Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[Dorothea]

---

Dorothea: naa mi training on IUD insertion and removal with nurses and doctors this October. Basin ganahan siya mu apil. LOLZZZ....

Nah lisod! basin makuyapan LOL

[emem525]

ingun mannyamador sa other thread kay abstinence na lang kuno para di manganak! good luck na lang ninyo ug ka abstain ba mo diha!

[cottonmouth]

ingun mannyamador sa other thread kay abstinence na lang kuno para di manganak! good luck na lang ninyo ug ka abstain ba mo diha!

hahahahaha...perti tinuora gyud brod. Kun abstinence man gani maypa magpa-putol a lang sa imong kuan kay morag mas impossible pa nang abstinence kaysa salida ni James Bond.

Undo: Dear, wa ka tugnawa?

Inday: Tugnaw lagi dear, dali diri be.

Human sa pipila ka minuto.

Inday: Ngano man imo gilahos dear, patay ta ani kun mabuhi to. Ikapito na unay ni.

Undo: Giahak baya dear uy, wa naman gani koy ikapalit ug brief.

Na hala pag abstain pa mo.

[Dorothea]

ingun mannyamador sa other thread kay abstinence na lang kuno para di manganak! good luck na lang ninyo ug ka abstain ba mo diha!

Hahaha! This is so funny just because it is so tragic. In a perfect world, maybe. But this is so far removed from reality gyud. His head is in the clouds.

Unya mag sige ug promote ug NFP, BBT, symptothermal, Billings etc etc ug unsa pa na diha. Sayonan ra uroy siya. Naa pa man gani mangabuntis sa contraceptives, for example, sa pills nga kung buot huna hunaon, idiot-proof na kaayo na, unsa pa kaha nang mag measure2x sa imong temp, mag observe2x sa mucosal secretions, mag tan-aw2x calendar. Patay!

Ambot sa langaw hahaha

[mannyamador]

Mannyamador, I was just wondering about something. You said that life begins at the moment of fertilization, and not implantation. What then is the church's stand about ectopic pregnancy?

Please see:

ALL About Issues June-July 1991, p. 29
EXCEPTION: TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
by Rev. E. M. Robinson, O.P.; copyright 1991
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/EXCEPT.TXT

...A further problem arises in the assumption that there are medically
warranted situations in which the mother's life can be saved only by a
direct attack upon the child-to kill the child "in order to save the
mother's life."

The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated
exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example
of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which
allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive
organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of
abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.

. . .

It becomes necessary now to see why a medical procedure, such as the
excision of a cancerous, pregnant uterus, is sometimes ethically
permissible and should not be called an abortion.

What is involved here are two individuals, the mother and her child,
having equal, inalienable rights to continue living. If it can be
established that the mother's life demands the removal of the diseased
uterus, she has a right to this necessary means of preserving her own
life. The surgical removal is not a direct attack upon the child, either
by intention or by the nature of the procedure. Therefore, it should not
be called an abortion.

The ethical principle governing this, and similar cases, is a
long-standing one called the principle of double-effect. It is explained
in this way: an action which terminates in two effects, one good and one
evil, may be undertaken if the action, by its nature, is not evil, and if
the good end is primarily intended and the first to be executed, and if
the good effect is at least equal to the evil effect, and if the action is
necessary and is the least harmful means for attaining the good effect.
The excision of the diseased uterus is immediately necessary and is the
minimum that is required to save the life of the mother. The good and evil
effects are equal in magnitude, since both mother and child, as human
beings, have identical rights to life. In such instances there is said to
be a conflict of rights, but not a denial of the rights of either party.

One faulty assumption which is sometimes intended by the so-called
exception to the prohibition of abortion claims that the child is an
unjust aggressor and to kill the child would be a matter of justifiable
self- defense. There is no sense in which the child can be called unjust,
since this is a moral concept and requires evil intention on the part of
the actor. As for being an aggressor, the child is not responsible for
being in the uterus and is not, either by his or her presence or activity,
injuring the mother. In the previous case, for example, it is not because
of the pregnancy that the uterus is being removed.

If i may oversimplify it, you CANNOT act to kill the child, because that is MURDER. What you can do is attempt to save the life of the mother (and the child, although if in the case you give you are assuming it is impossible to save the child, then this part can't be done). If the child dies, then it is an UNINTENDED effect. You attempted to save the mother without direclty acting to harm the child. Here you apply what is know as the principle of double effect.

