Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

Therein lies the danger because overpopulation is a very real concern not just nationally but globally.

I would suggest you brush up on the subject. Those views date back to the 1960s (and have their roots in the 1800s). You are relying on an old myth. The world is NOT overpopulated. People have already begun to recognize that "overpopulation" is a hoax, an unfounded, unscientific myth.

You must show clearly, for example, how establishment of a national curriculum counter to one's moral belief is an undue and arbitrary exercise of police power.

That is absurd. The RH Bill has not been passed and challenged in court so there cannot yet be any jurisprudence on the matter.

Then why do we force students to learn Jose Rizal's works in our national curriculum?

You forget that schools are still allowed much leeway in what they teach about Rizal and the reference materials they use. They are NOT required to revere him and are quite free to analyze and even criticize Rizal. But in the case of the RH Bill, the POPCOM will decide what is to be taught. Even more to the point, history is not a personal matter. Sexual mores are. There are very divergent views on what constitutes proper matter. Why should the government -- which had never displayed any expertise on the matter of morals -- be the one to monopolize what can be taught on a very controversial issue?

You should also note that many other countries allow parents to opt out of these s3x education programs. They can take their children out and choose alternative programs. There is no provision for that in the RH Bill. You can read the text of the proposed Bill. There is no way to choose.

The authority therefore is not express but conditional and not protected by the law.

I disagree. It is quite express. People have to actually believe in the authority of the Church for any of its ecclesiastical penalties to have any meaning or force. Your concerns of intimidation by the Church are, quite frankly, misplaced and paranoid. They have no real force other than that force you give them. And you can take away that force just as easily.

The RH Bill, on the other hand, comes with real COERCIVE force: imprisonment and fines. These will be imposed upon those who speak out against the Bill.

If you're going to rely on the Constitution itself, there is very strong wording there for the separation of Church and State.

It seems you do not understand what is meant by separation of Church and state. The Constitution itself clearly states what it means. In Article III, Section 5, the Constitution states:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

That's it. There is absolutely NO prohibition whatsoever against persons from any religious group running for office or engaging in public or government work. There is no prohibition against religiin influencing government or requiring government personnel to suspend their religious beliefs in public service.

The purpose of the separation of Church and state is to protect religion from government control and interference. The idea is to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

More of my views on the separation of Church and state are at:
http://mamador.wordpress.com/2007/10...rch-and-state/

Persuasion is protected but active interference with by threats or intimidation are not.

Show me the prohibition please. There is none. The threats and intimidation you speak of are quite overstated. They are only moral and do NOT involve any actual force.

On the other hand, imprisonment and fines are real and actual threats, and these are the coercive means used by the advocates of the RH Bill. The Church cannot wield these means, but the RH Bill does!

You have not convinced me and are not likely to convince anyone that parent's choice will be suppressed by RH Bill.

Well, you have not been able to convince me and many others that the RH Bill will not usurp parents' rights. If you choose to remain blind to the threat, then you're right: no one can convince you. But the threat is quite clear in the text of the RH Bill itself. Try reading section 12 of the proposed Bill.

The RH Bill FORCES schools to teach only one way of thinking about s3x. And you, as a parent, will not be able to opt out of. It is a MANDATORY program. You can try teaching the opposite, but you will end up sending confusing messages top your child. Who will he follow? The authoritarian parent or the supposedly scientific school instructor? It is a lop-sided battle.

Abstinence education already has massive funding in the form of Church funding and Christian interest groups funding.

What massive funding? Let's be honest here. Abstinence education in most Catholic schools is a joke. In fact, many of their teachings (if any) are decidedly against Catholic doctrine. Ateneo de Manila, for example, had no real abstinence program when I was there, but instead many of the professors taught relativistic morals and some even advocated the exact opposite of abstinence.

There is no "massive" funding of real abstinence education in the Philippines. Even TLW Philippines (not a Catholic program) is perennially under-funded and this and similar group cannot ever hope to even come close to matching the funding that is contemplated in the RH Bill. There are only a few pockets of good programs and a whole slew of half-hearted attempts mixed with contraceptive education. That is NOT even consistent abstinence education. Catholic schools have dropped the ball when it comes to abstinence education. That's their fault, but let's not pretend that here is any massive funding because their isn't,

That is a moral question and not one that should be considered in a policy issue. There are many people who would disagree with you as there are people who would not care about the kind of behavior contraceptives MIGHT encourage. Do not ever assume that pre-marital *** is universally considered morally reprehensible in our society, it only is to the Catholic church, not to everyone.

Why do you think governments are trying to lower the number of teen pregnancies? It is not because they are Catholic. Such moral questions ARE the concern of public policy.

Prove that no choice would exist. Prove that the Church would be forced to abandon abstinence-based education. You cannot, because the RH Bill does not prevent that.

Read the text of the Bill. ALL schools must adhere to the s3x education program of the POPCOM, which will involve the use of artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. Thus, no school can have an abstinence-only program. And do you think private schools can afford to run two programs simultaneous that contradict each other? You are dreaming. QED.

The bottom line is that parents and schools should have a choice. Why is it the pro-RH people you are all about choice but suddenly backtrack when it comes to this issue? Contradiction indeed!

And lest we forget, the many child molestation crimes...

Oh please stop with this irrelevant and childish ad hominem tactic. Sweeping generalizations have no place in an intelligent discussion. You are reverting to your Mr. Hyde self again. Try to keep this discussion rational. We have already made progress. Don't drag it down into the mud again, OK?

if grade five is too young manny, isnt a seven year old too young also to be raped or allow old men to touch her private parts because these older people tells her they have the right to do so?

But how is your program going to prevent child molestation? It WON'T. If anything, the RH Bill will probably lead to more such crimes because of the general degradation of sexual mores that will be the result of increased contraceptive usage and contraceptive-based s3x education.

As posted here before, there is much scientific evidence that show that increased contraceptive usage and contracpetive-based s3x education increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and number of partners (sexual promiscuity). Your RH Bill will therefore probably make the problem worse.



DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. REJECT THE COERCIVE, ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

@manny

but it will foster awareness among the children that such behavior by an adult is unacceptable and wrong... (im talking about *** ed...)

no it wont prevent fathers from molesting their daughters but it will give these young kids the idea that these acts are wrong and not normal therefore they should go to proper authority or persons...

as for contraceptives i think at grade 5 teachers will just describe these contraceptives in genarl term not until they reached high school will they teach them how to use them...

by the way many who use contraceptives dont even know how to use them properly... according to a friend who works as social worker.. ambi nila kay murag tambal na pwede putlon-putlon para dili dali mahurot...

see education is really needed para matudlu-an sila unsa pag use...

