Legalize Abortion?

[joshua259]

---

@raski an unsay_ngalan

dili lagi mo pagamiton ni manny og contraceptives kay practice na daw na og abortion. he want's you guys/us to be unhappy like him... nyahahahaha

[mannyamador]

if the material is revolting you can still use the argument on moral obligation of the state to uphold morality and human dignity.. we are in a country which prohibits porno materials.. POPCOM will definitly have a sound curriculum... if not naa bitaw supreme court ir you can use cory and gandhi's method.. that is if you have a son or daughter...

I think that will be too late. It will take years to repeal such a law. Instead of that, why not get it right from the start? That would avoid all the damage and all the blaming.

This is not difficult to do. At the very least, do not make the s3x education curriculum mandatory. Allow schools to create a their own programs that take into consideration their beliefs and expertise. And then allow parents to choose the one they want (or to opt out entirely if they don't find them satisfactory). Why is the pro-RH side so much against allowing CHOICE in this matter into the text of the Bill? That is what has gotten so many people alarmed.

Anyway, the parts of the Bill relevant to this issue (and which should be deleted or amended) are sections 12 and 14.

but still it must allow the use of contraceptives and and promote reproductive health...

That is ALREADY being allowed. We do not need a law for that. Contraceptives can already be purchased in stores everywhere.

The contentious issue is thaty the RH Bill forces persons to dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives, as well as forces people to pay for them. Those are some of the things pro-lifers and object to. The parts of the proposed RH Bill that are relevant to this issue (and which should be deleted or amended) are sections 9, 10, 17, 21, and 23 of the proposed RH Bill.

There are, of course, other flaws in the RH Bill, but these are the ones relevant to issues in this post.

Real reproductive health can be promoted in a number of ways. For example, by properly funding sections 6 and 7 of the RH Bill. That alone will reduce maternal deaths by 90%. Allowing parents to choose the proper education of their children is another way (deleting or amending section 12 of the RH Bill). Abstinence and values programs, along with Natural Family Planning (NFP) are also some of the most effective and safe means that should be offered and supported. Why should these very effective means be banned or ruled out of consideration from the beginning just because of ideology?



More info on abstinence and purity education for the youth at
True Love Waits Philippines

“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Proverbs 31:8
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[raski]

I think the reason why any amendments will just have to wait is because the population issue is already a pressing and serious problem for this country that cannot and should not wait another 2-3 years of endless debates in Congress. There are parts of the bill that appear coercive and some truly may be, but I do not think all kinds of coercion are necessarily evil. As I've already pointed out before, all kinds of things are already coercive in our national curriculum. Learning Rizal's El Filibusterismo and Noli me tangere, for example, are required everywhere even though there may be people who might be offended by Rizal's rhetoric. There might even be those who believe Rizal was a terrorist. Nonetheless it is a State policy issue, therefore coercion for the purposes of achieving national objectives is not subject to debate. As a power of the State, the power to establish a national curriculum simply is what it is. If each and every school could be left to form their own curriculum without State regulation or oversight, it would lead to anarchy and confusion in our education system.

What I am against is moral coercion through intimidation, a practice that the Church and other religious moralists often resort to. Coercion by the State is acceptable because it is by its nature legitimately coercive by virtue of its police power and Constitutional mandate, whereas coercion by the Church even if through threats and intimidation, is never acceptable because it is not granted any such power under our laws and furthermore does not enjoy any mandate granted by democratic process.

The penal provisions for spreading of misinformation, I agree are severe and probably unworkable because it would be impossible to determine what would amount to the crime and the way the Bill's authors worded it is a bit ambiguous. Nonetheless that is a matter for the Courts to decide, not for us to endlessly debate on the forums.

I don't see how the RH Bill will prove a setback to abstinence education, are you saying that if the RH Bill is passed it will reduce the demand for such programs? If that is the case, then it is not the RH Bil that's the problem but the abstinence programs, for failing to appeal to people on their own merits.

[mannyamador]

I think the reason why any amendments will just have to wait is because the population issue is already a pressing and serious problem for this country

This is a major point of disagreement. I do not buy the "overpopulation" bogey. There are no adverse economic effects caused by population. Poverty has been shown to have other causes such as economic mismanagement, massive corruption, and bad governance. These are the real problems. And in the long run, population growth drives markets and production. So there is no pressing need whatsoever to arrest our population growth, which is already falling fast. In fact, the evidence shows that we would be courting population ageing and further economic stagnation if we should continue to artificially drive down population growth.

