Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

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?

No, you have to take that part in proper context w/ other things Fr bernas said and what other Con Com members have dediced during the deliberations...

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.

I agree.

The Constitutional Commission avoided having to fix the moment of conception at any specific point.

I agree.

The Constitutional Commission resolved the issue by ASSUMING that conception begins at fertilization.

I disagree. read my first part. they only resolved to use the term "protection of unborn from conception" to avoid our State to adopt the doctrine in the US 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.

the fact that a partylist group even drafted a bill "defining the beginning of human life", is one proof that your supposed assumption doesn't hold water. coz if it does, why even bother making a bill like that?

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.

I disagree. read my first part.

[giddyboy]

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.

mannygirl, unsa man kunoy gi bakak nako ato?

You 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.
Take note that I have no problem with seeing poverty as causing large family size. It is plausible (and implies a one-way correlation). But we have already shown that the reverse correlation (that family size can influence poverty) is a myth! So the RH bill has no statistical justification whatsoever."

now take note that you emphasized "justification".

Now my answer to that was:

"if we follow ur false logic that strong correlation (between family size and poverty) doesn't justify action, then even the concept of "family planning" by couples won't make sense! heck even your tireless promoting of natural family planning won't even make sense at all!"

so asa man kuno ang putting condoms este words into your mouth ana?

and mind u, you are also asking the wrong question. the RH Bill does not intend to "manipulate" family size. it only "encourages and promotes" family planning and birth spacing to couples coz it is acknowledging the strong correlation between family size and poverty. that is one of the population control policy intended. i don't know where you got the term "manipulation"...is that another propaganda word u concocted to label the RH Bill?

if im not mistaken, the only people that can "manipulate" or "plan" their family size are the couples themselves. but for pete's sake not the RH Bill. IN CASE U HAVE FORGOTTEN, WE ARE NOT IN CHINA!!!

Let me reiterate: A strong correlation is NOT enough.

of course it is not enough. but that's how correlations work that can apply to the real world. there will always be other factors involved as possible causes (or effects) of poverty.

Even the X-Y relationship between corruption and poverty shows a strong correlation but it is not enough to pinpoint which is the cause and which is the effect.

that's why the only thing we do in the real world is to acknowledge the statistical relationship and from there provide some course of action.

coz if you follow your logic, then you should forget about your promoting NFP coz it will not even make sense at all!

before, you said there is no correlation. But since I proved it otherwise, now you said it is not enough. lihay lihay mana imo kumareng manny!

YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AGAIN!

NO TO ABORTION!
YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[giddyboy]

CAMELS W/ HAMMERS: Graphs Suggest Secular Countries Less Corrupt, More Peaceful



Here’s Tom Rees’s interpetation of the data:

the graph (as shown on the right) shows a dramatic and strong relationship between religiosity and corruption.

This does not mean that religion causes corruption. A more likely explanation is that a common, third factor explains both. And the obvious explanation is wealth. Rich countries tend to be both irreligious and honest. Poor countries have endemic corruption and religion. Indeed, after controlling for GDP, the statistical relationship between corruption and religion disappears.

The question then remains as to how these factors fit together. Does low corruption stimulate economic growth, reducing poverty and so reducing the importance of religion in people’s lives? Or does secularisation reduce corruption, thereby stimulating economic growth?

Sandholtz & Taagepera analyse the data and find that, for non-communist countries, both secularism and wealth play a role. Using factors derived from the World Values Survey, they find that a factor related to secularisation and a factor related to wealth (the the survival/self-expression dimension) both contribute to decreasing corruption, although the impact of the self-expression factor is about twice that of the secularisation factor.

The take home? Secularisation probably does decrease corruption. And it certainly doesn’t increase it.

Sure enough, peaceful countries have more atheists and fewer regular worshippers. The difference is highly statistically significant (P=0.001 or less) – in other words it’s real, not just a chance finding.

Now, there are several possible reasons for this. It could be that people living in turbulent countries turn to religion, or it could be that religion is not a good way to structure modern society. Or it could be that some other factor or combination of factors (democracy? free speech? education? government welfare?) generates citizens who are both peaceful and non-religious.

it’s another blow to the idea that secularization leads to social meltdown. Atheist countries are, in fact more peaceful.

And, finally, religion doesn’t prevent abortion:

A new analysis of data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health has revealed no relationship between how religious a woman is and whether her first pregnancy ends in an abortion.

