Legalize Abortion?

[bonder]

---

ngano gud tawon cya ni sugot.ay ka walay ayo.

[giddyboy]

That is illogical and contrary to the facts. The Constitutional Commission took a vote and they approved the assumption that conception begins at fertilization. Therefore that assumption is the clear intent of the Commission and our present Constitution.

Our friend Wakkanakka did not use the proper terminology. He should have said that the Constitution assumes human life begins at fertilization or something similar. But he is still far more correct than you.

As for your being a liar, that has already been amply demonstrated here. More of your lies won't change that. We aren't blind. We can read your previous posts, you know.

WHAT VOTE? the only final vote on record that they agreed upon is to use the term "unborn from conception". Padilla proposed "unborn from conception," in effect to avoid the result of having the Con Com to have to fix the precise moment of conception (whether days before or after conception, since some members expressed the belief that life begins even before conception). I AM NOT LYING!

Needless to say the Padilla amendment was approved with 33 voting in favor of the same. I AM NOT LYING!

This clearly establishes the lack of any constitutional intent to establish conception as fertilization let alone categorize a precise moment when "conception" takes place. I AM NOT LYING!

what part of that didn't u understand?

u cannot say that we have to assume conception as fertilization coz that way u r already intending to fix conception as fertilization whether in the Constitution or to each Filipino, to which is against the intention of the Con Com.

Fr Bernas even said "The understanding is that life begins at conception, although the definition of conception can be a matter for science to specify." I AM NOT LYING!

and what Fr Bernas implied when he said "safer approach" is actually to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, which liberalized abortion laws up to the 6th month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time during the first 6 months of pregnancy provided it can be done without danger to the mother. and the RH Bill never intends to adopt this doctrine!!! I AM NOT LYING!

Therefore, the intent of the votes is to avoid the result of having the Con Com to have to fix the precise moment of conception but taking a safer approach by preventing the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade. AGAIN, I AM NOT LYING!

SEE? I HAVE JUST DEMONSTRATED THAT I'M NOT THE ONE TELLING A LIE!!! YOU (and ur cohorts) ARE THE ONES WHO ARE LYING INSTEAD!!!

The RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith. Remember that! That is not a lie!

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[medicaloxygen]

luoya gud s anga gamayng bata.

not favor, bec against the law, ang againts god

[mannyamador]

as u already knew, the RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith.

In case you've forgotten, my arguments ARE a matter of national; policy, not only of faith.

Abstinence education works, and that is NOT just a matter of Catholic faith. There is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that it works

The RH Bill funds and supports both abstinence methods (NFP) and artificial methods (MFP)

Does the RH bill mandate that NFP be declared an "essential method" of family planning for which materials must be stocked, just as contraceptives will be declared as "essential medicines" that must be stocked? NO. How much budget is allocated to NFP compared to contraceptives? Contraceptives get almost all the attention in the RH bill, and the money as well. NFP gets only bola and lip service, but no actual or tangible support. You are lying again.

if u say strong correlations doesn't justify action, why have we even tried to come up w/ the concept of "family planning in the first place?

You're putting words in my mouth. You are LYING. This is what I said:

Now, if family size cannot be determined to cause poverty, then why should it be manipulated? The "correlation" may not be two-way! This alone destroys your justifications for population control.

Let me reiterate: A strong correlation is NOT enough.

You must show that the two factors (A: family size; and B: poverty incidence) affect each other such that when A is manipulated, it affects the other one (factor B) in a predictable manner. If you cannot, then why manipulate A at all?

This is a cause-effect relationship. As we have already shown, a strong correlation is practically identical to causation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/causality

Main Entry: cau·sal·i·ty
1 : a causal quality or agency
2 : the relation between a cause and its effect or between regularly correlated events or phenomena

But this kind of correlation has NOT been established. As YOUR source, Dr. Virola, has admitted, he cannot determine which is the cause or which is the effect. So how can you justify manipulating factor A (family size) when it cannot be shown to cause the other one, or factor B (poverty incidence) to change in the way you wish?

You've just proven you don't understand statistics at all.

You have also inadvertently exposed your deceptive intent again. You claim that overpopulation is a myth since population factors do not caus epocverty. But then you act as if they do. YOU HAVE JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF AGAIN!

what Fr Bernas implied when he said "safer approach" is actually to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade

That is NOT what he said. That is just your BS interpretation.

Let's look at what Fr. Bernas, an eye-witness to the proceedings, REALLY said:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” (p.78 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed.)

As Bernas said, the desire was precisely NOT to pinpoint the exact moment of conception. The decision was to ASSUME that it began at fertilization since that was the safer approach.

What part of that can't you understand?


What did the Constitutional Commission really intend?

From the record, we can see what the Constitutional Commission really intended:

• The Constitutional Commission intended to protect life at its beginning.
  
  
• The Constitutional Commission avoided having to fix the moment of conception at any specific point.
  
  
• The Constitutional Commission resolved the issue by ASSUMING that conception begins at fertilization.
  
  
• The Constitutional Commission by making the above assumption, chose to err on the aside of caution; they decided to "TAKE THE SAFER APPROACH", as Commisioner Fr. Bernas noted.

The facts simply DISPROVE your absurd interpretation. It's all there in black and white. No interpretation needed.

do u want me to refresh ur memory?

These are more of your LIES. Let's look at your claims:

• Numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 are actually TRUE. These are NOT smears. They are the truth. So by exposing these, the Church is only countering the pro-RH disinformation campaign.
  
• Number 3 is actually true because the bill funds abortifacient contraceptives. Thus it DOES effectively legalize a form of abortion.
  
• Number 5 is YOUR strawman. The Church never said ALL contraceptives have life-threatening
  
• Number 7 was part of the original bill. It was only removed to sugarcoat the bill. But the bill's authors still hold to the antedeluvian "overpopulation" myth which favors a two-child policy.
  
• Number 89 is another strawman. The bill claims actually assumes that population control is needed. We do NOT claim, however, that it explicitly states population control is a panacea for poverty (although they still use it as a justification).
  
• Numner 120: we claim population control that leads to reduction (and niot just "family planning") will lead to a demographic winter. You are equivocating terms, which is DECEPTIVE.

Your own claims expose your deceptive tactics once again. You are truly a liar. Proven over and over again too!




“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Proverbs 31:8

[wakkanakka]

@wakkanaka: I'm not scared. ngano gud tawn. IF U ARE ASKING ME FOR the source of these articles, u can come to my house and borrow my books.

Bro, you are lying. In your post you cited a geocities article, which you quoted. That is what I am asking for. Look...

Again it is worth noting that this reading is consistent with the self same Constitutional authority cited, which is Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., when read in the proper and complete context of his commentaries on the matter.

(source: geocities.com)

So... Why are oyu saying it's a book? Geocities is on the internet!

Where is this geocities article? Why are you so afraid to show it to us? Was it written by an authority and participant like Fr. Bernas, or just another know-at-all twisting the facts?

Bro it is obvious you are just trying to twist the facts. But the Fr. Bernas said otherwise from you. @mannyamador already showed that the Con-Com assumed that conception is fertilization, as Fr. Bernas stated. Bernas was a witness so he knows what they did. If he testifies that the Con-om assumed that, then he knows better.

Your source was not a witness, was he? Neither are you. So why should we believe what you say when it so obviously contradicts the expert testimony of a partifipant in the Con-Com? You are just msking yours up. Bernas was there!

NO! to the reproductive health bill. NO! to abortion!

[dndj571]

STOP Abortion and No..no...to reproductive health bill.

[joshua259]

EXCOMMUNICATE and CONDEMN the CONDOM and CONTRACEPTIVE users/Catholics/Christians...

why won't the church check all its members to see if they are using CONDOMS and CONTRACEPTIVES and CONDEMN and EXCOMMUNICATE them/us. the church has the funding to do this.

[giddyboy]

In case you've forgotten, my arguments ARE a matter of national; policy, not only of faith.

Abstinence education works, and that is NOT just a matter of Catholic faith. There is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that it works

and what is in the term "age-appropriate" s3x education can't you understand?.. if i'm not mistaken, u certainly omitted the term in all ur arguments. just like how your propagandist friends tried before and up to now huh.

and No, that is not the national policy that most of the lawmakers wanted. it is what you wanted. it is what the church wanted. and that is abstinence education only.

what the lawmakers are thinking is for comprehensive s3x education programs which include information on both abstinence and contraception and condoms.

but of course the Catholic church is even against the idea of "s3x education" in the first place. that's why I said that the RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith.

don't get me wrong, abstinence education works alright, but not without incorporating information on contraception and condoms too. just like in the Uganda case.

and you are quite hilarious when you said abstinence ed is different from s3x ed.

well in case you didn't know, abstinence education is a form of s3x education that emphasizes abstinence from *** to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe ***. This type of *** education promotes sexual abstinence until marriage and either completely avoids any discussion about the use of contraceptives, or only reveals failure rates associated with such use.

those who are for abstinence education:
Proponents of abstinence-only *** education argue that this approach is superior to comprehensive *** education for several reasons. They say that *** education should emphasize teaching a morality that limits *** to that within the bounds of marriage and that *** outside marriage and at a young age has heavy physical and emotional costs. They claim that comprehensive *** education encourages teen premarital sexual activity, which should be discouraged in an era when HIV and other incurable sexually transmitted infections are widespread and when teen pregnancy is an ongoing concern.

those who are against abstinence education:
Opponents and critics, which include prominent professional associations in the fields of medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology, argue that such programs fail to provide adequate information to protect the health of young people. Some critics also argue that such programs verge on religious interference in secular education. Opponents of abstinence-only education dispute the claim that comprehensive *** education encourages teens to have premarital ***. The idea that sexual intercourse should only occur within marriage also has serious implications for people for whom marriage is not valued or desired, or is unavailable as an option, particularly homosexuals living in places where same-*** marriage is not legal or socially acceptable.

