What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[mannyamador]

---

NFP -- It's Not What You Think
http://www.hli.org/commentaries_pat_...t_u_think.html

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge, Associate Director,
Respect Life Office
July 2002

IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Mention “NFP” to the uninformed and the eyes may roll with thoughts of the old, unreliable “rhythm” method. Being unaware of the various natural, healthy, and Church approved methods available today for achieving and postponing pregnancies, the uninitiated may quickly dismiss NFP as ineffective and irrelevant.

Today’s NFP methods—awareness and appreciation of a woman’s natural cycle of fertility—are very reliable. By learning to identify these natural signs of fertility, couples may—while always remaining open to the gift of children—avoid a pregnancy.

BEAUTY AND BENEFITS

There are many benefits (for body, mind, and soul) in following the teachings of the Church on the use of NFP. Some of the most commonly reported benefits include: marriage enrichment; greater respect for husband and wife; appreciation for the blessings of every child; esthetic and ethical acceptability; lack of harmful side effects for the woman; effective in achieving pregnancy; easy to learn; and low cost.

Divorce rates for NFP couples have been reported from a low of 1% to a “high” of 5%. There is little, if any, evidence that couples who began their marriages understanding and practicing NFP ended in divorce.

FACT VS FICTION

Many Catholics are confused about the teaching of the church on contraception. Some believe that the decision on whether or not contraception may be used is a matter of “individual conscience.” Others believe that even the use NFP is wrong. What is the truth?

As difficult as it may be for some to accept—and contrary to the writings of some moral theologians—the Church is very clear that contraception is intrinsically evil. It is seriously and morally wrong (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2370). That being said, the Church does not teach that married couples must have as many children as possible. While couples are to be generous in terms of the number of children they have, for just reasons (CCC #236, they may use NFP to space their children or limit the size of their family.

As stated in Humana Vitae (“On the Regulation of Birth”) #10, “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.”

FOLLOW YOUR CONSCIENCE?

What about those individuals who believe that they may follow their conscience in reference to contraception? The Catechism (#1786) states, “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”

The Catechism further states in #1789 that “Some rules [in choosing to act in accordance with conscience] apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it…” Humana Vitae #14 addresses this concept when it states, “…if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom…”

Protestants Sam and Bethany Torode, in their newly published book, Open Embrace, recognize the role of an faulty conscience when Bethany writes, “I’ve had married people tell me that they prayed about using contraception and God gave them the go-ahead. I’m skeptical of such statements because I know, from my own experience, that we often hear ‘God’s voice’ as filtered through our own cultural conditioning.”

NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION

Some individuals—recognizing the very low failure rate of NFP—insist that NFP is no different from non-abortifacient contraception and therefore should not be practiced by faithful Catholics. This view, however, is not in accordance with the authoritative teachings of the Church. The Catechism (#2370) teaches that “[p]eriodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.”

NFP is not contraception. Rather, it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation. It does nothing to attack fertility, does not withhold the gift of oneself from one's spouse, nor block the procreative nature of intercourse.

The Church teaches that if a couple engages in the marital act, they must not do anything to deliberately prevent natural law from taking effect. Each act of intercourse must be an act of total self-giving and must be open to the possibility of new life. If there is no such conjugal act, there is no contraception.

In terms of intention, both contracepting and NFP couples may be trying to avoid a pregnancy, but the means to the end are very different. It is similar to two men who need money. They both go to the bank. One obtains a loan and the other robs the bank. Same intention. Different means. The end does not justify the means.

The contracepting couple blocks the both the unitive and the procreative nature of the marital act, while the NFP couple limits the occurrence of intercourse to the wife’s natural periods of infertility. The NFP couple is simply observing a God-given cycle—there is no unnatural barrier between husband and wife.

CONTRACEPTION-ABORTION LINK

The Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities says, “It is noteworthy that as acceptance and use of contraception have increased in our society, so have acceptance and use of abortion. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than others. Tragically, our society has fallen into a mentality that views children as a burden and invites many to consider abortion as a ‘backup’ to contraceptive failure….An end to abortion will not come from contraceptive campaigns but from a deeper understanding of our human sexuality, and of human life, as sacred gifts deserving our careful stewardship.”