[raski]

I would suggest you brush up on the subject. Those views date back to the 1960s (and have their roots in the 1800s). You are relying on an old myth. The world is NOT overpopulated. People have already begun to recognize that "overpopulation" is a hoax, an unfounded, unscientific myth.

What subject are you talking about mannyamador? Are you seriously suggesting that global warming will not cause severe population pressures in the future? It's not a myth just because you say so. That's just lazy argumentation right there, the strange way in which you mix your own opinions with facts. As I said before, always ask the question what if you're wrong, because scientists are more credible than you are.

That is absurd. The RH Bill has not been passed and challenged in court so there cannot yet be any jurisprudence on the matter.

Aren't you just restating what I said? There's no jurisprudence because this 'issue' has not yet even become ripe for an actual case. You kept mentioning the Constitution over and over again, but you have no jurisprudence to back your stance. Perhaps your citing the Constitution is what is absurd and premature.

You forget that schools are still allowed much leeway in what they teach about Rizal and the reference materials they use. They are NOT required to revere him and are quite free to analyze and even criticize Rizal. But in the case of the RH Bill, the POPCOM will decide what is to be taught. Even more to the point, history is not a personal matter. Sexual mores are. There are very divergent views on what constitutes proper matter. Why should the government -- which had never displayed any expertise on the matter of morals -- be the one to monopolize what can be taught on a very controversial issue?

Not really, the reference materials are the books that Rizal wrote. What other reference materials can possibly be used for the study of his works? Once again you are engaging in splitting hairs, which is wasteful of everyone's time and frustrating.

You should also note that many other countries allow parents to opt out of these s3x education programs. They can take their children out and choose alternative programs. There is no provision for that in the RH Bill. You can read the text of the proposed Bill. There is no way to choose.

Many other countries allow abortion too. Why even bother bringing up other country's programs, it has no relevance to us whatsoever. I've read the text and nowhere in there does it forbid Catholic schools from running abstinence programs. You are just in a bind because your programs will have to compete side-by-side something that most people support and will favor in the end mostly because of practicality. Abstinence programs are impractical because they basically force people into refraining from *** before marriage (which would just get all of you religious types aroused) or getting someone or themselves pregnant.

I disagree. It is quite express. People have to actually believe in the authority of the Church for any of its ecclesiastical penalties to have any meaning or force. Your concerns of intimidation by the Church are, quite frankly, misplaced and paranoid. They have no real force other than that force you give them. And you can take away that force just as easily.

No, people often believe in the Church in general but disagree on many points of scripture, even priests are not in agreement as to everything. It is not an all or nothing kind of thing.

The RH Bill, on the other hand, comes with real COERCIVE force: imprisonment and fines. These will be imposed upon those who speak out against the Bill.

Already addressed, kindly stop beating a dead horse this point was conceded already.

The purpose of the separation of Church and state is to protect religion from government control and interference. The idea is to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

More of my views on the separation of Church and state are at:
Misunderstanding Separation of Church and State PHNix Network Advocate

Your views are completely wrong. The separation of Church and State is the basis in many countries where the Church was once considered all powerful. It was put in place to prevent the tyranny of the Inquisition from ever showing its ugly face again. It is for this reason that the countries that suffered the most from the Inquisition and religious excesses and tyranny are the countries which have the most stringent secular laws that enforce such a division, particularly France but also Germany.

On the other hand, imprisonment and fines are real and actual threats, and these are the coercive means used by the advocates of the RH Bill. The Church cannot wield these means, but the RH Bill does!

Once again a re-hashed point already conceded, see above.

Well, you have not been able to convince me and many others that the RH Bill will not usurp parents' rights. If you choose to remain blind to the threat, then you're right: no one can convince you. But the threat is quite clear in the text of the RH Bill itself. Try reading section 12 of the proposed Bill.

Why do I need to convince you, it was you who raised the issue of parental rights and it is contingent upon you to prove absolutely that parents will not be able to continue teaching whatever principles they desire to their children at home. It is because you can never prove this that you are now asking me to prove the opposite. That's lame. You prove your claims first, then I will try to disprove it.

The RH Bill FORCES schools to teach only one way of thinking about s3x. And you, as a parent, will not be able to opt out of. It is a MANDATORY program. You can try teaching the opposite, but you will end up sending confusing messages top your child. Who will he follow? The authoritarian parent or the supposedly scientific school instructor? It is a lop-sided battle.

Prove that the child will indeed be confused. This assumes that the child should follow everything the parent tells him in the first place. That assumes that it is OK for parents to teach their children anything they please, which in turn assumes that parents always do what's best for their children.

What massive funding? Let's be honest here. Abstinence education in most Catholic schools is a joke. In fact, many of their teachings (if any) are decidedly against Catholic doctrine. Ateneo de Manila, for example, had no real abstinence program when I was there, but instead many of the professors taught relativistic morals and some even advocated the exact opposite of abstinence.

Oh come on, you being a Catholic should know how much money the Church is putting into this, not only to lobby and threaten individual legislators but also to strengthen its abstinence program. If it is not doing this, despite the large amount of money it collects every year, then it has itself to blame for the failure of abstinence education. Should the government be forced to fund abstinence education? Is this your wish? Once again you have not shown that abstinence education will be banned by the RH bill, because it won't. You have also failed to prove that schools will abandon their abstinence education programs when they can easily run both programs simultaneously. You are simply assuming that they will by saying "of course they will". Well sir, I'm afraid that is not enough, you need to prove that they actually will and not engage in premature speculation.

There is no "massive" funding of real abstinence education in the Philippines. Even TLW Philippines (not a Catholic program) is perennially under-funded and this and similar group cannot ever hope to even come close to matching the funding that is contemplated in the RH Bill. There are only a few pockets of good programs and a whole slew of half-hearted attempts mixed with contraceptive education. That is NOT even consistent abstinence education. Catholic schools have dropped the ball when it comes to abstinence education. That's their fault, but let's not pretend that here is any massive funding because their isn't,

Oh but with so many committed people like you Mannyamador why are these programs underfunded? Maybe you should donate more money to advance your cause... This is once again not the fault of the RH Bill. The Church can easily increase funding for these programs. As you conceded, Catholic schools have dropped the ball. Then you should concentrate your disdain for their failure, not the RH Bill.

Why do you think governments are trying to lower the number of teen pregnancies? It is not because they are Catholic. Such moral questions ARE the concern of public policy.

There could be many reasons why they are against teen pregnancies but teen pregnancies is not the same as premarital ***. They are against teen pregnancies, but not necessarily against premarital ***. Only religious people like yourself are, and whereas teen pregnancies are indeed concerns of public policy you are skirting the real issue. Is pre-marital *** a public concern? I do not think so, because I do not think enough people care about it. It is a moral question the answer to which differs from person to person.

Read the text of the Bill. ALL schools must adhere to the s3x education program of the POPCOM, which will involve the use of artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. Thus, no school can have an abstinence-only program. And do you think private schools can afford to run two programs simultaneous that contradict each other? You are dreaming. QED.

And yet schools can still have an abstinence program. So you admit that the RH Bill will not stop abstinence programs, they will merely run secular programs alongside it. That is not the same as banning, that is not the same as excluding choice, which you keep on insisting is the case.

The bottom line is that parents and schools should have a choice. Why is it the pro-RH people you are all about choice but suddenly backtrack when it comes to this issue? Contradiction indeed!

SIMPLE, because schools continue to have the choice to provide abstinence programs. Duh.

Oh please stop with this irrelevant and childish ad hominem tactic. Sweeping generalizations have no place in an intelligent discussion. You are reverting to your Mr. Hyde self again. Try to keep this discussion rational. We have already made progress. Don't drag it down into the mud again, OK?

You mean the fact that child molestation of children by priests is a widespread problem, one that triggered not only an investigation from the Church but a public apology by the Pope himself for the cover up done by senior clerics? It is you who are being childish by diminishing the seriousness of this terrible crime committed within your religion. Most Catholics are outraged by the immorality of certain priests, which has irreparably damaged the image of your religion. Perhaps you should be as well, rather than call people who call a spade a spade as childish. Imagine if the Pope didn't apologize for this, people like you would still have your heads in the sand while kids get touched by dirty old men.

But how is your program going to prevent child molestation? It WON'T. If anything, the RH Bill will probably lead to more such crimes because of the general degradation of sexual mores that will be the result of increased contraceptive usage and contraceptive-based s3x education.

By raising awareness in children as to what appropriate and inappropriate touching is, it will prevent it or at least stop many of the perpetrators from getting away. The molestation by priests went on for so long because the children were not aware at the time they were molested that it was inappropriate, it was only when they became adults that they remembered their terrible ordeal. *** education can solve that problem by punishing demented priests as soon as the children realize what's been done to them.

As posted here before, there is much scientific evidence that show that increased contraceptive usage and contracpetive-based s3x education increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and number of partners (sexual promiscuity). Your RH Bill will therefore probably make the problem worse.

Something is not scientific evidence just because it's been published somewhere. You have to look into the possible reasons why something was published, it could be biased or it may not even be based on anything scientific at all.

[michzy]

For me, i don't want to legalize abortion, because i believe that a unborn child is a gift from God. To those who have family, then better say that Family Planning is better option that
abortion. I knew very well that the world today is over populated, but abortion is not one of the solution and it will just make an excuse for someone who did out of marriage things, and do this things so that they will avoid what others may think of them.

In school, children should be taught on right values that children may aware but not to the point of legalizing it.

[mannyamador]

What subject are you talking about mannyamador?

You are aware that the whole "overpopulation" myth has been discredited for at least 25 years, haven't you? And your argumentation is hardly any zestier than mine, let me remind you. And quite a lot fo demographers, economists, and scientists do agree that overpopulation is a myth. Global warming, on the other hand, doesn't cause population pressures. It causes other things, surely, but population pressures? I think you have to re-read your material. Many of the global-warming people often see it as the other way around.

You kept mentioning the Constitution over and over again, but you have no jurisprudence to back your stance. Perhaps your citing the Constitution is what is absurd and premature.

Then what is the Constitution for? Why even read it then? You mean we should not discuss something that has not already been decided in the courts, or argue one side or another? Now that is absurd. More likely a deception to keep people from discovering flaws in the proposed RH Bill.

Not really, the reference materials are the books that Rizal wrote. What other reference materials can possibly be used for the study of his works? Once again you are engaging in splitting hairs, which is wasteful of everyone's time and frustrating.

I think you are the one engaging in that. We all know that democracies allow a great deal of academic freedom. You are trying to justify an entirely different kind of imposition in an issue where there is a great deal of disagreement by using an example from another situation where there is far more agreement. The leap of logic doesn't work.

I've read the text and nowhere in there does it forbid Catholic schools from running abstinence programs.

I know that you obviously are intelligent enough understand the terms and phrases "mandatory" and "all schools". That is what the text says. Catholic schools will be FORCED to teach the mandatory POPCOM s3x education program. Now, do you honestly think Catholic schools can afford to run a second simultaneous program that has contrary content? And worse, can the Church afford to contradict itself and confuse its own adherents?

To say that this is not forbidden is really being quite disingenuous and beside the point. Besides, FORCING Catholic schools to teach a POPCOM program that is contrary to the Church's own teachings is already objectionable. There should be choice -- and the RH Bill does not allow it.

Abstinence programs are impractical because they basically force people into refraining from *** before marriage

The scientific evidence clearly shows that this kind of program works. I have cited the evidence here before. To state that these program don't work is manifestly dishonest. You know the evidence exists. You just don't like it.

At the best, all you can honestly claim is that the issue is unresolved. In which case, we should take the safer approach: allow parents and schools to choose. Let them sink ior swim without government interference. After all, if as you say the people will support contraceptive-based programs, then these iwll win out. But the fact that you want to IMPOSE them speaks volumes about how much support these programs really have (precious little).

No, people often believe in the Church in general but disagree on many points of scripture, even priests are not in agreement as to everything. It is not an all or nothing kind of thing.

I suggest you brush up on Catholic teaching. There are many teachings where one can choose to dissent, but when it comes to DOGMA there is no such thing. A Catholic is one who assents to all the dogmas, even if one is uncomfortable. Dogma was handed down by the Apostles, and is interpreted by ecumenical councils (quite a lot) or ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope (very few in history). Catholicism is not a smorgasboard. Those who pick and choose what they wish to believe (rejecting some dogmas and acceptinjg others) commit what is known as heresy. If you reject all of it, that is known as apostasy.

It was put in place to prevent the tyranny of the Inquisition from ever showing its ugly face again.

Sorry but you are quite wrong. I suggest you actually read up on the Inquisition instead of relying on popular myths. In the US, where the concept of a wall of separation was first explicitly stated by Jefferson, Catholicism was a minority religion. Separation was a reaction tot he Church of England, which was the established state religion of England.

