Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[ronaYo]

---

1. THE BILL IS BASED ON A FLAWED PREMISE.

There is no “population explosion” and the country is not overpopulated.

The population growth rate and the total fertility rate (TFR) have declined. The National Statistics Office puts the growth rate at 2.04 %, the TFR at 3.02. However, the CIA World Factbook (200, for one, puts the growth rate at 1.728%, the TFR at 3.00. Whatever the real numbers are, at least one million Filipinos leave the country for foreign jobs every year. There are at least 12 million Filipinos now living and working abroad.

The country has a population density of 277 Filipinos per square km, with a GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) of $,3400. The Central African Republic has a population density of 6.5 and a GDP per capita (PPP) of $700. At least 50 countries have a much lower population density than that of the Philippines, yet their GDP per capita is also much lower.

This is true! If you rationalize the Total Population of the Philippines against it's Total Land Land Area, including farmlands, forest etc! But I think this should not be the case! We should consider population density sa mga Urban Centers like Metro Manila, Metro Cebu and other major cities and it's GDP per capita! Kita bitaw ka anang ubos sa tulay, daplin sa suba ug dagat, sidewalks, plazas, etc gipangpuy-an na! We don't see this in the countries you mentioned below!

Fact: the few are not always richer.

On the other hand, at least 36 countries have a much higher population density than that of the Philippines, yet their GDP per capita is also much higher. Macau has 18,428 people per square km and a GDP per capita of $28,400; Monaco has 16,754 people per square km, with a per capita income of $30,000; Hong Kong has 6,407 per square km, and a per capita income of $42,000; and Singapore has 6,489 per square km., and a per capita income of $49,700..

These are small states and cities! Population High/GDP High
Why dont compare the Population/GDP per capita data of Metro Manila or Metro Cebu? Population Very, very High/GDP Very very LOW!

Fact: the many are not always poorer.

The most critical statistic has to do with the age structure of the population. Worldwide, the median age is 27.4 years. In the Philippines, it is 23 years. In at least 139 countries it is higher than 23; in 73 others, lower. All the developed countries are on the high side. Monaco has the highest (45.5 years), followed by Japan (43., Germany (43.4), Italy (42.9), Sweden (41.3), Spain (40.7), Switzerland (40.7), Holland (40), United Kingdom (39.9), France (39.2), Singapore (38.4), Russia (38.3), United States (36.7), South Korea (36.4). In China, the world’s fastest growing economy, it is 33.6.

This means a Filipino has more years to be productive than his counterpart in the developed world, where the population is graying and dying, without adequate replacement because of negative birth rates. Those who understand this well will tend to be more confident of the future; they will see the need to invest more extensively in the development of this resource...

This is true if you're just considering the age! but what about other factors? Like education health, food, shelter? What can you do with a young population with inadequate education? masakiton, gigutom ug walay masilungan? Do you think they would become productive and a good resource of the country? or basig mahimong dakung problema?
We don't see these in Monaco, Japan, Germany etc... the countries you've mentioned... Can't compare to them...

2. THE BILL IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY

3. THE BILL ASSUMES THAT THE STATE IS OMNIPOTENT. IT SEEKS TO CONFER UPON THE STATE A RIGHT AND AUTHORITY IT DOES NOT, AND CAN NEVER, POSSESS.

4. THE BILL IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Debatable, Very Subjective...

5. THE BILL IS DESTRUCTIVE OF PUBLIC MORALS AND FAMILY VALUES.
It seeks to legislate a hedonistic ***-oriented lifestyle whose aim is to assure couples and everybody else of “a safe and satisfying *** life” (the other term for contraceptive ***), instead of a mutually fulfilling conjugal life, and ultimately change time-honored Filipino values about human life, family life, marriage, in favor of the most destructive counter-values that are wreaking havoc on the morals of many consumerist societies.

Hehehe kataw-anan ni! Tanaw nila sa Pilipino mga F@$#%^ Perverts! ug walay values! Dapat kang mainsulto sa ing-aning point of view! Unsa man ni c Tatad oi, nyakis guro ni...

6. THE BILL IS PARTICULARLY UNJUST TO CATHOLIC TAXPAYERS, WHO CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY, AND WHO WILL BE MADE TO BEAR THE COST OF THE PROGRAM THAT WILL ULTIMATELY ATTACK A CONSTANTLY HELD DOCTRINE OF THEIR FAITH.

8. ENACTMENT OF THE BILL WILL ONLY DEEPEN THE IGNORANCE ABOUT THE ISSUES INVOLVED.

Again, Debatable Very Subjective...

9. THE NATURAL REGULATION OF CONCEPTIONS DOES NOT OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION OR THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF OF ANY COUPLE; IT IS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE DEMANDS OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD, AND IS NOT CONTRACEPTION AT ALL. NO LAW IS NEEDED FOR THE STATE TO SUPPORT IT.

The Billings Method, which takes advantage of the fertility rhythm of the human body, has been attested by the WHO to be 99% effective. But as there is no money in it, no industry has promoted it like the various contraceptives and abortifacients. State support for it could spell the difference.