And, let us not forget that one of the mechanisms of certain chemical forms of “contraception” (including, but not limited to the various forms of “The Pill,” Depo-Provera, Norplant, the IUD, and so-called “emergency contraception”) is to make the endometrium hostile to implantation. This may then result in a very early abortion.

LEARN MORE

We encourage you to learn more about NFP and the Church’s teachings on related matters. Some of the best sources for information include the Catechism of the Catholic Church; Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, Casti Connubii, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Donum Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, Gaudium et Spes, and Veritatis Splendor.

Copyright, 2002

Patricia Bainbridge is the author of a Lifelines column published the first Friday of each month in The Observer, official newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford, Rockford, Illinois.

[mannyamador]

Birth Control
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which
reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception
to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in
its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end
or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization,
condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and
all other such methods.

The Historic Christian Teaching

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching
condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by
growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon
the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other
Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic
Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be
examined in this tract.

Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race,
often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of *** is procreation. The pleasure that sexual
intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while
strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment
this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in
a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of ***, which is procreation. God’s gift of the *** act,
along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end --
procreation.

Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in
Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman
empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and
other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though
made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was
used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s
dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to
her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he
went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death
(Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than
simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and
Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically
been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as
"Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent
condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle
has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the
general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an
exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been
established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does
not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who
recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the
seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children
2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called
faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn
commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already
been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they
have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or
God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall
be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in
325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy,
should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is
evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have
been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this
canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of
procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil
deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality
of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to
this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until
1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan,
the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it
unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it
comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order
of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . .
Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous
thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For
this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile
affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord -- and it is to be feared; thousands,
especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These
passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic
Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

The Magisterium

The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and
apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the
generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic
reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching
authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether
of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act,
or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as
a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14).

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of
the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether
as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on
the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization
or contraception" (CCC 2399).

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always
taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching
is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the
good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the
spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission
of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

Human Experience

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of
contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the
teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially
limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up
towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know
human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have
need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of
eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive
practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium,
may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected
and beloved companion" (HV 17).

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as
a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and
the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than
in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the
moral evil of contraception.

Wishful Thinking

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for
each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always
gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857).
This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception.
The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual
disobedience."

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[mannyamador]

Prolife Month Activities
http://www.prolife.org.ph/article/articleview/609/1/40

Come and join the Human Chain for Life, Decency and Morality.

February 15, 2006
St. Peter Parish Church
New Capitol Hills, Commonwealth, Quezon City
(near Ever-Gotesco Mall)

• Dialogue with Congressmen at 2:00 pm on the D.E.A.T.H. Bills
  for those who wish to join the grassroots leaders, U.S. pro-life lobbyists,
  Family and Life leaders.
• 3:00 p.m. - Prayer Rally
• 4:00 p.m. - Human Chain and Candle Procession

Pls. bring candles, banners, placards, & streamers with appropriate prolife message.

For details and confirmation, call Pro-life Phils. at 911-2911 / 422-8877 / 09192337783 or fax 421-7147. or download our reply slip (PDF)

Post Abortion Healing and Recovery Training Seminar

Women with abortion experiences are waiting for your love, acceptance and compassion.
Help them go on with their Lives.

February 17, 2006 (Friday)
8:00 AM to 4:00 PM
Campus Crusade for Christ Bldg.
40 Scout Borromeo, South Triangle, Quezon City

Our Fight for Life
A Prayer Conference to Stop the Devastating Effects of Abortion

February 18, 2006 (Saturday)
8:00 am to 12:00 noon

4th Flr. Multi Purpose Hall
Campus Crusade for Christ Bldg.
40 Scout Borromeo, South Triangle, Quezon City

For more information please call (02) 421-72-47 or (02) 911-29-11.

