Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[Dorothea]

Sakto jud siguro giingon nga, kapogngan pay baha, sa tawo nga gibiga^. Tinood or dili? Kung tinood, unsa may gamit ani nga bill? Kini nga bill makapugong ba kaha ni sa biga? Labi na sa mga pobre nga dili kapalit ug condom, pills ug unsa pa na diha. Resulta, mosamot kadaghan ang pobre unya mosamot ka gamay ang population sa middle class nga maka afford ani nga mga contraceptives. Complication: kay dili man ka afford ang mga pobre, mag allocate ug budget para subsidy, samot ka pobre ang pilipinas. Kurakoton pa jud, samot.

Mahalan sa condom? unya ang magpakaon ug usa ka dosenang anak, asa ma'y mas dako ug gasto?

he he he

[bcasabee]

Asay mas dako ug gasto? natural ang pagpakaon ug usa ka dosena nga anak. Karon sis, unsaon man nimo pag edukar sa mga pobre nga dili kasabot sa situation? Kani diay nga bill ang solution ana? Ang family planning ug *** education, mabuhat na bisan wala ani nga bill. So kani nga bill kung mo pasar ni, himoon na sad tang gatasan ani. Maka afford diay ang pilipinas pag subsidize sa sexual needs sa mga pobre, 24/7, whole year round, without cutting supply of condoms and contraceptives?

[bcasabee]

Ang mas maayo siguro nga bill no, "Kung manobra ang gidaghanon sa anak kay putlan ug pikoy ang amahan", labi na tong kusog mangabit, putlan dayon ug pikoy. Kana sis, siyaro naa pay patuga-tuga buhat nga wala man diay ikapakaon. Mas effective pa na siya sis kay sa mag subsidize ug condom.

[mannyamador]

So you say you've posted evidence? I don't really like the word ESTIMATE, so ESTIMATES I tend to ignore.

In case you haven't noticed, ALL the figures of effectiveness of contraceptives are ESTIMATES. None are absolute, none are perfect. Looks like you just shot yourself in the foot!!!

I don't consider myself high and mighty at all, or I would be just like you, pointing out how everyone else is wrong and not even having enough sense to re-read your own posts and look at the errors made.

Which is EXACTLY what you are doing. Telling everyone how they are wrong and how you and your absolutist claims about the effectiveness of your Pill are absolutely right. Well, read the medical references I've cited. They have clinical backing and cite corroborating evidence. In contrast, what evidence have you posted showing evidence for your silly claims about ovulation? ZERO.

And I don't care about posting articles here, because I'd rather have you do the work and read up on the standard texts and references than me having to spend time copying and pasting.

I knew it. You DON'T have proof for your silly claims. Nothing at all. There are two words for that: DISHONEST and LAZY.

Yeah, sure, you fooled me into thinking we could have an intelligent discussion, and made me do the research for you. I'm sure you're soooo proud of that. Typical. Oh well, can't shoot 'em...

And I have tried to explain to you already, women get pregnant sometimes when they're on the pill, not because of the failure of the pill itself, but because of non-compliance.

And I have proven that you are wrong on that. Women get pregnant on the Pill even with PERFECT compliance. Or haven't you been able to muster the wherewithal to get off your fat ass and read the references? Good grief, woman, if you want to argue then get your head out of your rear and do even a little research.

Do you honestly think there's MALICIOUS INTENT when a woman uses a contraceptive?

As usual, you don't read and understand what's being said. The intent is with the CONTRACEPTIVE, not the user. The abortifacient function mechanism is an INSEPERABLE part of how these contrceptives work, and was KNOWN and DISSEMINATED by the manufacturers when they produced them. So they were produced with full knowledge that they were abortifacient. Read the Physician's Desk Reference for information about your Pill or look at the package insert (if it comes with a complete one). They describe the abortifacient mechanism, usually saying something like it can cause changes in the endometrium, affecting the probability of implantation. Or will you come up with excuses not to read again?

And to actually think that MEN know MORE than WOMEN when it comes to MORAL and ETHICAL issues, and to say it is FACTUAL? That's clear arrogance, isn't it?