See, I take the PILL. I take it not because I am trying to avoid a pregnancy, but because I was really, really sick for a long time, and the PILL helped me get well.

So do you use it for birth control? Don't confuse the issues. If you take it to get well, then it is a therapeutic treatment. You should not be having *** at the same time because of the aboritfacient risks. If you're not, then you're doing fine. No sin, as far as I can tell, unless there's something else.

And that is why I feel so strongly that women need to stand up for themselves, and decide how they want to treat their bodies, and how they want to live their lives. They need to make decisions for them, and not let these MALE priests who are completely clueless make their decisions for them.

Please do not take offense but that is just sexist propaganda. Your "right" to do whatever you like with your body stops when the rights of others (the unborn child) begins. You can't make decisions about the life and death of SOMEONE ELSE. And the correctness of a position is not dependent on the gender of a person. A woman has no more right to make decisions about taking the life of an innocent child than does a man. And a lot of men know far more about the scientific and ethical issues involved than women, so gender is NOT a determining factor there either.

You can advocate for Natural Family Planning all you want, but to propose a ban on contraceptives?

I want to ban ABORTIFACIENT contraceptives used for birth control. Abortifacients violate the Constitution so they must be banned. You are confusing the issues. That is a typical tactic of anti-life people. Don't fall into that trap. I think you have shown that you are far more intelligent than that.

You may think you're in the right, mannyamador, and all the rest of us are wrong, but to go about it in a way that is so condescending and arrogant, it is quite disgusting. You sound like you're God yourself.

I have NEVER insulted you, made fun of you, or put you down in any way. My answers to you were factual and rational. Just because someone disagrees with you and is able to refute your arguments does not automatically make them arrogant or pompous. We should not be emotional, but rather remain objective.

If, however, you somehow still feel offended, then I assure you that was not my intent. I apologize to you and hope that you will continue to keep this discussion at a high level.

I would also ask that you look at the posts of the anti-life side on this thread. You will see that they are full of hatred and mockery of those they disagree with (especially the Church), as wakkanakka pointed out. If you complain about one side being arrogant, then you should also complain about the other side which has been far more arrogant.


@emem525

One reason for this is because the uterus is open while menstruating so when the IUD is inserted, it is inserted properly. Therefore, the IUD cannot be used as an abortifacient kay di man mabdus ang babae when it was inserted. FYI.

Let's not forget that the IUD STAYS in the woman and works not just in the menstrual period when it was inserted, but continues to have an effect afterwards. If a woman has ***, she can still conceive since the IUD does not always prevent ovulation. In which case it also acts as an abortifacient.

Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah Health Research Center, Salt Lake City 84108, USA. jstanford@dfpm.utah.edu

There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.

POST-fertilization means AFTER the woman has conceived. The IUD mechanism of action still prevents the pregnancy from continuing. It is therefore still an abortifacient. In fact it is an even more effective abortifacient than oral contraceptives.


@ronayo

There's Overpopulation in Urban Areas Indeed!

Well, let's assume for now that is correct. But what causes it? It's NOT the birth rate because Manila's Total Fertility Rate is below (or some people will say just near) the replacement level. Overcrowding in Manila is caused by MIGRATION. People move to Manila because of poverty and lack of opportunities in the countryside. Areas outside of Manila and a few urban centers are effectively IGNORED by the government and remain underdeveloped. Corruption and injustice cause this poverty, siphoning off funds that could be used to develop the countryside and for education in those areas as well. Will HB 5043 solve any of these problems? NOT AT ALL.

If we want to address poverty and overcrowding in Manila (ande underdevelopment in the countryside), we must address its causes: corruption and injustice. If you do, then more people will NOT come to Manila. Since you agree that poverty is caused by injustice and corruption, why not work on fighting those directly?

I stayed in Cebu because there is less corruption here (but there's still some) and it's easier to make make an HONEST living and get ahead here. It's much harder to remain honest in Manila. I lived there for 41 years. Good guys finish last over there (well, a lot of the time anyway). That proves that if you have less corruption and better funding for development in other areas, people can stay there and get ahead (instead of coming to Manila). But if we waste funds on population control, effectively diverting attention form fighting corruption and injustice, then we get nowhere. The problem persists.