[mannyamador]

A Child Is Born

Life begins at conception and ends at death. In between, life does not develop - it is simply there. "What does develop," says Sir William Liley, the New Zealand scientist who is internationally recognized as the "father" of the science of fetology, "is the morphological structure, the earthly home of life, the physiological performance of that structure, behavioral traits and personality." These are some of the milestones of the first nine months of life:

Conception: Father's sperm penetrates mother's egg cell. Within the hour, genetic instructions from both parents interact to establish the design and inheritance of a new and unique individual - at this stage no bigger than a grain of sugar.

[img width=77 height=82]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/24-100x100.jpg[/img] Thirty Hours : A few hours after the nuclei has fused, the fertilized ovum divides for the first time, with a powerful force.

[img width=69 height=74]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/25-100x100.jpg[/img] Two Days : The division continue; four visible cells and perharps eight all together are on their way through the Fallopian Tube's thicket of cilia to uterus.

[img width=92 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/26-100x100.jpg[/img] Four Days : Surrounded by its transparent wall, the zona pellucida , the blastocyst now glides in the uterus.

[img width=94 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/27-100x100.jpg[/img] Eight Days : The blastocyst has landed! Like a raspberry on a cake, it sinks slightly into its foundation.

[img width=89 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/28-100x100.jpg[/img] Three Weeks : The human embryo is barely 2 mm. (.08 inch) long. The genes have begun to concentrate development in the three germ (cell) layers from which all the body's organs are to merge.

[img width=69 height=72]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/29-100x100.jpg[/img] Four Weeks : The basic human design is beginning to merge. The embryo shows the clear rudiments of brain and backbone.

[img width=86 height=90]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/30-100x100.jpg[/img] Five Weeks : The embryo is five weeks old and appears like a bright dot in its membrane sac. The yolk sac, visible in the foreground , is the embryo's blood cell factory.

[img width=91 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/31-100x100.jpg[/img] Six Weeks : The cells are seething with life, the heart is beating, blood is being pumped through the umbilical cord and the whole embryo is in constant motion.

[img width=100 height=98]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/32-100x100.jpg[/img] Eight Weeks : Weightless, the embryo lies suspended in the amniotic fluid. This fluid with the salinity of the primeval sea protect the embryo's delicate organs and tissues against impacts and pressures

[img width=94 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/33-100x100.jpg[/img] Four Months : Now the facial features are being modeled : the forehead is growing with the thread like blood vessel fully visible under the transparent skin.

[img width=87 height=94]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/34-100x100.jpg[/img] Four and a Half Months : The body system are being tested. It moves and waves its arms. A finger touching its lips precipitates a slight sucking reflex.

[img width=68 height=73]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/35-100x100.jpg[/img] Five Months : The fetus stretches, grasps and turns. All these movements are necessary for the development of fine motor ability.

[img width=95 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/36-100x100.jpg[/img] 7 months: Permanent eye teeth are present. Eyelids open and close, and eyes look around. Hands grip strongly. Mother's voice can be heard and recognized. The baby begins to accumulate some fat.

[img width=93 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/37-100x100.jpg[/img] Thirty Five Weeks : Weight increases by 1kg (just over 2 lb) and the baby's quarters begin to get cramped

[img width=91 height=100]http://www.prolife.org.ph/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/38-100x100.jpg[/img] 9 months: Labour begins (triggered by the child) and birth occurs, usually 255-275 days after conception. Of the 45 generations of cell divisions between conception and adulthood, 41 have taken place. The remaining four will occur during the rest of childhood and adolescence.

The milestones listed above have been documented by scientific research. Slight variations of hours or days, may exist and future research using more sensitive methods may show that some of these milestones occur earlier than is now realized.