IN THE U.S.
While abstinence-only *** education is a controversial subject, the fact that complete abstinence itself (even within marriage) is the most effective preventative measure against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is whether abstinence-only *** education actually succeeds in increasing abstinence.

Criticism

Congressional

Two major studies by the U.S. Congress have increased the volume of criticism surrounding abstinence-only education.

In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only *** education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information about sexuality. The claimed errors included:

* misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
* misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available
* false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
* treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
* other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).

In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only *** education programs were just as likely to have *** in their teenage years as those who did not.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer *** practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."

On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only *** education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries"

Current status

President Barack Obama's 2010 budget would eliminate most abstinence-only *** education programs in favor of two comprehensive sexuality programs.

The proposed Responsible Education About Life Act (S. 972 and H.R. 1653) would provide federal funding for comprehensive *** education programs which include information on both abstinence and contraception and condoms.

FULL ARTICLE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstine..._***_education

AND NOW MANNYGIRL, AYAW KO INGNA BOGO C PRES. OBAMA to include BOTH abstinence and contraception in their RH ed program? ayaw ko ingna bogo ang Uganda that adopted the same?

WHO IS LYING NOW? ME AND WIKIPEDIA? i don't think so...

i am even tempted to think that YOU AND YOUR PRO-LIFE LOBBYIST COHORTS just wanted to lobby and corner the whole slice of the Phil. s3x education program just like what unfortunately happened in the U.S. with over $1 billion in federal gov't funding initiatives for abstinence-only *** education that only resulted in depriving teenagers of critical information about sexuality. THAT'S WHY U R BEING VERY NOISY ABOUT IT...

[giddyboy]

Does the RH bill mandate that NFP be declared an "essential method" of family planning for which materials must be stocked, just as contraceptives will be declared as "essential medicines" that must be stocked? NO. How much budget is allocated to NFP compared to contraceptives? Contraceptives get almost all the attention in the RH bill, and the money as well. NFP gets only bola and lip service, but no actual or tangible support. You are lying again.

if you are worried about your pro-life lobbyist group being deprived of funding, that only shows your true hidden motive. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!!

and btw, I'm not a Congressman nor working for any of them. better ask that question yourself to them. and pls don't speak with assumptions. if you have the budget figures, show it here. walk the talk, and not just talk and talk...

[giddyboy]

Bro, you are lying. In your post you cited a geocities article, which you quoted. That is what I am asking for. Look...

So... Why are oyu saying it's a book? Geocities is on the internet!

Where is this geocities article? Why are you so afraid to show it to us? Was it written by an authority and participant like Fr. Bernas, or just another know-at-all twisting the facts?

Bro it is obvious you are just trying to twist the facts. But the Fr. Bernas said otherwise from you. @mannyamador already showed that the Con-Com assumed that conception is fertilization, as Fr. Bernas stated. Bernas was a witness so he knows what they did. If he testifies that the Con-om assumed that, then he knows better.

Your source was not a witness, was he? Neither are you. So why should we believe what you say when it so obviously contradicts the expert testimony of a partifipant in the Con-Com? You are just msking yours up. Bernas was there!

NO! to the reproductive health bill. NO! to abortion!

OMG! can't u even understand that what i posted is a compendium of sources? one part from Fr. Bernas' quote is from geocities, and can actually be found in many other websites. even mannygirl has his own source too on that.

another part is from Fr Bernas book and i even cited what book it is. if u can't find it in a url, buy a book!!!

another part is from the actual transcript of the Con Com deliberations to which i also cited. if u can't find it in a url, buy a book!!!

and why the heck r u focusing too much of how i got the sources? is it because u don't have any meaty arguments anymore to counter on the matter?

the Con Com wala lagi ga assume nga conception is fertilization. coz if they did, it will already negate the intention of the Con Com. and that is not to fix (or even assume) when really life begins. it was only Fr. Bernas who said it (perhaps being a priest). but when he said that though we cannot ascertain when really life begins, we have to take the safer approach. and that means they voted to adopt the term "protection of unborn from conception" in order to avoid our State to adopt the doctrine in the U.S. SC ruling on Roe vs. Wade which liberalized abortion laws up to the 6th month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time during the first 6 months of pregnancy provided it can be done without danger to the mother.

and the RH Bill never wanted to adopt that US SC doctrine!!! in fact, the RH Bill explicitly treats abortion as a crime from pregnancy. as for contraceptives, whether abortifacient or not, it is up to science (or faith) to claim it, but not a national policy such as this proposed RH Bill. besides, the RH Bill is not only about family planning...get the drift?

asa man diay ka mas motuo ani, only 1 part of the Con Com deliberations to which mannygirl has been trying to repeat over and over again? or many parts of the Con Com deliberations with even their final say included in it?

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!!