A woman who had gone to a religious school was 5 times more likely to have had an extra-marital abortion than a woman who went to a state school.

If you want to minimize abortions, teach teens about birth control and make it available.

full article:
Graphs Suggest Secular Countries Less Corrupt, More Peaceful Camels With Hammers

Disclaimer: the poster of this article (me) is not an atheist nor promoting atheism, nor promoting the author's perspectives. the purpose is only for posting other people's opinion and for generating comments from what the author wrote.

[leejiah]

no to abortion!!!

[giddyboy]

source: Primer - Population and Reproductive Health: What Every Legislator Should Know

Why is there a need for a comprehensive legislation on population and reproductive health?

The Philippines’ policy on population and reproductive health (including family planning) has always been dependent on the incumbent. The late Pres Ferdinand Marcos instituted various commendable policies on said issues. However, Pres Corazon Aquino’s ambiguous stand on the role of family planning adversely affected the implementation of the national family planning program by the Commission on Population (POPCOM) and its partners.

Former Pres Fidel V. Ramos’ administration, in contrast, saw a strong support for family planning initiatives as it was sought in the context of sustainable development. When Joseph Estrada became President, enlightened officials in his Cabinet aggressively pursued and implemented family planning programs albeit the lack of any official pronouncement on population and family planning.

Estrada was replaced by Pres Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose stand on the matter of population has been flip-flopping. She once acknowledged the need to reduce the country’s population growth rate to 1.9 percent, only to say in another statement that she is leaving the matter to local government units.

Relegating the responsibility of crafting and implementing policy interventions on population, reproductive health at the local level is not a viable option. This would lead to unsustainable and uneven programs across LGUs because of the relatively short term of LGU officials (3 years), disparities in internal revenue allotment (IRA), and the local official’s priorities, among others.

A number of progressive local government units like Aurora, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Marikina, and Davao City have already put in place family planning and reproductive health policies and programs in their respective areas. But what to do with a city as big as Manila, where any form of information and services related to family planning has been banned?

Unless a comprehensive national legislation on population and reproductive health is put in place, our people’s right to complete, accurate and comprehensible information, and comprehensive services on population and reproductive health will always remain dependent on the whim of whoever is in power.

Why is it important to focus on reproductive health?

The results of the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) show that Filipino women, especially among the ranks of the poor, still bear more children than they desire.

* Only half of married women practice family planning because of lack of information and proper knowledge of various family planning methods and services. The greater proportion of these women live in rural areas where there are few service providers and where services are scarce and inaccessible.
* Poor women have three times more children than the rich (5.9 children for the poor and 2.0 for the rich), give birth to their first child at a younger age, and have more problems spacing their children than wealthier women.
* Likewise, men who belong to the poorest segments of society have more children (5) compared to those who belong to the richest sectors (3).
* One in four pregnancies is mistimed and one in five is not wanted at all.

Meanwhile, despite the advances made in medicine, maternal health remains problematic in the country:

* Maternal mortality is pegged at a disturbing 162 for every 100,000 live births (2006 Family Planning Survey). The only exception are a handful of areas where there is an efficient program on maternal and child health, such as the municipality of Carmen, Bohol. The vast majority of local governments have yet to establish a system that would drastically reduce maternal mortality.
* Only 38 percent of deliveries have been found to be attended by skilled health professionals (2003 NDHS). Majority still seek the services of traditional hilots because they could not afford birthing in hospitals or because of lack of proper information.

Unless these people’s needs are addressed, Filipinos will keep on having more children than they want and can afford to have, and thousands of mothers will continue to die from causes that could have been prevented, were they only provided with complete information and services on reproductive health.

What is wrong with the government’s natural family planning-only (NFP-only) policy?

Universal access to a constellation of methods in family planning utilizing a principle of voluntary choice is founded on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which guarantees for every human person full respect for human rights (Sec. 11, Art. 2,). Moreover, the fundamental law of the land gives due cognizance to the particular needs of women for gender equality (Sec. 14, Art. 2); of the youth to enjoy protection of their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being (Sec. 13, Art. 2); and of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood (Sec. 3:1, Art. 15).

A policy focusing on natural family planning alone actually goes against these Constitutional principles. The government’s Natural Family Planning-only (NFP-only) policy will isolate the majority of women who prefer modern and artificial methods. Focusing only on natural methods is disempowering and discriminatory to women as it deprives them of universal access to the whole range of family planning methods so that they can choose what is most appropriate for their bodies, in accordance with their beliefs.

