Population Control Issues [Archive] - Page 12

Maxxclip

October 27th, 2010, 01:48 AM

Clear and present danger
by Mercedes B. Suleik

In promoting contraception, the so-called Reproductive Health Bill is an oxymoron...a misnomer. Reproduction means to give life. Contraception means to abort life. It’s as simple as that. I am not about to tote up what media and other supporters of the bill call religious objections. After all, some non-Catholics, non-Christians, atheists, and agnostics somehow get apoplexic when God enters the picture.

What I would like to call attention to is that this bill, couched though it be in innocuous language, is riding on the wrong premise that the Philippines is over-populated, and worse, there are just too many poor people, and the only solution is to stop these poor people from reproducing.

Let us be honest for once, and admit that the "population management" program is rooted in the Kissinger memorandum of 1975, which advocated population control measures and the promotion of contraception among the 13 most populous countries, among which was the Philippines.

The overt rationale was that population growth is deemed inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries; the covert reason was that rapid population growth in these less developed countries was seen to be against the national interests of the United States. In fact, from 1997 to 2003, the USAID had been shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities (read contraceptives) which amounted to US$3 million annually. When that dole-out ended, the Department of Health embarked on the "Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy" which arranged for the replacement of these donations with domestically provided contraception.

In fact, that policy already makes moot what the RH bill is trying to do, not to mention the fact that the Local Government Code allows local governments to put it into effect themselves, as some LGUs have already done.

What the RH bill does is really to make contraception a state policy, doing violence to the rights of the nation’s citizens to decide on their own family sizes and their children’s upbringing, as well as to the conscience rights of medical and health workers, educators, and employers in light of the coercive sanctions in the bill.

There is a "clear and present danger" to all of us if this bill is passed in this coming Congress, as its proponents swear they will do so.

It might be good for them to remember that this bill has gone through 23 congresses, and somehow, it never got passed...must be an unseen Hand (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/201266/church-is-biggest-hindrance-to-rh-bill-womens-group)? Okay, I promised no religious overtones.

Let me just tell you why there is a "clear and present danger," and propose that there really is a true conspiracy to depopulate the world, but especially the less developed countries. For sure, once the bill is passed, we shall have effectively entered the loop of the Obama administration’s policy of promoting worldwide abortion, no matter how the bill’s proponents claim that in our country abortion is "still a crime." Take note of the word "still" -- how easily that caveat can eventually disappear.

I grant that there are those who are sincere about poverty alleviation but are misguided, or indeed deceived, about the means and methods to help the poor.

The danger is that there are those who are malevolent in their intentions and devious about their methods, who have advocated the unthinkable -- they are the ones who are ultimately behind the advocacy for "family planning" and "reproductive health."

The Millenium Challenge grant that PNoy so deliriously claimed as the bacon he brought home ostensibly seeks to help fight corruption, improve education, etc., etc. and alleviate poverty via, please take note, "reproductive health measures." Nothing apparently wrong with that, except that Obama’s Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton’s, definition of "reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion." It follows that whatever definition the framers of the RH bill has of reproductive health, access to that green gravy will find its way to eventual access to abortion.

Another cause for my feeling about "clear and present danger" is that Obama’s crew includes John Holdren as advisor for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Who is John Holdren?

He is the one who, in a 1977 book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply contamination, mandatory body implants to prevent pregnancies, particularly to people deemed as causing "social deterioration."

Shades of Adolf Hitler! His co-authors are Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. In case our RH proponents who rationalize their stand on the over-population bogey, have forgotten, or never have heard of him, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome in the 1960s raised the idea of the "population bomb" and "limits to growth" theories (which have consistently been proven to be as hilariously true as the corner soothsayer’s proclamation that "the end is near").

Another version of this theory is the "overloaded lifeboat" theory of the earth. Despite his dire prediction that eventually the world would run out of resources (taking off from the discredited Malthusian theory), the world has stumbled on, discovering new resources and technologies, and actually has progressed.

Of course there are pockets of poverty everywhere, even in the rich countries, but is the solution to decimate population?

If that were so, how can the RH proponents claim that their bill is "pro-poor" -- why, they are saying the poor who "breed irresponsibly" should be given pills, condoms, and whatelse, so that they would stop procreating, thus lessening the number of poor people.

Goodness, why don’t they just line up all the poor in Luneta and execute them for "economic sabotage"?

Let me just cite a summary of some of the things this new science advisor of the Obama regime proposes in that book, which scares me to death...which could eventually support and form part of the anti-life program of the US (little brown brother, take heed):

Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
Legalizing "compulsory abortions," i.e., forced abortions carried out against the will of pregnant women, as is commonplace in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby (Note: this book was published in 1977 when China had the one-child policy...which they are rethinking now).
Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
Implementing a system of "involuntary birth control" where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.
Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem to have already had too many children or...who have contributed to ‘general social deterioration’.
Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one-child policy of Communist China.
This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized ‘Planetary Regime’ that would utilize ‘global police force’ to enforce the measures outlined above. The ‘Planetary Regime’ would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

If it wasn’t so scary, we could just dismiss it as the ramblings of a mad scientist from fiction, but that book exists (Holdren actually had a picture taken of him with his book).

Holdren and his colleagues, it has been reported, moreover are now at the forefront of efforts to combat "climate change" through "similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet."

They are reportedly also advocating "large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth," such as "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays." Golly gee!

I don’t know about you, but as a child star once said, "Takot ako" about these shocking and draconian population control plans, the horrors that population control, sterilization, and genocidal culling programs that are now underway little by little. Let us not be mesmerized by the glitter of the gold that is being offered to us in exchange for the very life of our people.

As I said earlier, perhaps the motives of people supporting the RH bill in their desire to solve our country’s poverty problem are sincere, but let them not be deceived and taken up to the mountain to view the riches of the world to be had, if they would only fall down and worship the evil one (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2046:5-7&version=NIV).

FlashCollider

October 27th, 2010, 02:04 AM

Dissonance within the Catholic hierarchy? (http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2010%2Foctober%2F23%2Felizabethangsioco.isx&d=2010%2Foctober%2F23)

As the debates on the reproductive health bill continue, I’d like to focus not on the substance of opposing positions but on information that made me reflect on whether there is dissonance within the Catholic hierarchy on the issue. I do not claim expertise on the Catholic Church but I feel the responsibility to share with the public certain interesting and important information.
I have been quite busy with various RH-related activities and in most, I faced staunch opposition from those who speak on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy. On the surface, one gets the impression that the hierarchy stands solidly against the RH bill. I had certainly thought so—until I got to know more.

One television appearance in particular interested me. I was in Boy Abunda’s “Bottomline” as part of the panel; we were called Bottomliners. The episode featured Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez as the main interviewee. Each bottomliner was asked to prepare a set of questions that Boy would then ask the Bishop. I took great care in formulating mine because I was determined to know if the possibility of negotiating with the hierarchy indeed existed. Two of my questions were: 1) What parts of the RH Bill can you support and what problems will these address? 2) How do you propose to solve the very high maternal mortality rates in our country?

All my questions were used during the taping. When asked what provisions of the bill are worth-supporting, the good bishop said that HE HAS NOT READ THE BILL! I almost fell off my seat. On the second, he was quick to say that addressing maternal mortality is a government responsibility. Not surprisingly, the Bishop mostly delved on why the Catholic hierarchy opposes the RH Bill.

It was unfortunate that Bishop Iñiguez’ responses to my two questions were not aired. I was hoping that viewers would see those important portions so people may realize that the hierarchy’s position is worth scrutinizing.

What process (if there is one) does the Catholic Church use in making positions on issues? Don’t they first study before issuing statements? How could the good bishop oppose something that he has not even read and how could he say that addressing deaths of poor Filipino mothers is a government responsibility and in the same breath oppose a government that intends to deal with the problem? As I said during the show’s last gap, I was disappointed.

In a meeting after, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network discussed a paper entitled “Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1, 2010)” authored by Jesuit Fathers Genilo, Carroll, and Bernas. The paper’s introductory note said that it is “intended to stimulate meaningful and thoughtful dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96)…”

The Jesuits are known as the “progressive block” within the Roman Catholic Church. Some of them are even involved in movements for societal change. On RH, this Jesuit paper asserted that the bill is not acceptable in its present form but that “total rejection… will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions.” The paper proposes to “amend objectionable provisions and retain those that actually improve the lives of Filipinos.”

At the very least, the authors studied the RH Bill. This is much better than Bishop Iniguez’ admission that he has not read it at all. Also, the paper is perhaps the first from a Catholic group that admitted to the urgent need to address crucial problems such as maternal mortality and abortion. To me, this paper dissents from the over-all rejection of the Bill by those who speak in behalf of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. Without delving into the paper’s substance, I am constrained to ask if the authors have the authority to speak for the hierarchy, or is the paper a manifestation of differences in opinion among Catholic groups? If it is the latter, I say that this is not the first.

We will recall that former Department of Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral was severely criticized by the CBCP when she allowed the distribution of condoms because of the serious HIV and AIDS threat. The bishops strongly oppose the use of condoms even as protection against HIV and AIDS.

However, the Training Manual on HIV and AIDS for Catholic Church Pastoral Workers published in 2007 endorsed by the CBCP, and with foreword by Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo, then CBCP President said (pp. 38 of the Resource Book):

“In the case of HIV-discordant couples (where only one partner is HIV infected), both partners should be helped to decide for themselves the appropriate means to defend themselves against the infection. One of their options may be to discontinue sex. However, should they decide to continue their sexual relationship, consistent and correct condom use can help minimize the risk of transmission… (Itals mine)”

Clearly therefore, there was recognition and ACCEPTANCE of the benefits of using condoms. This runs counter to the CBCP’s attacks against Secretary Cabral and condoms. Were the bishops again acting without studying? How could the CBCP teach one thing and say another? Or did Archbishop Lagdameo’s CBCP differ in opinion from the 2009 CBCP?

Another possible case of dissonance can be traced as far back as 1990, during Pres. Cory Aquino’s term. On 14 August 1990, Bishop Jesus Varela issued a statement after a meeting between the panels of Bishops (that he headed) and government (headed by then Secretary Alran Bengzon) on government family planning program. The Varela statement included the following:

‘The Church reiterates its objections to contraception and sterilization and expresses its reservations about the moral acceptability of certain aspects of the Program. But in a pluralistic society and recognizing the freedom of those who disagree with Church principles, the Church respects the government’s toleration of other means that the conscience of others may not object to and that the law on abortion does not forbid. Nonetheless, the Church seeks a greater emphasis on natural family planning as consistent with moral teachings and religious beliefs.’

This statement issued 20 years ago is much more liberal and accepting of other viewpoints than what we hear from the present bishops.

The reasonable conclusions from all these are: some within the Catholic hierarchy do not study the issues before making public positions; priests’ and bishops’ positioning on family planning and RH also change; and, if we continue to closely scrutinize the Roman Catholic hierarchy, we may find that dissonance within exists.

Linguine

October 27th, 2010, 03:26 AM

Major business groups hint of support for artificial family planning method

MAJOR BUSINESS groups have hinted support for including contraceptive use in state family planning programs, saying that the public must be given a wide breadth of choices.

The joint statement of five groups -- Management Association of the Philippines, Makati Business Club, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Financial Confederation of the Philippines and the Employers Confederation of the Philippines -- provided further backing to administration plans to hand out artificial birth control despite opposition from the Roman Catholic Church which had even reportedly threatened to excommunicate the President.

"While various parties and interested sectors may provide advice and guidance to parents on alternative choices regarding family size and the means to achieve their desired objective, we believe these are decisions ultimately for the parents themselves to make," the business groups said.

"We believe such a focused policy of family planning must provide lowest-cost access... to the services and materials to implement their free and informed choice," they said.

Such a tack is needed "for poverty reduction and maternal and child health care."

The Philippines is the 12th most populous nation in the world based on its estimated 2010 population of 94.01 million, up from 76.5 million in the 2000 census according to earlier reports.

The business groups clarified, however, that they were "unequivocally opposed to any measure that condones abortion in any way" as with policies that "limit free choice."

This comes a month after President Benigno C. Aquino III told a town hall-style meeting with expatriate Filipinos in the United States that his administration plans to provide assistance to poor couples regardless of the birth control method they want to employ.

Rep. Edcel C. Lagman of Albay (1st district), who is minority leader, meanwhile, has refiled the reproductive health measure in Congress as House Bill 96.

The measure was not passed during the last Congress due to opposition from the Catholic Church and some of its allies. -- Jessica Anne D. Hermosa

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=20147

Maxxclip

October 27th, 2010, 04:42 AM

Contraception Versus Abortion: A Comparison and Some Implications
by Msgr. Vincent Foy, PhD.

The effects of Contraception

The primacy effect of contraception is the gross deformity of the marriage act- the act designed by God to people earth and Heaven. Contraception transforms the marriage act from an act of love into an act of hate, from self-giving to mutual abuse. Although some forms of contraception do not kill, they prevent life and so demonstrate a willingness to put self-gratification before life. Abortion is a single crime. Contraception is usually a habit which tends to harden the heart with the passage of time. Although the conscience may not suffer the trauma that normally accompanies abortion, contraceptive practice more likely sedates the conscience, with all the deadly consequences of the sinful state, including the loss of Faith. Contraception leaves all the great gaps listed under abortion, but multiplies them as the attack on life is multiplied.

The encyclical Humanae Vitae, under the heading of "Grave Consequences of Methods of Artificial Birth Control", lists the most notable effects of contraception: "the wide and easy road opened to conjugal infidelity and general lowering of morality"; the lowering of respect for the woman who becomes an" instrument of selfish enjoyment" and no longer a respected and beloved companion; the dangerous weapon placed in the hands of evil authorities (cf.n.17)

Following in the wake of contraceptive practice is the acceptance of that other sterile deformity of sex called homosexuality. Christians long recognized the relationship between the two. It is interesting to note that Martin Luther saw this in his condemnation of contraception. He said, "This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomistic sin" (Faith Facts, p.113). A contracepting society, with sex separated from love and life, leads to a society tolerant of homosexual conduct.

The Death Chain

Comparing contraception and abortion enables us to see that they are linked in a death chain. Contraception is at the top of the chain. Contraception gives birth to abortion deaths and to the acceptance of sterile sodomy. Abortion gives birth to euthanasia. All of these give birth to the acceptance of a pervasive pornography. When these are widespread we have the Culture of Death. This Culture of Death gives birth to the death of the family, to the death of society, to the death of the Church, and to the perpetual death of immortal souls.

Father John Hardon, S.J., a truly great theologian, summed up the effects of the contraceptive mentality: "It has been correctly said that Humane Vitae divides the Catholic Church into two periods of history. The Church will survive only among those who believe that contraception is deadly both to Christianity and the promise of a heavenly reward. Contraception is fatal to the true faith and to eternal life."

Recognition of the death chain leads to many implications. We consider two major ones.

Implications for the Pro-Life Movement

Considering the essential link between contraception and abortion it follows with inexorable logic that no pro-life group can truly be such if it does not repudiate contraception. Yet there are groups that propose "safe-sex" through condom use as the solution to abortion; other "pro-life" groups accept members who uphold contraception as an alternative to abortion.

Most pro-life associations recognize that they must combat the contraceptive mentality if they are to succeed. Among these are Human Life International founded by that great Apostle of Life, Fr. Paul Marx, OSB. Among these also are Priests for Life, now an international movement. A new group in Canada, which strikes at the heart of the problem, is "Catholics Against Contraception". We also are privileged to have in Canada, under the dedicated leadership of Sr. Lucille Durocher, the completely orthodox movement: "St. Joseph' s Workers for Life and Family." "Pharmacists for Life International" say in their advertising brochure: "Contraception is the Achilles Heel of the Pro-Life Movement. If we do not take clear steps against contraception, it will destroy the pro-life movement just as assuredly as it destroys the smallest life." The motto of Pharmacists for Life is "No exceptions, no compromises, no apologies."

Not to recognize the evil of contraception while fighting abortion is like working to kill the termites on the roof of a house, while the whole structure is being eaten away from within. It is like leaning over a deck to chip away at an iceberg, while the ship is being gutted beneath the waterline. It is not permissible to soft-pedal contraception in the interests of a so-called pro-life ecumenism. This is not a denominational issue, pertaining to Catholics alone. The prohibition of contraception is founded on divine natural law. Only groups which in their underlying philosophy are anti-contraception, anti-sterilization, and anti-abortion have the right to full endorsement.

Immense benefits flow when pro-life groups are in harmony with God's Truth. Here are a few:

(a) They have a right to unqualified support from all, including the Catholic hierarchy.

(b) They can readily network and support one another in organizing protests, demonstrations, conferences, letter-writing campaigns and other projects.

(c) Their unity in Truth will add immeasurably to their strength and appeals for prayers and financial help.

(d) Their unity of purpose will inspire the formulation of greater projects and methods to help restore the Culture of Life.

catholicsagaintscontraception (http://www.catholicsagainstcontraception.com/contraception_vs_abortion2.htm)

Maxxclip

October 27th, 2010, 04:46 AM

Islam’s Take on Contraception and Abortion
by Mehol K. Sadain

Contraception, which is the prevention of conception, has long been legally practiced among married Muslims. The rationale for allowing contraception ranges from health to economic reasons, and includes improving the quality of life of children and their family. Hence, the methods (pills, mechanical barriers and natural family planning) are all allowed by Islamic law. Contraception is to be distinguished from abortion, which is the extraction of a fetus already formed in the mother’s womb. While contraception is allowed in Islam as a means to prevent pregnancy (hence, no taking of life is involved) abortion is generally prohibited, except in very rare medically justifiable cases.

Let us first deal with contraception. To begin with, all the major schools of law in Islam allow azl or withdrawal or coitus interruptus, with the sole condition that the wife’s consent should be obtained. This is understandable because it may happen that the wife wants to have a child and hence, will not welcome withdrawal.

Using ijtihad or judicial analysis and interpretation, the jurists (fuqaha) of Islam reasoned that if withdrawal is allowed, then other methods achieving the aim of withdrawal (which is prevention of pregnancy) should also be allowed. Ibn Sina (Avicenna to the West), a great Muslim Philosopher and Physician discussed twenty different methods of contraception in his book “Qanun” or “The Law”, and Abu Bakr Ar-Razi in his book “Hawi” listed one hundred seventy six birth control substances. According to Sa’diyya Shaikh in her article “Undertaking Khilafa” published in “Sacred Choices: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religions”, as early as the 9th century female contraceptive techniques like intra-vaginal suppositories and tampons were already part of both medical and legal discussions in Islam.

It appears that the primary reason for allowing contraception in Islam is the principle that reproduction is a voluntary choice for married couples. Islam has never made it obligatory for Muslim couples to have children, although one of the objectives of marriage is procreation, and children are considered as gifts from Allah that bring joy to the family.

The other condition in the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy is that the method should not result in permanent sterility. Here the law draws the line between what is permissible and forbidden. While the law gives to the Muslim couple the choice of having children and when to have them, the law does not allow them to voluntarily kill their babies, nor their chances of having babies, unless for a very justifiable medical reason. The rationale for this is Islam’s recognition of Allah as the source of all life, hence, the giving of life (once conceived) and its maintenance is primordial in Islam.

Viewed in this manner, Islam approaches the issue of contraception and abortion with practicality and due regard to the preservation of life. While acknowledging God as the source of life, it leaves the couple the choice of when to have children. While acknowledging the couple’s discretion to have children, it regulates that discretion by ensuring that it does not lead to the death of the unborn fetus. And while prohibiting the killing of the fetus, it leaves room for medical intervention to extract the fetus under specific and stringent conditions to save the mother from certain death. The rules recognize the importance of the baby’s life, once it is conceived; but at the same time, favors keeping the mother’s life should there be an unavoidable choice between keeping the baby alive or saving the mother from death.

NTprime

October 27th, 2010, 05:02 AM

^^ Looks like Islam is even more moderate thinking than the ultra conservative bishops who are a throwback to Medieval Ages!

Very enlightening revelation about the world's second largest religion. And to think I thought that they are out to multiply like rabbits and conquer the world one day with their sheer numbers:nuts:

Openeconomy

October 27th, 2010, 06:31 PM

[QUOTE=mwg12a;66002455]^^ Corporation would definitely do the trick. I had that at the back of my mind earlier when I asked those questions. Thanks for answering it rapuy and

their are so many wealthy americans who want to invest in agriculture anywhere in the world that will welcome them, but in the philippines they are not welcome its in our constitution. so these is our problem the financial elite dont want to compete with foriegners and the social elites wont let the poor have the capacity to choose how many children they want. we really needfreedom there, if you are here in the states you can see that they welcome anybody who has at least one million dollars to invest, you can buy a land, you dont need partnership etc.... freedom to do business even if you are a foriegner, and since they can afford to buy pills their is no need to have a law to give it for free.

boypad

October 28th, 2010, 11:25 AM

epik ll ian

October 28th, 2010, 06:25 PM

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 01:53 AM

^^ Corporation would definitely do the trick. I had that at the back of my mind earlier when I asked those questions. Thanks for answering it rapuy and

their are so many wealthy americans who want to invest in agriculture anywhere in the world that will welcome them, but in the philippines they are not welcome its in our constitution. so these is our problem the financial elite dont want to compete with foriegners and the social elites wont let the poor have the capacity to choose how many children they want. we really needfreedom there, if you are here in the states you can see that they welcome anybody who has at least one million dollars to invest, you can buy a land, you dont need partnership etc.... freedom to do business even if you are a foriegner, and since they can afford to buy pills their is no need to have a law to give it for free.

Its not that there is no freedom in the Philippines. It's just the system. A foreigner can open in their businesses in the Philippines if they have a certain amount to show. Then you have these bureocratic red tapes and goverment officials or agencies that are extorting money for them. The rest is due to bad media publicity, namely, foreign kidnappings, insurgencies and the political instability of the country.

You are correct with how alot of pinoys are afraid of competion especially from foreigner, this is where the pinoys use "contact" especially if it is someone that holds a big office in the government.

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 02:05 AM

Celdran pleads innocent to offending religious feeling

by Pia Gutierrez, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 10/28/2010 4:51 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Celebrated tour guide Carlos Celdran pled not guilty Thursday to offending religious feelings for disrupting an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral last month.

Dressed in his signature Spanish-era Jose Rizal costume, Celdran was arraigned at the Branch 5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court on charges of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits offending religious feelings. He was accompanied by supporters who wore controversial Damaso shirts.

Celdran was arrested after he held up a sign that read "Damaso" in the middle of the homily at the Manila Cathedral last September 30.

"Damaso" refers to Father Damaso, an abusive priest who is a character in Jose Rizal’s novel "Noli Me Tangere."