In any case, OUR Constitution has specific intent when it comes to separation: keeping government out of religion (the "interference" clause when it is referred to in the US) and preventing the establishment of a state religion (the "establishment" clause). These are the main purposes of separation. You may imagine there are other meanings, but they are NOT in the Constitution and have no foundation.

Why do I need to convince you, it was you who raised the issue of parental rights and it is contingent upon you to prove absolutely that parents will not be able to continue teaching whatever principles they desire to their children at home.

Oops, you are adding new things here to my position. I NEVER said that parents should only be able to teach "at home." I say that parents should be able to choose what their children are taught about s3x IN SCHOOL. And by citing the clear text of HB 5043 I have been able to prove it. Please don't try to misrepresent my position. That would be very dishonest.

HB 5043 imposes a mandatory s3x education program. Neither parents nor schools can opt out of it. Therefore my point has been proved. QED.

Prove that the child will indeed be confused.

I only have to prove that the child will be receiving conflicting messages. And I have. Should we take risks as to what will be the result?

The point, however, which you are trying to obfuscate, is that parents will NOT be able to choose what their children are being taught in a very personal and contentious are where there are many competing ideas. And they will have to expend extra effort to undo what the children are being taught (which is difficult enough in itself). That is what we say is wrong and unconstitutional.

Oh come on, you being a Catholic should know how much money the Church is putting into this, not only to lobby and threaten individual legislators but also to strengthen its abstinence program.

You are imagining things. The Church has very little funding for this. And please don't go ranting about how "rich" the Church is. That is another myth. The Church spends most of whatever it gets to sustain essential programs for the poor and its parishioners. The few examples of extravagance should be condemned, but these are quite few and minor when compared to the actual work that has to be done and their costs. These include expenses for essential social services (many of which, by the way, the government should be doing, but the Church has to take up the slack). Please do not take offense, but you really have to disabuse yourself of many myths about the Church (I am no trying to insult you, but you have a lot to learn about the Church).

You have also failed to prove that schools will abandon their abstinence education programs when they can easily run both programs simultaneously.

You're dreaming. They can't afford it.

But more to the point, running both will mean the schools will effectively NOT be teaching a consistent abstinence program. It will be teaching two opposed programs. That is NOT a real abstinence program at all (which is probably what you and Lagman et all really want). That is totally absurd. That is more like the "abstinence plus" programs which do NOT work.

Worse, Church schools will be forced to run programs that are CONTRARY to its own teachings. The Church has already experienced the massive confusion that results from inconsistent teaching. This will make matters impossibly worse. But then of course I realize that would be good news for those who hate the Church.

The Church can easily increase funding for these programs.

That is an assertion already shown to be false.

There could be many reasons why they are against teen pregnancies but teen pregnancies is not the same as premarital ***.

You do realize that premarital *** is the cause of most teen pregnancies, right? Of course you do. It seems now you are the one splitting hairs. Many studies have shown that the cause of unintended teen pregnancies is NOT the lack of contraceptives, but the multiplicity of partners and risk compensation behavior (where teens have a false sense of security because of contraceptives leading to more partners). Therefore, reducing teen *** IS a public policy concern.

And yet schools can still have an abstinence program. So you admit that the RH Bill will not stop abstinence programs, they will merely run secular programs alongside it. That is not the same as banning, that is not the same as excluding choice, which you keep on insisting is the case.

Abstinence programs cannot be mixed with contraceptive programs. That is precisely what renders them INEFFECTIVE. This is what is known as an "abstinence plus" type of program and these do not work. The RH Bill, by forcing Catholic schools to run programs that run counter to their beliefs and which will contradict abstinence programs, will effectively ruin them. Abstinence programs are NOT complimentary to contraceptive programs. They are alternatives to them. At the very least, the sources should not be mixed. A Catholic school loses any credibility if it teaches both programs simultaneously. But then again, I have this sneaky suspicion that is what Lagman et all want in the first place!

And, as stated above, it is impractical and absurd for schools to advocate and run two contradictory programs simultaneously. That would effectively be equivalent to an "abstinence plus" program, which does not work.

So, to reiterate, this point is proven: The RH Bill FORCES schools to teach a program that may contradict its beliefs in a very sensitive matter, and effectively denies parents a choicse because their children will still have to attend those mandatory classes. Parenting is difficult enough without having to teach kids to "unlearn" the matter that the children are forced to take in such contraceptive or "abstinence plus" programs.

You mean the fact that child molestation of children by priests is a widespread problem

Have you forgotten that less than 1% of priests have ever been accused of such. The conviction rate of the general population for sexual offenses in some countries is as high as 2%. It is hardly as widespread as you pretend it is. Let's not generalize, or find the innocent guilty by association, which is what you are really doing.

Of course, even one priest doing such is already a scandal which should concern even the Pope himself, but let's not overstate the problem. Also, it is quite irrelevant ot the discussion on the RH Bill since the Bill will not address this problem. Let's be honest. You only want to include this issue because of your hatred for the Church, and you hope to use it as an ad hominem argument against the Church and promote the RH Bill. But a logical person can see through that smokescreen, you know. It is a serious and very important separate issue in urgent need of correction, but it is irrelevant to this discussion on the RH Bill and abortion.

Something is not scientific evidence just because it's been published somewhere. You have to look into the possible reasons why something was published, it could be biased or it may not even be based on anything scientific at all.

Correct. I agree. May I suggest, however, that you start with the overpopulation and inquisition myths. Seriously. I am not just making a smart-aleck retort to get your goat.

Hmmm... The more you advocate the restriction of choice and coercion of schools and parents, the more you undermine your own advocacy of the RH Bill, in my opinion. You are actually making it more obvious. But if you wish to continue, please do. Thanks (although confused)...




DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. REJECT THE COERCIVE, ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Spending Too Little on Abstinence
By Tony Perkins and Moira Gaul, MPH
Family Research Council

A new study by the research firm Mathematica has been hailed by advocates of the sexual revolution and groups that have spent decades providing contraceptives and abortions to minor children without parental knowledge. Funded by the federal department of Health and Human Services, Mathematica examined four abstinence education programs for elementary students and middle-schoolers. The study found that after an average of five years, the students who had taken the abstinence instruction were no less likely to engage in sexual intercourse than students who had not received the instruction at all.

At first glance, the results appear disappointing. It would have been a relief to find that a small investment in a middle school program could overcome the raw messages of our sexualized culture. It would be especially encouraging because of the ever-higher stakes associated with premarital *** today.