[ryan22]

voted YES for obvious reasons....

[mannyamador]

@cottonmouth

NO need to explain further, the people have spoken. Today I rest my case but Please read below.

Still harping on that skewed survey? I already pointed out how the questions were biased. Mangahas imagines they were neutral because he claims two were slanted against the Bill and two were for the Bill. Why not look at the actual equestions then? It's pretty ovbvious that overall the survey was not neutral at all.

Here are the actual questions asked and NONE of them even acknowledge the controversial nature of the issue. They only mention "family planning", "reproductive health", "responsible parenthood", etc. which are all GOOD and POSITIVE things.

Here are the questions in the survey commissioned by the The Forum for Family Planning and Development (FFPD). (http://www.sws.org.ph/pr081016bvis_08.gif)

Q. 149: ANG PAGGAGAMIT NG LEGAL NA CONTRCEPTIVE TULAD NG CONDOM, IUD AT PILLS AY MAITUTURING "ABORTION" O PAGLALAGLAG (The usage of legal contraceptives like condoms, IUDs and pills can so be considerded as abortion).

Mangahas claims this was a question with an anti-RH slant. But this question is ridiculously absurd because it contains a FACTUAL ERROR. Condoms are NOT abortifacient! The FFPD ignores this, and its question lumps together a non-abortifacient (condoms) with abortifacients (IUDs and pills). Logically, the statement is false and is designed to elicit a "disagree" response. So even I would have to disagree with the statement as a whole. What a rigged question!!!

Q. 150: DAPAT MAGKARRON NG BATAS NA GAWING KATUNGKULAN NG GOBYERNO ANG PAMIMIGAY NG MGA LEGAL NA CONTRACEPTIVE TULAD NG CONDOM, IUD AT PILLS SA MGA TAONG MAY GUSTO NIT0 (There should be a law that requires government to distribute legal contraceptives like condoms, IUDs and pills to people who want to avail of them).

This is supposed to be a pro-RHPD item, according to Mangahas, and indeed it is. There is a subtle slant here. Calling such contraceptives them "legal" subtly implies approval and favor. This also hides the fact that pills and IUDs are only legal NOW because people (and Congress) are not aware of the abortifacient mechanism of the pill and IUDs. The question does not even hint at the fact that there is a real controversy over the abortifacient mechanism of pills and IUDs, and that this may make their distribution a violaton of the Philippine Constitution.

Q. 151: KUNG MAGIGING BAHAGI NG KURIKULUM ANG ARALIN UKOL SA PAGPAPLANO NG PAMILYA, ANG MGA KABATAAN AY MAKIKIPAGTALIK NANG WALANG PAKUNDANGAN (If family planning would be included in their curriculum, the youth would be sexually promiscuous).

Mangahas also says this question had an anti-RH slant. But there is another deception here. No one should object to family planning in the first place. Even the Catholic Church promotes it! What is controversial are the METHODS taught for family planning. But, again, there is no mention of those in this question at all. If one did not know the background of HB 5043, one would have to agree with the statement. So how can this be construed as being slanted against HB 5043?! On the contrary, it is subtly designed to elicit a response that will be seen as in favor of it, as Mangahas's later interpretation of the result shows!

The Third Quarter of 2008 Social Weather Survey was conducted over September 24-27, 2008. This is the non-commissioned survey, done by SWS on their own.

http://www.sws.org.ph/pr081016vis_02.gif

Q. 152: Ngayon po, mayroong akong statement o pangungusap ukol sa kasalukuyang mga debate sa pagaplano ng pamilya. Pakisabi po kung kayo ay sumasang-ayon o hindi sumasang-ayon sa mga ststements o pangunghusap na ito. Pakilagay lang po ang kard na may pangungusap sa naaangkop na lugar sa rating board na ito. (LUBOS NA SUMASANG-AYON, MEDYO SUMASANG-AYON, HINDA TIYAK KUNG SUMSANG-AYON, MEDYO HINDI SUMASANG-AYON, O LUBIOS NA HINDI SUMASANG-AYON). "DAPAT MAKGAROON NG BATAS NA GAWING KATUNGLULAN NG GOBYERNO ANG PAGTUTURO NG PAGAPPLANO NG PAMILYA SA KABATAAN."