I said there are men who know more about it than women. That doesn't mean ALL. And I CLEARLY stated that gender has nothing to do with it. It's bad enough you can't back up your claims or think rationally, but must you also show you can barely understand what you read as well?

But that's ok because your posts are honestly, quite entertaining. They make me smile.

Ignorance is bliss.

Well, you fooled me into doing your homework so enjoy it while it lasts. Hehehe...

[Gwynhuever]

Ang mas maayo siguro nga bill no, "Kung manobra ang gidaghanon sa anak kay putlan ug pikoy ang amahan", labi na tong kusog mangabit, putlan dayon ug pikoy. Kana sis, siyaro naa pay patuga-tuga buhat nga wala man diay ikapakaon. Mas effective pa na siya sis kay sa mag subsidize ug condom.

pero bro correct me if i'm wrong..i have talked to a few men...dili nuon daghan a handful lang so basin dili to sila representative sa general opinion jud sa mga lalaki...pero against kaayo sila sa vasectomy...for some reason they believed "makuhaan ilang pag ka lalaki"...which we know is foolish...pero ask lang ko as a man...unsa imong opinion sad sa vasectomy? nya unsa sad kadaghanan opinion sa mga guys ani if you know...kindly share...

kay you know what ...naa sa Sacred Heart Hospital...no scalpel vasectomy....almost painless...FREE pa jud....didto nako gi pa higot akong bana he he he

[Dorothea]

Mannyamador, I do have Drug Facts and Comparisons, I'm staring at it right now. Hehehe, it weighs at least 10 lbs. Have you actually read it? You need to, because it will have something in there that might possibly give you reason to pause. Also, try to read Lippincott's Pharmacology and Goodman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. The are some things in there as well that'll hopefully shed light on this matter. I haven't read Physician's Desk Reference, but I will try to find time to do it. It is ironic really, emem would know what I mean, but I won't elaborate. Hehehe.

By ESTIMATES, I mean the article in which you spewed off that trash about the 88 cycles or whatever. I have asked you, how did they arrive at that number? How did the "researchers" PROVED beyond a SHADOW of DOUBT that there was any abortion involved? Give me the specifics, pls. Study details, parameters, test subjects, test controls etc etc. That is the kind of ESTIMATE I mean. I am honestly dying to know. Please ask your Pro-Life friends to send you some more info. Hehehe. And let's forget about the effectiveness of pills for a second. Let us talk about the PRIMARY mechanism of ACTION. Please read up on ESTROGENS and PROGESTINS, ok? When the drug inhibits ovulation, that is the INTENDED effect. Yes, it creates changes in cervical mucus and in the endometrium, but that is inconsequential because it INHIBITS ovulation in the FIRST PLACE. So now you have to prove that there were cases of ABORTION despite that PRIMARY mechanism. Without a shadow of doubt, ok? Otherwise it won't stand up in the court of Istorya.net. Hehehe. And don't give me those copy pasted articles again, the ones from 1989 or whatever. LOL

I admit, I am LAZY. But I am not dishonest. I made you do research for you, not for me. Because I have already read the books I mentioned. I know what information there is in those pages, but I am not going to spend my time here typing them up for you. Here's a list of them: Drug Facts & Comparisons, Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, Goodman and Gillman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Lippincott's Pharmacology, Merck Manual, Drug Information Handbook, Pharmacotherapy Handbook, Drug Interaction Facts. Yes, those are the books I read. And now I sound as pompous as you. Hahaha. But I do suggest you read them too, so you'll know what I am trying to tell you. Read something that your Pro-Life friends didn't dish out at you to memorize.