But that's not the whole story - either of abstinence education or of the need for intervention in the lives of vulnerable teens. The researchers chose to ignore the abstinence programs most recommended for study, and focused on programs that have since been revised. The scope and the depth of abstinence programs were ignored, and a narrow few chosen for examination. These are not minor points because the stakes in sexual politics today are life and death.

Fueled by multiple sexual partners, the number and variety of sexually transmitted diseases are growing. One virus, HPV, includes strains that cause cervical cancer. The human immuno-deficiency (HIV) virus is lethal and incurable. Latent chlamydia infections are rendering an increasing number of women infertile. Standard antibiotics are proving less effective against gonorrhea. Out-of-wedlock childbearing is rising (more than 36% of all births in the United States according to the National Center for Health Statistics).

Every government official, no less than every parent, would have been thrilled if a 6th grade course of study that warned of these deadly risks were enough to avert them, or reduce their prevalence sharply. It isn't. Still, there is no reason to gloat and call for the end of abstinence, as liberal groups like the Sexuality Information and Educational Council of the United States and Advocates for Youth have done. William Smith of SIECUS crowed that Mathematica's work "should serve as the final verdict on the failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country."

That's a hypocritical point of view when considering the fact that our government has spent 12 dollars on the Planned Parenthood approach for every dollar spent on true abstinence projects as STDs and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed.

Planned Parenthood would, of course, like to zero-fund its competitors. Abstinent kids don't spend any time in the clinics PP has erected in urban centers across America.

With lives at stake, abstinence programs face the challenge of improving the services they deliver, and fortunately most have done so. A recent HHS-sponsored conference in Baltimore unveiled evidence from more than two dozen studies that such programs produce significant results in adolescent behavioral outcomes. The truth is, programs that are more intensive, that are genuinely comprehensive (that is, they address the need for risk elimination across a range of behaviors, including alcohol, tobacco, drug abuse, and violence prevention), are showing real benefit. Moreover, it is crucial for risk elimination programs that they not "give up" on kids and discount them as forever prone to high-risk behaviors. Older teens need powerful reinforcing messages whether or not they have experimented with drugs, tobacco, or ***. Youth who respond to reinforcement are often the most effective peer educators of all.

One example of intensive programming is Best Friends in Washington, D.C. An independent study of this program was published in the peer-reviewed journal Adolescent and Family Health in 2005. The young women who participate in the program are called "Diamond Girls," and they hail from some of the District's toughest wards. Study author Robert Lerner Ph.D. found that the Diamond Girls "are substantially less likely to smoke, drink, take illegal drugs, and have *** than a comparable sample" of youth in the Centers for Disease Control's surveys.

Lerner goes on to say that the finding that Diamond Girls are 120 times more likely to abstain from *** than their peers "is a result so strong that it is unheard of in practically any empirical research." Programs like Best Friends are succeeding because they aim high and sell no one short. Apparently, this message is getting through more broadly, as macro U.S. statistics have shown steady increases in the proportion of teens practicing abstinence and decreases in teenage pregnancy and abortions.

Congress should take note. It's time to take the sexual revolution head on and to redress the terrific damage it continues to do to boys and girls. It's time to give today's wise and effective abstinence programs more funding, not less.




DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. REJECT THE COERCIVE, ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[BabyKai]

no to abortion.....!!! yes to s** education ahihihi...

[mannyamador]

Adolescent Health and Sexual Activity: Research Findings
Statistics in Brief
Moira Gaul, M.P.H.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS08L01

The following research, statistics, and talking points broach the topics of dating violence, adolescent and women's health, and statutory rape. Abstinence-centered education serves to equip youth with skills and information to enable healthy relationships and avoid destructive health behaviors which can cause both physical and emotional harm.

I. Dating Violence statistics from Web MD:

"Abuse in dating relationships is common among teens. In the United States, 33% of teens report some kind of abuse and 12% report physical abuse (1)

Teen dating abuse is like domestic violence in adults in that it also is a pattern of abusive behavior used to control another person. Teen dating abuse can include emotional or mental abuse, sexual abuse, and physical abuse.

Like adult domestic violence, teen relationship abuse affects all types of teens, regardless of their how much money their parents make, what their grades are, how they look or dress, their religion, or their race. Teen relationship abuse occurs in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian relationships.

Unlike adult domestic violence in which women are more often the victim, in teen relationship abuse both boys and girls report abuse about equally. However, boys tend to start the violence more often and use greater force. (2)

Sometimes teens do not have the experience or maturity to recognize that they are involved in an abusive relationship.

Relationship abuse not only poses direct dangers for teens but also puts them at risk for other problems. Teens who experience violent relationship abuse are more likely to take sexual risks, do poorly in school, and use drugs and alcohol. Girls are at higher risk for pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and suicide attempts. (2)

Sexually active females are 5 times more likely to be victimized by dating violence than girls who are abstinent. (3)

For females, recent dating violence is a primary cause of attempted suicide. A 2007 published study reported that from data collected from over 8,000 students in New York City high schools in 2005, girls who have been physically abused by a boyfriend are 60 percent more likely to attempt suicide than those who have not. (Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Mental Health Association cite that suicide rates for teens have tripled since 1960 -- making it the third leading cause of adolescent death and the second cause among college students). (4)

1. Halpern CT, et al. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-*** romantic relationships: Findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(10): 1679-1685.
   
   References:
   
2. Roberts TA, Klein J (2003). Intimate partner abuse and high-risk behavior in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 157(4): 375-380.
   
   
3. www.webmd.com, Pediatrics, August 8, 2004.
   
4. Olshen E, et al. (June 2007) Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

II. Women's Health statistics:

1 in 4 women will be the victim of a sexual assault sometime during her life.

Sexual violence is both a public health problem and a human rights violation. (1)

The World Bank estimates 9.5 million disability-adjusted years (DALYS) are lost to women ages 15-44 due to rape and domestic violence. This is more than the DALYS lost to women from all types of cancer. (1)

Sexual assault can create physical and mental health problems: post traumatic stress disorders, substance abuse issues, and many other struggles. (1)

Sexually active females are 5 times more likely to be victimized by dating violence than girls who are abstinent. (2)

References:

1. "How to Screen Your patients for Sexual Assault: A Guide for health care Professionals," Florida Council against Sexual Violence, Tallahassee, Florida, 2002.
   
2. www.webmd.com, Pediatrics, August 8, 2004.

III Statutory Rape Crime Statistics (all statistics reported from, "Statutory Rape Crime Relationships between Juveniles and Adults: A Review of Social Scientific Research," Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12 [2007] 300-314.)