See how the question was framed? The debate isn't about family planning since no one is against family planning. Even the Church teaches that families should be planned. The contentious issue is about HOW families should be planned and the methods used. HB 5043 promotes: the use of artificial contraceptives and mandates that children should learn to use such artificial and abortifacient methods. If people aren't aware of these issues, they woukld hardly have reason to object to the statement. Taken alone, without prior knowledge of the issues, even I would agree to the statement.

http://www.sws.org.ph/pr081016vis_04.gif

Q. 153: Ang "Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2007" ay isang panukalang batas sa mababang kapulungan ng kongreso na magbibigay ng katungkulan sa gobyerno na magtaguyod ng programa ukol sa responsableng pagpapamilya o responsible parenthood sa pamamagitan ng sapat na impormasyon sa publiko at pagakakaroon ng mga ligtas, legal, mura at de-kalidad na serbisyong na pang-reproductive health sa mga taong may gusto nito. Dati na po bang ninyong alam ang panukalang batas na ito? (DATI NANG ALAM, NGAYON LAMANG NARINIG).

This item asks whether people knew of the Bill beforehand. Ths seems neutral at first. But look at the very favorable description of HB 5043! It makes no mention of artificial contraceptives or the fact that doctors and health workers will be compelled to distribute or promote them. It does not mention any of the negative or controversial aspects of the Bill. It only mentions what sounds good about it like "responsible parenthood" and free, high-quality reproductive health services, and giving sufficient information. This sets up the next question, which has the same description of the Bill, and conditions the person to make a favorable response.

http://www.sws.org.ph/pr081016vis_06.gif

Q. 154: Ang "Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2007" ay isang panukalang batas sa mababang kapulungan ng kongreso na magbibigay ng katungkulan sa gobyerno na magtaguyod ng programa ukol sa responsableng pagpapamilya o responsible parenthood sa pamamagitan ng sapat na impormasyon sa publiko at pagakakaroon ng mga ligtas, legal, mura at de-kalidad na serbisyong na pang-reproductive health sa mga taong may gusto nito. Kayo po ba ay PABOR o HINDI PABOR sa panukalang batas na ito? (SHOWCARD) (TALAGANG PABOR, MEDYO PABOR, HINDI TIYAK KUNG PABOR O HINDI, MEDYO HINDI PABOR, TALAGANG HINDI PABOR).

Like I said before, the description of the Bill is all positive. It makes no mention of artificial contraceptives or the fact that doctors and health workers will be compelled to distribute or promote them. It does not mention any of the negative or controversial aspects of the Bill. It only mentions what sounds good about it like "responsible parenthood" and free, high-quality reproductive health services, and giving sufficient information. Of course hardly anyone would disagree with this unless they knew of the controversial aspects fo the Bill.

The SWS questions are clearly NOT NEUTRAL either. They are, in fact, very positive and favorable to HB 5043.

Mangahas, in the posted article, writes:

"The SWS survey asked six questions on the RH topic, the first three of which were FFPD, and the second three being SWS’ own items. The first four items were a battery of Agree/Disagree (A/D) statements, with two of them phrased in opposition to the Reproductive Health and Population Development (RHPD) bill currently being debated in Congress, and with the two others phrased as affirmative to it. The fifth item asked whether the respondent already knew of the RHPD bill. The sixth item asked if the respondent favored it or not. I believe that the A/D battery, being evenly divided in slant, did not introduce affirmation bias to the succeeding items."

I've read those six questions (and hopefully so have you). Look at the two questions which were supposed to be slanted against the HB 5043, as Mangahas claims. Read them. NONE of them are slanted against HB 5043. In fact, all are subtly slanted in FAVOR of HB 5043. Maybe the questions are somewhere else because they certainly aren't in the reports on the SWS website!

A truly DECEPTIVE survey indeed!

[emem525]

@mannyamador: Instead of harping at modern contraceptives as abortifacients, why don't we look at failure rates of contraceptives (both modern and natural)?

You have to realize that no method is 100% effective - modern or natural. The only method that I know which is 100% effective is abstinence. But let's face it, who can actually abstain from doing the deed at this day and age? Priests who have vows of celibacy cannot even follow this, how much more ordinary people?

