i thought i made it clear enough. but i guess i need to rephrase it again.Originally Posted by mannyamador
if the anti-abortion laws (in accordance to the Constitution) defines life to begin during conception, then these abotrifacients are technically illegal to begin with. all you need to do is ammend the anti-abortion law and make an explicit section citing such.
now with HB 3773, it defines abortion according to the anti-abortion law already in place. it does not allow abortifacients if the anti-abortion law technically prohibits them.
the former is something that we do not want to happen. the latter is your assertion you yourself supplied with articles and numbers that hopelessly did not stood up to scrutiny. what is more, it supported my assertion that indeed there is a state of overpopulation.Originally Posted by mannyamador
i have given out a definition of overpopulation. your repetition only provides a reason why i need to repeat myself over and over again. perhaps you did not read it.
is that an admission that there indeed is an environmental deterioration going on caused by population density which in turn is a specifier of overpopulation?Originally Posted by mannyamador
still, overpopulation is not just about population density. it is also how a population's need for resources is sustained, and how the environment around a certain population is maintained. granted that technological innovations can stretch production capacity to accomodate for a bigger population, these innovations still leave damages in the environment. aside from that, there are finite resources that the environment can provide for only a limited period of time.
it is now a matter of finding a point where we can extract these resources for our own use and still preserve the environment, so that it can renew resources that it can.
a big population as what we have inherently needs a large amount of resources. the price of this is ecological destruction, through land clearing, deforestation, disruption of ecological cycles, over-fishing, over-hunting, waste disposal. presently we are experiencing those enumerated. not just because of "inefficient governance" or "greed and corruption" but because it is needed and demanded for a population this size to suvive. that is ecological destruction and unsustainability.
and you still reason that we do not have those aforementioned situations that are products of overpopulation? and you still insist that there is no overpopulation? or all of the above are mere myths?
that is exactly the point. a large population needs a huge amount of resources to sustain itself. your constant ignorance of this basic fact leads you to a conclusion that it is alright to huge population, and that we do not have a population problem.Originally Posted by mannyamador
it is curious how you can be very selective in the data that you use in your arguments. you bannered a decrease in population growth rate, wherein "population growth rate" you equated with "overpopulation", hoping to use it as an evidence that there is indeed no overpopulation. now you conveniently chose to ignore what it says now (because it turned out to favor my assertion that the population is growing).
not quite very desperate as it seems. you yourself admitted that i was right in saying that your data supported by argument, as you admit that population indeed is growing.
wrong. you really did not read my full post.Originally Posted by mannyamador
Originally Posted by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
Originally Posted by Water Environment Federation
you mean enviromental degredation DOES NOT exist in the philippines? you mean to say urbanization and the need for more living spaces DO NOT exist in the philippines? you mean to say that we need and demand THE SAME amount of resources now compared to 50 years ago?Originally Posted by mannyamador
Originally Posted by mannyamador
i hate repeating myself.Originally Posted by gareb
instead of insinuating and name calling, why dont you provide a substantial and irrefutable proof that this earth can provide a limitless amount of resources indefinitely? or better yet that a population of 30 billion needs THE SAME amount of resources as a population of 60.5 billion?Originally Posted by mannyamador



Reply With Quote
i think he should have learned about having many children can severely limit their chances of having a good future..

