What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[tolstoi]

---

the jeepney driver has to WORK HARD.period.

what? like driving 24hours a day? hehe i think he should have learned about having many children can severely limit their chances of having a good future..

i know for some people who doesn't took poverty as the hindrance for their success, they made their way through the adversities in life with sheer perseverance and determination just to attain their dreams..for a fact, my classmate before, the youngest in a family of 7, [whose father is a tricycle[motor] driver and whose mother is a market verndor], had successfully worked his way through highskol and college without the help of his parents, nag working scholar and at the same time nag bagger sa usa ka supermarket so that he can sustain his education...and now he's a successful laborer in Dubai who regularly sends money to his parents..

talking about a typical rugs-to-riches story ryt?...sori to tell u bai that your premise can only be attributed to the lamest, disinclined and lazy people....

[darkwing]

ok na imong story, maayo unta ingana tanan, but realistically pila rana ka percent mas maayo unta kabalo sila unsa ang family planning, instead of just leaving it to chance

[tolstoi]

ok na imong story, maayo unta ingana tanan, but realistically pila rana ka percent mas maayo unta kabalo sila unsa ang family planning, instead of just leaving it to chance

if some can do it then why can't the others?

[darkwing]

ok na imong story, maayo unta ingana tanan, but realistically pila rana ka percent mas maayo unta kabalo sila unsa ang family planning, instead of just leaving it to chance

if some can do it then why can't the others?

good question

[tolstoi]

ok na imong story, maayo unta ingana tanan, but realistically pila rana ka percent mas maayo unta kabalo sila unsa ang family planning, instead of just leaving it to chance

if some can do it then why can't the others?

good question

if some can get past with the adversities in life thru hardwork and dedication then why can't the others...it all boils down to personal preferences..if all a certain person wants is to be a Juan Tamad forever then sucees is definetely far from them...

[dsabarre]

my god...i thought this issue is over...and i can't believe that some of you are falling for the traps the anti-hb people are using...

this house bill is definitely good for each of us.especially for the women and children.and it doesn't push coercion.and it does not promote abortion.couse abortion is unconstitutional..

read the house bill for more info.

[vlad]

im in for contraceptives. our population is monstrous and to think our country is freakin poor! wat shall they eat? lugaw the whole day? well,i havnt read those posts, so lenghty...

[expertbytesjp]

http://forums.istorya.net/viewtopic.php?t=31349

this bill HB 3773 is the result of thier panic in Drug Test. period!

[mannyamador]

gareb wrote:

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.

That's exactly the complacent attitude the authors of HB3773 want us to take. They know that while the Constitution prohibits abortion, current laws are deficient with regard to abortifacients. Thus HB 3773 can be used as a vehicle to sneak in abortifacients until lawmakers get wind of it. That will probably take years, if ever they do! In the meantime, hundreds of thiousands will be killed. No, this idiocy must be stopped where we find it.

it supported my assertion that indeed there is a state of overpopulation.

Wrong again. Prove to me that there is indeed a state of overpopulation. The UN Population Divbision doesn't think so and the l;atest report form the USA Census Bureau contradicst you. Where's your proof? So far, you have provided NONE.

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.

Again, this presumes that you have established that the needs of the population are close to or beyond what the world's resources have to offer. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

Not a single essential resource is in danger of being overtaken by the actual needs of the world's population. We aren't short of water, land, oil, copper, nickel, iron, food, arable land, etc. In fact, practically ALL significant envirpnmental degradation is caused by corruption, war, and greed. The world is more than capable of supporting several times our current global population

I see that you have convenienbtly ignored the evidence presented in previous posts, particularly that of Ms. Suleik, the USA Census Bureau, the UN Popul;ation Division, and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

These refute the simplistic assumptions of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Water Environment Federation. The Johns Hopkins report does't investigate WHY the alleged shortages are taking place. It simply attributes these shortages to "overpopulation" but cannot confirm ithat there are NO OTHER causes. Same with the other "source" you quoted. This is a logical error.

Ultimately, ALL such studies fail on the same point. They merely assume that "overpopulation" CAUSES these shortages when in fact they can (and often are, as has been shown many times) be caused by other factors such as war, mismanagement, corruption. etc. This is NOT overpopulation. The definition of overpopulation explicitly mandates that populaiton density is the CAUSE of shortages and environmental degradation. If it cvannot be shown to be such, then there is no evidence of overpopulation., The causes of such are then most likely to be other factors, which you have NOT been able to eliminate.