Let the Church do it's job!, adtu sila didto sa mga depressed areas, mag lecture sa mga daghan ug anak ug sa mga wala pay anak, kung unsa ang heavenly method of contraception! well, of course church say go unto the world and multiply no need to do contaception, i guess a lecture of Good Parenthood will do! While they do yawyaw during homily about this bill, they should have added a good lecture of Responsible Parenthood!

[ronaYo]

Let me add:
From Wikipedia:
Metro Manila's GDP is $10,800 .... not bad eh? and population density of 18,166 per sq. km (It's considered Very High)
In 2005, it ranked as the 42nd richest urban agglomeration in the world with a GDP of $108 billion according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.. Wow kuyaw!

heres the Killer:
Metro Manila is a place of economic extremes. It is stated that 97% of the total GDP in the Philippines is controlled by 15% of the population, the majority of which is in the Metro Manila area.

What a disparity! kitang pobreng na belong sa 85% sa population nag-share lang intawn sa 3% GDP!
while 15% comprise cguro ni sa mga negosyante ug politiko shares 97%! Watta F@#k!

Klaro kaayo nga sa mga Urban centers Overpopulated! Samot ka-bagsak ang quality of life on these areas tungod sa dakung diperensya s sharing sa GDP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Manila

[emem525]

The Billings Method, which takes advantage of the fertility rhythm of the human body, has been attested by the WHO to be 99% effective. But as there is no money in it, no industry has promoted it like the various contraceptives and abortifacients. State support for it could spell the difference.

Ahemmm excuse me. DOH gave Couples for Christ (CFC) 50 million pesos to promote natural family planning. Did anyone even hear about this? It was supposed to be a nationwide campaign but honestly wa jud ko nakadungog or nakakita man lang ug fliers nga gipang circulate about natural family planning. Secretary Duque is in the hot seat because of this because he himself believes natural family planning is the way to go...asa na sad kaha ang kwarta ani sah? tsk tsk tsk...Ay now i remember...basin nahurot ra sa pagbayad sa ads sa national paper ...di ba naa man to sa una nga magsige pagawas ug ad ang CFC sa Inquirer criticizing the repro health bill...basin didto napunta ang kwarta...hehehehe....funny man ni oy...oooppppssss...just thinking out loud.

[cottonmouth]

Ahemmm excuse me. DOH gave Couples for Christ (CFC) 50 million pesos to promote natural family planning. Did anyone even hear about this? It was supposed to be a nationwide campaign but honestly wa jud ko nakadungog or nakakita man lang ug fliers nga gipang circulate about natural family planning. Secretary Duque is in the hot seat because of this because he himself believes natural family planning is the way to go...asa na sad kaha ang kwarta ani sah? tsk tsk tsk...Ay now i remember...basin nahurot ra sa pagbayad sa ads sa national paper ...di ba naa man to sa una nga magsige pagawas ug ad ang CFC sa Inquirer criticizing the repro health bill...basin didto napunta ang kwarta...hehehehe....funny man ni oy...oooppppssss...just thinking out loud.

Bisag asa gyud diay ang corruption brod, sa makauna lang ug duot...mao na. Wolves in sheeps clothing...gwark!

[freudz]

i think the intention of this reproductive health issue is good SANS the "human factor" implementing ani.... kahibawo nata if moliroy gyud...

[cottonmouth]

4. THE BILL IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.[/B]

a) Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution provides: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

“Sanctity” -- the state of being holy -- is an attribute of God. God is not outside our lives; the very first words of the Constitution proclaim it: “We, the sovereign Filipino People, imploring the aid of Almighty God…” Obedience to God’s laws, therefore, is not only a solemn teaching of the Church, but also an express constitutional mandate.

4. THE BILL IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.　(REALLY?)


You have a cognitive bias here. The Webster dictionary gave two meanings of “sanctity”: Godliness and Inviolability. Because you are bias you define “sanctity” as an attribute to God but in reality the word when used in the constitution refers to the Inviolability of a person’s right. The State by all means shall equally protect the right of the mother and the unborn BUT that is in the case of abortion. However, assumptions are not taken as evidence or proof of fact and so far you have only offered assumptions. On the other hand, medical expert paraded data that contraceptive when USED PROPERLY will not cause abortion. It follows that you need to have proper information about the proper usage of contraceptive. The STATE in Article II-Section 15 has that responsibility to inform its citizen.


More to come anang imong unconstitutional binutbot...

[mannyamador]

On the other hand, medical expert paraded data that contraceptive when USED PROPERLY will not cause abortion.

That is quite FALSE. The scientific evidence clearly shows that certain hormonal contraceptives and the IUD are ABORTIFACIENTS. You have not even been able to account for the discrepancy between the breakthrough ovulation rate and the detected pregnancy (post-implantation) rate. Thus all you have are assumptions and ZERO scientific and medical evidence.