Photos Courtesy Of Lennart Nilsson From the book: A Child Is Born

[mannyamador]

Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the Philippines
By RENE JOSEF BULLECER, M.D.
Executive Director, HLI Visayas Mindanao
http://www.hli.org/condom_facts_thai...ids_rates.html

There has been a wealth of misinformation and misleading interpretations of facts surrounding the spread
of HIV/AIDS in Thailand and the Philippines. Anti-life forces, of course, continually push and spin facts while
working toward their deadly agenda. These organizations view condom distribution as the one great
solution to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS even though time and experience has proven just the opposite.
Recently, BBC and UNFPA's Director, Ms. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, suggested that even calling into question
the effectiveness of the condom, as Cardinal Lopez-Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family
recently did, would actually spread the disease. She boldly stated that "the statements of Cardinal Trujillo
could contribute to the further spread of HIV/AIDS."

Let's examine the actual figures:

The first AIDS case in Thailand was diagnosed in 1984, when a homosexual prostitute tested positive for
the disease. Later it spread among the female and male prostitutes, and among intravenous drug users.
The first AIDS case in the Philippines was also diagnosed in 1984.

By 1987, there were 112 cases of HIV/AIDS infection in Thailand and 135 cases in the Philippines.

In 1991 the World Health Organization (WHO) AIDS Program forecasted that by 1999 Thailand would
have 60,000 to 80,000 cases, and that the Philippines would experience between 80,000 and 90,000
cases of HIV/AIDS.

During that same year the Minister of Health of Thailand, Mr. Viravedya, launched the heavy-handed,
"100% Condom Use Program." All brothels were required to stock a large supply of condoms, and
condom vending machines appeared in supermarkets, bars and other public places. This initiative was
widely accepted by the people of Thailand. I was able to visit Bangkok in both 1994 and 1997 to see
this first-hand.

A year after this program was set loose upon Thailand (1992), the infamous Secretary of Health (now a
senator), Mr. Juan Flavier, tried to implement the program in my own country, the Philippines. This small,
4'11'' man tried every technique he could think of to get his country to accept the flood of condoms
waiting to invade. He even went so far as to mock and deride Church leaders.

Flavier's efforts in the Philippines failed, however, and in 1999 the UNAIDS reported 755,000 total
confirmed cases of HIV infection in Thailand-65,000 had died of the disease. That same year, in the
Philippines, the total number of HIV cases was only 1,005. The disease had killed only 225 people.

The discrepancy in the infection rates between the two countries, Thailand with severe condom-oriented
programs and the Philippines without, has continued and only grown wider. As of August 2003 there
were 899,000 HIV/AIDS cases documented in Thailand and approximately 125,000 deaths attributed to
the disease. These numbers are many times those projected by the WHO (60,000-80,000 cases) in 1991.

These numbers contrast sharply with those of the Philippines where, as of September 30, 2003, there
were 1,946 AIDS cases resulting in 260 deaths. This is only a mere fraction of the number of cases
(80,000-90,000) that the WHO projected would be reached by 2000.

Due to the unabated rise of cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand, the UNPFA sponsored a meeting in Bangkok in
September 2003. Unable to curb the spread of the disease, they are focusing now on AIDS care. Ironically,
records show that majority of the AIDS hospice centers are currently owned and being run by the Catholic
missionaries, particularly the Camillian Fathers!

The discrepancy between the numbers of HIV/AIDS cases in Thailand and the Philippines is particularly
poignant considering that the Philippines is actually the more populous country. According to the U.N.,
Thailand has 66 million people. While according to the USAID-funded Commission on Population, the
Philippines is now home to 82 million souls.

To what does the Philippines owe its great success in the fight against AIDS?

The AIDS-Free Philippines which I personally organized in 1991 got the blessings from the Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines in 1993 as the official program to combat the pro-condom advocates
nationwide. Despite extremely limited local funds (we never received any foreign funds) we were able to
spread our program widely among our target groups ranging from the Maritime students, inter-island
seamen, prison inmates, secondary and college students, civic organizations, and religious groups and institutions.

AIDS-Free Philippines is the only pro-chastity/abstinence and truth based anti-AIDS program in the Philippines.
I have participated in scores of radio and television interviews through these years and even debates (where
I debunked the claims of condom effectiveness) with pro-condom Department of Health officials and NGO's.

Our secret weapon is, of course, prayer. We always start each lecture, seminar, training session, and
convocations with a prayer and we always emphasized the moral aspect of the problem.