It is silly, for example, to propose population control methods in a country which is suffering economic hardship because of the corruption of its leaders. The "cure" would bnot be addressing then "disease". Same with the so-called "overpopulation" myth. Your data proves NONE of your points.

Ignoring evidence is NOT the way to conduct a propeer discussion. I have literally drowned you in evidence but all you can give is speculation, conjecture, and misinterpretation of the data I have provided.

or better yet that a population of 30 billion needs THE SAME amount of resources as a population of 60.5 billion?

Better yet, why don't you provide some proof that our current population of over 6 billion is beyond what the earth can support? Numerous studies have already shown that the earth with its CURRENT resources and methods can already support a population several times larger.

Again, let me quote Mercy Suleik:

It is, however, intellectually dishonest to continue to harp on this old
argument which has been used to justify sterilization, abortion and
contraception, when the UN itself came out with a report in 2001 that
debunked the most dire predictions about the consequences of population
growth. The study said that these have been proven unfounded, and remain
unlikely to occur even if world population rises up to 8.9 billion in
2050. Moreover, arguments about rapid population gorwth resulting in the
depletion of non-renewable resources such as oil and minerals have also
been disproved with findings that although the comnsumption of such
resources has risen, the estimated amount of resources as yet untapped has
also risen. Likewise the environment argument -- pollution, habitat
destruction, global warming, etc. -- has also been shown to be specious,
as these environmental concerns have largely been "due to mods of
production, not to the size, growth and distribution of population."

You seem to think that it is better to have smaller populations in order to increase available resources. If this were the case, then Bolivia, for example, with only 7.8 million people, but with a territory the size of California and Texas combined, and possessing abundant natural resources, would be a wealthy country, which unfortunately it is not. There is no connection between population growth and economic growth, as Sheldon Richard fot he CATO Institute noted:

"There is no population problem. Population growth is the result of the plunging death rate and increasing life expectancy worldwide. That is progress."

Richman, in his testimony on the International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act, revealed that the United States, England, Hongkong, and other countries became rich during unprecedented growth in population. The most densely populated nations are among the richest. There are many nations much richer than the Philippines where population density is greater. There are also many nations much poorer than the Philippines where population density is lower. In fact, low population density may contribute to poverty. See the table below:

COUNTRY ----------------GNP($) PER CAPITA----------------PERSONS PER SQ. KM.

West Germany--------------10,940---------------------------------635

Netherlands----------------9,316---------------------------------346

Japan---------------------11,300---------------------------------840

Hongkong-------------------7,136-------------------------------4,850

South Korea----------------2,150-------------------------------1,121

India------------------------270---------------------------------606

Philippines----------------1,740---------------------------------161

Ethiopia---------------------284----------------------------------27

Zambia-----------------------730-----------------------------------8

The "population explosion" is nothing but hysteria. Panic solves nothing. We should all disabuse ourselves of the "overpopulation" myth.

[mannyamador]

Fact Sheet - Contraceptive Pills Abortifacient

i(This information has been researched and compiled by Patrick McCrystal
MPSNI/MPSI Pharmacists For Life International)

One of the clearly stated mechanisms inherent in the overall mode of
action of the pill is; "the rendering of the endometrium unreceptive to
implantation".[1] Put simply this means a newly created embryo is not
allowed to implant in its mother's womb. Since this action takes place
after fertilization (conception), it is thus, by definition,
abortifacient.[2,3] Indeed, clinical researchers suggest that this
mechanism does actually contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of oral
contraceptives.[4] Every chemical contraceptive preparation including
pills, injections, implants and intrauterine devices have this backup
mechanism as an intrinsic part of their overall mode of action should
conception occur.

The only way it could be stated with certainty that contraceptive drugs
are not abortifacient is if they completely abolish ovulation in every
woman during every cycle. This is clearly not the case. The evidence
reported in the table below reveals a wide range of ovulation depending
on the type of preparation used. This does not indicate a true
"contraceptive" action. Whilst reported ovulation rates under strictly
controlled clinical trial conditions are sometimes very low, the
clinical evidence indicates no pill or drug under typical in-use
conditions can be claimed to cessate ovulation absolutely in every
instance.

Table 1:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Contraceptive   Rate of Ovulation  Reference  Breakthrough
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pregnancy
Combined Pill   Up to 5%      5,6,7,8   0.1 ***

Progestogen-only
  Pill      40-60%       9,10,11   0.3

Intra-uterine
  Device (IUD)  Up to 100%     12,13,14,  0.6

Norplant Implants 10-50% *      13,15    0.09

Depo-Provera
  Injection    1% **        16,17 %   0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:*  Rising with each consecutive year of use.
   ** Derived from 0.3-0.7% breakthrough pregnancies/year.
   *** Figures for 1st year of use, for perfect usage. See
     Ref. [16]

That ovulation and fertilization do indeed occur bringing new human
embryos into existence during use of contraceptive drugs is evidenced by
the rate, albeit sometimes low, of unexpected breakthrough
pregnancy.[7,16,17,18] Such breakthrough pregnancies appear to occur
even during 'perfect' usage, i.e. even when women do not forget to take
their next dose or do not become ill.[16,18] These failure rates are
indicative only of the number of human embryos that reach the stage of a
verifiable implanted pregnancy; no indication is given of the scale of
loss of human embryos that fail to implant at the endometrial level
under the hormonal influence of these drugs. This occurrence
essentially amounts to early chemical abortion.

One author estimates the frequency of such chemical abortion as one in
88 menstrual cycles for a woman continually on the combined pill.[19]
This translates to 1.4 million pill-induced abortions in the U.S.A in
1989, based on an estimated 10 million users. Given the scale of these
"silent" abortions, based on the millions of women worldwide using
various drugs and devices, what we are considering here is truly a
"Pharmaceutical Holocaust".

Conclusion

There is a high degree of certainty that tiny human embryos die during
contraceptive drug use. What is important however is not the actual
figures involved but the fact that it happens at all. Given the dignity
and preciousness of all human life at all stages of existence, the
abortifacient nature of contraceptive drugs poses serious ethical and
moral problems for all doctors and pharmacists involved in their
promotion.

Endnotes:
1. ABPI Data Sheet Compendium. Datapharm Publications Ltd. 1996-1997
(Femodene) p 1007.
2. Stedmans Medical Dictionary 26th ed. William and Wilkins, London
1995.
3. Blakistons Gould Medical Dictionary 4th ed. New York 1979.
4. Somkuti, S.G., Fritz, M. et al. The effect of oral contraceptive
pills on markers of endometrical receptivity. Fertility and Sterility,
65(3) Mar 1996, pp 484-488.
5. Van der Vange, N. Ovarian activity during low dose oral
contraceptives. Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Editor:
Chamberlain, G., Butterworths, London, 1988, pp319-326.
6. Grimes, D., Godwin, A., et al. Ovulation and follicular development
associated with three low dose oral contraceptives: A randomised
controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 83,(1) 1994, pp29-34.
7. Westcombe . R., Ellis, R. and Fotherby, K. Suppression of ovulation
in women using a triphasic oral contraceptive. British Journal of Family
Planning, 13, 1987, pp 127-132.
8. Ehmann, R., Abortifacient contraception -- the pharmaceutical
holocaust. Human Life International, Ontario, 1993, pp 7-16.
9. Langren, B.M. and Diczfalusy, E., Hormonal effects of the 300ug
norethisteone (NET) minipill. Contraception, 21, 1980, pp87-99.
10.Neal,, M.J., Medical Pharmacology at a glance. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, London, 1991, 11. Belfield, T., Contraceptive Handbook, 3rd ed. Family Planning
Association, London, 1992, p 37.
12. Zatuchi, G. and Goldsmith, A., Long term Clinical experience with
levo-norgestrel-releasing IUD. Intra-uterine Contraception. Harper and
Row, Philadelphia, 1987, pp 232-237.
13. Croxatto , H.B Diaz, S. et al. Plasma progesterone levels during
long term treatment with levo-norgestrel and Copper IUD comparative
trail. Contraception 49, 1994, pp 56-72.
14. Andersson et al ., L-norgestrel and Copper IUD comparative trial.
Contraception ,49, 1994,pp 56-72.
15. Shaoban, M.M. et al., Sonographic assessment of ovarian and
endometrial changes during long-term Norplant use and their correlation
with hormone levels. Fertility and Sterility, 59(5), 1993, pp 998-1002.
16. Hatcher, R.A., Trussell, J .et al. Contraceptive Technology 16th ed.
Irvington Publishers, New York, 1994, pp 637-687.
17. Pardthaisong, T., Grey. R., In utero exposure to steroid
contraceptives and outcome of pregnancy. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 134,(, 15 Oct.1991 pp 795-803.
p 67.
18. Duncan, G., Harper, C. et al., Termination of pregnancy; lessons for
prevention. British Journal of Family Planning, 15, 1990, pp 112-117.
19. Kippley, J., The pill and early abortion. All About Issues, 8,
Aug-Sept 1989, p22-23.