This issue is a major topic in itself. I think you will find many articles arguing the specifics for both sides in the previous posts in this thread.

Coercion by the State is acceptable because it is by its nature legitimately coercive by virtue of its police power and Constitutional mandate, whereas coercion by the Church even if through threats and intimidation, is never acceptable because it is not granted any such power under our laws and furthermore does not enjoy any mandate granted by democratic process.

I will have to disagree here too. There is legitimate and illegitimate coercion by the state. The Constitution sets limits on what the state can do so as to prevent it from being arbitrary and violating civil and human rights. Certainly freedom of speech, conscience, and rights of parents to educate their children are explicitly protected in our Constitution. Limits on speech, for example, are strictly proscribed and are very limited, usually only to grave matters such as protection of persons (such as libel laws) and survival of the state (laws against sedition and inciting to rebellion).

But there is no way protection of an IDEA or OPINION through force can be considered legitimate and condoned in a democracy. But that is also what Section 21,part e, of the proposed RH Bill does. It protects an idea.

We cannot wait for the courts to settle this. It should not even be passed into law at all as it weakens our democratic protections for our civil rights. Why wait for a long judicial challenge when this obviously unconstitutional error can be nipped in the bud? If we don't the damage will a;ready have been done before we can correct it.

On the other hand, the Church, I would insist, has express authority given by its members. Any form of "intimidation" it might have over them is purely moral or spiritual. If people believe in it, then they have explicitly granted authority to the Church, Thus, unlike the state, which can enforce its authority with actual even over those who do not recognize it, the Church cannot enforce its authority over those who refuse to believe. Any moral force the Church has instantly disappears through a simple act of refusal or unbelief. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the two.

That is also why the kind of moral persuasion of the Church is perfectly lawful and protected by our Constitution.

The penal provisions for spreading of misinformation, I agree are severe and probably unworkable because it would be impossible to determine what would amount to the crime and the way the Bill's authors worded it is a bit ambiguous.

Yes it is ambiguous. The ambiguity could cut the other way though. The Bill's supporters could use it to intimidate and silence opposition by applying the penal provisions on anyone realizing that the courts will take a long time to settle this issue. By then the damage would have been done.

Nonetheless that is a matter for the Courts to decide, not for us to endlessly debate on the forums.

Of course the courts have the final say. But the the purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss issues. We discuss this so as to inform people of the flaws in the proposed RH Bill. We should not just wait for the courts to decide matters. Some of us want to air our opinions.

I don't see how the RH Bill will prove a setback to abstinence education, are you saying that if the RH Bill is passed it will reduce the demand for such programs?

Well, the real issue is coercion and suppression of parents' choice.

But to answer your question, if the government is funding contraceptive-based s3x education, then these become cheaper to implement than un-funded abstinence education. This will not-so-subtly make at least some schools take the easy way out so they can simply comply with the requirements of the RH Bill. This upsets a level playing field.
.
Also, contraceptive programs are by their nature capable of capturing behavior and reinforcing captured behavior. As the studies on habit persistence show, contraceptives create risk compensatory behavior that persons would not otherwise engage in. The old word for that was temptation and a new term is peer pressure. The more teens you have being made to use contraceptives, the more you undermine the minority that chooses abstinence.

But these would all be minor considerations compared to the effect of a MANDATORY contraceptive-based program. Then demand for any alternative values education would be irrelevant because there would be no choice whatsoever anyway.

So my main concern would be preserving parents' right to choose. Abstinence programs can compete on their own provided they are not hindered by the state (or some other unfair and powerful mechanism), The pro-life movement can probably make do with that. Hopefully anyway.




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

[raski]

This is a major point of disagreement. I do not buy the "overpopulation" bogey. There are no adverse economic effects caused by population. Poverty has been shown to have other causes such as economic mismanagement, massive corruption, and bad governance. These are the real problems. And in the long run, population growth drives markets and production. So there is no pressing need whatsoever to arrest our population growth, which is already falling fast. In fact, the evidence shows that we would be courting population ageing and further economic stagnation if we should continue to artificially drive down population growth.

Therein lies the danger because overpopulation is a very real concern not just nationally but globally. Do not forget that the Philippines is already a net rice importer with a huge budget deficit. Do you recall the rice crisis of the past year? That is but a foretaste of what could be coming. There are many scientists who are now of the belief that the world cannot sustain its current 6 billion strong population, one that is likely to grow to 8 billion despite aggressive population control in countries like China. Global temperatures are rising year by year and droughts and crop failures are going to be severe. You are probably going to dispute that, but what if you're wrong. After all, these scientists are experts in their fields and have had years to study this phenomenon. If the current droughts and crop failures increase in frequency and severity as is widely predicted, there will be widespread famine and starvation. For us to just sit here and debate this issue as if it is a "bogey" and imaginary problem is an insult to the people who are warning us of a very real and imminent danger. Let's not be arrogant and consider this a settled issue, always think 'what if I'm wrong' and think of the dire consequences of complacency.

I will have to disagree here too. There is legitimate and illegitimate coercion by the state. The Constitution sets limits on what the state can do so as to prevent it from being arbitrary and violating civil and human rights. Certainly freedom of speech, conscience, and rights of parents to educate their children are explicitly protected in our Constitution. Limits on speech, for example, are strictly proscribed and are very limited, usually only to grave matters such as protection of persons (such as libel laws) and survival of the state (laws against sedition and inciting to rebellion).

There are provisions in the Constitution that were ruled by the Courts to be mere 'directives or guidelines' and there are those that they ruled must be followed. As even lawyers cannot predict which way the Courts will rule, it is useless to simply rely on the literal wording of the Constitution. You must cite the appropriate jurisprudence as that is what has the force of law. 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. There are many subjects that most schools do not want to teach, but nevertheless have to because the regulators deem them necessary. As I've said before, if schools are merely to preempt the Courts and decide for themselves what government directives are or are not Constitutional, it would lead to anarchy in our school system. That is why this matter should be left to the Courts to decide because Constitutional issues are so much more complex than any soundbites we post on the internet.

But there is no way protection of an IDEA or OPINION through force can be considered legitimate and condoned in a democracy. But that is also what Section 21,part e, of the proposed RH Bill does. It protects an idea.

Then why do we force students to learn Jose Rizal's works in our national curriculum? Just because he is a national hero, his ideas and opinions are immune from your opinion that ideas should not be imposed by force? And that is but one example of the many, many ideas that are required by the national curriculum. Should such curriculum then be restricted to facts and facts only? Then we would have to eliminate History, Social Studies and all kinds of fields because these are always subject to the personal biases and opinions of the book's authors/editors.

We cannot wait for the courts to settle this. It should not even be passed into law at all as it weakens our democratic protections for our civil rights. Why wait for a long judicial challenge when this obviously unconstitutional error can be nipped in the bud? If we don't the damage will a;ready have been done before we can correct it.

Why can't we? It's not a universally accepted fact that this law will weaken our democratic protections or civil rights, those are merely your opinions and not even shared by the majority of Filipinos. As such it is hardly proper for you to be saying we all need to get into this and nip it in the bud before the issue has even become ripe for debate at the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the Church, I would insist, has express authority given by its members. Any form of "intimidation" it might have over them is purely moral or spiritual. If people believe in it, then they have explicitly granted authority to the Church, Thus, unlike the state, which can enforce its authority with actual even over those who do not recognize it, the Church cannot enforce its authority over those who refuse to believe. Any moral force the Church has instantly disappears through a simple act of refusal or unbelief. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the two.

The authority therefore is not express but conditional and not protected by the law. If you're going to rely on the Constitution itself, there is very strong wording there for the separation of Church and State. If the legislators keep on bending to the will of the Church on moral issues then they will become like what the Batasang Pambansa was to Marcos, a mere rubber-stamp parliament that submits constantly to the dictats and threats of the one who holds true power. And most Filipinos do not want a country that is ruled by clerics, particularly those who seek to impose their will and morals by force.

That is also why the kind of moral persuasion of the Church is perfectly lawful and protected by our Constitution.

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

Yes it is ambiguous. The ambiguity could cut the other way though. The Bill's supporters could use it to intimidate and silence opposition by applying the penal provisions on anyone realizing that the courts will take a long time to settle this issue. By then the damage would have been done.

Well that's just the problem with laws, you cannot undo them or ignore them just because you think "damage will be done" in the future. That's why we can't necessarily have someone arrested just because we think they will shoot us.