I have nothing against natural family planning. If that is the method chosen by the couple, that is their choice. We should respect that, but for you to push the ban of contraceptives on the basis that one of their side effects or they can be used as abortifacients, then you are not making it fair for people who want to use these methods. The RH bill does not push for modern contraceptives over NFP. It promotes all methods and the final choice on which method to use will be decided by the person who will use it. Everyone has the right to their own method choice, who are we to stop these people from purchasing these commodities? People are not dumb mannyamador. In fact the reason why pills and IUDs are so popular is because they are easy to use and more effective compared to other methods. (check this site to see a table on the contraceptive failure rates Table of Contraceptive Efficacy).
You are entitled to your own point of view but please also respect those who want the bill passed because they feel their needs will be addressed with the approval of the bill.

[Dorothea]

Emem, nah tan-awa taka na pud sya estorya about IUDs. Wala gyud naminaw sa akong tambag nga basahon niya iyang kaugalingong gi cite nga reference para maklaro niya iyang sayop. Hehehe.

And about this whole ectopic pregnancy issue, see that is where this whole premise gets screwed up. Whether you do it to save the mother's life, the end result is still the death of the fetus. These "pro-life" people throw around the word ABORTION when it's convenient for them, and shy away from it when it doesn't fit their cause. If you say that ABORTION is murder, then ending a term ectopic pregnancy is still abortion, because they achieve the same end result. KILLING is wrong, as per the Church's teachings.

Now, about this whole INTENDED/UNINTENDED discombobulated reasoning. Women DO NOT take the PILL INTENDING to KILL human life. They take the PILL INTENDING to PREVENT pregnancy by suppressing OVULATION. In fact, the PILL IS SO EFFECTIVE in some women that even after they stop taking it, they REMAIN ANOVULATORY for ONE WHOLE YEAR. That is how effective the PILL is as an anti-ovulation agent.

I have asked you time and time again, to show me HARD scientific EVIDENCE, one that proves WITHOUT a shadow of doubt that contraception by the PILL was achieved by means other than SUPPRESSION of OVULATION. All you have been able to do was make blanket statements and post article links that use words like ESTIMATE.

Your views are based on a moral standpoint. Mine is too. But you are wavering in your arguments. If you say ABORTION is wrong, then mean it. You have said before that it CANNOT be RATIONALIZED nor JUSTIFIED, but reading your post on ectopic pregnancy, you are clearly RATIONALIZING. I suggest you read up on the definition of ABORTION. I get mine from my medical textbook, but of course, you define it differently, right? Because the medical definition just doesn't FIT into your nicely constructed Pro-Life arguments.

You accuse "pro-RH" people of idiotic rationalizations, when it is as clear as day that you also do it when it suits you. You twist facts (I have told you this before) when it furthers your agenda. When your opponents "rationalize", they're WRONG. When you "rationalize", you're RIGHT. Whew! I can't even wrap my mind around that.

If you want to ban ABORTIFACIENT contraceptives, then ban it for everyone. I use it (re: PILL) for medical reasons besides contraception, yes. But for other women out there who use it to avoid pregnancies, are they forever condemned because they are killers who INTEND to END human LIVES, millions upon millions of human lives in their lifetime, huh?

And yes, I do think you reek of arrogance. This statement of yours convinced me of that. See below:

"And a lot of men know far more about the scientific and ethical issues involved than women, so gender is NOT a determining factor there either."

There are so many things wrong about that statement that I don't even want to say anything more.

But you have PASSION, I give you that much. You're like a bulldog, sans lipstick. Hehehe. I'm not being insulting, ok? That's just my feeble attempt at a joke.

Peace!

[diatabz]

If we go with the abortifacient debate, doesn't that raise some questions? Using the same logic, the government should be outlawing the following.

1. Breast-feeding, like oral contraception, alters a woman's hormonal balance, thereby affecting ovulation, fertilization, and, theoretically, implantation.

Relative contributions of anovulation and luteal p...[Fertil Steril. 1992] - PubMed Result

2. IVF. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the "rights" of those that are discarded or frozen right? Even though under normal circumstances, as many as half of fertilized eggs naturally miscarry, usually before a prospective mother even knows she's pregnant.

3. What about coffee? Studies have shown that caffeine consumption during pregnancy increases the risk of a miscarriage.

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(07)02025-X/abstract

4. And exercise? Like caffeine, exercise in early pregnancy is shown to be linked to an increased risk of a miscarriage. Note that some women don't know that they're pregnant until they're well into gestation.

Leisure time physical exercise during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage: a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort