Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[johnny22aa]

---

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,



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

as i said, not all contraceptives lagi has those same ingredients that you mentioned, kanang progestin etc. dli ra intawn progestin ang mka-birth control oi. other birth control (hundreds of them btw) have different qualities, they have different properties, different side effects. as i said again, these are being studied, examined and upgraded from time & time, u think kanang drug nga progestin, norplant and depo-provera are the only one available sa market? ganahan ka il suggest, ka2ng trust (gi cge ni cyag commercial), dianne (im not sure of the spelling, it sounds like this). dianne no longer has the same properties like it had 10, 20 years ago. and dianne (or a drug the same its component) no longer has the same side effects that can be found in the past. in fact, some of them have desirable effects pa man gali, like to prevent pimples. MAO NA AKONG PASABOT. so kana imong references, daan na na, its misleading, ITS WRONG. its correct in the past, but right now, it's no longer acceptable. mura ra gud ug computer. mga computer sa una (ka2ng green pa ug monitor) dli man to ka internet. nya insist jud diay ka mga computer karon dli mkainternet? ang celfone. sauna tawag ra. (ka2ng mobiline, islacom). karon puydi na txt. 3g pa. insist pa jud ghpon ka to use older data? ambot kinsay ganahan mo-partner nimo sa trabaho, sa negosyo, sa eskuyla if u think like that. u really find urself so hard to move on. pag chor dha dodong! ad *****gkan $%^&*@#%& imonis boshi2x dotum.

i again i challege you to speak from our own feelings (if ever you have one), not from the boring and sleepy facts that you posted. im waiting dodong.

[johnny22aa]

Sorry bro, but I think you misunderstand what is meant by "separation of Church and state." It does NOT mean that the Church cannot engage in politics. It does NOT mean the Church cannot try to work for the interests of the faithful. What it DOES mean is that the state cannot impose a state religion or try to control the practice of religion. The principle protects religion from the state because historically the state has always tried to control religion (not the other way around). Even in the Middle Ages, the state often used religion for its own purposes and tried to control it. There was constant tension between the Church and the various governments in Europe, even in the so-called Catholic countries. That is why in the US, this principle of separation became popular. Their former colonial masters, the English, had a state religion and used it to control the people when they could. The Americans wanted to change that. Buy they NEVER said that the Church could not engage in politics. The US even has clergymen as senators (like Rev. Jesee Jackson).

My thoughts on separation of Church and state are expressed in more detail at:
Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State PHNix Network Advocate

Archbishop Dosado was absolutely right denying the perpetrators of this anti-life bill Holy Communion. These two-faced politicians are NOT just regular mortal sinners like the rest of us. They are not just commititng sin privately. They are engaging in PUBLIC, REPEATED, and OBSTINATE sin, and even worse, they are tryiong to fool people into thinking that this is alright. There is a HUGE difference.

These politicans are trying to pretend they are good Catholics while at the same time openly working against the teachings of the Church. They deserve to be denied Holy Communion. In fact, they deserve far worse, but the Church is still being merciful.

Denying them Holy Communion just make simple comon sense. If you don't like it, find another "church" that thinks its alright for its members to violate its own teachings and make up their own doctrines whenever they feel like it. Let's see how long that "church" lasts.




This is crazed paranoia. The world is nowhere near desturction and we are not overpopulated. Get a grip.