Celdran said he made the demonstration to protest the Catholic Church's position against contraceptives.

Celdran's camp said they are open to a possible dialogue with the Church but will not apologize for the protest. Also present during the arraignment was Atty.Reynaldo Reyes, counsel for the complainant Monsignor Nestor Cerbo.

"The fact that they have a lawyer present means that they want the case to prosper," Celdran's lawyer, Atty. Marlon Manuel, said.

Reyes said his client could be open for forgiveness if Celdran would make a public apology.

"Sa mga Katoliko, dapat may pagpapatawad pero dapat naroon din yung aspeto na may pag-amin at paghingi ng tawad, " he said.

The next hearing is scheduled on December 7.

Offended religous leaders? Damn, they are treating it as verbal abuse. I don't see why Celdran do need to apologize for voicing out his protest on Catholic Churches position with contraceptive devices and the RH Bill. I understand if Celdran had to apologize for using that venue to stage his protest, but apologize for what? For voicing out his disgust in the closemindedness of the catholic church leaders? If anything, a dialogue should be made. Educate the people, the church people on the difference of contraception and abortion. And lastly, to educate the filipinos including all the religious groups about what the scope of RH Bill. If there is anything unacceptable, voice it out through dialogue. So far, unwanted pregnancy protection is what being focused in the RH bill, that, they just like the church do do not advocate abortion.

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 03:06 AM

Its not that there is no freedom in the Philippines. It's just the system. A foreigner can open in their businesses in the Philippines if they have a certain amount to show. Then you have these bureocratic red tapes and goverment officials or agencies that are extorting money for them. The rest is due to bad media publicity, namely, foreign kidnappings, insurgencies and the political instability of the country.

You are correct with how alot of pinoys are afraid of competion especially from foreigner, this is where the pinoys use "contact" especially if it is someone that holds a big office in the government.

their are some freedom ofcourse when it comes to free speech the philippines is the freeist in southeast asia but when it comes to economic freedom foriegners are so restricted in doing business in the philippines, they have to have a filipino partner to do business there and top of that they can only own 40% of that business, they cant own land , its in our constitution. corruption, kidnsppings, rebellion happens a lot in developing countries, but countries that have real open economies are the one that prosper. walmart once want to open a store in the philippines they were stopped. when it come to social freedoms, no divorced, no population control choice. yes thier is freedom but freedom to make us a second world country not yet.

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 03:14 AM

Sleepwalker

October 29th, 2010, 04:37 AM

So ironic isn't it?
Now if only the Catholic bishops could just let it go for once ...

They can't...For a very simple reason...They like bareback... :)

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 04:53 AM

^^ Pretty much the same in the US. I don't see that as a hindrance. What better ways to get business from locals? Through someone local also. Plus the fact it's hard to find out someone you can trust in a foreign country especially if you're not 100% sure about all possible loopholes around. The corruption around the Philippines is far greater than countries like the US, sure, there are corruptions in any government in the world, it would depend on how extensive it is, so extensive that it affects the economy. Here in the US, the cause of recession is not necessarily due to corruption, it's more of an old policy that does not apply to the current situations, just as in the real state and lending part.

no here in the united states you can do business here and you will own it 100%, all you need is 1 million dollars,even if you are a foriegner, even if you are just a worker with h1 visa you can own a land and house, not in the philippines. we should welcome anybody who wants to do business in the philippines, anybody without restrictions maybe just the capital that they will start, maybe 1 million dollars to start. if a businessperson dont trust to invest in our country so be it, but how about those who will but dont want partners. i am a businessman here in the states i would dread to think that if i want to do bussiness in nevada but i need to have a partner and i only own forty percent of it, and i cant own the land that my building will be on. but if nevada will let me do bussiness without these restrictions and its upto me to be successful then thats a state ill put my money in, this is how the philippines treat its foriegn capitalist, so economic growth is slow seven percent lang naglalaway na, population growth is high equals very very poor. youknow what business there that you can own 100% call center look at the growth of that sector. and yes you cant expect the local rich to just pour everything they have in business because if it is really profitable they would have done that a long time ago.

Parchie

October 29th, 2010, 05:18 AM

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 05:28 AM

Short for those is "protectionist policies" of the laws in the Philippines! Maybe if these lawmakers in our country get younger and more open-minded, what you dreamed of will become realities on the ground here! That's what our American expat manager is always complaining about (in my other life)! So many don'ts than do's and sometimes foreign companies just pack and go to other places where they can breathe more easily! For now, the circle goes on at a smaller radius, because the needed injection of capital is not around!

this is for me a chicken and egg question, do we need population control first or economic liberalization first, when countries become more succesful people there just dont create more babies and they can afford pills without the goverment giving it for free and they are highly educated most of them anyway. parchie its ironic that we agree with economic freedom, yes then you wont need the rh bill, unfotunatly the power of the purse is more powerful than the church, i think its easier for us to have this law whatever the church say, than stopping the interest of our powerful businessmen and family economic dynasties. maybe the church can explain it this way but they will have the wrath of very powerful local economic interest.

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 08:20 AM

no here in the united states you can do business here and you will own it 100%, all you need is 1 million dollars,even if you are a foriegner, even if you are just a worker with h1 visa you can own a land and house, not in the philippines. we should welcome anybody who wants to do business in the philippines, anybody without restrictions maybe just the capital that they will start, maybe 1 million dollars to start. if a businessperson dont trust to invest in our country so be it, but how about those who will but dont want partners. i am a businessman here in the states i would dread to think that if i want to do bussiness in nevada but i need to have a partner and i only own forty percent of it, and i cant own the land that my building will be on. but if nevada will let me do bussiness without these restrictions and its upto me to be successful then thats a state ill put my money in, this is how the philippines treat its foriegn capitalist, so economic growth is slow seven percent lang naglalaway na, population growth is high equals very very poor. youknow what business there that you can own 100% call center look at the growth of that sector. and yes you cant expect the local rich to just pour everything they have in business because if it is really profitable they would have done that a long time ago.

Yes, but I just meant that filipinos sometimes needed local partners to penetrate certain Markets. This hold true for those who open their own clinics like Physical or Occupational therapy clinics. Now, if it is a filipino store, flower shops or filipino restos, you won't have to use the locals because you would cater for almost the same ethnic groups. This is what I meant.

In the Philippines, just like how you stated it about the US, they do require certain amount just like your 1million dollar bond or start up. I am not sure how much they are requiring to start it in the Philippines. Although, you are correct that owning a property in the Philippines requires filipino citizenship. A foreign business owner can lease though, they don't have to really by.What throw most of foreign businessmen is just the system but somehow, there are loopholes to bypass it. I am not just sure exactly how outsourcing corporations set up businesses in the Philippines. If the Philippines is viable and profitable for a foreign business owner they would put an effort to invest in the country, but, factors like we mentioned before hand is what gets the investors shy away from the Philippines .

this is for me a chicken and egg question, do we need population control first or economic liberalization first, when countries become more succesful people there just dont create more babies and they can afford pills without the goverment giving it for free and they are highly educated most of them anyway. parchie its ironic that we agree with economic freedom, yes then you wont need the rh bill, unfotunatly the power of the purse is more powerful than the church, i think its easier for us to have this law whatever the church say, than stopping the interest of our powerful businessmen and family economic dynasties. maybe the church can explain it this way but they will have the wrath of very powerful local economic interest.

IMO, at this point, the population needed attention because the government is not able to properly provide for it's people. As to whether which one is needed to be addressed first, I would say both at the same time, it shouldn't have to be prioritized one over the other. It is not impossible to address both at the same time, doesn't it?

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 08:44 AM

Yes, but I just meant that filipinos sometimes needed local partners to penetrate certain Markets. This hold true for those who open their own clinics like Physical or Occupational therapy clinics. Now, if it is a filipino store, flower shops or filipino restos, you won't have to use the locals because you would cater for almost the same ethnic groups.

open economy
(in the philippines its just not about having partners but once you have a partner you can only own forty percent of that business, even if you have more capital than the filipino, this is crazy. this is in the contitution. i can buy a physical tharapy clinic anywhete in the states dont have to have partners they can be my employee and if i have a partner at least fifty fifty ownership if our capital is fifty fifty. again our constitution is sooooo restrictive for direct foreign investments.)

IMO, at this point, the population needed attention because the government is not able to properly provide for it's people. As to whether which one is needed to be addressed first, I would say both at the same time, it shouldn't have to be prioritized one over the other. It is not impossible to address both at the same time, doesn't it?

i dont think so, the interest is too great, rh bill will be easier to pass than liberalization of our economy.

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 08:53 AM

Not the way the catholic church is opposing RH bill it won't.

Damn, you need learn the proper way of quoting or multiple quoting. Your statement between my posts is a throw off :lol:

But to answer your other comment. Yes, you do not need to have an american partner to do your Physical therapy clinic but marketing wise, it is wiser. That was my point. I knew these because my wife and I are in the same field.

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 08:58 AM

if anybody here is a businessman they know that having a partner most of the time is a risk, not owning the property you re building on is risk, bieng impose upon that yes we can be a prtner but you can only be a junior partner for tje rest of the life of this business so you have no control of the business is a risk, but if i can have a law that will control how many compettion i have now that will really make me rich....we should make it easier for bussiness people to invest in our counrty because investing is already a risky thing to do., how much more if you put more restrictions on a business. population control is needed now since really it is easier to achieve.

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 09:04 AM

Not the way the catholic church is opposing RH bill it won't.

Damn, you need learn the proper way of quoting or multiple clothing. Your statement between my posts is a throw off :lol:

But to answer your other comment. Yes, you do not need to have an american partner to do your Physical therapy clinic but marketing wise, it is wiser. That was my point. I knew these because my wife and I are in the same field.

ahhh now , youll be shocked, i own 16 rooms alzhiemers care, homehealth, hospice and infusion therapy these are medicare medicaid certified, and yes i am a physical therapist so is my wife. i dont have partners, my wife and i own these 100%. we have around 60 employees, 95% are caucasians.

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 09:11 AM

yep, that was definitely a shocker :lol: There are many of those here in the midwest, just that some use caucasians or black americans as a front. It would be definitely easier around your area to go without but in the midwest, it can be tough so you look for an alternative options, it is still doable though, don't get me wrong. I'm an OT she is a PT we try to stay away from alzheimers and hospice. Homehealth is it and outpatient care.

BTW, that other word multiple clothing? It actually means quoting, my fingers have its mind of its own sometimes :rofl:

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 09:17 AM

yep, that was definitely a shocker :lol: There are many of those here in the midwest, just that some use caucasians or black americans as a front. It would be definitely easier around your area to go without but in the midwest, it can be tough but it is still doable.

i have a business in the midwest i wont tell you where since you might guess who i am, no you dont need a partner, americans wether you are brown black white red etc.... dont care as long as you have a service that they need and you are better that everyone, get a marketer that is local, you dont need a partner, para yatang malayo na ito sa population control, tsaka bakit gisig pa tayo... im an idiot when it comes to doing this technology.

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 09:27 AM

:lol: Like I said, yes, I agree you don't need partners if you look carefully in my comment. There are those who went to that same route, perhaps its a choice, perhaps it's situational, but, like what you've mentioned, 95% of your employees are americans so somehow atleast one or two of your area managers are Americans, this is what I was talking about when I said use them as a front. There are pinoys who survived their businesses by doing it on their own and still managed to do well with it. Its just a matter of winning the confidence of your surroundings. Don't worry. I do not think we really knew one another, yet atleast or something would of ring a bell. Most rehab clinic owners are normally husband and wife team unless their wife or hubby is an entirely different field.

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 09:31 AM

mwg12a

October 29th, 2010, 09:41 AM

Openeconomy

October 29th, 2010, 09:46 AM

Yeah, I agree, but the way the population is growing in the Philippines, i feel that it is a must. That 14 years of wait in RH Bill is just way too long. But just like from the other thread where the business sector is urging Aquino to address the system in the Philippines it should also be prioritized. I just don't know why the Arroyo administration didn't correct these in her time.

she is not for the rh bill, she tried to correct the economic provision in our constitution but every president since ramos tried but people dont trust them so it wasnt done, si erap was about to sign a rh bill the day before he was thrown out......hi ang gulo gulo.

tchitz

October 29th, 2010, 09:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeowjBNhskI&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeowjBNhskI&feature=player_embedded#!

Linguine

October 30th, 2010, 01:18 AM

PopCom targets more couples to train

PALO, Leyte -- The Commission on Population (PopCom) needs to reach 12,000 more couples before the end of this year to reach its target of educating up to 60,000 couples in the Eastern Visayas region on natural family planning and responsible parenting methods as part of the country’s Millenium Development Goals.

PopCom regional director Elnora R. Pulma said they have reached 48,000 couples in the last five years.

"Hopefully, we can cover 12,000 more couples before the end of the year. It’s realistic considering that many local government units are now leading the education campaign," Ms. Pulma said in an interview.

The initiative is part of government efforts to reach its Millennium Development Goals, which include the reduction of the annual population growth rate in the country from 2.3% in 2005 to 1.9% in 2015. The current growth rate in the national level is 2.04%, Ms. Pulma said.

Since Responsible Parenting Movement (RPM) classes will end this year, the PopCom has been asking local government units for support by incorporating the education campaign on natural family planning in their regular activities starting next year.

"As of this year, we were able to enter into agreements with 105 cities and municipalities in the region for them to lead the implementation of RPM. The challenge now is sustainability. We are happy that some bigger LGUs have incorporated RPM in their annual investment plan," she said.

RPM was launched in 2006 with PopCom taking the lead. A year later, the agency organized the RPM teams in provinces. The teams were composed of representatives from PopCom, the departments of Health, Agriculture, and Social Welfare and Development, and faith-based organizations.

"In 2008, we started to work with city and municipal LGUs for them to implement RPM classes. The activity is an effective strategy to bring the information on responsible parenting to the grassroots level," Ms. Pulma added.

Majority of the communities covered in barangay classes are located in remote areas. Other than natural family planning, the class tackles topics such responsible parenting, family relationship, home management and budgeting.

The responsible parenthood and natural family planning program promotes three years birth spacing and breastfeeding, among others. -- Sarwell Q. Meniano
|

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=20347

mwg12a

October 30th, 2010, 05:18 AM

she is not for the rh bill, she tried to correct the economic provision in our constitution but every president since ramos tried but people dont trust them so it wasnt done, si erap was about to sign a rh bill the day before he was thrown out......hi ang gulo gulo.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part. Arroyo listens to the church and opposes RH Bill as well.

Openeconomy

October 30th, 2010, 06:10 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part. Arroyo listens to the church and opposes RH Bill as well.

as you can see from the other post, some localities are implementing the population control program, i know davao and quezon city are, hindi nga lang comprehensive so if the city has a change of mayor and the mayor doesnt believe in population control.....the program stops, so this is easier to make as a law since, a lot our citizens already are availing of this, tsaka we just need to make a comprehensive law, while to liberalize the economy we have to CHANGE the constitution,see the power of the purse is more powerful than the power of the pulpit. their are only two things to control population growth peacefully and without the intervention of natural disasters, population control program or economic growth. the business and family dynasty elites are not for true economic growth most of them anyway, i know gelbert teodoro was,is for it openning the economy and the social elites those that think they are better in making moral decisions for you are not for contraceptives which are the most reliable preventor of pregnancies, not 100% but 99.99 percent.....so walang asenso.

mwg12a

October 30th, 2010, 06:53 AM

Openeconomy

October 30th, 2010, 07:47 AM

^^ Is why I am all for it with Aquino's stance on RH Bill, he can make it happen since he believe in it. It would be tougher if the decision is based on how the mayor feels about it for their area.

You mean change the constitution fully or just correct the flaws? since some of it does not apply on today's situations.. I feel it would also depend on the President's discretion. Cory listens to the church, Arroyo seems that way so, the tendency is to honor the catholic church's concerns.

the only way to open up the economy in the philippines is to change the constitution, which is very unfortunate since most filipinos dont trust their political leadres to tinker with it, so talagang pinag isipan itong aspeto nang ating konstitution ang hindi pag bigay nang karapatan nang mga banyaga sa pag negosyo sa atin, which is totally wrong way to grow an economy.

mwg12a

October 30th, 2010, 10:48 PM

I think the whole constitution does not really need to be changed, those vital areas such as trade, invetstments and the anti graft and corruption law. Unless they really opted to federalized the Philippine government as proposed in the Arroyo administration, then they do need to completely change the constitution. I'm all for it but back then, I was also one of those who are thinking that Arroyo was just trying to find a way to hold on to her power and be the countrie's PM. I don't think Aquino would allow that. I just wish that Pnoy is more decisive and more responsible.

Openeconomy

October 31st, 2010, 01:36 AM

Linguine

November 3rd, 2010, 05:47 AM

Population education modules to curb teenage pregnancy rise

PALO, LEYTE -- Population education modules will be piloted in public schools in five towns of Leyte to curb premarital sex and teenage pregnancy.

Elnora R. Pulma, Commission on Population (PopCom) regional director, said the proposal was "approved in principle" by the Leyte provincial government. Approval by the Department of Education (DepEd) follows.

"We have to sit down with DepEd. There were preliminary discussions with DepEd before the proposal was presented to Leyte Governor Carlos Jericho Petilla," Ms. Pulma said.

The project will first cater to Leyte towns which have high cases of teenage pregnancy such as Javier, Isabel, Merida, Palo and Baybay.

Rising cases of teenage pregnancy were noticed as more young women have been going to rural health units to seek medical assistance.

Data on pregnancy, however, is not available at PopCom regional office. Available data date back six years ago.

The State of the Philippine Population Report published early in 2004 showed that Eastern Visayas and the National Capital Region had the highest incidence of premarital sex in the country with four out of 10 teenagers involved in early sexual activity.

Ms. Pulma said Region 8 ranked first in premarital sex and second in teenage pregnancy among all regions nationwide.

In Leyte and Samar, factors were poverty, peer pressure, involvement in unproductive activities and lack of education.

Poverty topped the list as five out of 10 adolescents have been raised in poor families.

"To educate students about sexuality, we will use our existing population education modules on adolescent health produced by the University of San Carlos in Cebu," Ms. Pulma said.

Topic varies depending on the age group.

Health workers, meanwhile, have been discouraging early sexual activity by teaching married couples how to deal with their adolescent children.

"We have made a learning package for effective parenting of their adolescents. If they have no parents who can influence their children, we will try to reach out to the youth through schools," Ms. Pulma said.

Early sexual activities among young people have been found to adversely affect education, physical body, behavior and economic status.

Maternal health is one of two goals in the eight-point, United Nations-sponsored Millennium Development Goals that the Philippines will unlikely meet by the target year in 2015. Other goal is universal primary education.

Sex education for children has been frowned upon by the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines as it allegedly encourages promiscuity among the youth.

This has been the Church’s battle cry in opposing the Reproductive Health Bill (RHB) which endorses sex education at the late elementary level.

The measure also allows state assistance to couple willing to use artificial methods in family planning, another issue objected to by the Church for abetting use of alleged abortifacient.

RHB was approved on second reading in the House of Representatives in the last Congress, but its counterpart bill in the Senate was not acted upon at the committee level. The measure has been refiled in the current Congress with more provision on maternal health.

In contrast to the previous administration which has towed the line of the Catholic Church, President Benigno C. Aquino III, although a Catholic himself, has come under fire from the Church for supporting artificial family planning methods. -- Sarwell Q. Meniano
|

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=20540

Maxxclip

November 3rd, 2010, 07:04 AM

^^

Catholics to hold prolife rally in Batangas

While pro-life groups prepare to map out strategies against the reproductive health (RH) bill, Church officials are organizing a prayer rally against the bill in Batangas this weekend.

Lipa (Batangas) Archbishop Ramon Arguelles urged Catholics to join a Marian prayer rally to show indignation against artificial contraception and sex education.

“This is to signify our vehement opposition to the Reproductive Health bill being discussed at the House of Representatives," Arguelles said in an article posted Tuesday on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.

He urged his archdiocese’s lay organizations, Catholic schools, the clergy and religious communities to attend the Marian Prayer Rally for Life on November 6.

Arguelles said the rally, expected to draw thousands, will be held at the Lipa Youth and Cultural Center from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday.

During the event, participants will march to the San Sebastian Cathedral at 2:00 p.m. where a Mass is scheduled at 3 p.m.

He urged the faithful to defend life and show their indignation against artificial contraception by attending the rally.

The rally coincides with the start of a three-day congress of Human Life International (HLI) for Asia and Oceania in Makati City.

HLI for Asia and Oceania will hold its 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family at the Dusit Hotel from November 6 to 8.

“I pray that our clergy, religious and lay leaders will take this opportunity to know much more about the global agenda, and the many deceptions [and] subtle attacks against life and family," HLI Asia/Oceania executive director Ligaya Acosta said in an article posted on the CBCP news site.

Preceding the congress will be a three-day international pro-life training for the clergy (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/204895/catholics-to-hold-prolife-rally-in-batangas), religious and lay leaders of Asia and Oceania from Wednesday to Friday.

GodIsNotGreat

November 3rd, 2010, 08:26 PM

^^These people have appropriated the term pro-life to describe themselves. This is hypocrisy.

They are against condom use which can prevent AIDS and unwanted pregnancy; they are against RH Bill which will inform couples about responsible parenthood; they shelter pedophiles; they are against homosexuals. Some of them are against abortion even in the case of rape and incest. They are against stem-cell research. When first discovered, they were against IVF.

The term anti-life is more appropriate.

Religion poisons.

_____________________________________________

"Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat, no corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual mendicant. It lives on the labors of others, and then has the arrogance to pretend that it supports the giver." - Robert Ingersoll

Parchie

November 4th, 2010, 02:50 AM

^^These people have appropriated the term pro-life to describe themselves. This is hypocrisy.

They are against condom use which can prevent AIDS and unwanted pregnancy; they are against RH Bill which will inform couples about responsible parenthood; they shelter pedophiles; they are against homosexuals. Some of them are against abortion even in the case of rape and incest. They are against stem-cell research. When first discovered, they were against IVF.

The term anti-life is more appropriate.

Religion poisons.

I find those claims as too sweeping and so short an explanation to arrive at a one-liner conclusion! Can we have your data to support those many claims! Half-truths are just plain lies, you know? While it is true some of those who profess religions (any religion, for that matter), is it correct to say all are like those few? Can we not call them "misguided" or outliers of the main characterization? This assertions need a lot of discussions so that others may know the whole truth!

GodIsNotGreat

November 4th, 2010, 04:24 AM

mwg12a

November 4th, 2010, 04:36 AM

^^

The current Pope made a very unintelligent comment about condom use and AIDS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950671.stm

He also made another stupid remark about homosexuality:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ed-517522.html

He also covered up cases of pedophile priests:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...hildprotection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkZT38nOqM

http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...vi-catholicism

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/questi...ry?id=10241536

I am not in favor of these and condemns the vatican on all these issues.

The Vatican condemns In-Vitro Fertilization/Stem cell research:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE4BB2Z020081212
I don't agree on these either. Vatican should be a little lax on this issue.

It is against abortion even in the case of rape and incest:

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ion/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1722688520070818

I am going to be on the catholic church side on this because adoption is an option for those children whose mother was raped or a victim of incest. However, when it comes to health reason, the catholic should have liniency on this issue. It has to be on case to case basis.

GodIsNotGreat

November 4th, 2010, 05:03 AM

^^ My point is that our debates and conversations about matters that affect society should be informed by scientific knowledge, common sense and the ethical precepts which hold true for everybody, without the irrelevant teachings from ancient texts.

For example, few Christians know that in the Bible, onanism, or the withdrawal method of family planning, is punishable by death. Genesis 38: 4-10

The reality that it is being practised by some couples attest to the fact that we have outgrown the Bible, and we can adopt methods and practices that modern society does not frown upon, and are acceptable to all.

_____________________________________________

“God did not create the universe” – Stephen Hawking (so then, is God useless?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

yvette29

November 4th, 2010, 07:25 AM

what do you think? australia needs a lot of people! i bet others too!

GodIsNotGreat

November 4th, 2010, 07:35 AM

^^The speeding up or slowing down of the immigration process is for the recipient country to decide, not for the sending country.
_____________________________________________

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/ Online community of Filipino freethinkers, atheists and agnostics
http://richarddawkins.net/ Science, Reason and Atheism
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ Weblog of a liberal atheist

boypad

November 5th, 2010, 05:18 AM

Number of incest cases in Philippines increasing :ohno:

By Helen Flores, The Philippine Star
Posted at 11/05/2010 9:58 AM | Updated as of 11/05/2010 9:58 AM

MANILA, Philippines - The Child Protection Unit-Philippines on Thursday expressed concern over the high incidence of incest cases in the country.

CPU legal consultant Katrina Legarda said 33 percent of the total child abuse incidents recorded in 2009 were incest.

Citing data from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the agency said Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) topped the list of areas having the most number of reported incest in 2009 with 90 cases; followed by Region VII (Central Visayas) with 82; Region III, 60; Region II (Cagayan Valley) and National Capital Region with, 50; and Region I (Ilocos Region) with 49.

The CPU blamed the high incidence of incest in the country to the increasing number of women working overseas, as well as alcohol and drug abuse.

“This disturbing phenomenon of the girl-child being turned into substitute spouse has been happening in our country along with the feminization of labor migration,” Legarda said in a statement.

Legarda said women now comprised 70 percent of Filipino workers deployed abroad.

The problem, however, remains largely unreported because of its sensitive nature and fear of shame that comes with filing a formal complaint.

“There is also a need to push for national laws and policies to protect children from violence and abuse,” Legarda said.

She said compared to stranger abuse, incest has a different psychological and emotional impact on the victim because of the damaged relationship of trust between the victim and the parent.

“A child molested by a stranger can run home for help and comfort. A victim of incest cannot,” Legarda said.

Legarda said a long-term program should be set for education about the rights of children to address the lack of necessary support system for victims of incest.

CPU earlier said it will put up one national and six regional training and treatment centers in the next five years to provide assistance to at least 10,000 children abused every year.

The country has 25 child protection units in key areas in the country and 81 satellite offices nationwide.

“The centers and clinics will address the lack of necessary support system for victims while proactively safeguarding human rights of children,” the CPU said. CPU is a Manila-based organization composed of child protection practitioners committed to provide the highest clinical standards of care for abused children.

Joseph20102011

November 5th, 2010, 03:52 PM

what do you think? australia needs a lot of people! i bet others too!

Australia population limit for me is 50 million why because Australia is a desert country and in Australia, fresh water is rare and some towns are establishing desalination plants. Overpopulated Australia is a disaster.

Openeconomy

November 5th, 2010, 05:27 PM

incests......yuck.......a great catholic country, somebody has to tell these fathers that this is wrong and reprehensable since the bishops are busy doing something else.

absinthe_888

November 5th, 2010, 08:37 PM

What's the latest on the RH Bill? Ever since lumabas yung excommunication threat ng RCC kay P.Noy, parang ceasefire muna ang RCC...

Maxxclip

November 8th, 2010, 09:08 AM

RH bill proponent twits bishops on prison threat

MANILA, Philippines—Nobody ends up in the slammer for opposing the reproductive health (RH) bill.

House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman Sunday twitted Catholic Church leaders for claiming that bishops, priests and laity would risk jail time if only to stop the controversial measure.

“Bishops and lay leaders see phantom jailers when there are none,” he said in a retort to the pronouncement of officials of the influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the reproductive health bill was not a priority among senators, except for those pushing for this controversial piece of legislation.

Sotto said that other priority bills, specifically the budget, required the Senate’s immediate attention compared to the RH bill which, he added, would be mired in long-winded and contentious debate.

But Sen. Pia Cayetano said that she believed a majority of senators consider the reproductive health bill as equally important as the 2011 budget.

“That is his opinion. I am not aware that the majority has been consulted. But if you ask them, I know they want to take this up. Even the public, based on the surveys, believe this is important,” Cayetano said.

Dogma as antidote

Lagman, a staunch advocate of the RH bill, said nobody would be jailed for opposing the bill in “good faith” and “promoting Catholic dogma as an antidote to contraceptives and modern family planning.”

After all, “instructive debates and constructive criticisms are material to legislation,” he said in a statement.

CBCP president and Surigao Bishop Nereo Odchimar vowed a much tougher Church campaign against approval of the bill overwhelmingly backed by administration and opposition leaders in the House.

Win or lose (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101108-302064/RH-bill-proponent-twits-bishops-on-prison-threat), the Church would preach the Gospel and its position on the measure, he said.

CBCP lawyer Jo Imbong, quoting the sentiments of participants in the 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family in Makati, said priests, clergy and lay persons were willing to go to jail if the bill were enacted.

President Aquino’s declaration of support for couples seeking to limit the number of their children through contraceptives has revived the debate on the RH bill, and Congress’ conflict with the Church on the issue.

mwg12a

November 8th, 2010, 09:25 AM

Damn, this is why showbiz personalities in the Philippines should not be taken seriously in politics. So far, I don't see any of them as effective. Maybe in a mayorial level and such but once it comes to the Congressional and Senate, even the presidency they all suck!

Maxxclip

November 9th, 2010, 02:18 AM

RH Bill Advocates Defend Cause
by Jenny F. Manongdo

MANILA, Philippines – Reproductive Health (RH) bill advocates defended their cause Monday and expressed their intent to continue pushing for the passage of the controversial bill despite the strong stance of the Catholic Church against it.

In response to the strong statements of the Church the other day, the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD) expressed optimism in the passage of the bill and advised the Catholic bishops to stay truthful on the issue.

“Certain Catholic bishops don’t seem to know how to handle the inevitable passage of RH bill. On one hand, they want to push through the dialogue with P-Noy. Yet, they are urging Catholics to prepare for a head-on clash with the RH advocates in Congress. As religious leaders, these few bishops must be more responsible and avoid agitating the public by their lies and threats,” said Ramon San Pascual, executive director of PLCPD.

The PLCPD leader was reacting to a report on the alleged willingness of some bishops to be jailed if the bill is enacted.

In a recent congress that gathered religious leaders in different Asia-Pacific countries, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) said it will keep on opposing the measure.

While Church leaders lamented the expressed support to reproductive health services by President Aquino, PLCPD urged the President to exercise his powers towards the passage of the bill.

“We now plead for the President to certify the Reproductive Health bill as an urgent measure and give marching orders to members of Congress to hasten its eventual passage,” San Pascual said in a separate media statement.

Maxxclip

November 9th, 2010, 02:20 AM

The church and the RH bill
by Rita Linda V. Jimeno

The debates and discussions on the reproductive health bill seem to have slowed down. One can only wonder if the seeming “ceasefire” between the Catholic Church and the leaders and legislators who used to openly support the bill is a precursor of its being swept, once again, under the rug or shelved. Our legislators and leaders have, after all, exhibited countless times before their reluctance to go against the church hierarchy. But is there a real basis to fear the Catholic Church on the issue of reproductive health?

In the news last week, a fetus was, for the nth time, found in a garbage dump. Was it another case of an unwanted pregnancy due to lack of access to methods of planning conceptions? The miseries imposed upon poor families by the absence of information and lack of access to means of contraception, persist, day after day. For these reasons alone, the debates and discussions on the need for a reproductive health law must be kept burning.

In the professorial chair lecture delivered by lawyer Elizabeth-Aguiling-Pangalangan at the UP College of Law recently, she presented stunning data that must be considered by those who are against the reproductive health bill under the guise of being “pro-life”. For, when one gets down to the basics, one begins to realize that those who are against the bill are in fact the ones against life. Take the following cases cited by Professor Pangalangan in her lecture.

Susan is married to a buko or coconut vendor who earns between 100 and 300 pesos a day. Together, they have eight children. After her fifth pregnancy, she wanted a tubal ligation but by then Executive Order 003 was already in effect in the City of Manila. This Order, passed in 2000, banned all methods of artificial birth control. Thus, Susan gave birth to yet three more children. Her family subsists on half a kilo of rice daily. She feeds her children first and when there is no leftover, she is either forced to ignore her hunger fangs or to beg for food from their neighbors. To state the obvious, Susan’s entire family is severely malnourished.

Tina and her husband have seven children. They would have planned the size of their family but because of the ban on contraceptives in Manila, she had no access to free or affordable means of birth control. They subsist on a daily budget of 150 pesos from scavenging. For breakfast they—including their seven growing children—share three sachets of coffee and a few pieces of pan de sal or bread rolls. For lunch and dinner they make do with little rice and soy sauce or salt. Often, they miss a meal. Their eldest son died of rheumatic heart disease while her sixth child who was born underweight remains sickly and weak.

According to statistics cited by Professor Pangalangan, the Philippines is the 12th most populated country in the world. At the rate of three births per minute, the Philippines now has 97,976,603 people. Statistics further reveal the following data. Half of the Philippine population is below the age of 21, and 23 per cent of the youth engage in pre-marital sex. Thirty six per cent of Filipino women between the ages of 15 and 24 conceive before marriage and half of pregnancies, or almost 800,000 births annually, are unplanned. The Philippines is ranked as 67th in the world in terms of maternal mortality with 230 deaths for every 100,000 deliveries. In terms of infant mortality we are ranked 97th with 23 deaths for every 1,000 births. The incidence of maternal deaths from abortions is alarmingly high because of unwanted pregnancies, especially among young girls, attributable to the absence of information and means to prevent pregnancies. Abortions, being unlawful, often happen in the hands of unskilled, unlicensed “practitioners” who perform their trade under unsafe and unhygienic conditions.

The reproductive health bill aims to establish a national policy on reproductive health and seeks to promote an informed choice among women and couples. The bill does not compel individuals or families to resort to family planning methods. Rather, it allows them to make decisions on whether to employ contraceptive methods or not in establishing their families.

Pangalangan said that reproductive health rests on the recognition of the basic right of couples to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children. It also rests on the availability of information and the means to make these decisions. Poor couples can only rely on government health centers to provide them information and the means of family planning. But, until the bill becomes a law, the impoverished masses will never have the chance to make the choice of planning the number and spacing of their children because government health centers and hospitals simply do not offer this kind of support.

A survey by the Social Weather Station reveals that seven out of 10 Catholics and non-Catholics, or 68 percent, favor the passage of the RH bill. Moreover, 76 percent of Catholics and 78 percent of non-Catholics support family planning education for the youth. In another survey, this time by Pulse Asia, 93 percent said the ability to plan one’s family for its welfare is important while 90 per cent said that the ability to plan one’s family for the country’s welfare is important. Eighty-three per cent said that it is the government’s duty to provide knowledge, services and materials for modern family planning methods, both natural and artificial.

Reproductive health is a right, a human right, that has basis in the 1987 Constitution, the Magna Carta for Women, as well as in international treaties, Pangalangan said. But if the right to reproductive health is embodied in our very Constitution, laws and the international treaties, why has the bill not become a law?

The Catholic Church has been vigorously lobbying against its passing, to the point of threatening those advocating it with excommunication. But we live in the 21st century. The surveys show that Catholics do not blindly follow the church hierarchy and do not vote as Catholics. The church must then re-think its violent opposition to the bill and instead focus in educating people, especially couples and the young, about moral values and being responsible persons and citizens. Until it does, the church is unwittingly making itself a part of the problem.

Maxxclip

November 9th, 2010, 03:10 AM

Overpopulation: Fight for survival
by Ramon Tulfo

CATHOLIC BISHOPS in the country should avoid dramatics in their fight to prevent the passage of the reproductive health (RH) bill.

Dramatics—some would call it “OA” or overacting—does not become them.

It’s like Padre Damaso, a character in Rizal’s Noli me Tangere, who was found crying because, according to him, he was being oppressed by his parishioners.

* * *

Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal and his fellow bishops are willing to go to jail over the RH bill.

“Priests, clergy, laypersons—they are willing to go to jail if the RH will be enacted—led by His Eminence Ricardo Cardinal Vidal (and) followed by our beloved bishops and prelates,” said Jo Imbong, lawyer of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

But why would the government send the bishops to jail for opposing the RH bill?

Aren’t we in a democracy?

* * *

Since the threat of excommunication against advocates of the RH bill among the country’s leaders is not working, the bishops are now resorting to being maudlin.

But copious tears by the bishops won’t do the trick because unlike before, Filipinos now are well-informed.

Most Catholics believe that it is not a sin to choose family planning methods that their church is advocating against.

They know that overpopulation is one of the principal causes of poverty.

They also know that priests and bishops are not in a position to dictate what family planning method they should use since they don’t have families of their own.

* * *

Brian Clowes, an American attending the 17th Asian-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family at Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati, says contraception is not the solution to poverty.

He says, “The solution to poverty is not to tell (families) not to have children anymore because children are the greatest treasure we have….The solution to poverty is to care for the poorest of the poor, not to tell them not to have any children.”

Apparently, Clowes has not gone to Fabella Memorial Hospital in Manila, which is considered a “children factory” because thousands of poor women give birth there every single day.

And Fabella is only one of many hospitals in the country where babies are born. There are also children born to mothers assisted only by manghihilot (unschooled midwives).

Clowes hasn’t gone around Metro Manila where there are tens of thousands of street children.

Those children stand a slim chance of having a bright future or reaching adulthood because of overpopulation.

When food and other necessities become scarce because of overpopulation, people fight to survive.

In the fight for survival, the strong overpower the weak.
And who are the weak? The poor, who else!

Linguine

November 9th, 2010, 08:25 AM

Manila city council urged to revoke executive order on family planning
By Rhodina Villanueva (The Philippine Star) Updated November 09, 2010 12:00 AM Comments (5) View comments

MANILA, Philippines - The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is asking the City Council of Manila to revoke an executive order that declared total commitment and support to only natural family planning methods.

This developed after a group of women in Manila reportedly sought the assistance of the CHR concerning the issuance of such an EO by the local government of Manila.

“The City Council of Manila should immediately revoke EO 003, and ensure that artificial birth control devices, including birth control pills and injectables be made available to all adult citizens who are residents within its jurisdiction, in health centers and hospitals,” said a report signed by CHR Chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales.

Further, the CHR recommended for the City of Manila to encourage private healthcare providers, hospitals and health centers, to make available for purchase, birth control pills, condoms, injectables and intra-uterine device.

Rosales said, “The City of Manila should issue an apology to the group, to all women and men alike who have been denied access to facilities and services as a result of the EO, and to the children of the families affected.

The group told Rosales that since the issuance of EO 003, there has been no procurement of products and services in city health centers and hospitals which are not in the category of natural family planning method.

The women petitioners said this action of the local government and its results are contested as discriminatory under the normative standards of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), in violation of the various provisions found in the 1987 Constitution, and the Magna Carta for Women of 2009.

According to the CHR, EO 003, “Declaring Total Commitment and Support to the Responsible Parenthood Movement in the City of Manila and Enunciating Policy Declaration in Pursuit Thereof” was issued by former city mayor Lito Atienza on Feb. 29, 2000.

The CHR said “all local government units are encouraged to develop or strengthen advocacy programs on reproductive and sexual health rights, and make available in health centers or municipal health clinics, birth control pills, condoms, injectables and intra-uterine device.”

“LGUs are likewise advised to develop or strengthen human-rights education particularly on the rights of women in the CEDAW, for all their constituents,” the commission said.

Rosales said, “By the issuance of EO 003, the City of Manila, an instrumentality and essential element of the state, committed clear breaches of CEDAW obligation. By adopting an ordinance that limits the choice to natural birth control methods, it reneged on the obligation to protect health including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction, to provide healthcare and enable women to access services related to family planning, and to allow women to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of children.

Linguine

November 9th, 2010, 03:27 PM

Don’t resort to name-calling please, RH bill advocate asks
Tuesday, 09 November 2010 12:38 Fernan Marasigan / Reporter

A LEGISLATOR representing women appealed to critics of the controversial reproductive-health (RH) bill to cease from resorting to name-calling and instead discuss the merits of the measure and the logical bases for their opposition.

Party-list Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan of Gabriela made the call following accusations from leaders of the Roman Catholic Church of immorality against proponents of the RH bill.

“Let us not reduce the RH bill debates to emotional outbursts, name-calling and accusations of immorality. Let us discuss the merits of the bill and the logical bases for their opposition. Our constituents will benefit best from the outcome of a well-debated reproductive-health law,” said the militant legislator.

Ilagan also reminded leaders of the Roman Catholic Church that “when a person points an accusing finger, four fingers are pointed back at him.”

“As much as it is the Church’s role to guide its flock, it is the government’s role to make sure that its constituents are provided with the necessary resources, services, information so that every Filipino can freely exercise their right to health care,” said Ilagan.

Ilagan issued the statement even as she reiterated that the Comprehensive reproductive-health bill is a propoor measure.

“A Church that espouses a preferential bias for the impoverished majority of our population will see the benefits that poor women will gain with the passage of this measure. Let us keep our minds open,” she said.

http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/3509-dont-resort-to-name-calling-please-rh-bill-advocate-asks

absinthe_888

November 9th, 2010, 05:30 PM

^^ Hindi kaya lahat ng madaming anak sa Manila ay dapat meh nakukuhang subsidy mula kay Lito Atienza considering that he imposed his EO 003 in the City of Manila.

Parchie

November 9th, 2010, 06:04 PM

^^ Hindi kaya lahat ng madaming anak sa Manila ay dapat meh nakukuhang subsidy mula kay Lito Atienza considering that he imposed his EO 003 in the City of Manila.

Pwede yan! Basta ba lahat na pera na ipamudmod sa mga taga Maynila, galing sa revenue niya! Hwag yung galing sa national treasury!

Linguine

November 10th, 2010, 03:01 AM

Population to hit 94M
by Jester Manalastas
Tuesday, 09 November 2010 18:44

AMID the bitter clash between some lawmakers and the Church, the country’s population continues to grow and is projected to hit 94 million this year.

The National Statistics Office said the 2007 census pegged the country’s population at 88 million.

The Population Commission believes the population will continue to grow due to a high fertility rate of 3.3 percent compared to neighboring countries that have an average of 1.5 to 2.5 percent.

The PopCom attributed the runaway population rate to the low prevalence rate of contraceptive use of only 50.7 percent compared to Vietnam’s 79 percent and Thailand’s 71.5 percent.

PopCom’s Regional Director Rosalinda Marcelino said the Philippines lags behind the neighboring ASEAN countries due to over population.

She said only 37 percent of Filipino couples use modern or artificial contraception like condoms and pills while only 17 percent practice natural methods.

“The challenge now is to increase the contraceptive prevalence rate,” Marcelino said. She warned that population growth may affect the environment, education and other sectors.

http://thepinoy.net/?page_id=13

Maxxclip

November 10th, 2010, 07:20 AM

NTprime

November 10th, 2010, 07:38 AM

^^
PH population growth rate fastest in region

MANILA, Philippines—The Philippine population will continue to grow in the next 50 years even if each couple limits children to two, an official of the Commission on Population (Popcom) said Tuesday.

In the four months since President Benigno Aquino III occupied Malacañang, the country has about 500,000 more mouths to feed—the fastest rate of increase in Southeast Asia—bringing the population to 94 million.

Rosalinda Marcelino, Popcom director for Metro Manila, told members of the House committee on population that the population was “predominantly young,” with 35 percent below 15 years old, and 15 percent belonging to the 15-24 bracket.

“We are talking here of more than 50 percent of [Filipinos] (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101110-302382/PH-population-growth-rate-fastest-in-region) who are young and, in due time, would become parents. And even if each couple would only have two children, our population will still continue to grow in the next 50 years,” she said in a PowerPoint presentation.

So half of the country is under 25 years old...that will be an immediate economic burden until about 15-20 years, when most of them would already be earning money greater than their expenses.

I also read in Philippine Star (couldn't find it in their online version) that 600,000 Filipinos were born since PNoy took over as president...150,000 monthly in just four months! Or 5,000 each day! I wonder how many deaths occur daily to offset this high rate of births...

And I wonder what percentage of the births are attributable to the lower classes...

Maxxclip

November 10th, 2010, 09:01 AM

I wonder how many deaths occur daily to offset this high rate of births...

And I wonder what percentage of the births are attributable to the lower classes...

good questions for a case study:okay:

exyobbo

November 10th, 2010, 09:39 AM

^^I am surprised; as a Catholic you should be well-informed of these matters. These things are well-documented in the media.

The current Pope made a very unintelligent comment about condom use and AIDS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950671.stm

He also made another stupid remark about homosexuality:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-restates-ban-on-gay-priests-and-says-homosexuality-is-disordered-517522.html

He also covered up cases of pedophile priests:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkZT38nOqM

http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/pope-benedict-xvi-catholicism

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/questions-pope-benedicts-role-sex-scandal/story?id=10241536

The Vatican condemns In-Vitro Fertilization/Stem cell research:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE4BB2Z020081212

It is against abortion even in the case of rape and incest:

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2007/08/14/amnesty_abortion/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1722688520070818

It is astonishing that in this day and age, people defer to the Vatican and the Catholic church on matters of great import, when this institution has shown itself to be archaic, misogynist, irrelevant and morally bankrupt.

_____________________________________________

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."- Thomas Paine

This only proves that the Roman Catholic Church remains strong and influential up to this time, especially in our country, despite various scandals hounding it. It appears to me that you are atheist and very livid on the church's firm position on issues related to sexuality and human life. It is really disturbing that today the issue on morality is equated to what is popular, tempting us to go against the will of our Creator. We let the evil destroy our moral being by pushing for progressive social agenda, condoning immoral acts, and ignoring the teachings of the Church just to satisfy our self-interests. I am praying that the Lord will guide his Church in this battle against the evil forces of the society.

RonnieR

November 10th, 2010, 10:36 AM

^^
PH population growth rate fastest in region

MANILA, Philippines—The Philippine population will continue to grow in the next 50 years even if each couple limits children to two, an official of the Commission on Population (Popcom) said Tuesday.

In the four months since President Benigno Aquino III occupied Malacañang, the country has about 500,000 more mouths to feed—the fastest rate of increase in Southeast Asia—bringing the population to 94 million.

Rosalinda Marcelino, Popcom director for Metro Manila, told members of the House committee on population that the population was “predominantly young,” with 35 percent below 15 years old, and 15 percent belonging to the 15-24 bracket.

“We are talking here of more than 50 percent of [Filipinos] (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101110-302382/PH-population-growth-rate-fastest-in-region) who are young and, in due time, would become parents. And even if each couple would only have two children, our population will still continue to grow in the next 50 years,” she said in a PowerPoint presentation.

The government should be concerned:

Citing data from the UN Economic and Social Commission on Asia and the Pacific, UN Development Program and other countries, Marcelino said the Philippines posted the highest population growth rate among Southeast Asian countries at 2.04 percent.

In contrast, the growth rate was 1.9 percent in Cambodia, 1.6 percent in Malaysia, 1 percent in Vietnam and Indonesia, and 0.4 percent in Thailand. Indonesia, however, is by far the most populated in the region with 229.9 million people.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101110-302382/PH-population-growth-rate-fastest-in-region

NTprime

November 12th, 2010, 04:14 AM

^^This is similar to the previous post, although by another author at Inquirer.net.

Population explosion looms in PH, says official (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view/20101109-302317/Population-explosion-looms-in-PH-says-official)
By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 18:27:00 11/09/2010

MANILA, Philippines – With dominantly young citizens, the Philippine population is likely to continue growing in the next 50 years, according to the government coordinating and policy-making body on population.

In a presentation before the committee on population in the House of Representatives Tuesday, Rosalinda Marcelino, director for National Capital Region of the Population Commission (POPCOM), also scored the need to have a “responsible population policy and political will” to curb the population explosion that she said is imminent in the coming years.

The National Statistics Office projects that Filipinos will reach 94.01 million by the end of this year, up from 92.3 million in 2009.

“We are extremely worried about the population growth’s impact on development,” Marcelino told lawmakers, adding that the “population pressure also register themselves on the environment.”

“Too many people means too many fuel consumed, the result is cities have become gas chambers and we who reside in the cities are the condemned ones affected by the air pollution,” she said.

Marcelino said that while the growth rate of population has been decreasing yearly, the decrease is not significant.

It does not help that the Philippines is a nation of young people, because this would mean continuous population growth in the years ahead.

In her report, she said that 37 percent of the population is below 15 years old and 15 percent belong to the 15 to 24 age group.

“We are talking here of more than 50 percent of the population who are young, and in due time, would become parents. And even if each couple would only have two children, our population will still continue to grow in the next 50 years,” she said.

“And because of high fertility and declining death rates, our rate of natural increase is high at 18.4 percent,” Marcelino added.

Quoting the 2009 United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report, she said the Philippines lags behind in all indicators compared to its neighbor countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations .

The Philippines has the highest population growth rate of 2.04 percent, compared to Thailand (0.4 percent), Malaysia (1.6 percentIndonesia (1.1 percentVietnam (1.1 percent) and Cambodia (1.9 percent).

As to the total fertility rate, or the expected number of children born to a woman during her child-bearing years (15 to 40 years), the Philippines ranks highest with 3.3 percent, compared to Thailand (1.5 percetn), Malaysia (2.5 percent), Indonesia (2.1 percent), Vietnam(2.1 percent), and Cambodia (3 percent).

And while the average number of children couples have is decreasing from six children in 1973 to three children in 2008, Marcelino said there remains a one child gap if the actual and desired number of children is compared.

On contraceptive prevalence rate, the Philippines is second lowest in rank with 50.7 percent, following Cambodia with 40 percent. Vietnam has high contraceptive prevalence rate of 79 percent, followed by Thailand (71.5 percent), Indonesia (60.3 percent), and Malaysia (54.5 percent).

Marcelino said there is need to shift focus from promoting natural family planning methods to the use of artificial contraceptives as a way to curb the population growth.

At least seven bills and resolutions are pending in the House pushing a comprehensive reproductive health policy for the country, but the Catholic Church is vigorously opposing them.

Parchie

November 12th, 2010, 06:56 AM

Maxxclip

November 12th, 2010, 08:07 AM

Church dared: Let people decide RH fate thru plebiscite
by TJ Burgonio

MANILA, Philippines—With the debate turning into name-calling, a lawmaker has posed this challenge to the Church: Why not let the people decide the fate of the reproductive health (RH) bill in a plebiscite?

“They say there are only a few of us pushing this. I throw this challenge: Let’s give this to the people,” Bukidnon Rep. Jose Ma. Zubiri III, co-author of RH measure House Bill (HB) 96, told a forum at the Sulo Riviera Hotel. “If for whatever reason it doesn’t pass here, let’s submit to a plebiscite. It affects the people, let the people decide.”

But with the backing of President Benigno Aquino III and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., Zubiri and other RH bill proponents were confident that lawmakers would pass the measure in the 15th Congress.

“There’s never been a time that something like this could pass than now,” Zubiri said.

Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales had advised parents to mold their children’s conscience lest Filipinos would end up with the kind of people in Congress who, he said, have “poorly formed conscience.”

President Aquino’s declaration of support for couples seeking to limit the number of their children through contraceptives has bolstered hopes for the approval of the measure, but alarmed the Church.

The family planning measure promotes artificial means of family planning, such as the use of contraceptives, pills and condoms, which the Church labels as anti-life.

Risk of excommunication

Zubiri said pro-RH lawmakers were willing to risk excommunication from the Church to push for the approval of the legislation.

Minority Leader Edcel Lagman, author of HB 96, said he wasn’t surprised why Church officials have not approached him and the other RH bill proponents.

“There is pressure on those they feel they can influence. Nobody meets with us, otherwise they might change their position,” he said.

Lagman also said that lawmakers, including 100 authors and co-authors of the RH bill, were targeting the approval of the measure within the 15th Congress’ first year by June 2011.

The House committee on population and family relations starts hearing HB 96 and five other RH bills on Nov. 24.

“We are starting early so we can finish on time,” he told the same forum.

“Thanks to Mr. Aquino’s steadfast support, the prospects of its approval in the 15th Congress are bright,” Lagman said.

“I’m positive that the President will remain steadfast in support of responsible parenthood. I think this is a feather in the cap of the President. This will in a way mitigate initial setbacks on the part of the administration if the President will remain to solidly support the RH bill,” he said.

Part of the reason that RH bills failed to get through in previous Congresses in more than 10 years was that these were tackled toward the end of the regular sessions, Lagman said.

Ambivalent

Lagman also admitted that during her nine-year watch, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was “ambivalent” toward the RH bill. He doubted if he could coax her to support the bill.

“I have not tried it. I don’t know. I think she’s co-author of a bill that’s opposite to us. It’s unfortunate,” he said of now Pampanga Rep. Macapagal-Arroyo.

NTprime

November 12th, 2010, 08:27 AM

Perhaps, for a more meaningful report, we need to know more, IMO. We need to know the net migration rate as well as the correct identification of the number of people or the age range and the percentage to population that are considered "baby maker" age range.
The CIA factbook indicates 97M, an estimate as of July 2010 and a population growth rate of 1.931 (maybe because the net migration rate they have is 3.1/1000 people = -0.131% plus death rate at 5.06/1000 = -0.506%, and birth rate at 25.66/1000 = 2.566%; net = 1.929% growth; approx. = 1.931%)
Besides that, the report mentioned that 15% of the population are 15 years of age and below, and 15% are 15-24 years of age - then the conclusion says “We are talking here of more than 50 percent of the population who are young, and in due time, would become parents." Moreover, I don't know how the figure 18.4 % growth came into the picture. I am still confused with this report! Others could help digest what this report really meant! BTW, thanks alot for posting the above report.

Parchie, correction on some figures. 35% of the population of the Philippines is under 15 years of age, while 15% is between 16-24 (from another report I read earlier). That's why I mentioned in one post that half of the country is under 25 years old.

In the report above it even says 37% are below 15 years old.

You can expect that probably more than half of these "under quarter century" folks will become parents within the next 10-15 years. So that's about 25 million new parents by 2025 (12.5 million couples, if divided by half, but likely a significant number will be coming from single parent households as well). Assuming each of the couples have 2 kids, we're talking about another 25 million people being added by 2025, and just from the Filipinos under 25 right now. That doesn't count those presently of bearing age (25-40 years) who will still probably bear a few million more kids before their juniors take over. So it's likely we'll see the population hitting 150 million in 20 or so years (we need a statistician to give the most realistic projections here).

Anyway, the report is a bit vague. Let's see what the others have to say. In the meantime, here are population pyramids for the Philippines (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/rp-philippines/Age-_distribution)...

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/pyramids/rp-2000.png

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/pyramids/rp-2010.png

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/pyramids/rp-2020.png

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/pyramids/rp-2050.png

GodIsNotGreat

November 12th, 2010, 03:54 PM

The shapes of the pyramids for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020 are almost the same. We are a young population.

Good find!

_____________________________________________

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/ Online community of Filipino freethinkers, atheists and agnostics

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 04:54 PM

^^I am surprised; as a Catholic you should be well-informed of these matters. These things are well-documented in the media.

He also made another stupid remark about homosexuality:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-restates-ban-on-gay-priests-and-says-homosexuality-is-disordered-517522.html

Let me make it clear, in the first place, the Catholic Church teaches:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." - Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2358.

What the Church is AGAINST and is CONTRARY to scriptures is the homosexual "ACTS", NOT the individual:

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" -(Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

Though Catholic practice has discouraged the ordination of homosexuals, a document released by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in 1961 stated, "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers" (see Canon Law Digest, vol. 5 [1963]). Common life refers to the fact that priests tend to live with other men. How this would constitute a danger for a homosexual is easy to see: Imagine a heterosexual man living with only women.

This document does not ban the ordination of homosexuals. It had force only for candidates being selected for ordination by religious orders. Furthermore, Church law regarding ordination was significantly restructured with the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which did not prohibit the ordination of homosexuals.

While some homosexuals might be able to serve despite their orientation, the dangers mentioned above are real. Further, many such individuals have sought ordination as a way of avoiding their sexual temptations rather than dealing with them, only to find that ministry does not cure their problem. The "gay" lifestyle is inherently narcissistic, placing it at odds with the sacrifices of priestly life. Those tempted toward that lifestyle frequently are doctrinally unsound, they often have problems with obedience, and they tend to have a high defection rate.

manila_eye

November 12th, 2010, 04:57 PM

^^ and you're back. please do not sabotage this thread again.

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 05:14 PM

^^I am surprised; as a Catholic you should be well-informed of these matters. These things are well-documented in the media.

He also covered up cases of pedophile priests:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkZT38nOqM

http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/pope-benedict-xvi-catholicism

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/questions-pope-benedicts-role-sex-scandal/story?id=10241536

In a New York Times poll taken in late April and early May, the pope’s favorability rating among Catholics had jumped from 27 percent at the end of March (when the abuse stories were just getting started) to 43 percent. The evidence that this was due to a backlash against the media is supported by the finding that 64 percent of Catholics said the media had been harder on the Catholic Church than on other religions; almost half said the abuse stories were blown out of proportion.

The backlash was warranted. Not only that, but much of what was being reported was simply not true, though the misinformation was often passed on as if it were factual. Let’s just take one of the more famous untrue “facts” that have been floated at the expense of the pope, namely, the one that contends that the abuse scandal is widening under the tenure of Pope Benedict XVI. This claim was made by Roland Martin on CNN, as well as by many other commentators.

The real fact of the matter is that, as the John Jay College of Criminal Justice landmark study of 2004 showed, the vast majority of the abuse occurred between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. Now it is true that we did not hear much about this problem during that time, but it is nonetheless true that by the time the Boston Globe exposed the Boston Archdiocese in 2002, most of the worst of the scandal was behind us. Fast forward to 2010 and what we have now is nothing but a media-driven scandal: the cases recently trotted out go back a half century or more.

The impression that the scandal is widening is also contradicted by the latest report on this issue. Between 2008 and 2009, exactly six credible allegations were made against over 40,000 priests. There is no organization in the world—never mind the United States—that could match this record. Just as important, there is no other institution that is having its old dirty laundry hung out for everyone to see.

If the media were to launch an investigation of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, public school teachers, camp counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists (to say nothing of stepfathers, boyfriends and other “partners”) then, yes, it’s okay to include Catholics. But when only one group is targeted, and every other one gets a pass, then those who belong to this entity have every right to scream “Witch-Hunt.” In this case, the more apt term would be Papal Witch-Hunt.

The irony is that Pope Benedict XVI has done infinitely more to correct the abuse problem than Pope John Paul II did. It was Benedict who pressed for investigations of priests who had previously escaped an inquiry. It was he who put into place procedures of a more punitive sort. It was he who spoke of the “filth” within the Church. It was he who reopened the case of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, and is now about to render another judgment on the order he founded, the Legionaries of Christ. It was he who met with the victims. All considered, this is not so much an irony as it is an injustice: Pope Benedict has done much to improve conditions.

One of the most important reforms ushered in by Pope Benedict was the decision to raise the bar on practicing homosexuals. While homosexual men are not per se barred from the seminaries, those who have been gay activists, or are practicing, are. And because the overwhelming majority of victims have been post-pubescent males, the more difficult it is for homosexuals to enter the priesthood, the more likely it is that sexual abuse will continue to decline.

As for the Fr. Murphy case, the evidence shows that the pope was never personally involved. Yet this didn’t stop Philip Pullella of Reuters from writing that “The New York Times reported the Vatican and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, were warned about Murphy but he was not defrocked.” However, Laurie Goodstein of the Times never said that the pope was personally aware of the Murphy case, and Father Thomas Brundage, the judge in the trial, has said that the pope’s name never came up in discussions in Milwaukee, Washington or Rome.

Just as bad is Cal Thomas, the evangelical writer and activist. He wrote a seriously flawed piece, one that asserted that “The trial was never held.” One wonders whether anyone fact checks his articles. It must be pointed out that the Vatican could have dropped the case (as the civil authorities did in the 1970s), citing the fact that the statute of limitations had expired. But it didn’t.

It was the Murphy case that got the whole media-driven scandal started. And it was not by accident when it happened. On Sunday, March 21, the House passed the health care bill. On Tuesday, March 23, President Obama signed it into law. On Thursday, March 25, the Goodstein piece on Murphy appeared in the Times. What am I getting at?

Health care had dominated the news for weeks in the run-up to the House vote. Now no newspaper that is sitting on what it believes is a major story wants to compete with an issue that literally overwhelms the news. So two days after Obama signed the bill into law, it was safe to pull the trigger. And it worked—the Murphy story took the lead, eclipsing all other news stories. As an added bonus, the following week was Holy Week, guaranteeing massive media coverage of the unfolding scandal.

Those who think this was just a coincidence, think again. On the day the Murphy story broke, protesters from SNAP, the professional victims’ group that thrives on scandals, were seen on TV demonstrating in Rome. Was it just a coincidence that they happened to be there? Did they travel to Rome for a pasta special?

So who tipped them off? Jeffrey Anderson. Anderson is the maniacal Catholic-hating attorney who has made an estimated one hundred million dollars suing the Catholic Church (in 2002, he admitted to making $60 million, but he refuses to say how much more he has made in the last eight years). In any event, it was Anderson who fed Goodstein the information for her story on Murphy. How do I know this? Because on CNN she admitted it. Here is what she said an attorney working on this case told her: “I have some interesting documents I think you might want to look at.” Though she does not identify the attorney, this was Anderson’s case.

Back to SNAP. How do we know it was Anderson who tipped them off? Because he is their principal benefactor. Several years ago, Forbes magazine disclosed that Anderson regularly greases SNAP.

See the connection? Anderson, motivated by hatred and greed, goes after the Catholic Church, and he, in turn, gives critical documents to Goodstein, knowing the New York Times would love to nail the Church; and then he gives the heads up to his radical clients, SNAP, who travel to Rome just in time to appear before the TV cameras when the story breaks on March 25.

What is driving Anderson, the Times and SNAP? Anderson’s daughter was once molested by a psychologist who happened to be a former priest. So why doesn’t he sue the American Psychological Association? Because there’s much more money, and fun, to be had sticking it to the Catholic Church. As for the Times, as I said in the op-ed ad I wrote on this subject, it hates the Church’s teachings on abortion, gay marriage and women’s ordination so much that it delights in bashing Catholicism. SNAP is fueled by revenge and money: the activists will go to their grave screaming “it’s payback time”; and because they have no other stable job, they thrive on lawsuits and the kick-backs they effectively get from steeple-chasing lawyers.

Another vicious lie is the one that maintains that the Catholic Church handled these abuse cases in a manner that was very different from the way others handled them. Nonsense. Back when the scandal was flourishing, in the 1970s, everyone knew what the drill was: whether the accused was a priest, rabbi, minister, public school teacher, counselor—whomever it was—he was immediately put in therapy. Then, upon a clean bill of health, he was returned to his job.

Was this wrong? In many cases it was. Who pushed for this? Ironically, many of those in the same liberal circles who are now pointing fingers. Back then it was chic to have an analyst, and there wasn’t any psychological or emotional malady that the therapists couldn’t cure. Or so they thought. Indeed, had a bishop sidestepped his advisors—some of whom acted more like therapeutic gurus—and decided to throw the book at the accused, he would have been branded as heartless and un-Christian by the Dr. Feelgood types. So for many of them now to get on their high horse saying there was a cover-up, when in fact what happened was the decision to conform to the prevailing zeitgeist—as understood and promoted by liberals—is sickening.

When the Murphy report on the situation in Dublin was released, one of the major conclusions was that if the bishops had followed canon law, instead of recommending therapy, the scandal may have been avoided. Sadly, this is true.

Yes, big mistakes were made, but the advice and the strategies employed in the Catholic Church were not any different than existed elsewhere. Moreover, all the news about the scandal today is not about new cases, it’s about old ones. So why is the Catholic Church being singled out? For the very reason the Catholic League was founded in 1973.

http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2010&month=June&read=2818

^^ and you're back. please do not sabotage this thread again.

Wow. Me sabotaging this thread? Anyway who here is hurling vitriol remarks on the Pope and the Church and yet is not censored? The only thing i'm "sabotaging" is the bigotry hurled on the Pope and the Catholic Church.

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 05:19 PM

It is astonishing that in this day and age, people defer to the Vatican and the Catholic church on matters of great import, when this institution has shown itself to be archaic, misogynist, irrelevant and morally bankrupt.

In this day and age? Contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

Up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly for CENTURIES!

As Pope Paul VI said in his encylical Humane Vitae:

" It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" .

manila_eye

November 12th, 2010, 05:20 PM

^^ because this thread is about population control/management not about your religion. so stop posting stuff that has nothing to do with population management just like what you did above.

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 05:26 PM

^^ because this thread is about population control/management not about your religion. so stop posting stuff that has nothing to do with population management just like what you did above.

Oh and why are you not bashing on GODisNOtGreat saying NEGATIVE remarks on the Pope? He even linked an article about pedophile priests! Look who's talking.

So its ok for someone to bash my religion while someone defending it is not?

mwg12a

November 12th, 2010, 05:31 PM

Parchie, correction on some figures. 35% of the population of the Philippines is under 15 years of age, while 15% is between 16-24 (from another report I read earlier). That's why I mentioned in one post that half of the country is under 25 years old.

In the report above it even says 37% are below 15 years old.

You can expect that probably more than half of these "under quarter century" folks will become parents within the next 10-15 years. So that's about 25 million new parents by 2025 (12.5 million couples, if divided by half, but likely a significant number will be coming from single parent households as well). Assuming each of the couples have 2 kids, we're talking about another 25 million people being added by 2025, and just from the Filipinos under 25 right now. That doesn't count those presently of bearing age (25-40 years) who will still probably bear a few million more kids before their juniors take over. So it's likely we'll see the population hitting 150 million in 20 or so years (we need a statistician to give the most realistic projections here).

Anyway, the report is a bit vague. Let's see what the others have to say. In the meantime, here are population pyramids for the Philippines (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/rp-philippines/Age-_distribution)...

Wow, you are right about these.

manila_eye

November 12th, 2010, 05:32 PM

^^ just post a link but don't post the whole thing. sayang kasi ang bandwidth since it has nothing to do with POPULATION MANAGEMENT.

GodIsNotGreat

November 12th, 2010, 05:33 PM

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." - Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2358.

What the Church is AGAINST and is CONTRARY to scriptures is the homosexual "ACTS", NOT the individual:

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" -(Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

Though Catholic practice has discouraged the ordination of homosexuals, a document released by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in 1961 stated, "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers" (see Canon Law Digest, vol. 5 [1963]). Common life refers to the fact that priests tend to live with other men. How this would constitute a danger for a homosexual is easy to see: Imagine a heterosexual man living with only women.

This document does not ban the ordination of homosexuals. It had force only for candidates being selected for ordination by religious orders. Furthermore, Church law regarding ordination was significantly restructured with the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which did not prohibit the ordination of homosexuals.

I am not clear where you stand on the issue of homosexuality. You are quoting contradictions.

This is what the Holy Book says about homosexuality,

Leviticus 18 Verse 22. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20 Verse 13. "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The LGBT community is still suffering from the stigma associated with homosexuality. It doesn’t help that even today, religions are hostile to same-sex partnerships. Scientific findings show that homosexual tendencies are biologically determined and exhibited even by other species aside from Homo Sapiens. Homosexuals are harassed, marginalized and even killed because even now, religions are preaching the lie that homosexuality is a sin.

mwg12a

November 12th, 2010, 05:37 PM

Oh and why are you not bashing on GODisNOtGreat saying NEGATIVE remarks on the Pope? He even linked an article about pedophile priests! Look who's talking.

So its ok for someone to bash my religion while someone defending it is not?

Okay, let's not add arguement in this thread again. We have to stick with the topic about population and not imposing one's belief on religions to others. I am in no way or form against the Pope and catholicism because I am catholic also. The only concern I have is the wrong practices on Philippine clergyman influencing SOME not all government policies and decisions. I am for sure very disappointed on their unwillingness to see eye to eye with those who foresee the impact of rapid population increase to our lives.

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 05:39 PM

I am not clear where you stand on the issue of homosexuality. You are quoting contradictions.

This is what the Holy Book says about homosexuality,

Leviticus 18 Verse 22. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20 Verse 13. "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The LGBT community is still suffering from the stigma associated with homosexuality. It doesn’t help that even today, religions are hostile to same-sex partnerships. Scientific findings show that homosexual tendencies are biologically determined and exhibited even by other species aside from Homo Sapiens. Homosexuals are harassed, marginalized and even killed because even now, religions are preaching the lie that homosexuality is a sin.

Leviticus 18 Verse 22. “Do not lie with a man as one....

Homosexual acts are depraved, but that’s NOT the same as saying that homosexuals are depraved. The Church, basing itself on human reason, says that in moral questions we must distinguish between the act and the person committing the act. Homosexuals have the same intrinsic dignity as all other human beings. Christ died for them as much as for you and me, and God loves them no less.

Say a man commits murder: We all agree that murder is one of the most heinous acts imaginable. But when we try to determine whether the murder is in the first or second degree, we take several factors into consideration, such as the age of the murderer and his state of mind at the time. In other words, we have implicitly distinguished between the act and the person whose level of punishment depends on a number of other factors.

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 05:46 PM

Okay, let's not add arguement in this thread again. We have to stick with the topic about population and not imposing one's belief on religions to others. I am in no way or form against the Pope and catholicism because I am catholic also. The only concern I have is the wrong practices on Philippine clergyman influencing SOME not all government policies and decisions. I am for sure very disappointed on their unwillingness to see eye to eye with those who foresee the impact of rapid population increase to our lives.

Hello. It is sometimes thought by some that separation of church and state means that church people should not get involved in the hurly-burly of public and political life. In other words, they should confine themselves to the sacristy. But to understand the subject properly one must begin with what the Constitution says. The constitutional command says: “No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion ...” Immediately it can be seen that the command is addressed not to the church but to the state. It is the state, after all, which passes laws. The fundamental meaning of the clause is the prohibition imposed on the state not to establish any religion as the official state religion.

The constitutional command, however, is more than just the prohibition of a state religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean that the state may not pass “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

That is the “separation part” of the constitutional command. The other part is the “free exercise clause.” Both are embodied in one sentence which says: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

When people see bishops or priests venturing into public or political life, the instinctive question that is often asked is: Is this a violation of the separation of church and state? The question is understandable because of the frequent use of the phrase “separation of church and state,” and people often equate church with bishops or priests. But the negative command of the Constitution is addressed not to bishops or priests but to the state and those who exercise state authority. As to bishops and priests, the pertinent part of the constitutional command is the guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

So insistent, in fact, is the Constitution on this freedom of religion that it goes on to add: “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.” The beneficiaries of this freedom include bishops and priests and clerics and ministers of religion of every kind. More than that, they are also protected by the freedom of speech and assembly of the Constitution.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100308-257275/Fundamentals-of-church-state-relations

mwg12a

November 12th, 2010, 05:47 PM

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 05:50 PM

The Philippine population is not exploding

By Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:56:00 09/24/2010

Filed Under: Media, Population

I AM glad that Dr. Jose S. Sandejas, former commissioner of the Population Commission, has a Ph.D. in engineering and is steeped in mathematical and statistical sciences. Unlike some of our ignorant journalists or commentators who talk about an exploding population, he cannot be fooled by the statistical abracadabra being performed by some people in the National Statistical Coordination Board. He recently wrote a letter to the chairman of the NSCB expressing his surprise that in projecting population data from the 2000 census, some of the statisticians in the NSCB single-handedly added 146,582 babies to the actual number recorded in the 2000 census. The flimsy excuse given in a technical note, hidden in very small letters, is that they assumed that the Philippine population pyramid should continue to be “pyramid-like” (instead of an inverted pyramid). In fact, if they had not added the 146,582 babies to the data for the year 2000, the Philippine demographic data would no longer conform with the classic form of a pyramid. It would start to show the makings of an inverted pyramid which now characterizes aging countries like Japan, Spain, Italy and South Korea.

As a long-term student of Philippine demography, I had always suspected some doctoring of population data by birth-control pushers. When the United Nations Population Commission was already reporting Philippine population growth rate of anywhere from 1.6 to 1.8 percent annually, the neo-Malthusians continued to report a growth rate of 2.3 percent. Only when some of us insisted that the growth rate had already decelerated did government demographers start to report a rate of less than 2.0 percent.

That is why Dr. Sandejas has all the right to question the scientific validity of the unwarranted adding of 9 percent more babies to the actual data that resulted from the 2000 census. The net effect of the arbitrary addition is to inflate the population growth rate (PGR) and the total fertility rate (TFR) by some 9 percent more than the actual figure measured in the 2000 census. The TFR for the year 2000 should have been reported as only 2.7 babies per woman, already dangerously close to zero population growth rate. The inflated figures that some gullible journalists unwittingly accept can mislead economic and social planners, including legislators who are pushing the Reproductive Health Bill and other population-control measures based on wrong and even deliberately doctored data.

Contrary to the view that the Philippine population is still exploding (seemingly supported by the common sight of overcrowded slum districts in the Metro Manila area), the Philippines’ National Statistical Coordination Board in its website, quotes the Philippine Population Growth Rate (PPGR) for the year 2010 to be at the slowing rate of only 1.82 percent per annum (vs. the 2.36 percent during the census year 2000, which figure is often still used to justify the view that PGR is “exploding”).

Equally worrisome is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), the average number of children per woman, quoted by the NSCB for the year 2010 at 2.96 births per woman. This represents a significant decline from the NSCB figure of 3.41 births per woman.

This big drop in the TFR is quite palpable. All around us, we see young couples having fewer children than their elders (even in informal dweller areas), with many young couples saying that they plan on having no more than two or three children (or much less than their elders who had four to six children per family). In fact, in 1975 the TFR was six children per fertile woman. This decline in fertility has happened without aggressive population control campaigns. The main factors for the decrease in fertility are urbanization, later marriages, and increased education of women.

Dr. Sandejas concludes that the Philippines does not need a policy on family planning which will tend to slow down PGR even more rapidly. The Philippines can reap a demographic dividend if we can slow down or reverse the declining PGR or TFR. The government’s role is to assist parents to educate and nurture the youth leaders so that they can be more productive citizens in the future.

I hope that some of our media people will stop their hysterical cries about the Philippine “population bomb.” They have unfortunately been misled by the “doctors of statistics.”

Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas is senior vice president of the University of Asia and the Pacific. His e-mail address is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100924-294156/The-Philippine-population-is-not-exploding

mwg12a

November 12th, 2010, 06:00 PM

So insistent, in fact, is the Constitution on this freedom of religion that it goes on to add: “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.” The beneficiaries of this freedom include bishops and priests and clerics and ministers of religion of every kind. More than that, they are also protected by the freedom of speech and assembly of the Constitution.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100308-257275/Fundamentals-of-church-state-relations

Freedom of religion is not an issue here, the Philippine catholic church has the right to voice out their concern. What is not right is their THREAT to coerse people who believes that RH Bill is not a form of abortion but a means to educate people and plan their family accourdingly.

The Philippine government and the society recognize all type of religions. So there is no breach here what-so-ever because you are free to practice any religion in the country. When they interfere with governmental policies beneficial to the people they have a moral obligation to atleast understand the parameters of such bill which is the Reproductive Health that does not condone any form of abortion since most of the lawmakers a predominantly Christian/Catholic. The freedom of religion is applied to those WHO WANTED TO PRACTICE ANY FORM of religion, this is where you are a bit off and TOTALLY OUT OF TOPIC. Stop being arguementative and confrontational! Stop talking about religion because this is not what we are discussing here at all.

And on your last post. Even if the country isn't experiencing population explotion (which I seriously doubt because there are statistics that prove otherwise) YET, there should be something done to prevernt any future issues connecting population increase.Eduction on Family Planning and the plan to have less than 3 children isn't a moral and spirutual sin. The use of contraceptive should be taken in consideration based on "When life actually takes place" which according to science, it is " from the time when the sperm cell meets the eggcell to form mutation" NOT BEFORE IT!

dandelionne

November 12th, 2010, 06:01 PM

Population Programs in the Philippines: Money for Nothing

By Antonio B. de los Reyes
Congressional Briefing
February 23, 1998

The Philippine government's artificial birth control program, funded largely by the World Bank, USAID, and the UNFPA, is a failure and a redundancy on five fronts:

1. Financial Drain. It is an enormous and scandalous financial drain on the Philippine government's budget, much of which is drawn from taxes paid by Catholics and Muslims (both of whose faiths are directly violated by the program). Funding for contraception is by nature recurrent; perceived gains made over a year can be sustained only by ploughing in more money next year. Over 20 years from 1970 to 1990, it has cost our people over three billion pesos (P3,000,000,000), but has not significantly achieved its self-assigned goals of reducing poverty or improving quality of life. This is because artificial contraception is incapable of accomplishing those goals. It is powerless in removing the yoke of poverty from our people. It is impotent in improving the lot of victims of economic inequity, which is the real cause of poverty.

2. Managerial Waste. The contraceptive program's management machinery is a nightmare. It fields 2,500 full-time workers, supports 50,000 subsidized "volunteers," and retains a coordinating staff of over 300 with vague managerial responsibilities. These do not include the numerous clinic personnel in the Department of Health's bureaucratic network, and hundreds of private agencies which opportunistically mushroomed from the outpouring of foreign funds. While POPCOM's field force is among the best-trained and qualified government workers, the disarray at central management level renders it impotent. If this whole network were channeled instead into the government's livelihood program, these well-trained government workers would most likely be more productive and more professionally trained.

3. Political Deception. The authoritarian regime from 1969 to 1986 forced the contraceptive program upon our people not only to court external funding, but also to set up a "whipping boy," a convenient excuse for the regime's failure to engineer real development. Even as early as 1982, local governments who were coerced into co-financing the government's contraceptive campaign (which included IUD-safaris and massive sterilization drives) had already withdrawn their support. The marketeers of artificial contraception employ coercive means, even if the program itself deceitfully waves the banner of "non-coercion." Witnesses attest to outright insertion of IUDs and prescription of sterilization methods without proper diagnosis or even consent. The "high scenario" strategy adopted by the government in 1983 and continued by the succeeding administrations, imposes performance quotas on field personnel to "recruit" acceptors of all kinds of contraceptive methods, including sterilization. In the name of health, our government has sterilized more Filipinos than Hitler sterilized Jews! And the present health machinery has gone as far as violating national laws, in its determination to promote unlicensed abortifacients: injectables such as Depo-Provera and implants such as Norplant.

4. Cultural Incongruence. Contraception goes against the grain of Filipinos, who traditionally and authentically respect life, and who see in children not only resources for production, nor only means of security for the future, but also a blessing from God and an expression of gratitude to Him. American propaganda and aid policy have portrayed this pro-life orientation as "anti-development", and the contraceptive establishment has gradually inculcated in Filipino minds the absurd proposition that fewer children mean more happiness. Yet the impotence of past national governments in mobilizing our people's labor resources, and its squandering of the nation's capital assets, were the real problems. Why should we change our positive values to make amends for incompetence and corruption? Children are God's gifts to us. Should we sacrifice them to make up for the failures of our political and economic leaders? The strong Philippine rejection of the Cairo Conference proposals conveyed the pulse of the nation against the contraceptive ethic.

5. Moral Erosion. The message of the contraceptive mentality undergirding any artificial birth control campaign, is that the exercise of sexual desire should be "liberated" from the discipline of marriage and from its responsibility for ensuing life - as if marriage and parenthood were burdens, and life, a curse! It rests on the perverse proposition that our sexual faculties are designed to give us free rein for physical pleasure. Some of those who stand for contraception even go as far as training adolescents and pre-school children on how to prevent pregnancy, rather than why and how to avoid pre-marital sex. It is incontrovertibly proven that a strong contraceptive program leads eventually to legalization of abortion, as it desensitizes contraceptive users to the value of conception, and therefore of life.

Antonio B. de los Reyes is an economist by training, and is currently managing associate of the Grid Philippines Management Corporation. He serves as CEO of Habitat for Humanity (Philippines), and Vice Chair of the International Board of Directors of Habitat for Humanity International. From 1978-1982 he served in various capacities within population control organizations, among them Executive Director of the Commission on Population, the government agency that coordinate s and executes the population policy of the nation.

http://www.pop.org/content/population-programs-in-the-philippines-money-for-nothing-866

GodIsNotGreat

November 12th, 2010, 06:03 PM

okay, you two? GodIsNotGreat and Dandilionne especially GodIsNotGread, you're way off topic there, this thread is not about religions and homosexuality. Keep it to yourselves, we don't want to hear it.

Sure.

_____________________________________________

“God did not create the universe” – Stephen Hawking (so then, is God useless?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/ Online community of Filipino freethinkers, atheists and agnostics

Parchie

November 12th, 2010, 06:11 PM

The Philippine population is not exploding

By Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:56:00 09/24/2010

. . . . . He recently wrote a letter to the chairman of the NSCB expressing his surprise that in projecting population data from the 2000 census, some of the statisticians in the NSCB single-handedly added 146,582 babies to the actual number recorded in the 2000 census. The flimsy excuse given in a technical note, hidden in very small letters, is that they assumed that the Philippine population pyramid should continue to be “pyramid-like” (instead of an inverted pyramid). In fact, if they had not added the 146,582 babies to the data for the year 2000, the Philippine demographic data would no longer conform with the classic form of a pyramid. It would start to show the makings of an inverted pyramid which now characterizes aging countries like Japan, Spain, Italy and South Korea.

As a long-term student of Philippine demography, I had always suspected some doctoring of population data by birth-control pushers. When the United Nations Population Commission was already reporting Philippine population growth rate of anywhere from 1.6 to 1.8 percent annually, the neo-Malthusians continued to report a growth rate of 2.3 percent. Only when some of us insisted that the growth rate had already decelerated did government demographers start to report a rate of less than 2.0 percent. . . .

That is why Dr. Sandejas has all the right to question the scientific validity of the unwarranted adding of 9 percent more babies to the actual data that resulted from the 2000 census. . . . . .
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100924-294156/The-Philippine-population-is-not-exploding

Wowowowohohohoh! I thought only doctors doctor results! Statisticians do it also? This is troublesome to the Filipino people! My understanding is that people entrusted with compiling data should make sure the data are reliable and not "doctored"! What could be the hidden reason why the NCSB bloated the number of births in 2000? Are they trying to change the facts to fit their theory? Mama mia! A mortal sin for statistics people!

mwg12a

November 12th, 2010, 06:11 PM

GodIsNotGreat

November 12th, 2010, 06:26 PM

The Philippine population is not exploding

By Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:56:00 09/24/2010

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100924-294156/The-Philippine-population-is-not-exploding

Nice find! It is always good to hear arguments from both sides.

_____________________________________________

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician and ridiculous to the philosopher," - Lucretius.

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/ Online community of Filipino freethinkers, atheists and agnostics

GodIsNotGreat

November 12th, 2010, 06:55 PM

We are better served if we hear diverse views on issues that we debate upon. There is a preponderance of pro-RH views on this thread. We will be better informed and illuminated, and thus more able to come to a correct assessment of a situation when contrarian views are posted as well.
_____________________________________________

"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy. And in the final tolling it often turns out that the facts are more comforting than the fantasy." – Carl Sagan

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/ Online community of Filipino freethinkers, atheists and agnostics

Parchie

November 12th, 2010, 07:30 PM

We are better served if we hear diverse views on issues that we debate upon. There is a preponderance of pro-RH views on this thread. We will be better informed and illuminated, and thus more able to come to a correct assessment of a situation when contrarian views are posted as well.
Agree. And that should be the guiding principle on debates! We should agree that we don't agree but not to be disagreeable in the process!

Linguine

November 13th, 2010, 06:27 AM

RH DEBATE
Clinton: More babies a boon to Filipinos

By Michael Lim Ubac
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:48:00 11/13/2010

Filed Under: Population, Diplomacy, Americas - United States, Celebrities, Health, Congress, Belief (Faith)

MANILA, Philippines—Former US President Bill Clinton sees more babies as an advantage for the Philippines, whose exploding population is projected to reach 94 million by the end of the year.

That cheerful note was sounded Friday by Parañaque Representative Roilo Golez, quoting Clinton who spoke on “the challenge of globalization” on Wednesday at the Manila Hotel.

As highly industrialized nations grapple with the economic and social costs of an aging population, Clinton noted that “you [Filipinos] have a huge population, which is [something] positive, and you have massive natural resources.”

Golez capitalized on that statement to hit back at his colleagues advocating the passage of the long-pending reproductive health (RH) bill that upholds maternal health and seeks to provide couples an informed choice on various methods of family planning.

“Obviously, Clinton can see and understand what procontraceptives people refuse to see—that our people, our children and our babies, present and future, are assets and not liabilities,” Golez said in a text message.

The Population Commission says that some two million Filipino babies are born annually, representing a population growth rate of 2.04 percent.

‘Much brighter’ prospects

At a press conference on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman said he was confident that the RH bill would be passed by Congress this time around.

Lagman said the prospects were “much brighter” for the bill’s passage, with an explicit commitment from the leadership of the House of Representatives to back the measure, including subjecting it to a plenary vote, and President Aquino’s supportive stance vis-à-vis family planning.

But Golez disagreed

“From a check of the records, the RH Bill (House Bill No. 96) has only 46 authors. It’s a far cry from the more than 100 that the RH author was boasting of in the last Congress,” Golez said, adding:

“Perhaps that’s the reason they are already talking of submitting the issue to a plebiscite. They lack the numbers in the House.

“Frankly, I don’t know how a nonconstitutional amendment can be the subject of a plebiscite, but if they can find a formula, I welcome a general public debate on the issue in every corner of the land.”

Apart from HB 96, five other bills have been filed, all seeking a strong family planning program backed by the government to ensure a better quality of life for Filipinos.

The bills seek to provide couples access to all family planning information and services, including contraceptives.

But Golez said he was puzzled by the decision of the sponsors of the RH bill to refer the measure to the House committee on population and family relations.

“The other question is: Why is the RH bill, primarily a health bill, in the committee on population and not in the committee on health, when the author has been repeatedly saying that it is not a population control measure but [one intended] to save lives?” Golez said.

“Are they afraid of the many doctors and medical practitioners ready to come out to talk about the health hazards of contraceptives, which even a World Health Organization study claims may be carcinogenic?” he said.

Citing the rules of the House, Lagman has insisted that the committee on population was the “proper committee” to handle population measures.

The committee has calendared the RH bill for hearing on November 24 and December 8.

Hardline Church

The Catholic Church’s hardline stance against artificial means of family planning such as contraceptives, condoms and pills has served to block the passage of the RH bill in past Congresses.

The Church, which allows only natural family planning methods such as rhythm and abstinence, firmly opposes the bill, which it has branded as “antilife.”

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines recently tangled with Malacañang on the RH issue, but later agreed to a cease-fire to pave the way for a series of dialogues that began last month.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101113-302959/Clinton-More-babies-a-boon-to-Filipinos

Linguine

November 13th, 2010, 06:32 AM

Church dared: Let people decide RH fate thru plebiscite

By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:27:00 11/12/2010

Filed Under: Family planning, Churches (organisations), Legislation

MANILA, Philippines—With the debate turning into name-calling, a lawmaker has posed this challenge to the Church: Why not let the people decide the fate of the reproductive health (RH) bill in a plebiscite?

“They say there are only a few of us pushing this. I throw this challenge: Let’s give this to the people,” Bukidnon Rep. Jose Ma. Zubiri III, co-author of RH measure House Bill (HB) 96, told a forum at the Sulo Riviera Hotel. “If for whatever reason it doesn’t pass here, let’s submit to a plebiscite. It affects the people, let the people decide.”

But with the backing of President Benigno Aquino III and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., Zubiri and other RH bill proponents were confident that lawmakers would pass the measure in the 15th Congress.

“There’s never been a time that something like this could pass than now,” Zubiri said.

Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales had advised parents to mold their children’s conscience lest Filipinos would end up with the kind of people in Congress who, he said, have “poorly formed conscience.”

President Aquino’s declaration of support for couples seeking to limit the number of their children through contraceptives has bolstered hopes for the approval of the measure, but alarmed the Church.

The family planning measure promotes artificial means of family planning, such as the use of contraceptives, pills and condoms, which the Church labels as anti-life.

Risk of excommunication

Zubiri said pro-RH lawmakers were willing to risk excommunication from the Church to push for the approval of the legislation.

Minority Leader Edcel Lagman, author of HB 96, said he wasn’t surprised why Church officials have not approached him and the other RH bill proponents.

“There is pressure on those they feel they can influence. Nobody meets with us, otherwise they might change their position,” he said.

Lagman also said that lawmakers, including 100 authors and co-authors of the RH bill, were targeting the approval of the measure within the 15th Congress’ first year by June 2011.

The House committee on population and family relations starts hearing HB 96 and five other RH bills on Nov. 24.

“We are starting early so we can finish on time,” he told the same forum.

“Thanks to Mr. Aquino’s steadfast support, the prospects of its approval in the 15th Congress are bright,” Lagman said.

“I’m positive that the President will remain steadfast in support of responsible parenthood. I think this is a feather in the cap of the President. This will in a way mitigate initial setbacks on the part of the administration if the President will remain to solidly support the RH bill,” he said.

Part of the reason that RH bills failed to get through in previous Congresses in more than 10 years was that these were tackled toward the end of the regular sessions, Lagman said.

Ambivalent

Lagman also admitted that during her nine-year watch, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was “ambivalent” toward the RH bill. He doubted if he could coax her to support the bill.

“I have not tried it. I don’t know. I think she’s co-author of a bill that’s opposite to us. It’s unfortunate,” he said of now Pampanga Rep. Macapagal-Arroyo.

le Reine

November 13th, 2010, 03:53 PM

Wowowowohohohoh! I thought only doctors doctor results! Statisticians do it also? This is troublesome to the Filipino people! My understanding is that people entrusted with compiling data should make sure the data are reliable and not "doctored"! What could be the hidden reason why the NCSB bloated the number of births in 2000? Are they trying to change the facts to fit their theory? Mama mia! A mortal sin for statistics people!You could have at least searched for the reply of NSCB first for objectivity's sake. :|

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/announce/ForTheRecord/19Oct2010_NoAbracadabra.asp
http://mb.com.ph/articles/282627/no-abracadabra-nscb

dandelionne

November 13th, 2010, 05:39 PM

:ohno: February 23, 1998??? Find another article that is not over a decade ago. :lol::lol:

It may not be recent but it is in connection with the present dilemma. So what's new with the RH Bill ei? The mistakes of the past will be reinvigorated again with this bill. That is the implication.

As Section 10 on HOUSE BILL NO. 96
Introduced by: HONORABLE EDCEL C. LAGMAN
AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES:

"Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies. - The DOH shall spearhead the efficient procurement, distribution to LGUs and usage-monitoring of family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate LGU bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program."

Now where will they get the funds? Eh di ba from taxes as noted from the article I posted -

Population Programs in the Philippines: Money for Nothing

By Antonio B. de los Reyes
Congressional Briefing
February 23, 1998

The Philippine government's artificial birth control program, funded largely by the World Bank, USAID, and the UNFPA, is a failure and a redundancy on five fronts:

1. Financial Drain. It is an enormous and scandalous financial drain on the Philippine government's budget, much of which is drawn from taxes paid by Catholics and Muslims (both of whose faiths are directly violated by the program). Funding for contraception is by nature recurrent; perceived gains made over a year can be sustained only by ploughing in more money next year. Over 20 years from 1970 to 1990, it has cost our people over three billion pesos (P3,000,000,000), but has not significantly achieved its self-assigned goals of reducing poverty or improving quality of life.

What's also funny is that the bill says on Section 2:

- Declaration of Policy.- The State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of the universal basic human right to reproductive health by all persons, particularly of parents, couples and women, consistent with their religious convictions, cultural beliefs and the demands of responsible parenthood."

Again,IF it is really "CONSISTENT" with religious beliefs PARTICULARLY Catholic beliefs where the majority rests (esp. Edcel Lagman),so why would the Roman Catholic Church raise hell on this bill?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"There are no atheists. At least no thinkers are atheists. "Freethinkers" rise to that bait more surely than a trout to the fly and snap at it more viciously. But it is equally axiomatic that freethinkers do not think freely. PROOF? Well, suppose a freethinker thinks himself into religion. Ipso facto he is rated a renegade and apostate. He is free to think atheism, but not free to think theism." - Reverend James M. Gillis

mwg12a

November 13th, 2010, 11:41 PM

^^ What is so wrong about teaching the people of the appropriate family planning? Especially to those who can not afford to support them financially and still continues to have 6 to 12 children. And what is wrong in alloting fund for these bill especially the procurement of family planning supplies including funds for tubal ligation and vasectomy? It was not for profit, the people do pay taxes for it but they are still the recipient of this bill, especially to those married couple who wants to limit their children to 2 or 3 and get vasectomy or tubal ligation to prevent pregnancies. Sex is a vital part of a married couple relationship. In a more moral point of view, sex is an expression of ones affection towards his spouse, if we are to follow these principle and not just use sex for casual and meaningless relationships, the catholic church is depriving married couple to express their affection on their significant others.

1998 is a huge gap I remember when I first left the country to live permanently in the US, there are 50million filipinos and it is now 94Million on an economy who relies half of it's dollar reserve are from OFW remittances because, there are very few descent paying jobs in the Philippines and it is just now within the period of 5 years a bit more employment is being created however, it is still not enough to lure filipinos to return to their countries.

The problem with the catholoc church is that they "raise hell" on the bill when they have no clear view of what the bill entails. They automatically accuse it as a form of abortion when if you look at scientific and medical point of view, has a very different definition on where and where conception beginning of life takes place. Sure, it is noble to encourage abstinence especially on unmarried couple, but what about married couples? Should they stop having sex for the sake of satisfying what the catholic church is appropriate? What do the Catholic church have to help the government to address poverty, teenage pregnancies, homelessness, jobs availability? NONE!!! This is the reason why there are occassions where the catholic church hampers the progress in the economy because they interfere too much. What's with these coersion and threat to excommunicate someone if they seek use of contraceptions? Items such as condoms when the truth of the matter is, once the sperm cell have not reached the woman's eggcells, there is no form of life created. What is the difference of condom use from abstinence? Both are means to not allow pregnancy take place, then if these is the case? ABSTINENCE should also be condemned as sin because it prevent couple for having children or abortive.

If the catholic have the right to voice concern on the government, the people, the church goers also have the right to voice out their concern, that is democracy. Your idea of "freedom of religion" is far from this issue BECAUSE THERE IS NOBODY being DEPRIVED to practice their religion. What you are contesting was THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH which both the catholic church and the people ARE ALL ENTITLED TO, just like that one who cried "padre damaso" and wore Jose Rizal costume EXERCISED HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Why was he being prosecuted? He didn't commit a crime, he just voiced out his opinion and in the process it hurt the feelings of the catholic church or priest BECAUSE WHY? PADRE Damaso did once exist, priest are also human being atleast one or two of them would likely follow the same path. Does Catholic priest who lured children into having sex with them and those who impregnate women secretly , ring a bell to you? What are their actions on these matter after the people protested how even Vatican counciled those priest but still reassigned them elsewhere where they have direct contacts with children and concealed their previous crimes in a different parish church. These things doesn't happen only in the US but in the Philippines as well. Don't you think this is a "padre damaso" act? It's cover up for crying outloud!!!

dandelionne

November 14th, 2010, 04:53 AM

^^ What is so wrong about teaching the people of the appropriate family planning?

Well, first things first. Let me enlighten those people (pro-Rh and also Catholics) who does not understand why the Catholic Church is against this bill.

PRIMARILY,the RH Bill is encouraging ARTIFICIAL Contraception - OCPs, condoms,IUD's to tubal ligation and vasectomy.

While the Catholic teaching is AGAINST ARTIFICIAL means of contraception. WHY?

*Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

*Because God is LIFE and that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

* The PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE: engendering and raising children
So does this mean that having a large family is every married couple’s moral responsibility? The answer is NO. In fact, family size is not an issue of morality at all—but both openness to children and responsible family planning are.

What is the difference of condom use from abstinence? Both are means to not allow pregnancy take place, then if these is the case? ABSTINENCE should also be condemned as sin because it prevent couple for having children or abortive.

Difference? Condom use is artificial and is close to any possibility of life. What is wrong there is the mentality that "I DON'T want to have another kid". It means from now on you just want to enjoy the pleasure of the flesh and the enjoyment of sex but you don't want to be open to its natural blessing which is - life. The mentality itself is selfish and materialistic.

Abstinence is NOT wrong because if your purpose is only to plan your family and prefer to have spacing and also accepts the "if ever" this will lead to another pregnancy despite of, then their is openness and freedom.

What the Catholic Church is encouraging is the NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING. But then skeptics would surmise that this too is contraception? NOT! Because it is natural and is OPEN TO LIFE. It is not governed by birth control mentality but freedom in both body and spirit.

"For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood." - Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368

Especially to those who can not afford to support them financially and still continues to have 6 to 12 children.

Poor families with large number of children are experiencing POVERTY but the rich families with large number of children are experiencing PROSPERITY. The number of children is NOT the cause of poverty but laziness,corruption.

.... there are 50million filipinos and it is now 94Million on an economy who relies half of it's dollar reserve are from OFW remittances because, there are very few descent paying jobs in the Philippines.....

The belief that population growth is the primary reason for poverty is a great fallacy. In fact, it has long been proven to be fallacious. This belief was first espoused by Prof. Robert Malthus (University of Cambridge, 1785) but was proven false by Prof. Simon Kuznets one hundred seventy three years later. For disproving the fallacy, Kuznets was awarded the Noble Prize in Economics, in 1971. This Principle of Malthus, that population grows geometrically while production grows arithmetically, became the basic assumptions in his Theory on the Iron Law of Wages which he posited was the primary reason behind poverty in Europe at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

However, Simon Kuznets was able to validate scientifically that Malthus was all wrong because economic growth is fastest during the time that the population growth was highest. This was validated in Europe during the 100 years industrialization of the European continent.

If the number of a population contributes to the cause of poverty, how come China with 1 BILLION people (even with the One Child policy) is more prosperous than us who are only around 94 million? You see, one main factor that propels the Chinese economy is that multinational companies are investing their products to capitalize on that huge number of consumers which then contributes to major profit earnings. Conclusion? It is NOT the number of a population but the lack of JOB opportunities and corruption that afflicts our country.

Sex is a vital part of a married couple relationship. In a more moral point of view, sex is an expression of ones affection towards his spouse, if we are to follow these principle and not just use sex for casual and meaningless relationships, the catholic church is depriving married couple to express their affection on their significant others.

You as a Catholic, please define then what is "moral" for you? The primary purposes of marital relations are procreation and spousal unity (babies and bonding), but that does not mean that the husband and wife are not supposed to derive pleasure from their marital relations. Although pleasure is not a purpose of sex, it is important to fulfilling the purposes of sex. God gave humans the capacity to enjoy food and sex in order to encourage them to fulfill the purposes of those human needs. A moral problem occurs only when deriving pleasure from food and sex is put above or in the place of its intended purpose.Someone who eats solely for pleasure, without regard for the needs of his body, abuses the privilege of eating. In the same way, someone who has sex solely for pleasure, without regard for its intended purposes of babies and bonding, abuses the privilege of sex.

The Catholic Church depriving married couples of sex? Really? What sex? Sex with condoms or sex without condoms? You don't even know what you are talking about.

dandelionne

November 14th, 2010, 05:11 AM

The problem with the catholoc church is that they "raise hell" on the bill when they have no clear view of what the bill entails. They automatically accuse it as a form of abortion when if you look at scientific and medical point of view, has a very different definition on where and where conception beginning of life takes place.

Umm,where are you basing that from? Please cite medical sources.

Every human embryologist worldwide states that the life of the new individual human being begins at FERTILIZATION. No human embryologist has ever described human life as "potential" human life.

The developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994), discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down’s Syndrome, stated:

"…each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception … As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered … a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again … [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a ‘population’ or loose ‘collection’ of cells, but a very specialized individual …" (Lejeune J. A symphony of the preborn child: part 2. Hagerstown, MD: NAACP; 1989.).

Dr. Kischer, emeritus professor of Anatomy at the University of Arizona, writes, "…the first thing learned in human embryology [is] that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)" (Kischer CW. Let’s be factual about the human embryo. http://www.all.org/abac/ab020128.htm). He continues, "we should respect a microscopic human embryo because at that time it is an integrated whole organism, just as the human is at every moment in time until death. Every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it is formed as a new individual human life within the continuum of life …" To deny this, Kischer says, is "a trivialization and corruption of the science of human embryology."

And textbooks after textbooks of human embryology agree. The embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., by Moore et al., 1998, notes that so-called emergency contraceptive pills (i.e., "morning-after pills") “prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills … Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term ‘abortion’ could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy." It further states, "The intricate process by which a baby develops from a single cell is miraculous … A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." Bruce Carlson’s 1994 textbook Human Embryology and Developmental Biology states, "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and sperm … Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus.”

The bottom line is that in terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.

In the Hippocratic Oath,an oath proclaimed by physicians, which states, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art."

dandelionne

November 14th, 2010, 05:58 AM

What you are contesting was THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH which both the catholic church and the people ARE ALL ENTITLED TO, just like that one who cried "padre damaso" and wore Jose Rizal costume EXERCISED HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Why was he being prosecuted? He didn't commit a crime, he just voiced out his opinion and in the process it hurt the feelings of the catholic church or priest BECAUSE WHY?

Oh my god. The CBCP was prosecuting him NOT on the grounds of his freedom of speech but on the place where he demonstrated his freedom of speech which is an offense of religious feelings. Religious feelings because he disrespected an ongoing celebration of the Mass and inside the Church which is itself an OFFENSE. Well,what would you do if someone storms into your house and berates you? He could insult you (freedom of speech)for all you care all day outside the perimeters of your property but not inside your house (trespassing)!

PADRE Damaso did once exist, priest are also human being atleast one or two of them would likely follow the same path. Does Catholic priest who lured children into having sex with them and those who impregnate women secretly , ring a bell to you? What are their actions on these matter after the people protested how even Vatican counciled those priest but still reassigned them elsewhere where they have direct contacts with children and concealed their previous crimes in a different parish church. These things doesn't happen only in the US but in the Philippines as well. Don't you think this is a "padre damaso" act? It's cover up for crying outloud!!!

The heinous act of one member should not be judged on the whole institution. There are corrupt politicians in this country, so does it mean all Filipino politicians are corrupt? Think again.

Now you are bringing up the issue.The scandal issue is being manhandled by the secular media. Are you not aware that even other denominations have scandal issues which secular media like CNN is NOT making a big deal on? Why always the Catholic Church? Is that FAIR and BALANCED reporting?

CATHOLIC PRIEST

*According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, Less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse. (Allan Cooperman, “Hundreds of Priests Removed Since ‘60s; Survey Shows Scope Wider Than Disclosed,” Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.)

PROTESTANTS

*In a 1993 survey by the Journal of Pastoral Care, 14 percent of Southern Baptist ministers said they had engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior,” and 70 percent said they knew a minister who had had such contact with a parishioner.(Teresa Watanabe, “Sex Abuse by Clerics—A Crisis of Many Faiths,” Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2002, p. A1.). Joe E. Trull is co-author of the 1993 book, Ministerial Ethics, and he found that “from 30 to 35 percent of ministers of all denominations admit to having sexual relationships—from inappropriate touching to sexual intercourse—outside of marriage.”(Cal Thomas, “Their Sins only Start with Abuse,” Baltimore Sun, June 19, 2002, p. 9A.)

*In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources. The conclusion: “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.” -(Mark Clayton, “Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches,” Christian Science Monitor, April 5, 2002, p. 1.)

*According to a 2000 report to the Baptist General Convention in Texas, “The incidence of sexual abuse by clergy has reached ‘horrific proportions.’” It noted that in studies done in the 1980s, 12 percent of ministers had “engaged in sexual intercourse with members” and nearly 40 percent had “acknowledged sexually inappropriate behavior.” The report concluded that “The disturbing aspect of all research is that the rate of incidence for clergy exceeds the client-professional rate for physicians and psychologists.”(Terry Mattingly, “Baptists’ Traditions Make it Hard to Oust Sex-Abusing Clergy,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, June 22, 2002, p. C2.) Regarding pornography and sexual addiction, a national survey disclosed that about 20 percent of all ministers are involved in the behavior.(“Assemblies of God Tackles Problem of Porn Addiction Among Ministers,” Charisma, January 2001, p. 24.)

even TEACHERS

*In New York City alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day. One study concluded that more than 60 percent of employees accused of sexual abuse in the New York City schools were transferred to desk jobs at district offices located inside the schools. Most of these teachers are tenured and 40 percent of those transferred are repeat offenders. They call it “passing the garbage” in the schools. One reason why this exists is due to efforts by the United Federation of Teachers to protect teachers at the expense of children.[xxxi] Another is the fact that teachers accused of sexual misconduct cannot be fired under New York State law. -( “Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003.)

ATHLETIC COACHES:

*According to one study, .2 percent of athletic coaches nationwide have a criminal record of some sort of sexual offense. This translates to about 6,000 coaches in the U.S. who have been tried and found guilty of sexual offense against children. It is not known how many more offenders have escaped the reach of law enforcement. - (Michael Dobie, “Violation of Trust; When Young Athletes Are Sex-Abuse Victims, Their Coaches Are Often the Culprits,” Newsday, June 9, 2002, p. C25.)

Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society It shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.

In a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests frequently abused children.(The dates of the study were April 5-7, 2002. It was reported in Roper Center at University of Connecticut Public Opinion Online, Accession Number 0402247. Hart and Teeter Research Companies did the survey.) This is outrageously unfair, but it is not surprising given the media fixation on this issue. While it would be unfair to blame the media for the scandal in the Catholic Church, the constant drumbeat of negative reporting surely accounts for these remarkably skewed results.

mwg12a

November 14th, 2010, 10:27 AM

Oh my god. The CBCP was prosecuting him NOT on the grounds of his freedom of speech but on the place where he demonstrated his freedom of speech which is an offense of religious feelings. Religious feelings because he disrespected an ongoing celebration of the Mass and inside the Church which is itself an OFFENSE. Well,what would you do if someone storms into your house and berates you? He could insult you (freedom of speech)for all you care all day outside the perimeters of your property but not inside your house (trespassing)!

It is not the first time a protester stormed in a certain venue, even George Bush was a victim of these in a venue when someone protested his presence and hauled shoes on him and almost hit Bush on his head, did these offend the US president? the only difference is that Bush was a President and not a church person. It is just considered as an offense because it upsets the catholic bishop.

The heinous act of one member should not be judged on the whole institution. There are corrupt politicians in this country, so does it mean all Filipino politicians are corrupt? Think again.

Now you are bringing up the issue.The scandal issue is being manhandled by the secular media. Are you not aware that even other denominations have scandal issues which secular media like CNN is NOT making a big deal on? Why always the Catholic Church? Is that FAIR and BALANCED reporting?

And I agree with you that it should not judge the whole institution and I am aware of crimes commited in other religions. All are equally unjust. it does not representan institution as a whole, but, we are talking about which one is considered a sin and which are those that are in accordance with the will of God. Most of it are based on the interpretation ofthe scripture by church people and in this case, whether, contraceptive devices are all abortive this is what differ from what science has enumerated, that and their threat to excommunicate anybody who supports contraceptions by using all these devices and advocating the use of it. Don't you think the Catholic Church is going too far on these when they don't even know what entails the BILL and WHAT REALLY IS considered as abortion. The catholic believe in medicine and science as well right? How come they can't they use this knowledge in that perspective and not just all about the preaching of God or what and how they interpret The Holy Bible alone.

Parchie

November 14th, 2010, 11:02 AM

It is not the first time a protester stormed in a certain venue, even George Bush was a victim of these in a venue when someone protested his presence and hauled shoes on him and almost hit Bush on his head, did these offend the US president? the only difference is that Bush was a President and not a church person. It is just considered as an offense because it upsets the catholic bishop.
If somebody comes to my place and hurls invictives on me and my family, he should pray my gun is loaded with salt bullets; he'd be scratching because it's hell of an itchy experience! Else, he'll be rushing out of my place crawling cause I'm a bad shotl I might just hit his legs! Just me in my own turf, nobody should follow that kind of willful disrespect, IMO.
And I agree with you that it should not judge the whole institution and I am aware of crimes commited in other religions. All are equally unjust. it does not representan institution as a whole, but, we are talking about which one is considered a sin and which are those that are in accordance with the will of God. Most of it are based on the interpretation ofthe scripture by church people and in this case, whether, contraceptive devices are all abortive this is what differ from what science has enumerated, that and their threat to excommunicate anybody who supports contraceptions by using all these devices and advocating the use of it. Don't you think the Catholic Church is going too far on these when they don't even know what entails the BILL and WHAT REALLY IS considered as abortion. The catholic believe in medicine and science as well right? How come they can't they use this knowledge in that perspective and not just all about the preaching of God or what and how they interpret The Holy Bible alone.That "excommunication" thing is easily understood by just reading the Catholic Church's Canon laws! The media posed a leading question to a bishop that's why is was printed in the papers. That pronouncement has been clarified by the bishop concerned and should be a closed item. The best source of info regarding the observed "resistance" of the Roman Catholic Church will be the church itself and nobody else. Just like when we try to ask Pedro how he feels, we ask Pedro and not Juan, his adversary!

mwg12a

November 14th, 2010, 11:12 AM

Well, for one thing, a catholic church is still considered a public gathering place right? The public goes there to worship. That gentleman recognized he used the wrong venue but which would be the right place for it? With that outfit he wore even if it's done outside the church would offend the catholic church anyway?

On the excommunication issue. There are articles in the previous page that has clarifications on who to excumminicate. The catholic church issued a statement saying that they are not threatening to excommunicate the president, however, those who would use the contraceptive device would be running the risk of being excommunicated by the catholic church. We can just review it in previous pages where that article was. I'm kind of lazy right now for that :lol: but, if I get the chance, I will repost it here again.

dandelionne

November 14th, 2010, 01:00 PM

Well, for one thing, a catholic church is still considered a public gathering place right? The public goes there to worship. That gentleman recognized he used the wrong venue but which would be the right place for it? With that outfit he wore even if it's done outside the church would offend the catholic church anyway?

But its not a plaza or some mall which are ordinary places. Churches are the HOUSEHOLD of GOD. You OUGHT to behave.

Are you saying that if you have some ill-feelings with your boss with regards to your salary,is it PROPER to come to his house, vent your problems and insult him inside his very own house?

Don't you think the Catholic Church is going too far on these when they don't even know what entails the BILL and WHAT REALLY IS considered as abortion.

Do you? Most of the time you are just merely stating your opinions without basing on fact. You still haven't told me where did you base your statement " when if you look at scientific and medical point of view,has a very different definition on where and where conception beginning of life takes place" when EMBRYOLOGISTS have already defined such.

mwg12a

November 14th, 2010, 01:10 PM

dandelionne

November 14th, 2010, 01:14 PM

Was that an act of misbehavior? He didn't get naked or punch a priest in their faces right? During that time it wasn't even a church service, they have something else going on... The house of God is a good place to voice out one's concern, although, it's NOT AN IDEAL PLace to DO IT, a church is far from the premises of private abodes but rather a public place for worship. What about that coersion via excommunication? Wasn't that an act of intimidation without listening to the voice of reason from its own followers? He didn't insult God, he didn't condemn the priests, he did critisized the catholic church's stand on RH Bill.

Excuse me? It wasn't even a Church Service? http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/09/30/10/tour-guide-carlos-celdran-nabbed-interrupting-mass

You seem to be misinformed and yet you make opinions. The WRONG ones.

I doubt that you are even Catholic since you don't even submit and is ignorant of Church's teachings.

He didn't insult God, he didn't condemn the priests, he did critisized the catholic church's stand on RH Bill.

Clearly,the statement magnifies your ignorance. The priests are God's ministers. What Celdran did was very offensive and sacrilegious since he interrupted the Holy Mass,a celebration of Christ's sacrifice in Calvary. Disrespecting the priest and disrupting the Mass inside God's household is itself a very big offense to God.

mwg12a

November 14th, 2010, 01:42 PM

Excuse me? It wasn't even a Church Service? http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/09/30/10/tour-guide-carlos-celdran-nabbed-interrupting-mass

You seem to be misinformed and yet you make opinions. The WRONG ones.

I doubt that you are even Catholic since you don't even submit and is ignorant of Church's teachings.

Clearly,the statement magnifies your ignorance. The priests are God's ministers. What Celdran did was very offensive and sacrilegious since he interrupted the Holy Mass,a celebration of Christ's sacrifice in Calvary. Disrespecting the priest and disrupting the Mass inside God's household is itself a very big offense to God.

Excuse me? Are you resorting to a form of attack and insult? Does that conform the good Catholic Church teaching?:ohno:tsk tsk tsk tsk. And you've protested on somebody here for commiting the same act?

Contrary to those previous reports, it was not a MASS, it's some form of ecuminical service and other members of different church were present.
I don't think Celdran would lie in the national television on these.

This is where the problem is , you are okay whatever a priest would tell you even if it's abusive. Because it came from the church, pressing judgements on issues without valid and careful study, yoiu would accept it just like that? That threat such as excommunication? Wasn't that intimidation on negating the welfare of the poor and uninformed? Wouldn't you think they are not commiting sins when they intimidate their followers into obeying things against their will especially if it is not immoral and sacrilegeous? And to think that how Celdran protested. Don't you think even if it's done outside the church premises, the feelings of the church would not be hurt?:lol: I can guaratee you, the bishop would file a complaint regardless.
Are you trying to tell me that if a priest asked for your child and abused him, just because he is a priests, you would keep your mouth shut? Screw that!!!

a24R1BtCiOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a24R1BtCiOM

dandelionne

November 14th, 2010, 02:06 PM

Excuse me? Are you resorting to a form of attack and insult? Does that conform the good Catholic Church teaching?:ohno:tsk tsk tsk tsk. And you've protested on somebody here for commiting the same act?

Contrary to those previous reports, it was not a MASS, it's some form of ecuminical service and other members of different church were present.
I don't think Celdran would lie in the national television on these.

This is where the problem is , you are okay whatever a priest would tell you even if it's abusive. Because it came from the church, pressing judgements on issues without valid and careful study, yoiu would accept it just like that? That threat such as excommunication? Wasn't that intimidation on negating the welfare of the poor and uninformed? Wouldn't you think they are not commiting sins when they intimidate their followers into obeying things against their will? And to think that how Celdran protested. Don't you think even if it's done outside the church premises, the feelings of the church would not be hurt?:lol: I can guaratee you, the bishop would file a complaint regardless.

Even if you didn't use strong words, your assumptions alone is a direct attack on the authority of the Catholic Church.

Catholics accept the supernatural truths of their religion on authority; yet not on the authority of these priests of theirs, or of any individual, but on the authority of a society that offers them clear and cogent reasons why they should accept her word. We do not claim that each doctrine of the Church is susceptible of proof by reason alone: On the contrary, we maintain that God’s revelation contains many mysteries, truths, that is, that are above the reach of human reason, beyond the possibility of full comprehension by any man. But we claim that reason rightly used can show us that there exists a personal God of infinite goodness and wisdom who created us and all the universe, that God has made a revelation to the world through Jesus Christ, and that Christ founded a society which he called his Church and promised it his permanent presence by the Spirit that he would send to lead it into all truth, thereby excluding all possibility of its teaching error.

Catholics are bound to obey the Church’s disciplinary directives as expressed in her canon law and liturgy. We are free to not like them and even to disagree with them. But we are expected to obey them.

Are you trying to tell me that if a priest asked for your child and abused him, just because he is a priests, you would keep your mouth shut? Screw that!!!

NO! So you are assuming that Catholics are mere robots that only accepts everything what the Church says whether good or bad? Who would in his/her right mind would say yes to that?

It is the duty of every Catholic to use his mind so as to understand, according to his capacity, the line of reasoning that establishes the existence of the Church as the authorized exponent of divine revelation. A man must at some point choose to submit his mind to the truths the Church teaches as being revealed by God, disregarding any longer the speculative arguments against them that, he is aware, still exist and still weigh with others. And this choice he can only make firmly and so as to exclude all doubt or wavering, with the help of God’s grace, which is freely offered to all.

mwg12a

November 14th, 2010, 11:25 PM

Even if you didn't use strong words, your assumptions alone is a direct attack on the authority of the Catholic Church.

What strong words are you talking about? Have I called on you negatively on your opinion by saying "you're ignorant" "your faith is questionable" like you have on me? REVIEW THE DISCUSSION WHERE I ATTACKED YOU PERSONALLY ON YOUR STANCE? I was giving justification on the government act to push for RH BILL together with it's supporters as well as what is called abortive.. WHERE IS THE FUCKING StRONG WORDS on that??? You maybe good in written english but it seems your comprehension of the english language is limited that your points strayed away from what I've pointed out, what i've mentioned WHICH LITERALLY isn't all too bad and does not fall under an anti semantic stand except pushing the truth on the plight of many children whose been a victim of WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MAN OF GOD.

mwg12a

November 14th, 2010, 11:46 PM

Catholics are bound to obey the Church’s disciplinary directives as expressed in her canon law and liturgy. We are free to not like them and even to disagree with them. But we are expected to obey them.

It is the duty of every Catholic to use his mind so as to understand, according to his capacity, the line of reasoning that establishes the existence of the Church as the authorized exponent of divine revelation. A man must at some point choose to submit his mind to the truths the Church teaches as being revealed by God, disregarding any longer the speculative arguments against them that, he is aware, still exist and still weigh with others. And this choice he can only make firmly and so as to exclude all doubt or wavering, with the help of God’s grace, which is freely offered to all.

So, you're telling me that if a priest stand on it's pulpit and tell you to hand your son or daughter, because he claims it will be service to God. We will be doing it without protest? Well you're an idiot! I never generalized all the catholic priest but I did mention how SOME of them use the words of God to commit mortal and spiritual sin YET, the Church hierchy protects these mentally sick priests by relocating them INSTEAD OF TURNING THEM INTO THE LAW. See how SOMEHOW the church manipulate the system and USE the Church as their tool to create fear on their parishoners or deceive them by hiding sins commited by some of their priest. They tried to threaten anybody not necessarily the president of excommunication when if they EXAMINE THE BILL CAREFULLY FIRST is not at all an act against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Somehow I know I DID MENTION EVERY SINGLE PRIESTS ARE THAT WAY? IF SO. WHERE and how?

Yes, the duty of the church is to use it's mind to understand. BUT do they use their mind on this issue?Why don't they sit for dialogue and identify which is uncatholic and how the bill is considered abortive. I am not going to point out other issues because that is irrelevant. Yes, all the good followers should follow the teachings of God. But when its interpretation doesn't conform with the reality, we do have the right to question these and protest. So, yes, the church has the right to protest to the government but if it is the will of the people, they should not coerse these people into submitting to their principle that are not entirely wrong but it is also not completely right either. Sure, the scriptures identified several issues based on the even centuries ago but in cases like these. Those scriptures doesn't really apply anymore. There is no contraceptives tools before haven't they, maybe, herbal medicines and such but those are really considered abortive because the pregnant woman would take it in the first trimester of her pregnancy while, condom use, tubal ligation and vasectomy does not follow that category.

Linguine

November 15th, 2010, 03:42 AM

interesting news....food for thought....

Malaysia to give sex education to primary school pupils

Agence France-Presse
First Posted 06:43:00 11/15/2010

Filed Under: Education, Schools, Children, Family

KUALA LUMPUR—Children as young as six will be given sex education in Malaysian primary schools from next year, an official said Sunday, as part of a drive to curb 'baby-dumping', promiscuity and HIV.

Deputy education minister Wee Ka Siong told AFP that pupils aged between six and 11-years-old will study the new curriculum, which has been designed with the help of parents and civil society groups.

The plan follows Thursday's announcement that sex education will be taught in secondary schools across the conservative Muslim-majority country from next year.

"We want to also give primary school students aged between six and eleven years, a better understanding of family values and how to protect yourself from high-risk behavior," he said.

"Together, the lessons in primary and secondary school provide a comprehensive sex education curriculum that will help to reduce promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies, baby dumping, HIV infection and other social ills."

Last month, Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said the classes were being considered as part of a plan to tackle the issue of baby-dumping, in which babies have been left to die in toilets and rubbish dumps.

Giving birth out of wedlock carries a strong social stigma in Malaysia, a multicultural society embracing Muslim Malays as well as ethnic Chinese and Indian communities.

In 2009 there were 79 cases of baby-dumping but as of mid-September this year there had already been about 70, sparking alarm among authorities and the public.

Malaysia's first school for pregnant teenagers opened in September in central Malacca state and in May the nation's first "baby hatch" center for unwanted newborns was introduced in the capital, Kuala Lumpur.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101115-303324/Malaysia-to-give-sex-education-to-primary-school-pupils

mwg12a

November 15th, 2010, 04:58 AM

Parchie

November 15th, 2010, 05:38 AM

Interesting alright considering Malaysia is a predominantly conservative Islamic country. I kinda feel like 6 to 9 y/o is way too young. Perhaps if the education is limited to social, economic and family values, it would be alright. But introducing what promiscuity and sex is all about, they should apply it only around age 13 and up bracket.

I doubt if the imams don't react on that! Besides, the report is too vague saying "school pupils" and specific on whether it's "male pupils" or all! I don't know but something sticks out reading that item! To be blunt, it's sort of something new to a predominantly Muslim country (like what you said).

mwg12a

November 15th, 2010, 05:50 AM

^^ I doubt it either, I'm very curious to find out more in the future.

Maxxclip

November 16th, 2010, 02:45 AM

http://www.voxbikol.com/sites/default/files/voxbikol_op_logo.png
Cardinal Vidal Sees 'head-on collision' on RH Bill

MANILA, Nov. 7, 2010—Speaking before 500 delegates during the 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith and Family, Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal said the Church’s struggle to preserve and promote the values conducive to nurturing faith, family and life appears to be heading “towards a head-on collision” with those who push for the passage of RH Bill.

He downplayed claims by some sectors that the Catholic Church tries to impose itself on the rest of the citizenry.

“The Church is being portrayed as an intolerant power block bent on imposing its will on the nation, running roughshod over the will of most Filipinos,” the 79-year old prelate said.

He noted that during the EDSA I and II, “when the issue was political, and the goal was toppling a dictator or a corrupt leader, the Church was hailed as a force for reform and liberation.”

Having served President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines in 1986, he said when the voice of the Church proved a useful instrument to attain the tipping point, “virtually everyone whose voice mattered praised the role of the Church.”

“Now that the issue is moral and much more proper to the Church’s concern, we are accused of using undue influence and interfering in politics,” he added.

He said he witnessed bishops and archbishops who drafted the post-election statement which declared the 1986 elections were marked by massive fraud.

He further said had the bishops then thought it undemocratic to issue that statement and if they respected the views of those who thought contrary to their opinion, history might have made a few more twists and turns before something like EDSA could happen.

“I assure you, the drafters of the statement did not rely on surveys and opinion polls as they read the situation based on their collective experience as they illumined their experience with principles from Scriptures and Church doctrines because they drew conclusions using right reason and sound logical principles,” he explained.

Cardinal Vidal told the delegates that it is the same right to speak from the same principle which is being exercised by the Church as the issue then was not about toppling a dictator “but the reclaiming of justice.”

“The issue not is not about claiming the power to dictate, but the protection of the values that hold our nation together and while the issues than and now may be different, the Church uses the same principles in its courses of action – what the Holy Father (Benedict XVI) calls as ‘the ethical foundation of civil discourse,” he added.

Referring to churchmen who criticize the Church for its vigorous opposition to the Bill on democratic principles who “may have also missed the point” because to reduce the debate into a purely religious issue is to imply that the objective moral principles that ground consensus are subjective opinions which will be open to further debates.

Cardinal Vidal explained in many cases when consensus is not attained “the resulting action has always been one of license – to allow everybody to do what he or she wants as long as nobody gets hurt.”

He said there is more to the RH Bill in its current form than mere democratic consensus or license because “if the RH Bill, in its present form passes into law, ironically, it will annul consensus” because it will impose itself on the consciences of individuals.

“It will penalize virtually anyone who speaks against it because it will mandate employers, even if against their will, to provide contraceptives to their employees,” he added. He also explained the bill will subject the country’s young to a brand of sex education that is foreign to Philippine culture and corrosive to values as it purports to reject abortion but classified abortifacients as essential medicines.

The cardinal concluded by saying “it is this spectre of a society that has lost its moral bearings that keeps me from throwing in the towel even though I am now retired.”

He reiterated his commitment to stand with human life advocates as they engage the larger society in dialogue as well as work together in “purifying” reason to recognize the objective moral principles essential to the proper functioning democracy.

The international congress is being held at the Hotel Dusit Thani, Makati City from November 6 to 8.

Maxxclip

November 16th, 2010, 02:47 AM

http://www.pia.gov.ph/newsite/piascript.png
Women to Bishops: The RH law will not jail you

Manila (Nov 15) -- A women's organization tells the Bishops to stop worrying about going to jail because of their opposition to the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

Elizabeth Angsioco, National Chair of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) said, "When HB96 authored by Rep. Lagman is passed, malicious disinformation about the intent or provisions of the law will be penalized. This scares the Bishops but, there really is no reason to be if they only speak of facts. Their statement about going to jail is more of a manifestation that they know the RH Bill will soon be enacted by Congress."

Angsioco added, "Archbishop Cardinal Vidal's assertion that he will no longer be able to do sermons if the RH Bill passes is unfounded unless he is admitting that what they do is'malicious disinformation.' At this point, the Bishops know that they are losing in public opinion which is very favorable to the RH Bill's passage. They also know that the number of legislators supportive of the measure is rapidly increasing."

She said further "perhaps the Catholic hierarchy wants to be seen as the underdog in a desperate move to win support for their unpopular opposition to the bill. Let us not forget that it is them who sent Carlos Celdran to jail allegedly for'offending their religious feelings.' Instead of misinterpreting the RH bill's provisions, we urge the Bishops to study it so they do not get unnecessarily stressed."

"We believe that the bill's passage is imminent. This is long overdue. Poor women continue to die of preventable pregnancy and childbirth complications. In the DSWP alone, we lost a number of our members because of these. There are also those who almost died due to the same causes. These unnecessary deaths and almost-deaths must end,"

mwg12a

November 16th, 2010, 03:08 AM

Do you? Most of the time you are just merely stating your opinions without basing on fact. You still haven't told me where did you base your statement " when if you look at scientific and medical point of view,has a very different definition on where and where conception beginning of life takes place" when EMBRYOLOGISTS have already defined such.

By the way dandelionne, even if I am stating my own opinion on the issue about "when life is formed or started", not to sound like I am snooty or even bragging, I have a license and title for it because I am in the medical health field. I even had several opportunities to serve in medical missions there in the Philippines including rural service in remote parts of the Philippines WHERE I saw in my own eyes how couples or women most especially really needed this Bill bad in areas of education and the need to have access to health services in family planning and medical needs such as tubal ligation and vasectomy because I witnessed in my own eyes a family of 10 (8children whose parents brought these kids in the world at a young age) living in a nipa hut whose source of income is to sell fishballs and veggies in public market. If only the catholic church open their eyes and minds to not solely rely strictly on what the bible stated and how the church interpreted the teachings of God, they would see what science and economist see in this modern day world. I'd like to reiterate to you incase you interpret that last words wrongly, that I never said the teaching of the Church, the Holy Bible and God are all wrong, my point is for the church people to see the other side of the coin and make assessments instead of totally rejecting a Bill totally when they haven't sat down and review these with the lawmakers, after all, most of these law makers are catholics and do no condone abortions.

If you want to go into details of human evolution, creation of life through a medical health professional's point of view, there are several of us here including those in nursing field. We all can provide information to you and perhaps we can open a separate thread for this discussion. So, if you are questioning my knowledge and assessment in this are, I can guarantee you I do have the title and the license to back up my claims along with hundreds of books and articles that have links online.

Maxxclip

November 17th, 2010, 02:18 AM

Plebiscite on RH bill fine with CBCP
by Gerard Naval

AN official of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines yesterday said they are amenable to the challenge posed by one of the authors of the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill that the issue be decided through a plebiscite.

CBCP National Secretariat for Social Action, Justice and Peace (Nassa) chairman Bishop Broderick Pabillo said the bishops will not oppose the holding of a plebiscite, especially if this would lead to a public that is better informed and able to decide intelligently on the RH bill.

"Kung kasama sa plebiscite ay maayos na information, e di mas mabuti. Kung sa plebiscite, na ibig sabihin mayroon talagang proper information ang tao to let them decide, e di okay… mas maayos," he told reporters.

The Manila auxiliary bishop said the Church is confident its position would come out victorious in the end. The CBCP has been the most vocal opponent of the RH bill, describing it as anti-life for indirectly promoting abortion through the legalization of artificial contraceptives.

Last week, Bukidnon Rep. Jose Ma. Zubiri said a plebiscite would be the RH backers’ last resort if the Roman Catholic Church succeeds anew in blocking its passage in Congress. He said the plebiscite could be held simultaneously with the next elections to determine if Filipinos favor the use of artificial contraceptives for population management.

Pabillo said, however, that he doubts if a plebiscite is feasible at this time. "That is a very tall dream na medyo mahirap gawin. Maghahanda pa ang government, gagastos pa ang government diyan."

Malaya (http://www.malaya.com.ph/11172010/news7.html)

dandelionne

November 17th, 2010, 08:22 AM

RH bill about rights, not health

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:18:00 11/15/2010
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20101115-303316/RH-bill-about-rights-not-health

Filed Under: Health, Legislation, Family, Human Rights

WE ARE interested in our rights. We are all interested in our health. Reproductive health is about rights. The explanatory note of House Bill 96 titled “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development, and for other purposes” describes the bill as “rights-based.” Reproductive health originated from the term “reproductive rights,” a phrase designed by some women of the International Conference of Women in Beijing in September 1995, and defined as the right of women over their reproductive system. This was used to protect the women from the “slavery and anguish” of pregnancy and child-bearing. This principle upholds that women have the right to prevent or terminate their pregnancy (or abort their baby) in any way they want. In other words, women have a right to have sex and abandon its consequence, to engage in sexual activity without obligation. Indeed, birth control is, as GK Chesterton wittingly put it, “less birth, no control.”

After eating and drinking, one urinates or defecates to remove organic wastes that are toxic for the body. Sex is not like that. The male semen and female ova are not “wastes.” From them, human life is formed. What the RH bill does is to redefine sex and make Filipinos believe that regulating the sexual drive is impossible, that we need to pour out billions to produce condoms, IUDs, injectables, etc. to protect us from our unruly sexual drives.

HB 96 proposes to institutionalize the access and use of artificial methods (see Sec. 7 of the RH bill on PhilHealth use) which it labels as “essential medicines” (Sec. 9).

I have been doing social work for several years. I have experienced consoling a mother who availed of Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) and suffered numbness and swollen thighs. Another lady experienced dizziness and a feeling of fatigue. Still another mother died of IUD (Intra-Uterine Device) infection and severe bleeding. Some other mothers taking hormonal pills complained of nausea, blood spotting and dim eyesight. Are these what the RH bill proponents call essential medicines? Yes, RH bill is about “rights,” but not about health.

We do not need to create “rights” that forsake our health. As humans, we have inherent rights. Unfortunately, HB 96 does not uphold the universal human right to live. This explains why various individuals, from both religious and secular sectors, institutions and communities question the RH bill, a bill that diverts people’s money to means that destroy the woman’s body and corrupt human sexuality.

—PROF. SHERLA NAJERA,
University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City
manajera@up.edu.ph

Linguine

November 17th, 2010, 05:09 PM

Angara shares anti-Luistro sentiment

Senator Edgardo Angara says he shares the concerns of a colleague over the possible conflict of interest arising from the appointment of Armin Luistro as Education Secretary and his close ties with the Catholic Church.

Angara, chairman of the senate committee on education, said Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago has threatened to invoke her membership in the bicameral Commission on Appointments to block Luistro’s nomination.

“Now, more than ever, we need to uphold the separation of the church and the state. I have confidence in Luistro’s abilities, but he must be able to handle issues such as sex education and the reproductive health bill with objectivity,” Angara said in a statement.

He said he also wanted to clarify the relationship between government and the church.

In her letter to Angara, Santiago enumerated three reasons for opposing Luistro’s appointment: conflict of interest, gross ignorance of the law and political deafness.

“The nominee is a member of the Catholic religious. As such, he is bound to support the official position of the Catholic Church against the proposed reproductive health bill which I have filed in the senate. Either he will obey his church or betray it. Either way, he is impaled on the horns of a moral dilemma. Out of delicadeza, if only for this reason alone, he should have declined his nomination,” Santiago’s letter read.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNation.htm?f=2010/november/17/nation6.isx&d=2010/november/17

Maxxclip

November 19th, 2010, 02:20 AM

PH warned it may end up like Somalia
by Philip Tubeza

MANILA, Philippines—Like Somalia, the Philippines may become a failed state in 40 years if the reproductive health (RH) bill is not passed by Congress and the country’s rapid population growth is unchecked, an American population expert said Thursday.

Malcolm Potts said the Philippines would suffer far worse economic, environmental and even national security problems if the population would reach a projected 160 million by 2050.

“I think this is probably the most important single issue facing this country … the consequences of having perhaps 160 million people in 40 years time are very, very somber,” he told a population conference at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in Makati City.

Potts works for the Bixby Center for Population, Health and Sustainability of the University of California, one of the organizers of the conference titled “Demographic Governance: The Philippines’ Way Forward.” The agency’s partners were the AIM, Venture Strategies for Health and Development and the Asia Society.

“Unless the RH bill goes through and unless you are able to offer the poorest economic quintile the choices that they deserve, then people will be poorer. You will be importing food, you will be more like Somalia than Thailand,” Potts said.

“I think these (data) charts should give us all nightmares—those who love this country and have been here many times and those of you who belong here and love your country,” he added.

The RH bill seeks to promote both natural and artificial birth control methods through government programs and advocates the education of students on reproductive health at the appropriate age, among other aims.

It is being strongly opposed by the Catholic Church, which prohibits the use of artificial means of family planning such as birth control pills and condoms, and only favors natural means such as abstinence and the use of fertility beads among women.

Advocates in the House of Representatives expect the controversial measure to be passed by June next year, or the end of the first year of the 15th Congress.

According to a conference briefing paper, population pressures can also “increase environmental degradation and may push more people into areas more prone to natural disasters.”

The Philippines already faces severe environmental problems, the paper noted.

The country has less than 10 percent of its forest cover and coral reefs, less than 50 percent of its ground fresh water resources is potable while untreated domestic wastewater threatens water bodies further, and diseases from polluted water—which account for 31 percent of the total illnesses in the country—cost P6.7 billion annually.