Also, about that thing you said, that women get pregnant even with PERFECT compliance? Please give me links on studies that prove UNEQUIVOCALLY that there was PERFECT compliance, and that despite that fact, a pregnancy still occurred. I really am rooting for you here, prove it. Hehehe. It seems to me that you are the one not doing your homework here. Read up some more on the subject pls, if you want to be more believable. It seems that the only stuff you read and the ones your Pro-Life buddies give you to memorize. LOL

And about that whole INTENT thing. You don't seem to understand me as well. Did you even read wng's post about this? Oh, it was in Bisaya, I forgot. Before you start foaming at the mouth, do please attempt to understand BASIC PHARMACOLOGY and how it AFFECTS the body's PHYSIOLOGICAL functions. And read up on ESTROGENS and PROGESTINS, ok? Read up on LH, the LH surge, FSH, plasma gonadotropin, endogenous steroids, GnRH and LH pulses. I have told emem to give you a lecture on Pharmacology 101, because unless you really understand how these steroids work on the body, all you can ever tell me is to read the patient package insert. Seriously? I need to read the PPI? And don't even get me started about PDR. You really don't know what goes on, do you? Hahaha. That is funny. And now, I really sound as pompous as you.

And last but not the least, you did NOT say, "there are men who know about it more than women", what you said was, "And a LOT of men know far more about the scientific and ethical issues involved than women, so gender is NOT a determining factor there either."

Now, this is where it gets tricky. I am going to ask you to copy paste articles here that prove that a LOT of men KNOW FAR MORE about the scientific and ethical issues involved than WOMEN.

And don't give me ESTIMATES either.

PS. You really do need emem to give you a lecture on Pharmacology 101. If nothing else, it'll make you more pompous than you already are.

And oh, this is the very last thing I am going to say anymore about this matter. But I need to tell you that I was part of a group of people that a few years ago, conducted research on the anti-fertility (and possibly abortive) effects of extracted alkaloids of a certain indigenous Phil plant. And yes, I opened up the bellies of hundreds of mice to PROVE the claimed pharmacological effect. So yes, mannyamador, I am a bad, bad person. Should you condemn me to hell, it'll be like the sweetest seal of approval ever.

Peace Bro!

[Gwynhuever]

^^ pastilan....naka kita na jud katapat si mannyamador ay...h ehe he...

well in this discussion i share dorothea's stand and point of view...i was so tempted to lie and say i am impartial para mo volunteer ta ko to keep scores sa debate he he he parehas ba sa pundits after sa debate nilang obama and mccain...nya kay di man nako ma stomach ang arguments sa pikas...so deklarar na lang jud ko nga ka tribo mi ni dorothea....

[emem525]

Asay mas dako ug gasto? natural ang pagpakaon ug usa ka dosena nga anak. Karon sis, unsaon man nimo pag edukar sa mga pobre nga dili kasabot sa situation? Kani diay nga bill ang solution ana? Ang family planning ug *** education, mabuhat na bisan wala ani nga bill. So kani nga bill kung mo pasar ni, himoon na sad tang gatasan ani. Maka afford diay ang pilipinas pag subsidize sa sexual needs sa mga pobre, 24/7, whole year round, without cutting supply of condoms and contraceptives?

bcasabee: the situation right now is that since GMA does not want to get her hands dirty on family planning, she is leaving the decision to the local government units to decide if they will allocate budget for the purchase of contraceptives. ang problem karon is that not all government officials are willing to allocate budget for the purchase of commodities, even if their constituents are asking for it. if the reproductive health bill is passed as a law, all government units have to set aside budgets for the procurement of these goods and the health centers have to offer FP counseling to those who need it. Counseling is the best way to educate men and women on family planning but it will not be forced on them. If they do not wish to use it, it is their choice. that is why it has been repeated over and over again sa RH Bill and Informed Choice - the person is informed and it is her choice to make, not the counselor, not the husband and certainly not the church.

Dorothea: hello again! heated na ba sa inyong discussion sis uy. don't worry about it. dili ka angay magka-wrinkles over you-know-who. you're not even paid for your posts! hehe. sagdi na na cya sis. what do you expect from a person who says ABSTINENCE is the best way to go? LOL...

[mannyamador]

Yes, it creates changes in cervical mucus and in the endometrium, but that is inconsequential because it INHIBITS ovulation in the FIRST PLACE.
. . .
Also, about that thing you said, that women get pregnant even with PERFECT compliance?

Here's the resource emem525 posted (so this resource is therefore NOT from me): Table of Contraceptive Efficacy

Column 3 shows the failure rate of Combined pill and progestin-only pill for PERFECT usage. The number there shows that 3 in every 1000 women get pregnant in the first year despite perfect usage. A woman usually cannot get pregnant with ovulating, right? That is PROOF that there is breakthrough ovulation. This is a failure of the primary mechanism. So any claim that there is no ovulation at all when taking the Pill is FALSE. Case closed.

Want more? Try this:

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

Perfect use of OCs implies taking them consistently and correctly (ie, in the correct order, on time, each and every day, and without other medications that might diminish the effectiveness of OCs). Typical use is described as the full range of usage patterns for OCs that actually occur in women. While some smaller studies that evaluated small numbers of women for 6 or fewer cycles have reported breakthrough ovulation rates of near 0, studies that evaluated women for at least 6 cycles demonstrated ovulation rates ranging from 1.7% to 28.6% per cycle. For POPs, reported breakthrough ovulation rates range from 33% to 65%.

So you have a range of breakthrough ovulation rates, for perfect and non-perfect (typical) usage. The bottomline: BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION OCCURS EVEN DURING PERFECT USE

Now here is the Physician's Prescribing Info (Physician Labeling 6701400) for two of Bayer's oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz (drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol): http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/ht.../Yasmin_PI.pdf and http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf

It states on the very first page of both, under PHARMACODYNAMICS:

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
difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces
the likelihood of implantation).

What part of "which reduces the likelihood of implantation" can't you understand?

Again, let me post this evaluating the evidence that the abortifacient mechanism of COCs does actually come into use (from the reference I cited above and in an earlier post):

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.

By ESTIMATES, I mean the article in which you spewed off that trash about the 88 cycles or whatever.

So now you're being selective again. You say you ignore estimates. So you should ignore your own. All rates for effectiveness are estimates. You just contradicted yourself -- as usual.

I admit, I am LAZY. But I am not dishonest.

You are obviously both.

do please attempt to understand BASIC PHARMACOLOGY and how it AFFECTS the body's PHYSIOLOGICAL functions.

Been there, done that. You're just now playing catch-up. Looks like I got you off your overly-wide rear-end at last!

You claim to have done some reading and even research, but your ridiculous claims of absolute ovulation inhibition shows you don't even understand the data! Let me repeat in case your closed mind still refuses to comprehend: BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION OCCURS DESPITE PERFECT CONTRACEPTIVE USAGE. Get that into your very thick skull.

Don't think that just because you cut up some mice that you actually understand the meaning of the data. That's like comparing an orderly to a doctor. Or a rookie mechanic to an engineer. In your case, you have amply demonstrated you don't have the capacity to even process the data. You're stuck up with absolute, black-and-white. You can't even grasp that breakthrough ovulation actually occurs, as shown by the statistical data. Perhaps not all the time, but it's not insignificant.

Now what happens when there is conception? How do you account for the wide difference in breakthrough ovulation rates and the detectable breakthrough pregnancy rate? That is the aboritfacient mechanism at work. You might make the lame excuse that it happens only a small amount of the time, but we're talking about human lives here. One death from abortifacients in 2-3 thousand births is still one too many.

And last but not the least, you did NOT say, "there are men who know about it more than women", what you said was, "And a LOT of men know far more about the scientific and ethical issues involved than women, so gender is NOT a determining factor there either."

A LOT does not mean ALL. Don't equivocate. The bottom line is that you're just SEXIST. That is a form of prejudice. And it's not only irrational, it's disgusting.

And oh, this is the very last thing I am going to say anymore about this matter.

More lame excuses. Looks like you've run out of BS. Well, that just means less opportunity for you to display your ignorance and lack of rational thought.

Don't worry about it, though. You won't go to hell just for being irrational.

[Dorothea]

Why do you keep attacking my thick skull when you cannot even show me what I've always asked from you as a favor? Show me the study DETAILS, study parameters, post all the info here. And please give me the guidelines of what PERFECT usage really means. Did the "researchers" put the women in CONTROLLED conditions for one whole year to ensure 100% PERFECT compliance? Can the researchers RULE OUT any other factor that could have affected the integrity of their research? If you can humor me, then answer this one question: HOW DID THE RESEARCHERS DETERMINE BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION? Give me the specifics on the so-called changes in endometrial biochemistry and histology? And explain it to me step by step, in your words, because I do have a thick skull. It seems to me that all you do is mindless RECITATION.