Of course, though years of experience in examining the differing AIDS infection rates in the Philippines and
Thailand would seem to prove beyond any doubt the disastrous ineffectiveness of the condom solution,
there are still efforts to implement these and similar strategies in the Philippines. Despite so much evidence,
the culture of death never gives up on the condom.

[nindotkanon]

Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the Philippines
By RENE JOSEF BULLECER, M.D.
Executive Director, HLI Visayas Mindanao
http://www.hli.org/condom_facts_thai...ids_rates.html

There has been a wealth of misinformation and misleading interpretations of facts surrounding the spread
of HIV/AIDS in Thailand and the Philippines. Anti-life forces, of course, continually push and spin facts while
working toward their deadly agenda. These organizations view condom distribution as the one great
solution to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS even though time and experience has proven just the opposite.
Recently, BBC and UNFPA's Director, Ms. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, suggested that even calling into question
the effectiveness of the condom, as Cardinal Lopez-Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family
recently did, would actually spread the disease. She boldly stated that "the statements of Cardinal Trujillo
could contribute to the further spread of HIV/AIDS."

Let's examine the actual figures:

The first AIDS case in Thailand was diagnosed in 1984, when a homosexual prostitute tested positive for
the disease. Later it spread among the female and male prostitutes, and among intravenous drug users.
The first AIDS case in the Philippines was also diagnosed in 1984.

By 1987, there were 112 cases of HIV/AIDS infection in Thailand and 135 cases in the Philippines.

In 1991 the World Health Organization (WHO) AIDS Program forecasted that by 1999 Thailand would
have 60,000 to 80,000 cases, and that the Philippines would experience between 80,000 and 90,000
cases of HIV/AIDS.

During that same year the Minister of Health of Thailand, Mr. Viravedya, launched the heavy-handed,
"100% Condom Use Program." All brothels were required to stock a large supply of condoms, and
condom vending machines appeared in supermarkets, bars and other public places. This initiative was
widely accepted by the people of Thailand. I was able to visit Bangkok in both 1994 and 1997 to see
this first-hand.

A year after this program was set loose upon Thailand (1992), the infamous Secretary of Health (now a
senator), Mr. Juan Flavier, tried to implement the program in my own country, the Philippines. This small,
4'11'' man tried every technique he could think of to get his country to accept the flood of condoms
waiting to invade. He even went so far as to mock and deride Church leaders.

Flavier's efforts in the Philippines failed, however, and in 1999 the UNAIDS reported 755,000 total
confirmed cases of HIV infection in Thailand-65,000 had died of the disease. That same year, in the
Philippines, the total number of HIV cases was only 1,005. The disease had killed only 225 people.

The discrepancy in the infection rates between the two countries, Thailand with severe condom-oriented
programs and the Philippines without, has continued and only grown wider. As of August 2003 there
were 899,000 HIV/AIDS cases documented in Thailand and approximately 125,000 deaths attributed to
the disease. These numbers are many times those projected by the WHO (60,000-80,000 cases) in 1991.

These numbers contrast sharply with those of the Philippines where, as of September 30, 2003, there
were 1,946 AIDS cases resulting in 260 deaths. This is only a mere fraction of the number of cases
(80,000-90,000) that the WHO projected would be reached by 2000.

Due to the unabated rise of cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand, the UNPFA sponsored a meeting in Bangkok in
September 2003. Unable to curb the spread of the disease, they are focusing now on AIDS care. Ironically,
records show that majority of the AIDS hospice centers are currently owned and being run by the Catholic
missionaries, particularly the Camillian Fathers!

The discrepancy between the numbers of HIV/AIDS cases in Thailand and the Philippines is particularly
poignant considering that the Philippines is actually the more populous country. According to the U.N.,
Thailand has 66 million people. While according to the USAID-funded Commission on Population, the
Philippines is now home to 82 million souls.

To what does the Philippines owe its great success in the fight against AIDS?

The AIDS-Free Philippines which I personally organized in 1991 got the blessings from the Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines in 1993 as the official program to combat the pro-condom advocates
nationwide. Despite extremely limited local funds (we never received any foreign funds) we were able to
spread our program widely among our target groups ranging from the Maritime students, inter-island
seamen, prison inmates, secondary and college students, civic organizations, and religious groups and institutions.

AIDS-Free Philippines is the only pro-chastity/abstinence and truth based anti-AIDS program in the Philippines.
I have participated in scores of radio and television interviews through these years and even debates (where
I debunked the claims of condom effectiveness) with pro-condom Department of Health officials and NGO's.

Our secret weapon is, of course, prayer. We always start each lecture, seminar, training session, and
convocations with a prayer and we always emphasized the moral aspect of the problem.

Of course, though years of experience in examining the differing AIDS infection rates in the Philippines and
Thailand would seem to prove beyond any doubt the disastrous ineffectiveness of the condom solution,
there are still efforts to implement these and similar strategies in the Philippines. Despite so much evidence,
the culture of death never gives up on the condom.

thats why hehehe. you will lose your job kung mag control ang Philippines sa population. hehehehehe. wawa ka naman! pity on you!

[nindotkanon]

the jeepney driver has to WORK HARD.period.

how hard? when everything is so expensive that he cannot even afford to live in a very comfortable life or good life. I dont see how can his family have a good future if this is your reasoning. A pedicab driver has to work hard too because he has 6 kids or more? Question again how hard? There are no other opportunities this people have. Because they are the ones being victimized by sick people in his environment telling him to work hard while other people (mostly in the government) only have to have one signature for his/own good. Period!

[mannyamador]

thats why hehehe. you will lose your job kung mag control ang Philippines sa population. hehehehehe. wawa ka naman! pity on you!

Wow, that was so such an intelligent comment.
Maybe you can try to come up with a real argument now...

Better yet, try reading the tons of evidence in previous posts that refute your inane arguments.

There are no other opportunities this people have. Because they are the ones being victimized by sick people in his environment telling him to work hard while other people (mostly in the government) only have to have one signature for his/own good. Period!

And population control will NOT solve any of that. Yoiu just shot yourself in the foot.

[mannyamador]

German leaders wake up to shrinking population
Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:02 AM ET
By Erik Kirschbaum

BERLIN (Reuters) - Are Germans an endangered species?

Stunning as it may seem, a steep decline in the German population since 1972 and fears the trend
will gain pace have led demographers to warn of unsettling consequences.

The number of Germans has declined by 3.2 million -- the population of Berlin -- over the last 30
years but demographers' concerns have mostly been ignored until now in a country scarred by the
Nazis' nefarious procreation pressures.

German leaders have now lifted the birth rate to the top of the political agenda for the first time
since the Nazi era, and the two ruling parties are trying to outdo each other with pro-family measures.

"Germans are at risk of dying out if the trend continues," said Harald Michel, managing director of
the Institute for Applied Demography. He fears the German population could shrink from 75 million
to 50 million by 2050 and further after that.

"The birth rates have been below the replacement rate for 35 years -- a lethal development," he
added. "Germans could become an 'endangered people.' It's hypothetical now but we may have to
think about 'the last German' at some point. The problem is compounded each generation. Children
not born 30 years ago obviously aren't there to have children now."

SILENT SHRINKING

Germans have long had one of the lowest birth rates in the European Union at 1.3 children per
woman -- far below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 needed to keep the population stable and about
half the rate of 40 years ago.

More than 30 percent of east and west Germans born from 1960 to 1967 will remain childless. Among
Germans with higher education, the childless rate is even higher at 38 percent.

"Each generation is being reduced by about a third," said Norbert Walter, chief economist at Deutsche
Bank.

"The consequences are foreseeable," he added, referring to the financial havoc a shrinking population
is causing in areas ranging from the increasingly underfunded state pension system to weak consumer
spending and sagging property values.

"I think it's an exaggeration to talk about Germans becoming 'extinct'. But when a country that once
had more than 80 million people ends up with only 60 million at some point down the road, well, that
will be a completely different country then."

