH Bill. Rather, faced with strong opposition from every side, they turn to our Lord together with St. Peter and exclaim, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!” (John 6:68).

Paul Christopher Cheng
AB Economics-Honors 2008
paulcheng29@yahoo.com

Varsolo Sunio
BS Physics-CE 2007
var_sunio@yahoo.com

Gino Antonio Trinidad
AB Political Science 2008
gtrinidad@myway.com

--


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

[mannyamador]

I am against abortion. The over population theory is a myth that is designed to pinned the blame of our nation's abject poverty to the Filipino masses. A red herring.

Quite true. Very perceptive.

I think we should also remember that all this disinformation about "overpiopulation" masks a more dangerous agenda: control, greed, and promotion of abortion. The backers of the pro-RH politicians and NGOs are also the ones who are trying to impose "abortion rights" all over the world. And they have quite a bit of money to pay off their local followers. It is also a known fact that the population control movement has at least part of its roots in NSSM 200, the controversial U.S. government security paper that identified the large population of the Third World as a threat to the controlling elites in the First World. The text of that paper and info about it can be found at:

• National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) - April 1974
  http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html
  
  
• National Security Study Memorandum 200
  Blueprint for world de-population and western domination
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/waronfam...200/index.html

[mannyamador]

Obama Admin Used Pro-Abortion, Conspiracy Sites to Say Pro-Lifers Extremists
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5348.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The results of an organization's Freedom of Information Act request reveal the Obama administration relied on pro-abortion and conspiracy theory web sites to compile its report saying pro-life advocates may be "right-wing extremists."

In April, the Obama administration came under fire for releasing a document claiming pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism.

The Department of Homeland Security warned law officials across the country about a supposed rise in "right-wing extremist activity," saying the poor economy and presence of a black president could spark problems.

According to the Washington Times, a footnote attached to the nine-page report from the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis say the activities of pro-life advocates is included in "right-wing extremism in the United States.”

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning said.

In response to the report, the conservative group Americans for Limited Government filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding to know how DHS had arrived at that conclusion.

The group calls the DHS response "stunning" because officials admit that they relied on a range of web sites, including mainstream media web pages, to compile the report.

"As it turns out, Janet Napolitano’s DHS did not conduct even the most rudimentary research or investigation. It did no statistical analysis. It did not even bother to interview those it accused and allow them the opportunity to defend themselves," the group said in a statement today.

"Instead, in what should send shockwaves throughout the nation, DHS functionaries simply cruised the Internet (in tin-foil hats, no doubt) and relied entirely upon some of the most disreputable sites on the web to stage its attack upon its 'rightwing' targets," ALG added.

The web site listed the most on which the Obama administration compiled its report is whatdoesitmean.com -- a conspiracy theory web site that contends the government of the United States has been in direct contact with extra-terrestrial aliens through sophisticated radio waves.

Obama officials also relied on the pro-abortion blog Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center, a pro-abortion group, to compile the information in the report.

"During the Watergate hearings nearly three decades ago, Howard Baker said that the pivotal question for Richard Nixon was, 'What did he know, and when did he know it?'" ALG said in response. "Now, a similar question must be asked of Barack Obama: When did he know, and why didn't he stop it?"

The group said the response to its FOIA request "reveals that his Department of Homeland Security violated the trust of the American people in ways never even imagined possible by those whose liberty it has placed in jeopardy."

"And the President now needs to come clean and tell the American people when he learned about this horrifying attack on personal freedom and why he did not intervene to end the assault," it concluded.

[mannyamador]

Reproductive health is abortion
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=468724

Excerpts:

UN Committees and NGOs as well as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have openly admitted and included abortion within the term reproductive health. Recently Clinton told US Congress that the Obama administration regards the term “reproductive health to include women’s rights to safe abortion”. MacDonald of the EC tried to fudge the issue with his statement that the “lack of an effective framework for reproductive health is the cause of illegal abortion”—thereby indirectly admitting that the adoption of a framework for reproductive health will result in the legalization of abortion.

...

he hidden agenda of US and other European countries are now exposed. They are pushing for this RH bill to make investments on the contraceptive industry more profitable which is possible only if abortion is legalized as it is in their jurisdictions.

More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

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

[mannyamador]

CDC Figures Show Teen Abortions Lower in States Accepting Abstinence Funds
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 13, 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/state4347.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new report relying on data from the Centers for Disease Control finds the states that accepted abstinence education funding saw greater reductions in teen abortions compared to states that didn't. The information provides another argument in favor of funding abstinence education programs.

The Texas-based pro-life group San Antonio Coalition for Life has put out the new report and it compared CDC abortion figures to the list of states accepting or rejecting the funds.

From 2001 through 2005, abortion advocates were successful in getting 17 states to reject the federal grants for abstinence funding. The results show they were worse off for their decisions.

For teen girls under the age of 15, the CDC figures showed a 7.5% decrease in abortions in states rejecting the abstinence funding but a larger 23.1 percent decrease in abortions among states accepting the grants.

Examined another way, the group says, "The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education."

Overall, abortions on girls under 15 were 37.3 percent higher in states that rejected the monies.



The group also examined the abortion rates for teenage girls between the ages of 15 and 19.

While states rejecting the funding saw a 5.2 percent decrease in abortions, states accepting the funds experienced a much larger 20.5 percent decrease.

Viewed another way, states accepting abstinence funding showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger compared with states that rejected the funds.

"Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding," the group indicated.



Jill Stanek, a pro-life nurse and blogger, noted the study and said the results have significant consequences for abortion and abstinence policy.

"What I'd like to know is when the Obama administration will prove they truly want 'common ground' by endorsing the benefits of abstinence education," Stanek said. "Oh, but wait, that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood. No wonder their denial is so strong."

She said members of Congress should have paid attention to these figures before making decisions to cut abstinence funds.

"Even with these facts (certainly not publicized by the mainstream media) from the CDC, a Senate Panel voted to effectively end abstinence-only education funding," she said.

"With all of their crowing about how 'abstinence education doesn't work,' pro-aborts may want to take note," she says.

States rejecting the abstinence funding included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Related web sites:
San Antonio Colaition for Life - http://www.sacfl.org
Jill Stanek - http://www.jillstanek.com




“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Proverbs 31:8
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[wakkanakka]

One of the highest forms of hypocrisy...

Haha, you preach about hypocrisy when you are one of the worst offenders. You are trying to discredit thre entire Church position on the RH bill by generalizing the sins of one foreign bank and applying to the whole church? Crazy idea! Hypocrisy gyud.

Oi Ms. bongGAYshoos! Asa da source I have been asking from you? Are you AFRAID I might find something wrong there? Saman? If ur honest like you keep saying you are then you should be honest to give the source so we can check on it. If not then we will know all the more that you are just a big fat liar. You will have Zero credibility, or even negative if that is possible.

Stick to the issues, bro (or if you like, I can call you sis).

For me, it is wrong for the RH bill to DICTATE to all schools the kind of *** education of kids. The parents should be able to decide and if they don't like what is offered they should not be forced. But the RH bill is making only ONE kind of *** education program and making it even MANDATORY!

I am for freedom. So I cannot support this RH bill.

[giddyboy]

^^^ the RH Bill is not the one that will constitute what an "age-appropriate" s3x education should be. The RH Bill only gives guiding principles to the implementors.

as what DepEd provides in their internal provisions, there shall be a feedback mechanism to basic education in schools, public or private. Feedback mechanism w/ the stakeholders i.e. schools, parents, teachers, etc.

and the RH Bill nor the schools doesn't take away the responsibility of parents to their kids.

wala pa gani ta kahibaw unsay details sa comprehensive s3x ed (combination of abstinence-only ed and contraceptive ed) nga iladlad sa mga implementors, reklamo na diay ta daan?

let's take cognizance of the US gov't findings that abstinence-only ed showed little success. that's why Pres Obama eliminated funding for it and instead pushed for a new method of combining both abstinence-only ed and contraceptive ed.

so the notion that "age-appropriate" s3x education takes away democratic freedom is a misnomer. and Pres. Obama has just demonstrated that. what is wrong w/ giving values ed and at the same time contraceptive ed to our kids the "age-appropriate" way man diay? is being honest wrong? what's wrong instead is keeping our kids ignorant to things that they should know at their age.

---000---

Obama Budget Eliminates Funding for Abstinence-Only S3x Education
May 07, 2009

President Obama today unveiled a budget for fiscal year 2010 that eliminates federal funding for the teaching of abstinence-only s3x education in schools.

Instead of promoting abstinence ed, Obama is proposing a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative that supports "evidence-based" and "promising" models.

President Obama has indicated that his upcoming budget will shift funds away from abstinence-only s3x education toward evidence-based programs that teach both abstinence and use of contraception.

Once again, Obama is reversing policies set in place under President Bush, who asked for more than $100 million in funds last year for abstinence-only programs. Several states opted to turn down federal funds rather than be forced to forgo contraception education in public schools.

source: health.usnews.com

Obama Eliminates Abstinence-Only Funding In Budget

..."Regarding teen pregnancy, President Obama's budget is just right," said Sarah Brown, CEO of the National Campaign, in a statement. "It emphasizes good science, encourages research and innovation, and increases the overall investment in teen pregnancy prevention."

Brown also writes:

We also appreciate that 25% of what the President proposes in his budget is devoted to carefully testing innovative approaches to preventing teen pregnancy. If we are to make continued progress in preventing teen pregnancy and childbearing, it is clear that we will need fresh new approaches that, for example, help underserved populations and that employ new technology to reach young people. This will continue to expand the roster of effective approaches that states, tribes, and communities can use to prevent too-early pregnancy and parenthood."

Here's a bit more on the abstinence cuts from Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Col.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.):

"Eliminating funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs is a win for science," said DeGette. "The Obama budget proposal invests in programs that are effective and based on sound science, rather than wasting millions of dollars on efforts that have been proven to be ineffective at best. This budget underscores the President's commitment to science, and I look forward to working with the White House and House leadership to ensure that Congress supports his efforts."

"For too long we wasted money on programs that are proven to be ineffective. We are finally putting sound science ahead of politics," said Slaughter. "We have an obligation to our young women and men to empower them to make informed decisions about their own sexual health."

source:
Obama Eliminates Abstinence-Only Funding In Budget

"Abstinence-only *** education programs, which emphasize a no-***-until-marriage message, received almost $1.3 billion in federal dollars from fiscal years 2001-2009, according to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time, studies of abstinence-only programs have shown little success; the most often-cited study, released in 2007, was congressionally mandated and federally funded and found that abstinence-only programs don't prevent or delay teen ***." ~ Melody Barnes, director of the team that coordinates White House domestic policy.

source: usatoday.com, 5/11/09

Putting sound science ahead of politics...Good news for the people, bad news for the critics...

mao cguro ni usa sa nka ulbo ug kaspa sa mga abstinence-only education advocates ay...

now to reflect this to the Phil. setting, the issue is very significant. Pinoys who've been made to believe that abstinence-only ed is the best method would think twice na after this news.

[jennilexshop]

no dghn na ma juntis ana