Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[mannyamador]

Gi tabulate nako ang population density nga mga sa places nga na mention diri. People per sq. km. ni. Awa ni:

How will birth control solve anything when the most densely populated areas of Metro Manila (which is the City of Manila) is actually experiencing NEGATIVE average annual growth rate? Other cities too!

(Latest figures from NSO are from 1995-2000.)

City of Manila: -0.97%
City of Makati: -1.8%
City of Mandaluyong: -0.63
City Of Muntinlupa -1.12%
Malabon: -0.54
Pasay City: -2.97
San Juan: -1.15%

The average for all of Metro Manila is only 1.06%. It's population density is LESS than that of Cebu. That's NOT runaway population growth at all!!

Any small population growth in Metro Manila is not because of a high birth rate, it's because of migration. Manila is densely populated because people migrate there or go to work there. They think there are few opportunities outside of Metro Manila. Birth control won't solve anything.
Developing the countryside and other cities WILL.

To do that, you have to address the real cause of poverty and migration to Manila. But as usual, these *****ic politicians (and their follower lapdogs) can only think of murdering the unborn and hurting families with abortifacients. They refuse to address the real problem: bad governance, massive corruption, etc.

[wng]

The latest census including 2007 has been released: http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sector...007/region.pdf

And the growth rate from 2000-2007 for the NCR is 2.11%! And the growth rate for Region IVA is 3.24% for 2000-2007. It was 4.03% from 1995-2000. And you choose to show only those cities that have negative growth. There are many others with positive population growth. And FYI, ALL cities and municipalities in the NCR have positive population growth from 2000 to 2007 (http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sector...7/province.pdf)!

And FYI, Metro Manila is more densely populated than Metro Cebu. And Metro Manila is more densely populated than Cebu City. Only comparison that it MAY be less densely populated is if you compare Metro Manila with only the urban barangays of Cebu City (exclude all those mountain barangays from the computation). Talk about skewed comparison!

Maayo gyud unta ni siya dili tubagon, oplok kaayo ug logic. Problema gud hasta information, sayop ug out-of-date. Na-unsa gyud ning tawhana!

[wng]

Naay link from a "pro-life" group sa kaning bill: PRO-Life Philippines - HB 812 The Reproductive Health Care Act
Lisud2 idownload kay >4MB.

Naa pud summary and clarifications from the media: Reproductive health bill: Facts, fallacies - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

[ieuseerm]

kini nga bill, kinahanglan sad nga matranslate unta sa lahi-lahing dialects aron sad tawn masabtan sa mga taw nga di kaayo mahibaw ug eninglish.

hunahunaa lang ha nga naa kintahay babay nga sayu naminyo. naminyo sya mga 18 years old pa. nya matunong pa jud nga palahubog ang iyaa bana, or sa karong panahona, dako ug posibilidad nga shabu addict jud ang iyaa bana. kining banaha, sa iyang pagkapalahubog or pagka-shabu addict, di na ni sya mabadlong, di na ni sya makapugong sa iyaang biga ug uwag. bisan ug unsaon sa asawa ug balibad nga, mr., di lagi ta pwede magsex karong gabiiona kay fertile lagi ko, pero, mamugos jud gyapon ang bana. kining kahimutang nila, wa nay katapusan hangtud sa hangtud nga makaanak sila ug isang dosina nga mga anak. by the time nga isang dosina na ang mahimong anak, ang inahan 35 years old pa. kanang 35 years old ha, layu pa na sa menopause kay magmenopause ang babay mga late 40s or early 50s pa. so aduna pay napung tuig nga pwede pa mamabdos ang asawa. na unsaon nalang man na sa asawang babay kung wala syay access sa birth control? putlon nya ang oh!ten sa iyaang bana? or buwagan nalang jud niya? or tahiun niya ang iyaang bissong?

[mannyamador]

[b]And the growth rate from 2000-2007 for the NCR is 2.11%!

And the average over time (1995-2007)? Just 1.7%! You chose to ignore that. Accurate huh?

And you choose to show only those cities that have negative growth. There are many others with positive population growth.

That's what I was saying. Some cities -- including the one you said had the highest population density, the City of Manila -- had negative growth in that period. Even in 2000-2007, it's growth was miniscule: only 0.68%. The overall average from 1995-2007? Only 0.03%!

People move and migrate to Metro Manila because of lack of development in the rest of the country. Birth control WON'T address that either.

And after all your boladas, you still have NOT shown that any of this overcrowding or population growth is due to births. It is also due to MIGRATION! Which birth control will NOT address. Oh, you forgot all about that, huh? Try more thinking before spouting numbers that don't prove your case.

Only comparison that it MAY be less densely populated is if you compare Metro Manila with only the urban barangays of Cebu City (exclude all those mountain barangays from the computation).

You want to compare a highly urbanized area like Manila to an area including far-flung mountain barangays?! Now THAT is a skewed comparison.

The bottomline: You have to PROVE that poverty is due to population and NOT because of other factors. You have failed to do so. MISERABLY!

[johnny22aa]

And the average over time (1995-2007)? Just 1.7%! You chose to ignore that. Accurate huh?



That's what I was saying. Some cities -- including the one you said had the highest population density, the City of Manila -- had negative growth in that period. Even in 2000-2007, it's growth was miniscule: only 0.68%. The overall average from 1995-2007? Only 0.03%!

People move and migrate to Metro Manila because of lack of development in the rest of the country. Birth control WON'T address that either.

And after all your boladas, you still have NOT shown that any of this overcrowding or population growth is due to births. It is also due to MIGRATION! Which birth control will NOT address. Oh, you forgot all about that, huh? Try more thinking before spouting numbers that don't prove your case.



You want to compare a highly urbanized area like Manila to an area including far-flung mountain barangays?! Now THAT is a skewed comparison.

The bottomline: You have to PROVE that poverty is due to population and NOT because of other factors. You have failed to do so. MISERABLY!

we already prove it. we posted it in bisaya. and YOU did not read it. coz YOU can not understand bisaya in the first place. wats the use of knowing your existence if you don't want to know what we are talking about? if u don't want to internalize our side? try to feel it first, try to undertand what we posted and it will surely burst YOU into pieces. miserably.

[gwapo_gyud]

from my point of view, family planning is not an abortion. ang sperm cell maka "landing or touchdown" sa egg cell kay it's the start of life. so since contraceptives or other family planning methods is to avoid contact between the sperm and egg cells, so it's not really an abortion. ambot kung naka sabot b mo.

It's true that once ang sperm cell and egg meet, it is already the start of life. And as a Catholic, I believe that from this time on we are already given a soul by God.
The problem is that, not all contraceptives prevent the union of sperm and egg. Some contraceptives, eg. IUD, allows the union of sperm and egg. They just make the environment hostile to the fetus, by causing irritation to the uterus rendering it unconducive to the implantation of the fetus therefore causing abortion.
I hope that I have enlightened the minds of our friends here. I also hope that they help us urge our legislators to review that said reproductive health bill because some of the contraceptives that they are promoting also promotes abortion.
May our Lord God Bless us all.

[bcasabee]

@johnny22a and company.
I just want to know how much we are going to spend for this contraceptive program yearly and the target decrease of the population growth.

[r3roble]

It's true that once ang sperm cell and egg meet, it is already the start of life. And as a Catholic, I believe that from this time on we are already given a soul by God.
The problem is that, not all contraceptives prevent the union of sperm and egg. Some contraceptives, eg. IUD, allows the union of sperm and egg. They just make the environment hostile to the fetus, by causing irritation to the uterus rendering it unconducive to the implantation of the fetus therefore causing abortion.
I hope that I have enlightened the minds of our friends here. I also hope that they help us urge our legislators to review that said reproductive health bill because some of the contraceptives that they are promoting also promotes abortion.
May our Lord God Bless us all.

yes, i agree...
although in totality the bill is okey, however, there is something fishy jud.. murag naay nagpahipi nga mugawas lang unya kung maapprove na...

[bcasabee]

Yeah, I agree, education is better. But generally, this education should be focus to legitimate couples. For high-school students, it is not necessary to have this as a subject. Film showing regarding ***, about contraceptives and STDs is enough, so making this as a separate subject is just plainly ridiculous.

That's why I'm not really up for widescale contraceptive distribution right now. I don't Tytrust our government enough. Education is better.