International and local studies have established that natural methods are not for everyone. For example, the standard days method is effective only for women whose menstrual cycles fall between 26-32 days and requires the unfailing cooperation by the husband as the couple must abstain from *** for 12 consecutive days during the woman’s fertile period.

Various national surveys of the National Statistics Office have also revealed that Filipinos prefer modern family planning methods, with pills as the consistent no. 1 method of choice.

The government’s NFP-only policy will also reverse the gains in lowering fertility and slowing down population growth to propel national development. It is impossible to achieve the government’s 1.9 percent population growth rate target if other legally permissible and medically-safe family planning methods are disregarded.

If government is really concerned about women’s fear of side effects and complications, and the general acceptability of modern methods, then, it should put its resources to programs for educating people on the pros and cons of all methods, rather than a policy imposing only one method.

What hampers the establishment of a comprehensive legislated policy on population and reproductive health?

Some leaders of the Catholic hierarchy and lay organizations have vigorously opposed reproductive health, family planning and population initiatives. While these groups have the right to stand for their religious beliefs, as guaranteed by the Constitution, the situation becomes problematic when they threaten and coerce those who believe otherwise, as what has been happening come election time. During the 2004 elections and in the 2007 elections, members of the Catholic hierarchy and lay organizations have been known to campaign against candidates supportive of policies and programs on population, reproductive health, and family planning. This is highly inappropriate as these candidates, when elected into office, will have the responsibility of crafting policies and implementing programs that will benefit all Filipinos, whether Catholic or otherwise. Moreover, data from the 2003 NDHS show that only 2.4 percent of married women cite religion as their reason for not using contraception.

Sadly, there are also leaders in government who choose not to recognize that the country’s population and reproductive health situation really needs to be addressed as it has serious negative impacts on our development as a nation. By turning a blind eye on the situation, they are failing to concretely address the people’s needs.

At the local government level, aside from the opposition mounted by the Catholic hierarchy, population and reproductive health policies are often not prioritized as these compete with other pressing issues. And when such policies do get enacted, they are often not implemented as most local governments, especially the 4th to 6th class LGUS, have barely enough funds, severely limiting their capacity in implementing mandated programs. These are structural and institutional constraints faced by local government units that need to be addressed as well.

Do the people want reproductive health and population policies and programs?

The results of the Pulse Asia Ulat ng Bayan surveys on Family Planning done in 2000, 2004 and 2007 indicate the people’s consistent clamor for a comprehensive national policy on reproductive health and family planning.

In particular, the March 2007 Ulat ng Bayan findings reveal the following:

* Nine out of 10 Filipinos (92%) consider family planning important.
* Nearly 8 out of 10 Filipinos (76%) believe in the importance of including family planning in a candidate’s program of action.
* Three-quarters of the adult Filipino population (75%) will support candidates who are in favor of a government budget for family planning.
* About 9 in 10 Filipinos (89%) think it is important that government provide budgetary support for modern methods of family planning including the pill, intra-uterine devices (IUD), condoms, ligation and vasectomy.
* One in two Filipinos (50%) is of the opinion that rapid population growth hinders the country’s development.
* A larger proportion of Filipinos believe that the church (or religion) should not participate in the issue of what family planning methods couples should use (44% vs 33%).

As a LEGISLATOR, what could you do to address this problem?

You can definitely do something to address the problem.

If you really want to serve the people by addressing their needs, you must know that sound population and reproductive health programs and services are among their basic rights and foremost needs. You must understand that these concerns have a direct impact on areas that are crucial to the people’s well-being such as income, education, health, and environment.

It would be better to institutionalize a sound population management policy and implement the necessary programs today than to simply cope with the problems of raising the resources for providing adequate social services and infrastructure to support a constantly growing and unmanaged population.

As a member of Congress can break the silence and apathy on these issues by including said concerns in your legislative agenda, by supporting the bills on reproductive health and population management currently filed in the 14th Congress (House Bills 17 and 182, and Senate Bills 40 and 43), by including said concerns in your discussions with your constituents and the media, and by initiating reproductive health and population management programs and services in your districts. You should also be willing to allocate and obtain resources for the institutionalization, implementation and sustainability of these programs.

As a local government official, you can initiate the crafting of local reproductive health and population policies and build a common agenda in your LGU. It is best to consult with the people to validate their needs and wants. This will also ensure their participation in the policymaking process.