An analysis of the national Incident-based Reporting System (NIBRS) data from 21 states from 1996 through 2000 reported:

Of the 7,557 statutory rape incidents reported to law enforcement, 95 percent involved female victims with male offenders.

About 60 percent of the female adolescents were aged 14 or 15.

The median age difference between the female adolescent and the male was six years.

Approximately 45 percent of the male participants were age 21 or over, 25 percent were age 24 or older.

"The studies generally show that the relationships with adults and older partners comprise a large percentage of all sexual relationships for girls of a younger age. A number of factors may contribute to this: The younger a girl is when she begins engaging in sexual activity, the more likely she is to be a risk taker, have poorer judgment, or come to early initiation through a history of sexual abuse that would orient her toward older partners."

TALKING POINTS:

• Abstinence education teaches and equips teens with skills to practice both abstinence and build healthy relationships. The current prevalence of violence in teen dating requires education to reverse negative cultural trends. A 2004 Heritage Foundation study, "Comprehensive *** Education vs. Authentic Abstinence Education: A Study of Competing Curricula," clearly demonstrates that leading contraceptive-based or so-called abstinence-plus *** education programs do not contain an emphasis of program content directed towards enabling the practice of risk avoidance or abstinent behaviors and the building of healthy relationships. In this study, content or quantitative analysis was performed on nine major comprehensive *** education/"abstinence plus" curricula and nine major authentic abstinence programs. The results showed that authentic abstinence programs devoted 53 percent of page content to abstinence-related material, and 17 percent to subjects of healthy relationships and marriage. In contrast, the comprehensive curricula devoted 4.7 percent of page content to abstinence, and zero percent to healthy relationships and marriage.
  
  
• Authentic abstinence education teaches about healthy relationships as well as good skills for practicing abstinent behaviors. Teaching the skills to practice this behavior is the goal of abstinence-centered education.
  
  
• Not teaching and equipping youth, particularly young women or girls, with the appropriate refusal and communication skills in today's culture can place them at risk for the initiation and/or perpetuation of dating violence and abuse.

Moira Gaul is director of women's and reproductive health at the Family Research Council. She has a Master of Public Health degree with an emphasis in maternal and child health.

--


PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. NO TO THE COERCIVE, ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043).
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[raski]

You are aware that the whole "overpopulation" myth has been discredited for at least 25 years, haven't you? And your argumentation is hardly any zestier than mine, let me remind you. And quite a lot fo demographers, economists, and scientists do agree that overpopulation is a myth. Global warming, on the other hand, doesn't cause population pressures. It causes other things, surely, but population pressures? I think you have to re-read your material. Many of the global-warming people often see it as the other way around.

I am aware that you claim it is a myth, not that it has been discredited. Something is not discredited just because you say it is.

Then what is the Constitution for? Why even read it then? You mean we should not discuss something that has not already been decided in the courts, or argue one side or another? Now that is absurd. More likely a deception to keep people from discovering flaws in the proposed RH Bill.

You can discuss it, but until a Court rules on the issue your opinions are meaningless because they are only one interpretation among many.

I think you are the one engaging in that. We all know that democracies allow a great deal of academic freedom. You are trying to justify an entirely different kind of imposition in an issue where there is a great deal of disagreement by using an example from another situation where there is far more agreement. The leap of logic doesn't work.

All democracies impose a curriculum. You have not shown why a secular RH program cannot be imposed on Catholic schools. Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that governments have a right to impose a standard curriculum or start acting like an educated person?

I know that you obviously are intelligent enough understand the terms and phrases "mandatory" and "all schools". That is what the text says. Catholic schools will be FORCED to teach the mandatory POPCOM s3x education program. Now, do you honestly think Catholic schools can afford to run a second simultaneous program that has contrary content? And worse, can the Church afford to contradict itself and confuse its own adherents?

You haven't shown any proof whatsoever that people will be confused by this. Again, address the issue like an intelligent person will you, governments can and always have imposed a national curriculum. Discuss.

To say that this is not forbidden is really being quite disingenuous and beside the point. Besides, FORCING Catholic schools to teach a POPCOM program that is contrary to the Church's own teachings is already objectionable. There should be choice -- and the RH Bill does not allow it.

It's beside the point? You are saying there's no choice, but the RH bill doesn't ban abstinence programs. Let's try to get into the noggins of your brain shall we? You hate the RH Bill because schools have to obey an added requirement within the national curricula, just one required subject among many already existing.

The scientific evidence clearly shows that this kind of program works. I have cited the evidence here before. To state that these program don't work is manifestly dishonest. You know the evidence exists. You just don't like it.

No it doesn't and you saying it does, does not make it so. Your evidence is weak, your copy/paste antics pathetic and your putting words in my mouth idiotic.

At the best, all you can honestly claim is that the issue is unresolved. In which case, we should take the safer approach: allow parents and schools to choose. Let them sink ior swim without government interference. After all, if as you say the people will support contraceptive-based programs, then these iwll win out. But the fact that you want to IMPOSE them speaks volumes about how much support these programs really have (precious little).

Are you going to engage in intelligent discussion or continue to act like a child? You are 50 years old or older, stop acting like a baby.

You have consistently failed to show that parents will not have a choice, because there is no way you can prove that parents won't be able to teach kids whatever they like at home. This frustrates you, so you engage in your tired old antics of misdirection and ignoring previous points made.

I suggest you brush up on Catholic teaching. There are many teachings where one can choose to dissent, but when it comes to DOGMA there is no such thing. A Catholic is one who assents to all the dogmas, even if one is uncomfortable. Dogma was handed down by the Apostles, and is interpreted by ecumenical councils (quite a lot) or ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope (very few in history). Catholicism is not a smorgasboard. Those who pick and choose what they wish to believe (rejecting some dogmas and acceptinjg others) commit what is known as heresy. If you reject all of it, that is known as apostasy.

That is your opinion. Many Catholics disagree with many so-called "fundamentals" you are free to petition them for excommunication if you wish but don't insult my intelligence with your vile attempt to insinuate that all Catholics are on-board the so-called "dogmas" that is not true and you are lying.

Sorry but you are quite wrong. I suggest you actually read up on the Inquisition instead of relying on popular myths. In the US, where the concept of a wall of separation was first explicitly stated by Jefferson, Catholicism was a minority religion. Separation was a reaction tot he Church of England, which was the established state religion of England.

Oh the Inquisition is a myth now. Let's engage in more Nazi-style historical revisionism shall we.

In any case, OUR Constitution has specific intent when it comes to separation: keeping government out of religion (the "interference" clause when it is referred to in the US) and preventing the establishment of a state religion (the "establishment" clause). These are the main purposes of separation. You may imagine there are other meanings, but they are NOT in the Constitution and have no foundation.