Of course the courts have the final say. But the the purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss issues. We discuss this so as to inform people of the flaws in the proposed RH Bill. We should not just wait for the courts to decide matters. Some of us want to air our opinions.

We are doing that already, but the courts still have the final say. Glad you agree. I just happen to think it is prudent to await an actual Supreme Court decision on this to settle it once and for all, rather than endlessly debate it on the forums.

Well, the real issue is coercion and suppression of parents' choice.

You keep on saying that but frankly that is just an opinion. You have not convinced me and are not likely to convince anyone that parent's choice will be suppressed by RH Bill. So long as the RH Bill does not actively interfere in the education that goes on at home, it is not possible for you to properly qualify that statement.

But to answer your question, if the government is funding contraceptive-based s3x education, then these become cheaper to implement than un-funded abstinence education. This will not-so-subtly make at least some schools take the easy way out so they can simply comply with the requirements of the RH Bill. This upsets a level playing field.

This is where you're wrong. Abstinence education already has massive funding in the form of Church funding and Christian interest groups funding. If you are claiming otherwise, you are not being truthful. In fact what the RH Bill does IS level the playing field by providing a secular, non-value based, scientific alternative to the unproven and oftentimes unsuccessful morality-based abstinence programs heavily funded by the Church. The RH Bill will not stop the Church from continuing to disseminate information to the people, nor should it be held responsible if schools and parents decide that the easy way out is better than the abstinence program. That is why I said that if the abstinence programs, despite existing funding from the Church, cannot stand side-by-side with State funded contraceptive-based programs then perhaps it is because its ideas have been deemed ineffectual and unworkable as is currently the case already.

Also, contraceptive programs are by their nature capable of capturing behavior and reinforcing captured behavior. As the studies on habit persistence show, contraceptives create risk compensatory behavior that persons would not otherwise engage in. The old word for that was temptation and a new term is peer pressure. The more teens you have being made to use contraceptives, the more you undermine the minority that chooses abstinence.

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.

But these would all be minor considerations compared to the effect of a MANDATORY contraceptive-based program. Then demand for any alternative values education would be irrelevant because there would be no choice whatsoever anyway.

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.

So my main concern would be preserving parents' right to choose. Abstinence programs can compete on their own provided they are not hindered by the state (or some other unfair and powerful mechanism), The pro-life movement can probably make do with that. Hopefully anyway.

Your concern is misplaced and frankly tainted with excess melodrama. Parents always have a choice. They can even directly contradict anything our schools teach, and in fact they often do. The pro-life movement will not die because of this law, just as it has not in abortion-legalizing and more secular countries like France and the United States.

[cebu-future]

Yes to RH Bill!

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

@manny

the problem is the government has encouraged school to have *** ed, unsa man nahitabo naa ba? wala...

daghan gihapon schools ang walay *** ed... tingali nakuhunahuna ang gobyerno reluctant ra kaayo ang mga schools to make their own *** ed curriculum... so we should make one for them...

as i said *** has been a taboo subject in many schools except in science class when we speak of it as intercourse between two elephants or ants or asexual...

but not between two human beings.. how many schools teach their grade one to grade five students not to allow others even relatives to touch their body parts? how many schools teach their student that such acts are a form of molestations...

how many children are victims of sexual abuse at homes and their fathers the main culprit tells them he has the right to do such?

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?

[raski]

@manny

the problem is the government has encouraged school to have *** ed, unsa man nahitabo naa ba? wala...

daghan gihapon schools ang walay *** ed... tingali nakuhunahuna ang gobyerno reluctant ra kaayo ang mga schools to make their own *** ed curriculum... so we should make one for them...

as i said *** has been a taboo subject in many schools except in science class when we speak of it as intercourse between two elephants or ants or asexual...

but not between two human beings.. how many schools teach their grade one to grade five students not to allow others even relatives to touch their body parts? how many schools teach their student that such acts are a form of molestations...

how many children are victims of sexual abuse at homes and their fathers the main culprit tells them he has the right to do such?

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?

And lest we forget, the many child molestation crimes perpetrated by perverts in robes (wolves in priest clothing). Maybe this is the reason why some priests are opposed to the RH Bill? It's not too far-fetched now that you brought it up...

[Mar The Buko Bar]

uyon ko ani

[st.anger]

Legalize ang Abortion? Tabla ra i Legalize ang Killing