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126

We found the evidence supporting postfertilization effects for OCs in the prevention of clinically recognized pregnancy to range from poor (level III) to very good (level II.2). Specifically, evidence based on alterations in endometrial biochemistry and histology (level III), evidence based on endometrial thickness and endometrial receptivity from research studying in vitro fertilization (level II.2), and evidence based on endometrial integrins (level II.3) all support the possibility of peri-implantation or postimplantation effects. Furthermore, evidence based on ectopic-to-intrauterine risk ratios from multiple case-control studies (level II.2) supports the possibility of postfertilization preimplantation, peri-implantation, or postimplantation effects. However, we could identify few data that would assist in quantifying these postfertilization effects. 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.

Despite the evidence, which suggests that postfertilization effects for OCs are operational at least some of the time, and the fact that a postfertilization mechanism for OCs is described in the Physicians' Desk Reference, in Drug Facts and Comparisons, and in most standard gynecologic, family practice, nursing, and public health textbooks, we anecdotally find that few physicians or patients are aware of this possibility. Therefore, we believe that the potential for postfertilization effects is probably not routinely presented to patients as part of their informed consent to use an OC. Furthermore, it is of concern to us that only one of the many OC patient information handouts we and others have reviewed, including those produced by the OC manufacturers, mentions the possible postfertilization mechanism, despite the fact that this information is nearly always included in the professional labeling of these same OCs.

So much for your ridiculous claims of no "clinical backing" for the existence of abortifacient contraceptives. It seems you are quite the expert at ignoring scientific and rational evidence, "paraded" or otherwise.

You have a cognitive bias here. The Webster dictionary gave two meanings of “sanctity”: Godliness and Inviolability. Because you are bias you define “sanctity” as an attribute to God but in reality the word when used in the constitution refers to the Inviolability of a person’s right.

You're conveniently ignoring Tatad's justification: he cites the Constitution's earlier provision, which itself mentions Almighty God. So fit ehre is any cognitive bias, it is in YOUR interrpetation, not Tatad's

The STATE in Article II-Section 15 has that responsibility to inform its citizen.

But you are making an exception when it comes to the state informing citizens the truth about abortifacient contraceptives. Quite a DOUBLE STANDARD.

@ronayo

We should consider population density sa mga Urban Centers like Metro Manila, Metro Cebu and other major cities and it's GDP per capita!
...
Metro Manila is a place of economic extremes. It is stated that 97% of the total GDP in the Philippines is controlled by 15% of the population, the majority of which is in the Metro Manila area.

But urban areas have higher densities because people MOVE there, not just because of birthrate. Manila's TFR is below replacement level, but it still has some population growth because of MIGRATION. In which case, you have an argument for development of the countryside and other small urban centers, NOT population control. Wrong analysis there, sir.

Be careful, you're sounding like me! That's a perfect argument that CORRUPTION and INJUSTICE cause poverty, NOT overpopulation! opulation won't cause wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few, but corruption and injustice WILL. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot there!

What can you do with a young population with inadequate education? masakiton, gigutom ug walay masilungan? Do you think they would become productive and a good resource of the country?

Again, that's another argument that points to corruption plus economic mismanagement as the culprit. Try as you might, you just can't seem to provide proof that this is caused by overpopulation!

If you minimize corruption and follow sound economic principles, the country will have more money for education (without losing the benefits and efficiencies of economies of scale). Population control won't do that, but ti will waste money and divert attention to false causes of poverty.

Debatable? Very subjective? Uh,,, you have to prove that. Just claiming they are such doesn't mean they are. But you have been unable to do so. Noa arguments whatsoever, just claims.

--
No to Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043) Petition
No to Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043) Petition

Kill Bill 5043
FILIPINO FAMILY | Under Siege

[wakkanakka]

True, the 3/4 figure is exaggerated but we can accept that majority are catholics. BUT only 1 out of the 3 is dumb and can be fooled by the priests. As the poll above suggested that is 75% of istoryans agreeing with this bill and I bet most of them are catholics, i.e. wise catholics. So what can I say, the claim of the writer is full of fallacy.

Hambogero! You think I'm dumb just because you can't fool me with your RH-boladas?

I read these forums to learn, and I was wondering why some of you support the RH bill, and was seeing if I should change my mind. But now I see all of you pro-RH are good for is insulting people who don't agree with you when you can't beat them with good debate. How are you supposed to convince thinking people with your insults? At least the anti-RH and pro-life try hard to give their evidences, even if they are fewer people than you. Look who is being dumb now (sorry for the words, but that is the truth I can see here in this debate)!

[Gwynhuever]

^^ ngano nasuko man ka bro...sa akong tan-aw ni tubag ra si cottonmouth sa general statement ni mannyamador...aw ambot lang sad ha if sayop ra sad akong pag sabot...pero i do not see asa siya dapit na hambugero...tsk tsk

[ta3]

^^ Basin g LQ na sila.hehehe

In serious note:
@wakaka101shift1 -- ayaw sd e generalize bai mora sd rba ka og sakto. Wala ko kabasa sa imong mga post pero the way you attack morag lagpas ra kaayo. Depende rana sa taw if ok ba sila mag gamit og contraceptives. Freedom of choice ra gd na. Why not let the right person do the job? Ang ubang pare react kaayo morag sweto!