Been there, done that? Hahaha! You can't even explain to me BASIC Pharmacology! Maybe YOU need to give me a detailed LECTURE on how it all works since you fancy yourself an EXPERT. (When all you do is copy paste, and somehow INTERPRET data that your Pro-Life friends want you to interpret)

"In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist."

--Did you even read a single statement from medical literature that said that ABORTION happened DEFINITIVELY, because of the use of OCs? Get that into your lopsided SKULL! The fact that changes in cervical mucus and in the endometrium MIGHT contribute to the contraceptive effect of OCs is VERY DIFFERENT from ANTI-IMPLANTATION effects DEFINITELY CAUSED ABORTIONS in the use of OCs. If you can find a single medical literature that says that ABORTION happened during OC use, AND THAT THIS WAS PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY WITHOUT A DOUBT, then show that literature to me and I WILL SHUT UP. Those articles you posted, is that your idea of interpreting DATA? My gosh, my golly! I may not be as deluded as you are, but at least I DID CUT UP those mice and SAW WITH MY OWN EYES what I wanted to see. Maybe you need to give some MICE those so-called abortifacient contraceptives and actually DO SOME REAL WORK, one that you see FOR YOURSELF, and not one that YOU READ from copy pasted ARTICLES. And banning contraceptives because they MIGHT possibly cause ABORTIONS? The words MIGHT and WILL are not the same, you know. If we use your logic, in OC use the contraceptive effect MIGHT have been caused by inhibiting ovulation, or it MIGHT have been caused by the anti-implatation effect (as you call it). The thing is, if you want to advocate BANNING something, MIGHT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. As long as that PRIMARY effect (ovulation suppression) is in place, you cannot BAN something without being sure that it does what you say it does (anti-implantation), because it COULD BE the PRIMACY EFFECT in ACTION. Do you see where I'm going with this? Unless you reformulate the PILL to remove that PRIMARY mechanism, your propaganda will remain preposterous.

Whatever I say, you will always translate it the way you want to. I never said "absolute inhibition of ovulation", I have acknowledged several times that the synergistic effect of COCs cause changes in cervical mucus and endometrial lining. I specifically pointed that OUT on my VERY FIRST post, if you care to backread. And all I have ever wanted from you is to support your atrocious claims by showing me DATA that PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT A SINGLE ABORTION happens during OC use.

And to use your very own copy pasted stuff:

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
difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces
the likelihood of implantation).

What part of "which reduces the likelihood of implantation" can't you understand?

--It is good that you asked me that because, as far as I know, REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD is not exactly an unequivocal statement, is it. Had it said, "COMPLETELY ELIMINATES the likelihood of implantation", that would have been very different. Again, look up your dictionary and define REDUCES.

And so I ask you, What part of "which REDUCES the likelihood of implantation" don't you understand?

Hahaha

I admit I am LAZY. That is true. But can you copy paste something that proves I'M DISHONEST? Hey wait, before you do that, you better look up what DISHONEST means in the dictionary. LOL

And besides, not to nitpick or anything, even in the use of the word BAN, I don't think you're being entirely appropriate. This is just my opinion, but if you think OC use is ok for other therapeutic purposes, don't you think REGULATE would be a better choice? Just a suggestion though, lol

As for me being SEXIST, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? After all, you were the one who used these famous words: And a LOT of men know far more about the scientific and ethical issues involved than women..."


Oh, and you can add LIAR to my list of sins, because I did say I am not gonna comment anymore on this matter. But I COULDN'T HELP IT! How can I stay away when you start throwing around phrases like, "thick in the skull", and "overly-wide rear-end"? Honestly, I did enjoy your post. It takes my mind off pressing problems when I exchange nonsense with you. LOL

Peace, bro!

PS. Seriously, I need to keep my word and not say anything anymore. But do know that doing this will be the hardest thing I will ever do in my life.