you know the real reason behind why some people insist (of course, these are the enlightened ones) of the separation of church & state? the people of the state can no longer take the attitudes, the medieval type-thinking of those people from the church. they just realized gi-ilad ra cla sa mga pari in the name of god konohay. again, i challenge u to read world history again. kbaw baka how was the crusades? of course this was a godly purpose konohay. how was the papal bull that was to kill and burn "knight templars"? accuse of them of witchcraft? and burn these people right at the heart of their town. and this was the name of god. and the church wanted to extract more taxes from the people, to the european royales. all of these in the name of heavenly salvation. of course, those times, some of them believe it really was. but europeans realized (this was the renaissance) why trust & believe a church who dictates other people's lives, not only that, but it kills, it extracts money, it discriminates women, and other religions (like islam) and try themselves to position a world power that's already contradicting on how they know God. they realized that the church no longer works for the glory of god, but rather for the glory of the people of the church ITSELF. kbaw baka how the Church of England began? the king (george i guess) can no longer tolerate the intimidation of the pope then by not recognizing his marriage of the new queen. so the king thought ngano mag buot naman pirmi ang vatican? who are they? all they have is the name of god? everyone are sons & daughters of HIS. so everyone can also have the right to reach to HIS name. it should not only be from them, not exclusive to them. that's why he cancelled all his connections sa vatican, formed his own church, and named it Church of England. and ad2 cya ngpakasal. after that, people in europe realized "btaw noh, unsa man diay labot sa Vatican sa tanan ilang kinabuhi. and this thinking is now like this in europe. they started to question the concept of heaven, holy communion, excommunication, papal bull, female as the weaker ***, God. ka realize cla himo2x ra man diay ni sa simbahan para sa kaayohan ra pud sa mga tao sa simbahan, dli sa tanan. il tel u nga adorno ra intawn na dodong ang church dd2. dont u know that there more church (the building) now sa europe kysa ang mosimba? churches (i mean the building itself) are number one auctions for art and architecture lovers). ang simbahan dli na na cla mkaisog dd2 kay they already learned the lessons. wa na cla magtanga2x sa simbahan. unlike sa 3rd worlds na majority of the people don't have good education, the church can easily influence their "teachings of God konohay". and europeans want people who rule over them not to have the same thinking as what the church thinks. that's why people in the church should be separate from the state.

of course sa u.s., insist jud ni nga ing ani jud. dba america's founding fathers are immigrants from europe who wanted change and can no longer tolerate the oppression of their motherland? of course, these people already knew these mistakes sa europe, that an institution like a church is not fit to rule a people. mao nang they insist to have it separate jud. they insist to be free. not be under sa church (most of them protestants pa gali). they want to have their own institution calling it a state. mao na cya dodong!

nya kana imong gi ingon nga Rev Jesse Jackson, he is acting before like an elected official. it just happens he was a pastor. but many consider his term acceptable because he is representing his constituents no matter what religion they are. he knows their concern, civil rights, racial equality, black empowerment are the issues he is known for. many consider him as the succesor to martin luther king pa man gali. in fact, he tried to run for president. that's how popular he is. but not for the reason nga he's taking advantage of his being pastor in the state affairs. unlike here sa pinas nga pirmi starring ang simbahan sa politika. magtuga2x ni cya, dugay na ni cyang X sa mga amerikano if he thinks like the way YOU do.

[m1000]

ang ako lang wala man ta sa isa ka communista na country oi, let women choose unsa para nila hiyang nila... maski ang pregnancy maka lead og cancer pugson jud ang natural family planning? mag basal og mucus or calendar method or withdrawal wow? ka shooter sad sa mag asawa oi!

[dR.e]

nindot ni nga Bill, dili nata mg huwat ma safe ato mga F#@k buddy,
any time - on call cla'. . . e implement gyd unta ni,

[american_cebuana]

nindot ni nga Bill, dili nata mg huwat ma safe ato mga F#@k buddy,
any time - on call cla'. . . e implement gyd unta ni,

Para sa akin, dapat Filipinos have to be educated on this matter. Kawawa kaming mga babae, paanakan lang. Mostly kasi ng mga lalaki, puro kama lang ang inaatupag. Eh ang hirap hirap manganak ha. Ikaw kaya manny amador ang mabuntis gagah ka.

[mannyamador]

as i said, not all contraceptives lagi has those same ingredients that you mentioned, kanang progestin etc. dli ra intawn progestin ang mka-birth control oi. other birth control (hundreds of them btw) have different qualities, they have different properties, different side effects. as i said again, these are being studied, examined and upgraded from time & time

Really? Have you already read any documentation that shows that the essential functions of these contraceptives have substantially changed? I know you HAVEN'T. You're just making up your responses without any evidence whatsoever.

FOUR of the most widely-used contraceptives in the world (Pill, mini-pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera) ALL use progestin.

The Pill and Mini-pill are some of the most widely-used chemical contraceptives and they have the same ingredient: progestin. The mini-pill is progestion-only. It has no other active/effective contraceptive ingredients other than progestin. That has NOT changed.

Norplant has already been discontinued in the US. It has numerous side-effects and by 1996, over 50,000 lawsuits had been filed by affected Norplant users (Erica Johnson (April 1,2003). "Medical device lawsuits", CBC news. ). Norplant's active ingredient is also progestin.

Depo-Provera is Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). It is a progestin-only hormonal contraceptive, just like the mini-pill. it is also abortifacient. The sale and use of Depo in the US has been surrounded by controversy and many women's groups have protested against it on safety grounds.

The IUD works the same way it always has. It increases the risk of miscarriage and premature delivery. It is an even more effective abortifacient than the "morning-after" abortion pill and that's why it used in so-called "emergency contraception" (early abortion).

Next time do some research.

i again i challege you to speak from our own feelings (if ever you have one), not from the boring and sleepy facts that you posted. im waiting dodong.

If you find the facts and the truth boring, then that's your problem.

you know the real reason behind why some people insist (of course, these are the enlightened ones) of the separation of church & state?

Because they DON'T know what it means, as you have amply demonstrated.

[mannyamador]

Many years ago, the U.S. Congress contemplated a bill to fund population control abroad. Many of the myths that Philippine population controllers are now spreading were also said back then. Sheldon Richman, in his testimony, debunked these lies. His testimony, although presented a long time ago, seems very relevant to our situation today where "overpopulation" hysteria and ignorance has blinded so many people.


TESTIMONY
of Sheldon Richman
Senior Editor, Cato Institute

On The International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act (S. 1029)

Let's go back to the beginning. How many people are too many? We know that five and a half billion people walk the earth today. But that number by itself says nothing. Maybe it is too few. How can we tell?

Over What?

The prefix "over" implies a standard. For example, "overweight" implies a standard linked to height. By what standard is the earth overpopulated? Certainly not living space. The world's population could fit into Jacksonville, Florida, with everyone having standing room. Dense cities are often surrounded by nearly empty countrysides. For overpopulation to be real, there must be conditions that are undesirable and unmistakably caused by the presence of a certain number of people. If such indications cannot be found, we are entitled to dismiss the claim of overpopulation.

In arguing their case, the believers in overpopulation make vague, tautological references to a standard known as "carrying capacity" colorfully illustrated with stories about gazelle herds and bacteria (anything but human beings). When the verbiage is cleared away, what are adduced as the symptoms of overpopulation? Famine, deepening poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and resource depletion. Yet on no count does the evidence support the anti-population lobby's case. On the contrary, the long-term trend for each factor is positive and points to an even better future.

The television pictures of starving, emaciated Africans are heartbreaking, but they are not evidence of overpopulation. Since 1985 we have witnessed famine in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia. Those nations have one thing in common: they are among the least densely populated areas on earth. Although their populations are growing, the people there are not hungry because the world can't produce enough food. They are hungry because civil war keeps food from getting to them. Moreover, the very sparseness of their populations makes them vulnerable to famine because there are insufficient people to support sophisticated roads and transportation systems that would facilitate the movement of food.

In the 20th century there has been no famine that has not been caused by civil war, irrational economic policies, or political retribution. Not one. Moreover, the number of people affected by famine compared to that in the late 19th century has fallen--not just as a percentage of the world's population but in absolute numbers.

Food Supply

Food is abundant. Since 1948, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, annual world food production has outpaced the increase in population. Today, per capita production and per-acre yields are at all-time highs. Prices of agricultural products have been falling for over 100 years. The average inflation-adjusted price of those products, indexed to wages, fell by more than 74 percent between 1950 and 1990. While Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute and the noted butterfly expert Paul Ehrlich predict higher food prices and increasing scarcity, food is becoming cheaper and more plentiful. That good news is due largely to technological advances (the "green revolution") that have provided better seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and methods of farming. The only obstacles to agricultural progress are the impediments created by governments. Imagine what the world would be like today if the fertile farmland of the former Soviet Union or China or India had been in productive private hands operating in free markets for the past several decades. Since permitting market incentives in agriculture, India has been come a net food exporter and agricultural production in China has boomed.

Catastrophists argue that the bright past does not imply a bright future; they arbitrarily assert that mankind has crossed some fateful threshold. But the earth is capable of feeding many more people than are now alive. The late Roger Revelle of Harvard University (whom Gore claims as a mentor) estimated that Africa, Asia, and Latin America alone, simply by using water more efficiently, could feed 35 to 40 billion people--seven to eight times the current world population. And that assumes no change in technology--a groundless assumption, to be sure.

Those who annually predict imminent famine (while urging readers to subscribe to next year's publications) seize on any change as evidence that man's alleged strain on the biosphere is finally beginning to show. Thus, if the price of seafood rises, they announce that the seas are nearing exhaustion. They never consider the myriad other possibilities, such as the shift in diet from meat to fish, the decline of the Russian fishing industry during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or the "tragedy of the commons" associated with the lack of property rights in the oceans and lakes.

The most telling indication of the trend in food production is the presence of a farm lobby in every industrial capital. Those lobbies spend millions of dollars a year to persuade their governments to hold food prices up and food supplies down. They apparently don't expect help from nature.

Plunging Death Rate

The catastrophists' claim that the population explosion causes famine, poverty, disease, and environmental degradation founders on a single undeniable fact: the global plunge in the death rate. All over the world, people are living longer. More babies survive infancy than ever before, and more people are reaching old age. That cannot be squared with the assertion that living standards are falling, that food production is declining, and that the air and water are more dangerous to human life. "Human comfort," wrote John Rickman, a contemporary chronicler of the Industrial Revolution, "is to be estimated by human health, and that by the length of human life."

It should be unnecessary to emphasize the increase in longevity: without it there would be no population explosion for the catastrophists to complain of. The increase in the number of human beings has not occurred because women are having more children than before. The increase is chiefly the result of the falling mortality rate, which economist Julian Simon calls "man's triumph over death." It should be the occasion for celebration, but the catastrophists prefer sackcloth.

In the period 1950-55, there were 159 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the developing world. By 1980-85, the number plunged by over 42 percent--to 92. In East Asia, infant mortality dropped 71 percent. In South America, the drop averaged 52 percent. Even in Africa, the world's laggard, infant mortality dropped 38 percent. In the industrialized world, the rate fell more than 69 percent.

The increase in life expectancy at birth has been equally dramatic. Between 1950-55 and 1980-85, the average increase worldwide was 13 years, up 29 percent. In the industrialized world, life expectancy went from 65 years to 73 years. But the biggest news was in the developing world, where the increase went from 41 to over 56--a 38 percent increase. The most dramatic increases were in East Asia, where more than 25 years were added to peoples' lives (for a total of 68 years), a 60 percent gain. In South America there was an average gain of almost 11 years, and in Africa the gain was over 12 years. "The increase in average life expectancy during the twentieth century," the late David Osterfeld wrote in Progress versus Planning: How Government Stifles Economic Growth, "equals or exceeds the gains made in all the preceding centuries combined." In A Moment on the Earth, Gregg Easterbrook points out that "it cannot be noted too often that the spectacular worldwide increase in human lifespans has come during the very period when global use of synthetic chemicals, fossil fuels, high-yield agriculture, and radioactive substances has increased exponentially--a fantastic flowering of life coincident with the very influences doomsday orthodoxy depicts as antithetical to life."

Falling Fertility Rate

Over that same period, the total fertility rate (the average number of children born per woman) fell everywhere. Worldwide, the rate fell from 5 to 3.6. (The rate that produces population stability, or replacement, is 2.1.) The developing world's rate dropped from 6.2 to 4.1--more than halfway to the replacement rate. East Asia went from 5.5 to 2.3, South America from 4.9 to 3.6. The laggard, again, is Africa, where the rate fell from 6.5 to only 6.4.

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.

Thus, a low fertility rate, writes Peter Bauer, is an effect, not a cause, of development. Arguments for population control programs in the developing world, which shift child-bearing decisions from couples to the state, are wrong. Those programs are also an affront to human dignity, privacy, and liberty, whether they compel women to have abortions and to be sterilized (as they do in China) or "merely" deprive people of income and vital services because they want more children than the government wishes.

No Obstacle to Development

The catastrophists' cliche' that a growing population is an obstacle to development is especially barren. Studies show a strong correlation between affluence and longevity; as the late Aaron Wildavsky liked to say, wealthier is healthier. The lengthening life expectancy in the developing world is evidence that population growth cannot be increasing poverty.

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.

The initially plausible claim that more people deplete resources faster has no more foundation than the catastrophists' other arguments. Price is the best indication of relative scarcity. For centuries, resources of every kind, including energy, have been getting cheaper. In 1990 energy on average was 46 percent cheaper that it was in 1950; minerals were 48 percent cheaper, lumber 41 percent cheaper, food 74 percent cheaper. As Carroll Ann Hodges, of the U.S. Geological Survey, wrote in the June 2, 1995, issue of Science (pp. 1305-1312), "Yet, despite the specter of scarcity that has prevailed throughout much of this century, no sustained mineral shortages have occurred. . . .Minerals essential to industrial economies are not now in short supply, nor are they likely to be for the next several generations." (The only thing getting more expensive is labor, an indication of the scarcity of people.) Technology enables us to find more resources and to use them more efficiently. Doubling the efficiency of our use of oil would be equivalent to doubling the available supply of oil. Natural resources, in other words, do not exist in fixed supplies.

Resources: Natural or Manmade?

Actually, natural resources do not exist at all. All resources are manmade. Something is not a resource until it can accomplish a human purpose. Before Benjamin Silliman, Jr., a Yale University chemist, discovered in 1855 that kerosene (a better illuminant than whale oil) could be distilled from crude oil, oil was not a resource. It was black gunk that ruined farmland and had to be removed at great expense. Silliman turned oil into a resource not by changing its chemical composition but by making a discovery. Nature does not provide resources, only materials. A resource is a material that has been stamped with a human purpose.

The latest evidence of that truth is the information revolution that swirls around us. That revolution is made possible by silicon computer chips and threads of glass (fiber-optic cables). Both are made from sand--one of the most abundant substances on the planet. Thanks to human ingenuity, a common substance that was merely part of the landscape has become a tool of revolutionary human advancement. People don't deplete resources. They create them.

Institutions Count

Nothing written here implies that population growth does not bring problems. Quite the contrary; but as Julian Simon says, it also brings problem solvers who apply their intelligence, discover and invent solutions, and--here is the key--leave human society better off than it was before the problems arose. Doubters need only study the quality of life on the pre-Columbian North American continent, when several million Indians barely scratched out their subsistence amid the same "natural resources" that today enrich the lives of billions of people worldwide.

A caveat: human advancement is not automatic and cannot withstand complacency. It has a precondition without which all that is written here may be ignored. That precondition is liberty, specifically, the individual's right to think, to produce, to trade, and to profit from his achievements. In institutional terms, liberty consists in free markets, the rule of law protecting property and contracts, and strict limits on government power. Civilization's successes have another thing in common in addition to growing populations: capitalism.

S. 1029: Unconstitutional and Unnecessary

The foregoing evidence indicates that S. 1029, like the proposals of the UN's International Conference on Population and Development at Cairo, is a bad solution in search of a problem. First, the powers that would be authorized under the act exceed the powers granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the population is not in need of stabilization by government intervention. As the world becomes richer and more Westernized, the fertility rate falls on its own. The growth in human numbers is accounted for by the plunging death rate--a universal sign of progress. There is no population problem to be solved.

The Act's objective of forcing American taxpayers to finance family planning, health, and education programs in the developing world is ill-considered. The record of government-to-government transfers is dismal for a simple reason. Providing cash to central governments puts off the day when those governments grasp the necessity of relinquishing power and letting the liberal market order--complete with women's rights--flourish. Foreign aid intensifies the politicization of society. When the state is the primary cash cow in society, people will expend effort to curry favor with rulers rather than set their minds to economically productive activities. The whole society suffers as a result. If we really want to help the developing nations, we can do so merely by opening our markets to them.

Government programs in the area of reproduction are particularly fraught with danger. By now the horrendous cases of China, India, Bangladesh, and other nations that carry out population control by force should have taught us that the state has no place in this most personal area of life. We should not be reassured by the Act's prohibition on the use of U.S. funds for coercive programs. Money is fungible. Any dollar furnished for a voluntary program frees up a dollar for compulsory one. Moreover, research shows that people in the developing world are already familiar with and have access to Western contraceptive devices. That they don't use Western contraceptives as much as some Americans would like does not mean they are deprived of them. A World Bank study found that what mainly determines the fertility rates of developing countries is not the availability of modern contraceptives but rather the wishes of couples. All manner of Western products are available in the Third World, including infant formula. If people want modern contraceptives, private enterprise will (and does) provide it. Don't force the American taxpayers to provide subsidies.

It must also be pointed out that government-sponsored reproductive health clinics are ethically dubious endeavors. An agency cannot have two masters. If the clinic is funded by government, it is not truly the agent of the women who use it. The government and the women may not have the same interests. A woman might want another child, but state officials may be more interested in carrying out government population objectives. Who should prevail? Government clinics and education programs are likely to be used to further an antinatalist agenda, which sees population growth as harmful. In terms of the bigger picture, what if women's freedom, which the Act supports, and the UN's population targets are inconsistent? Which will be set aside, the targets or freedom?

Of course, most people wish to see economic progress in the developing world. But the truth is that U.S. government money cannot produce it. The only things that can are the diminution of government power in those countries, the rule of law, and the expansion of the private, productive sector of society--in a word, capitalism.

References

Ronald Bailey, ed. The True State of the Planet. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

P. T. Bauer. "The Population Explosion: Myths and Realities," in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Jacqueline Kasun. The War against Population: The Economics and Ideology of Population Control. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988.

David Osterfeld. Prosperity versus Planning: How Government Stifles Economic Growth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Lant H. Pritchett and Lawrence H. Summers. "Desired Fertility and the Impact on Population Policies." Policy Research Working Paper 1273. The World Bank, Office of the ice President, Development Economics, March 1994.

Sheldon Richman. "Population Means Progress, Not Poverty." Washington Post, Sept. 1, 1993.

"Cairo's Faulty Assumption." The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1994.

Julian L. Simon. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Population Matters. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1986.

[pongborro]

wahhhhhhhhhhh
di lang ko kabalo mu lalis.
basta i really agree with johnny22aa!

[mannyamador]

Basta lang ng basta... Well, that's one method of making decisions.

As for me, I prefer to make decisions based on sound reasoning and analysis of the facts.

[bcasabee]

Unsa jud diay sulod ani nga bill? Naa moy link?