NO, that is not the intent of the Constitution. Ours is based on the US Constitution and theirs has been interpreted to mean to be much more secularist than you would like, hence the legality of abortion and the illegality of holding prayers in public schools. These meanings are not imagined, but your opinions are.

Oops, you are adding new things here to my position. I NEVER said that parents should only be able to teach "at home." I say that parents should be able to choose what their children are taught about s3x IN SCHOOL. And by citing the clear text of HB 5043 I have been able to prove it. Please don't try to misrepresent my position. That would be very dishonest.

And yet you claim that parents wouldn't have a choice. If they can teach them at home, there is not a monopoly on this issue. If Catholic schools can run parallel programs to their desire, one can never say choice has been extinguished.

HB 5043 imposes a mandatory s3x education program. Neither parents nor schools can opt out of it. Therefore my point has been proved. QED.

But they can enroll their child in any abstinence programs they like, you can even fund Purity Balls if you like. Your point is not proved, but of course you claiming it has been proved, is proved, as usual.

I only have to prove that the child will be receiving conflicting messages. And I have. Should we take risks as to what will be the result?

No you don't. You have to prove that the child will be confused. Children are smarter than you think, some of them are even smarter than you are.

The point, however, which you are trying to obfuscate, is that parents will NOT be able to choose what their children are being taught in a very personal and contentious are where there are many competing ideas. And they will have to expend extra effort to undo what the children are being taught (which is difficult enough in itself). That is what we say is wrong and unconstitutional.

Competing ideas are good and parents cannot choose piecemeal what their children are taught in schools already. Your whole opinion is premised on the concept that parents should be able to control every single thing their child learns in school, which is stupid and misinformed. Again refrain from calling something unconstitutional if it has not yet been ruled as such by the Supreme Court.

You are imagining things. The Church has very little funding for this. And please don't go ranting about how "rich" the Church is. That is another myth. The Church spends most of whatever it gets to sustain essential programs for the poor and its parishioners. The few examples of extravagance should be condemned, but these are quite few and minor when compared to the actual work that has to be done and their costs. These include expenses for essential social services (many of which, by the way, the government should be doing, but the Church has to take up the slack). Please do not take offense, but you really have to disabuse yourself of many myths about the Church (I am no trying to insult you, but you have a lot to learn about the Church).

Then increase the funding? Again with the myths, if its not that rich then it's because people like you don't give enough money to it for the programs you care about.

You're dreaming. They can't afford it.

Says you.

But more to the point, running both will mean the schools will effectively NOT be teaching a consistent abstinence program. It will be teaching two opposed programs. That is NOT a real abstinence program at all (which is probably what you and Lagman et all really want). That is totally absurd. That is more like the "abstinence plus" programs which do NOT work.

So let me get this straight, it's not an abstinence program until and unless the program has a monopoly and is in the best position to brainwash children's minds, nevermind the fact that such brainwashing is INEFFECTIVE in the first place and your "scientific" evidence is trash. OK.

Worse, Church schools will be forced to run programs that are CONTRARY to its own teachings. The Church has already experienced the massive confusion that results from inconsistent teaching. This will make matters impossibly worse. But then of course I realize that would be good news for those who hate the Church.

It's not necessary to mention the same point over and over again. Try to be succinct in your writings and avoid crass repetition. More repetition is not better.

That is an assertion already shown to be false.

On this point I strongly disagree and shall leave it at that.

You do realize that premarital *** is the cause of most teen pregnancies, right? Of course you do. It seems now you are the one splitting hairs. Many studies have shown that the cause of unintended teen pregnancies is NOT the lack of contraceptives, but the multiplicity of partners and risk compensation behavior (where teens have a false sense of security because of contraceptives leading to more partners). Therefore, reducing teen *** IS a public policy concern.

Pre-marital *** without condoms is the main cause of teen pregnancies, yes. Thanks Mr. Obvious.

Abstinence programs cannot be mixed with contraceptive programs. That is precisely what renders them INEFFECTIVE. This is what is known as an "abstinence plus" type of program and these do not work. The RH Bill, by forcing Catholic schools to run programs that run counter to their beliefs and which will contradict abstinence programs, will effectively ruin them. Abstinence programs are NOT complimentary to contraceptive programs. They are alternatives to them. At the very least, the sources should not be mixed. A Catholic school loses any credibility if it teaches both programs simultaneously. But then again, I have this sneaky suspicion that is what Lagman et all want in the first place!

Because abstinence program appeal to people's morality which differs from person to person, but secular *** education appeals to condoms, birth control pills and other tools that work 99.99% of the time. It's inability to coexist with contraceptive programs reveals its weakness and you hate that.

You have probably restated the same thing in one post about 5 times, again I remind you, saying things over and over again in the same post is a complete waste of time.

And, as stated above, it is impractical and absurd for schools to advocate and run two contradictory programs simultaneously. That would effectively be equivalent to an "abstinence plus" program, which does not work.

Just your opinion.

So, to reiterate, this point is proven: The RH Bill FORCES schools to teach a program that may contradict its beliefs in a very sensitive matter, and effectively denies parents a choicse because their children will still have to attend those mandatory classes. Parenting is difficult enough without having to teach kids to "unlearn" the matter that the children are forced to take in such contraceptive or "abstinence plus" programs.

It creates required curricula, but it does not deny parents choice. Quit parroting that line, it's silly.

Have you forgotten that less than 1% of priests have ever been accused of such. The conviction rate of the general population for sexual offenses in some countries is as high as 2%. It is hardly as widespread as you pretend it is. Let's not generalize, or find the innocent guilty by association, which is what you are really doing.

I would like to know where your numbers came from. Nonetheless you have conceded that 1% of all priests is still a pretty large number of demended *** offenders. I never said all priests were child molesters, so I don't know what you're on about.

Of course, even one priest doing such is already a scandal which should concern even the Pope himself, but let's not overstate the problem. Also, it is quite irrelevant ot the discussion on the RH Bill since the Bill will not address this problem. Let's be honest. You only want to include this issue because of your hatred for the Church, and you hope to use it as an ad hominem argument against the Church and promote the RH Bill. But a logical person can see through that smokescreen, you know. It is a serious and very important separate issue in urgent need of correction, but it is irrelevant to this discussion on the RH Bill and abortion.

Actually no, the Pope only got involved after he was pressured by concerned Catholics as to the extent of the problem. If people like yourself, who have their heads in the sand, got your way these priests would be continuing with the child *** for all eternity.