While local policies do provide a solution to the various problems of population and reproductive health, local governance will work better in collaboration with national programs. However, in the absence of a comprehensive and sustainable national policy, LGUs may initiate support actions through resolutions and activities demonstrating their support for the passage of bills currently filed in the 14th Congress.

Reproductive health and population management are winning issues. By supporting said concerns, you will definitely win the hearts of your constituents and be remembered for years to come.

-----------

Disclaimer: the poster is not a member of the rights group mentioned in this article. This is only to generate comments and opinion.

[anaksatawo]

i find the poll highly misleading. obviously the votes is "NO to abortion". however, the implication that the RH Bill has something to do with abortion is deceitful and, IMHO, replete with paranoia.

so my answer: NO to abortion, but YES to right to be informed.

Education is the key. you cannot deny "the unborn's right to life". Now that he is born, you cannot deny him the right to information. Now he can finally decide on his own.

[joey saturnani]

masuko lagi ang simbahan ana. pero malipay ang mga doktor

[Jheymz1213]

looya sad...

[wakkanakka]

OMG! can't u even understand that what i posted is a compendium of sources?

I am asking about your geocities source, which up to now youy still do not want to reveal.

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?

Why are you so afraid to reveal it? What are you hiding? How can we analyze it if you don't want to reveal the sources? What if there is something there that is wrong? How credible can you be if you are AFRAID to revela your soruces?

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.

Bro, you are making things up. As was already posted, an EYEWITNESS and PARTICIPANT (Commisisoner Fr. Bertnas) already explained what the Con-Com intended, and it was not what you are saying. The Fr. Bernas statement has been quoted so many times and it clearly says they wanted to protect life from the beginning. Do you know what beginnign means? It is not like the US where they wanted to protect from the 6th month or whatever other time. They intnended to protect HUMAN LIFE FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!

and the RH Bill never wanted to adopt that US SC doctrine!!!

Like I just said, the Con-Com was even trying to do more than protect forem the US doctrine. They wanted (or intended) to protect life from the beginning. Commisioner Fr. Bernas said so and he was there. Were you there? Was your article source trhere?

If you want to minimize abortions, teach teens about birth control and make it available.

What?!!! The studies posted here alreayd show that this kind of teaching does not work. You are going against the scientific evidences. This is stupid already!!!

the RH Bill does not intend to "manipulate" family size. it only "encourages and promotes" family planning and birth spacing to couples coz it is acknowledging the strong correlation between family size and poverty. that is one of the population control policy intended.

Same thing bro. You are playing with words. That is almost like lying since you fool people with that. When you uise the birth control and make family size smaller, you are "manipulating" the size, gets? Sige, use another word if you like, but it is still the same. If making smaller the family size will not cause poverty to lessen, why bother doing it?

If you say population control is needed to lessen poverty gap, poverty incidence, eck eck, then you are saying overpopualtion is not a myth anymore. Then you are contradicting yourself bro.

even mannygirl has his own source too on that.

You are still accusing someone of being gay without any proof? So my uncle is also gay because he is over 50 and not married? That is really stupid! You must be the one gay. Naa crush ka kay @mannyamador, no? BongGAYshoos ka day!

Again, NO! to reproductive health bill because NO to abortion!

[wakkanakka]

so my answer: NO to abortion, but YES to right to be informed.

Education is the key. you cannot deny "the unborn's right to life". Now that he is born, you cannot deny him the right to information. Now he can finally decide on his own.

Bro, the pro-life and church are not denying the right to be informed. In fact, thety are the ones informing us about the bad things in the repro health bill.

Also, they do not want to keep us ignorant about ***. The catholic schools also teach about that *** and values, but they do the right kind of teaching. They teach us to value *** as a sacred thing, and teach us to wait and abstain from "screwing around." And etc. etc. They just do not teach and promote contraceptives, which is what the repro-health groupies want to make more money! That is why they make disinformation against the church.

What scares me about the repro-health bill is that it forces its own kind of "age appropriate s3x ed" on the schools. But what if some schools and parents disagree with what is being taught? What then? I think we should be able to decide for outselves what should be taught. The schools should decide and not be forced to follow the program decided by the populaton control groupies.

And if parents dont want it, they should be able to withdraw their children form it. The "s3x ed" should be optional, not mandatory.

So this is another reason to object to the repro health bill. I am for giving information, but I am against the control of information by the pro-repro health groupies.

And NO to abortion and NO! to RH bill!