The silent shrinking has so far been masked by immigrants.

But Germany's anemic economy is no longer a magnet and the total population, which includes 7
million foreigners, has actually declined in recent years -- from a peak of 82,536,680 in 2002 to
82,500,849 in 2004.

NAZI PROMOTIONS, PRESENT TABOO

Low birth rates plague other nations like Italy, Russia and Japan where the Yomiuri daily said last month
that the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime fell to a record low in 2005.

But demographers say Germany is worse off because the problem has been ignored for so long. In other
leading industrial nations like the United States, Britain and France, birth rates are much closer to the
replacement rate.

"Why did we show so little interest the last 40 years as we went from a republic rich with children to one
with a children shortage?" ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder asked last year.

Now, interest has revived. Chancellor Angela Merkel's government -- formed late last year -- recently agreed
to give new mothers generous one-year wage replacement subsidies. Plans to eliminate fees for
kindergarten are also being floated.

"It's the first time since 1945 that a German government has come out of the closet about population
policy," wrote the Berliner Zeitung newspaper. "Family policy is suddenly chic."

Despite state financial support of 150 billion euros ($180 billion) a year for child support programs including
monthly subsidies of 154 euros per child, many Germans are reluctant to start families due to a generally
frosty attitude to children.

Parents with young children are often made to feel unwelcome in restaurants, employers rarely make
arrangements for workers with small children, preschool care in some places is hard to find and fees far
exceed costs for university. Many schools also close at noon, making it difficult for working parents.

"It's an extremely complex issue," said Walter. "It's a delicate topic and it's going to remain sensitive in
Germany where it can't be handled as it might in a normal country."

Although it was 60 years ago, Nazi methods to encourage women to have children to bolster Hitler's
future armies weigh on the collective consciousness.

The Nazis gave women a "Mutterkreuz," or "mother's cross of honor," and a certificate signed by Hitler
thanking them "in the name of the German people."

A bronze "Mutterkreuz" went to women with four to five children, silver for six to seven and gold for
eight or more.

"That history is still playing a role in Germany," said Michel. "Population policy was long a taboo topic."

Michel said he did not believe the sudden talk of greater state support for child care or a host of other
state plans to boost the birth rate will change very much.

"We're on a downward trend; it can't be stopped," he said. "We should come to terms with a shrinking
German population."

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by
caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group
of companies around the world.

[Deus]

And how do you think they GOT these monetary resources? By population control? That's ridiculous. Economies generally need population growth to sustain markets. High population, in fact, was one of the key factors in the industrial revolution. Without the advent of cities with high population densities, mass production would have been inefficient and well nigh impossible.

They GOT those monetary resources my balancing the equilibrium between population and resources. What, you believe those countries started out at those high population densities when thay started? Thay started relatively small, balancing their available resources by their populations. Now, you may ask, did they have population control? Did they have an active government campaign, aborting babies and whatnot? No, they did not. Ha! See there, population control does nothing! They diddn't even have it! - Then you fall into the trap of not considering the circumstances. Singapore and Hong Kong are islands. Single, tiny, self regulating, resource poor islands. In the beggining, when they diddnt have much monetary resources and had to rely on natural resources, they couldn't grow much food for a large population if they tried. Limited natural resources led to limited populations, allowing monetary resources to overtake the primary needs of the people. Surplus cash goes to investment. Repeat ad infinitum.

Again, I am still waiting for you to PROVE that "overpopulation" (actually, high popul;ation density) CAUSES poverty. So far you've failed to do so.

I'm after no such thing. I'm simply saying populations are limited by their resources. Do you dissagree?

German leaders wake up to shrinking population...

Please stop referencing the first world when discussing population problems in the third. The problems are completely different. It's like saying: Look here! Antibiotics can treat infections! Antibiotics can treat sicknesses! Nope, they can't treat viruses. Of course they can! Their both sicknesses!

Again, I'll ask you, does any first world nation advocate raising their populations to unfeasable levels, or just untill they stabilize their populations/workforce's again? How many people do you think the Netherlands can support?