Correct. I agree. May I suggest, however, that you start with the overpopulation and inquisition myths. Seriously. I am not just making a smart-aleck retort to get your goat.

Repetition, regurgitation, repetition.

Hmmm... The more you advocate the restriction of choice and coercion of schools and parents, the more you undermine your own advocacy of the RH Bill, in my opinion. You are actually making it more obvious. But if you wish to continue, please do. Thanks (although confused)...

Repetition, paragraph ignored.

[mannyamador]

You can discuss it, but until a Court rules on the issue your opinions are meaningless because they are only one interpretation among many.

These are the same arguments that will appear on the Congress floor and in a court challenge. The point is to craft a better Bill and inform people of the flaws of the current Bill. But of course you don't want that to happen. If you don't want top discuss it because it's meaningless to you then you can shut up if it suits you.

All democracies impose a curriculum. You have not shown why a secular RH program cannot be imposed on Catholic schools.

I already have, or do you have trouble understanding English? The state is generally bound to respect the religious beliefs of institutions unless there is some overriding, grave reason (such as protection of the state). A curriculum that FORCES an institution to teach something that contradicts its religious beliefs is unacceptable and violates freedom of religion. The backers of the RH Bill must therefore show an overriding, grave reason why freedom of religion must be suppressed. So far, you haven't been able to do so.

Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that governments have a right to impose a standard curriculum or start acting like an educated person?

Tsk, tsk... You shouldn't start acting like a boor. it does NOT advance your cause any. Please grow up and try to remain rational. Lame Insults do not advance the discussion any further.

You haven't shown any proof whatsoever that people will be confused by this.

I only have to show that such a curriculum will contradict the religious beliefs of an established religious institution, and I have done so. YOU must show why freedom of religion must be suppressed.

Your evidence is weak, your copy/paste antics pathetic and your putting words in my mouth idiotic.

Try to argue in a rational manner instead engaging in name-calling.

Do you know what "mandatory" means? It means parents will be forced to let their children attend the RH curriculum, whether they like it or not. That OBVIOUSLY eliminates choice. Look up the term "mandatory" in the dictionary, will you.

That is your opinion. Many Catholics disagree with many so-called "fundamentals"

Catholic dogma has never been determined by popularity. Surely you have figured that out by now.

Oh the Inquisition is a myth now.

Please don't attempt (again) to misrepresent what I said (that's a strawman argument, you know). Your silly notions of the Inquisition are a myth, not the existence of the Inquisition itself. But you glossed over that one, didn't you? And you also have a habit of engaging in strawman arguments.

NO, that is not the intent of the Constitution. Ours is based on the US Constitution and theirs has been interpreted to mean to be much more secularist than you would like, hence the legality of abortion and the illegality of holding prayers in public schools.

You are imagining things. The separation of church and state was NOT even in the US Constitution. What was in there was the "interference" clause and the "establishment" clause and no more.

Let me quote from my own blog post on this issue:

The thinking of British philosopher John Locke, which deeply influenced the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, made use of the principle of a “social contract”. In the Wikipedia entry on Separation of Church and State, we find this:

According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain inviolable by any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became influential in the American colonies.

Locke’s view is again totally different from the preposterous idea that the “church should not interfere in the affairs of men”. If anything, it expressed an opposite view: that the state should not interfere in matters of conscience.

Even the US Supreme Court has begun to turn away from the position espoused by those who want to silence the Church using the “separation of church and state” argument. The same Wikipedia article notes this as follows:

The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. Since that time, the Court has distanced itself from the metaphor, often suggesting the metaphor conveys hostility to religion in contrast to Jefferson’s original meaning “… in behalf of the rights of [religious] conscience.” In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference — a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.

Again, we see here that the purpose of separation of church and state is to defend religion from federal interference, not the other way around.

You really ought to do some reading on this matter.

And yet you claim that parents wouldn't have a choice. If they can teach them at home, there is not a monopoly on this issue.

Children will be forced to attend the mandatory RH curriculum. There is NO choice on that matter.

Now you claim that parents can undertake home schooling or have their children attend extra schooling to counter the mandatory RH curriculum. But why should we place an extra burden on parents to undo what has been imposed on their children? If parents send their children to alternative classes for another six years, do you have any idea what that will cost? How many parents can afford that? And if the parents are working, how much time can they spend in home schooling?

You already know these burdens are almost impossible for most poor Filipino families to undertake. But you claim that there is "choice" on,ly because of the remote possibility that some parents can actually undertake an alternative six-year alternative-education course. Simply allowing expensive, un-funded alternatives to exist is nothing if you FORCE children to still attend a six-year mandatory course Where will poor families get the money for alternative schooling? Why burden both children and parents with more? You know most families will not be able to do so. That is extremely dishonest of you. Cut the BS.

If, as you pretend, most Filipinos support the whole RH thing, then allow people to CHOOSE it.

If not, then it becomes obvious your idea does not have as much support as you pretend it does.

Again refrain from calling something unconstitutional if it has not yet been ruled as such by the Supreme Court.

More of the same yada, yada. You're just trying to keep people from discovering the flaws in the Bill. We can see through that, you know.

Then increase the funding? Again with the myths, if its not that rich then it's because people like you don't give enough money to it for the programs you care about.

You are assuming Catholics are rich enough to do so. Try thinking, will you? You can';t even prove the Church has the funding and yet you make ignorant claims about what it can afford? I certainly do not have the funds to support a re-education course to undo the damage done by a mandatory RH course. Most Catholics, even collectively, cannot afford that -- and you would have them fund the RH Bill's RH curriculum too. A double-whammy!

Have you ever tried to even think of how m,any students we are talking about ehre that must take another six-year course? Perhaps you have, and it is obvious you just relish the idea of the Church having to waste its scarce funds. But again we can see through that.

Pre-marital *** without condoms is the main cause of teen pregnancies, yes.

The evidence shows that even with contraceptives, teen pregnancies increase. In fact, it shows that providing condoms and contraceptives actually INCREASES teen pregnancy because of risk compensation, habit persistence, etc. The truth is not as obvious as you think, mister.

It creates required curricula, but it does not deny parents choice.

Have you looked up the meaning of "mandatory" yet? It means parents will have NO CHOICE. They are FORCED to attend the RH curriculum. No wonder I have to keep repeating things. Shouldn't there be something between your ears to process the info? Use it.

Nonetheless you have conceded that 1% of all priests is still a pretty large number of demended *** offenders.

I said 1% have been ACCUSED, not convicted or even proven to be as so accused Can't you tell the difference?



DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. REJECT THE COERCIVE, ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)