Linguine

November 19th, 2010, 03:43 AM

Business pushing population bill for the poor

BUSINESS GROUPS yesterday urged Congress to pass a law aimed at helping poor families gain access to free and informed choice on family planning.

In a forum at the Asian Institute of Management, former senator Vicente T. Paterno proposed a measure, informally called Consensus Bill on Population (CBP), focusing on the distribution of contraceptives to the poorest segment of society.

The bill is supported by the Makati Business Club (MBC), Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) and the Philippine Center for Population and Development. Mr. Paterno is head of the joint steering committee on the CBP composed of the three groups.

Mr. Paterno, former Public Works and Trade minister of the Marcos and (Corazon C.) Aquino administrations, said Reproductive Health (RH) bills filed in Congress are silent on providing access for the poor to artificial family planning methods.

"The RH bill does not distinguish who receives contraceptives. Providing the poor with all the available method is our major thrust," he said.

Population, economic and health experts, as well as poor communities across the country, were consulted in crafting the bill, he said.

The Catholic Church was also consulted, but it backed out when parts of the bill on providing free contraceptives were included, he added.

Other provisions are:

* Commission on Population shall continue logistical work of family planning under the guidance and supervision of Health department;
* Local government units shall also be required to spread family planning and distribute methods and devices, prioritizing poorer regions and communities through the creation of local population offices;
* The Department of Social Welfare and Development shall assist in identifying poor communities who would be given priority in family planning access; and
* The Department of Education and Commission on Higher Education shall strengthen curriculum and learning modalities of population, sexuality and reproductive health education.

Mr. Paterno said the steering committee is still in talks with congressmen who may sponsor the CBP.

The House committee on population and family development has scheduled its first hearing on reproductive health on Nov. 24.

CBP was conceptualized after MBC, MAP and Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference held a forum in November last year on House Bill 5043, or the consolidated version of the proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008.

The measure failed to pass on second reading in the 14th Congress due to lack of support from congressmen.

Seven RH bills have so far been filed at the House of Representatives in the current Congress -- all premised on the government’s responsibility to provide access to information for all methods, be it natural or artificial. -- N. M. Gonzales
|

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=21507

Deus Ex

November 19th, 2010, 10:57 PM

Failed state? Somalia? LOL.

Maxxclip

November 20th, 2010, 01:50 AM

^^
:D

Linguine

November 20th, 2010, 06:40 AM

Aquino won’t change family planning stand
by Tess Bedico
Friday, 19 November 2010 21:27

THE government will continue to push for responsible parenthood including the distribution of contraceptives to poor couples.

Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said President Benigno Aquino’s position on the issue has not changed since he was a senator and this was stressed in yesterday’s meeting with Catholic church leaders in Malacañang.

“We made very clear to them the five-point statement of the President on his position on responsible parent-hood… So it’s just a matter of letting us know also ‘yung kanilang mga adhikain,” Lacierda said.

He said the five points that the President had always espoused are anti-abortion; giving the couples the right to choose how best to manage their families; respect each individual’s right to follow his or her conscience and religious convictions; provide the necessary measures especially to the poor and the disadvantaged couples who are in no position to make an informed judgment; and present to couples both the natural family planning and modern methods.

Lacierda said they also told the bishops that the President still has no position regarding the reproductive health bills pending in Congress. “Our position is on responsible parenthood,” he said.

He said yesterday’s meeting held at the PMS office discussed the framework of the next dialogue between the President and Catholic church leaders on the issue of family planning.

Bishop Soc Villegas, Bishop Chito Tagle, Msgr. FiJuanito Gura — the secretary general of the CBCP represented the CBCP. The government representatives were Presidential Management Staff chief Julia Abad, Health Secretary Enrique Ona and Lacierda.

“It was a discussion on the framework of the dialog, so ground rules in the sense. So inayos kung ano ‘yung pag-uusapan and the topics were health, social welfare. Basically, pinag-usapan lang kung ano ang magiging diskusyon,” Lacierda said.

He said the next meeting is expected to be held between December 7 and 15. He said Catholic bishops cannot accommodate an earlier meeting because many of them will be going to Rome.

http://thepinoy.net/?page_id=13

Parchie

November 20th, 2010, 06:53 AM

Aquino won’t change family planning stand
by Tess Bedico
Friday, 19 November 2010 21:27
http://thepinoy.net/?page_id=13

Siguro! Wala naman s'yang sariling pamilya! At dahil walang anak, paano nya malaman at matikman kung gaano kasarap ang may anak! Sarap sa kama, pwede, pag-alaga ng anak, hindi!

amigo32

November 20th, 2010, 07:40 AM

Failed state? Somalia? LOL.

:lol:

Siguro! Wala naman s'yang sariling pamilya! At dahil walang anak, paano nya malaman at matikman kung gaano kasarap ang may anak! Sarap sa kama, pwede, pag-alaga ng anak, hindi!

ows:D

Bricken Ridge

November 20th, 2010, 10:56 AM

^^ and you're back. please do not sabotage this thread again.

And here's his youtube channel listing his favorite videos and unending blah of bible quotes.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dandelionne#p/f/40/BmqhlHWbnuM
http://www.youtube.com/user/dandelionne#p/f/33/o2L2koWalzw

Man, this douche bag is a revelation! Not only does he like gay sex and Sherwin Ordonez in his birthday suit- but he is an impostor of the catholic faith! Not practicing what you preach, eh?

mwg12a

November 20th, 2010, 08:59 PM

Siguro! Wala naman s'yang sariling pamilya! At dahil walang anak, paano nya malaman at matikman kung gaano kasarap ang may anak! Sarap sa kama, pwede, pag-alaga ng anak, hindi!

Baka naman nadala lang kay Kris Aquino na puro panganay ang anak sa ibat ibang tatay :lol::lol:

manila_eye

November 20th, 2010, 09:20 PM

Siguro! Wala naman s'yang sariling pamilya! At dahil walang anak, paano nya malaman at matikman kung gaano kasarap ang may anak! Sarap sa kama, pwede, pag-alaga ng anak, hindi!

Hindi naman kailangan magkaron ng anak para malaman why too high yearly growth of population is a bane. Yung family planning naman na nasa legislation ngayon eh hindi naman sapilitang tuturukan ang isang tao ng pampabaog. I don't know kung bakit issue pa rin ito?

Marami akong officemates na nagsasabi na masarap magkaron ng anak yun nga lang puro utang sila para lang may pambili ng gatas. Sa isip-isp ko lang masarap pa rin kaya magkaron ng anak ng wala pera at pampalamon?

And here's his youtube channel listing his favorite videos and unending blah of bible quotes.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dandelionne#p/f/40/BmqhlHWbnuM
http://www.youtube.com/user/dandelionne#p/f/33/o2L2koWalzw

Man, this douche bag is a revelation! Not only does he like gay sex and Sherwin Ordonez in his birthday suit- but he is an impostor of the catholic faith! Not practicing what you preach, eh?

hahaha buking. banal na aso, santong kabayo.

mwg12a

November 20th, 2010, 09:26 PM

Marami akong officemates na nagsasabi na masarap magkaron ng anak yun nga lang puro utang sila para lang may pambili ng gatas. Sa isip-isp ko lang masarap pa rin kaya magkaron ng anak ng wala pera at pampalamon?

hahaha buking. banal na aso, santong kabayo.

Masakit sa isang magulang na makita ang anak nila magutom kaya ginagawa nila ang makakaya kaya nga yuong iba nasasapilitan na ibenta ang laman nila o magpakatulong para lang sa mga anak.

manila_eye

November 20th, 2010, 10:13 PM

^^ simple lang naman yan. kung wala kang means to grow and nurture a kid eh di wag kang mag-anak. dadagdag lang kasi sila sa future problems ng bansa kung hindi mo mabibigay ang pangangailangan upang maging progresibong tao balang araw.

Parchie

November 21st, 2010, 03:13 AM

Hindi naman kailangan magkaron ng anak para malaman why too high yearly growth of population is a bane. Yung family planning naman na nasa legislation ngayon eh hindi naman sapilitang tuturukan ang isang tao ng pampabaog. I don't know kung bakit issue pa rin ito?

That's your own opinion, and nobody can deny you that opinion! Ang sabi naman ng tatay ko nung buhay pa siya:
"Kahit ilang ulit kang pababalik-balik sa talyer at magbasa ng mga bagay tungkol sa makinarya, hinding-hindi ka maging ganap na mekaniko hangga't hindi magka-langis ang mga kamay mo dahil sinubukan mong magkumpone ng isang makina."
Dapat alamin mo bakit ang mga maralita ang pukpukin pag magka problema ang bayan! Sa tingin mo ba mga mayayaman ang tatamaan nitong isinasabatas ngayon? Not. Why can't they try and help people get jobs so they will be occupied and produce more goods than children? Yan ang sa akin din po lamang! Like you, I am still wondering why this RH bill is used as a cover for a business endeavor! Look behind the lobbying persons and you will understand they mean no good for our people, but are there to benefit should the supposedly RH bill becomes a law.

bledzoe

November 21st, 2010, 04:57 AM

a good read about the power of the Catholic Church...

Looking Back
The mob of 1719 (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081010-165617/The-mob-of-1719)
By Ambeth Ocampo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:14:00 10/10/2008

Filed Under: Arts, Culture & Entertainment

MANILA, Philippines—Before I began my lecture on Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo at the National Museum last Saturday, I went into the Hall of the Masters of the National Gallery (the old Legislative Building) to see both Juan Luna’s “Spoliarium” and Hidalgo’s “Assassination of Governor Bustamante.” I was disappointed, because the Hidalgo painting was covered with scaffolding, as it was undergoing restoration and cleaning. Nevertheless, one could peek through the heavy equipment and see the angry faces of Dominican and Augustinian friars. It is a terrifying sight to see murder and mayhem in their eyes, and then, as you look up past the paint cans, you feel as if you were actually there.

http://traveleronfoot.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/assassination-of-bustamante.jpg
"Assasination of Governor Bustamante", originally "The Church and the State"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Self_portrait_by_F%C3%A9lix_Resurrecci%C3%B3n_Hidalgo.jpg/220px-Self_portrait_by_F%C3%A9lix_Resurrecci%C3%B3n_Hidalgo.jpg
Filipino painter and hero, Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo

At the top of the stairs, the ill-fated governor is losing his balance. There is a rope around his body, and at the other end friars are dragging him down. A Dominican stands before him brandishing a crucifix in a violent gesture reserved for the exorcism of demons in a possessed person. Behind the governor brandishing a sharp object is an Augustinian. This was the death blow. It was a tragic end for a man who attempted to run the country well. Then as now, trying to collect the right taxes, trying to stop graft and corruption, going against the Church can be dangerous.

The painter is said to have given his work the title “Iglesia contra el Estado” (“Church against the State”). But its theme was so controversial, its execution so powerful that the huge canvas was rolled up and never exhibited in Hidalgo’s lifetime. It was publicly exhibited only twice in the last century: in 1974 at the National Museum and in 1989 at the Metropolitan Museum of Manila. We must thank the family of the late National Artist Leandro V. Locsin, especially Mrs. Cecilia Y. Locsin, for making this long-hidden national treasure available to the public.

The account by a contemporary witness is in Volume 44 of the so-called “Blair and Robertson.” The governor and the Church did not see eye to eye, and Bustamante had Francisco de la Cuesta, archbishop of Manila, thrown in jail. So at the prodding of the religious, a crowd was mobilized into what could probably be seen as one of the first exercises of People Power before 1986. The difference was that the 1986 revolt was peaceful and little or no blood was shed, whereas in 1719 the church bells rang and the crowd turned into a mob that stormed the palace. From Blair and Robertson we read about that bloody evening of Oct. 11, 1719:

“The Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians came out from their convents, each as a body, carrying in their hands crucifixes and shouting, ‘Long Live the Church! Long Live King Felipe V!’ They were joined by people of all classes and proceeded to the church of San Agustin. The governor who was roused from his sleep and informed of the arrival of the mob sprang up and ordered the guards to keep back the crowd. He dispatched an order to the fort to discharge artillery at the crowd, but he was so little obeyed that, although they applied a match to two cannons, these where aimed so low that the balls were buried in the middle of the esplanade of the fort.

“Without opposition, this multitude arrived at the doors of the palace. As for the soldiers of the guard, some retreated in fear, and others in terror laid down their arms. The mob climbed up by ladders and entered the first hall, the halberdiers not firing the swivel-guns that had been provided, although the governor had commanded them to do so. [The governor] attempted to discharge his gun at a citizen standing near and it missed fore. Then the governor drew his saber and wounded the citizen. The latter and with him all the rest at once attacked the governor. They broke his right arm, and a blow on his head from a saber caused him to fall like one dead.”

The governor’s son who tried to intervene was likewise killed that night.

That is the story as narrated by an eyewitness in a primary source account. But when Antonio Ma. Regidor asked Hidalgo to paint this scene from history, his imagination wandered and “the crowd” was depicted as a pack of furious religious identifiable by their distinctive habits, most prominent being Dominicans whom Felix knew in the University of Santo Tomas.

The Bustamante story spawned “La Loba Negra,” a work once attributed to Fr. Jose Burgos, which was available in manuscript and translated from the original Spanish into English by the ex-Jesuit Hilario Lim. However, scholars had their doubts: the writing was bad, the Spanish far from elegant, there were historical inconsistencies in the narrative. Yet the story is intriguing. The black she-wolf murdered friars at night. She was the avenging widow of Bustamante.

This story inspired a play by Virginia R. Moreno, titled “Onyx Wolf,” which won third prize in the Cultural Center of the Philippines’ literary contest of 1969-1970. Before the play was published in 1980 and even before it was staged in 1971, “Onyx Wolf” became a landmark ballet by Alice Reyes, “Itim Asu.” It has also been made into an opera by Francisco Feliciano.

“La Loba Negra” was not by Burgos but by Jose E. Marco of Negros Island, whose forgeries were so successful that aside from “La Loba Negra” he created Kalantiaw, who in 1433 gave Philippine history an ancient set of laws predating the Spanish conquest.

Was Marco an evil genius? Or maybe it was all misplaced nationalism?

-----------------------------------------------------

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2762/4125284357_2e2b787e5f_z.jpg
Fernando Amorsolo's version of the said bloody event...

another article published by Ambeth Ocampo with the same topic...

Looking Back
Murder in 1719 (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20101015-297804/Murder-in-1719)
By Ambeth Ocampo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:30:00 10/15/2010

CONFLICT BETWEEN Church and State has been around since Spanish colonial times. The governor general and the archbishop of Manila did not always see eye to eye. There are a handful of interesting episodes in Philippine history that should make their way into our textbooks and our consciousness. Unfortunately, some people prefer that children are not taught disagreeable things like: the use of “Comfort Women” by the Japanese, the atrocities on civilians during the Philippine-American War, or even the negative aspects of the martial law years. Censorship occurs even in parts of our lives outside the authority of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).

In art, there have been groups against the realistic depiction of the human form. Nudity, even in the pastoral, sun-lit canvasses of Fernando Amorsolo, is an abomination to these people. Then you have censorship based on themes like violence and murder. This explains why one of Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo’s masterpieces was kept from the public for most of the past century since it was painted.

Hidalgo (1855-1913) was trained in Europe and made his mark for “academic” paintings depicting scenes from Ancient Rome. His 1884 work “Virgenes cristianas expuestas al populacho” (Christian virgins exposed to the mob) was conferred a silver medal in the Madrid Exposition of 1884 where Juan Luna was conferred a gold medal for the “Spoliarium.”

Hidalgo painted scenes from early Philippine history like “The Defeat of Limahong” and the controversial “La iglesia contra el estado” (The Church against the State) whose original title was deemed too controversial that he changed it to the more specific “Assassination of Governor Bustamante.” This painting was never exhibited in Hidalgo’s lifetime, and was kept rolled up in the care of his family. On the prodding of then First Lady Imelda Marcos, the painter’s nephew Felipe Hidalgo allowed its first public exhibition in the National Museum in 1974. Then it remained rolled up in storage until 1989 when it was loaned to the Metropolitan Museum by National Artist Leandro V. Locsin. Then it was returned to storage, until the Locsin family decided to share this great painting with the public through a long-term loan to the National Museum where it now hangs in the same hall as Luna’s equally moving “Spoliarium.”

Fernando Manuel de Bustillo Bustamante y Rueda was governor general of the Philippines from 1717-1719. He was not well-liked because he tried to increase government revenue by strict tax collection and by stopping the leakage from graft and corruption which, then as now, is a life-threatening job.

Then he got into a tangle with the Church over the issue of sanctuary. In those days, anyone who fled to a church for refuge was given sanctuary. This meant that the police could not forcibly take the person out of the church unless he or she was surrendered by Church authorities. To cut a long story short, the crisis led to Bustamante ordering the arrest and imprisonment of major religious personalities, including Francisco de la Cuesta, the archbishop of Manila then. Thus a crowd was mobilized into an early exercise of “People Power” long before the events of Edsa 1986. The main difference is that Edsa saw little or no bloodshed at all. But in 1719 the church bells rang, the crowd moved and later turned into a mob that stormed the Governor’s Palace in Intramuros. It’s best to return to the primary source account in Volume 44 of what historians know as “Blair and Robertson” to see what happened next on that bloody evening of Oct. 11, 1719:

“The Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians came out from their convents, each as a body, carrying in their hands crucifixes and shouting, ‘Long Live the Church! Long Live King Felipe V!’ They were joined by people of all classes and proceeded to the Church of San Agustin.

“The governor who was roused from his sleep and informed of the arrival of the mob sprang up and ordered the guards to keep back the crowd. He dispatched an order to the fort to discharge artillery at the crowd; but he was so little obeyed that, although they applied a match to two cannons, these where aimed so low that the balls were buried in the middle of the esplanade of the fort.

“Without opposition, this multitude arrived at the doors of the palace. As for the soldiers of the guard, some retreated in fear, and others in terror laid down their arms. The mob climbed up by ladders and entered the first hall, the halberdiers not firing the swivel-guns that had been provided, although the governor had commanded them to do so; [the governor] attempted to discharge his gun at a citizen standing near and it missed fore; then the governor drew his saber and wounded the citizen; the latter, and with him all the rest, at once attacked the governor. They broke his right arm, and a blow on his head from a saber caused him to fall like one dead.”

Bustamante’s son tried to intervene and was also killed that night. When Antonio Ma. Regidor commissioned Hidalgo to paint this scene from Philippine history, the mob became a pack of friars. Go see the painting in the National Museum; be moved, and think of other episodes in our history missing from our textbooks.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Las_Virgenes_Cristianas_Expuestas_Al_Populacho_%28The_Christian_Virgins_Being_Exposed_to_the_Populace%29_by_Felix_Ressureccion_Hidalgo_1884.jpg/800px-Las_Virgenes_Cristianas_Expuestas_Al_Populacho_%28The_Christian_Virgins_Being_Exposed_to_the_Populace%29_by_Felix_Ressureccion_Hidalgo_1884.jpg
"Las Virgenes CristianasExpuestas Al Populacho" (Christian Virgins exposed to Populace) , another award winning masterpiece by Felix Hidalgo

peejay202

November 21st, 2010, 05:30 AM

Buti pa si Pope Benedict XVI, open minded. Hindi gaya nga mga Obispo natin. Baka magrally naman sila sa Vatican. haha. See how inconsistent the Catholic Church is?... :lol::lol:

Pope says condoms acceptable 'in certain cases': book

BERLIN - Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably to reduce the risk of HIV infection, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.

In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The new volume, entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times", is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.

"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.

"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."

Benedict reiterated that condom use alone would not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS. "More must happen," he said.

"Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug."

Other than condoms, the book, set to be translated into 18 languages, addresses many other sensitive issues, including the paedophile priest scandals, celibacy and female ordination.

Concerning the paedophile scandal that has rocked Benedict's native Germany as well as other countries around the world, the pope said he was "deeply shocked" by it.

Benedict raised the possibility of a "sincere" dialogue with Islam, adding that a controversial speech he gave on the subject was an attempt at an academic discourse rather than a political lecture.

In a September 2006 speech in Regensburg in his native Bavaria, the pope provoked outrage among sections of the Muslim community for appearing to question the rational basis of Islam and associating it with violence.

Benedict also criticised a French law banning Muslim women from wearing full-face veils such as the burqa and the niqab in public.

"Some women do not wear the burqa entirely voluntarily and it is correct to talk of a violation against that woman. Of course one cannot agree with that," he said.

"But if they want to wear it voluntarily, I don't know why one must ban them.

The new book is the first collection of interviews with the pontiff since the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became pope in April 2005.

Seewald asked more than 90 questions on three major themes during conversations conducted July 26-31 at the pope's summer residence in the Italian town of Castel Gandolfo.

The pontiff also discusses the case of the Holocaust-denying bishop Roger Williamson, the danger of a schism in the Church and the possibility of a Vatican III Council on Church reforms, which has for now been put off.

A former communist, Seewald became Catholic after meeting Cardinal Ratzinger, with whom he produced two earlier volumes of interviews.

peejay202

November 21st, 2010, 05:42 AM

mwg12a

November 21st, 2010, 09:09 AM

That's your own opinion, and nobody can deny you that opinion! Ang sabi naman ng tatay ko nung buhay pa siya:
"Kahit ilang ulit kang pababalik-balik sa talyer at magbasa ng mga bagay tungkol sa makinarya, hinding-hindi ka maging ganap na mekaniko hangga't hindi magka-langis ang mga kamay mo dahil sinubukan mong magkumpone ng isang makina."
Dapat alamin mo bakit ang mga maralita ang pukpukin pag magka problema ang bayan! Sa tingin mo ba mga mayayaman ang tatamaan nitong isinasabatas ngayon? Not. Why can't they try and help people get jobs so they will be occupied and produce more goods than children? Yan ang sa akin din po lamang! Like you, I am still wondering why this RH bill is used as a cover for a business endeavor! Look behind the lobbying persons and you will understand they mean no good for our people, but are there to benefit should the supposedly RH bill becomes a law.

Ang lalim naman ng tagalog mo kahit ang mga tagalog mahihirapan umintindi he he:nuts:

Your suggestion about the government providing more jobs is really needed and should be prioritized, however, aside from attacting foreign investors into the country the country or its citizen must also make use of their skills and talents in developing technology because this is what would help the Philippine economy become more stronger, not just attracting outsourcing companies to invest in the Philippines because this can be just temporary and unpredictable. You never know when these foreign companies would find another country that offers less cost for their companies such as cheaper labors.

I don't think RH Bill is being used for cover up anything that pertains to the improvement of the Philippine economy. It is something the government should be doing to enable these poor people have access to health services and be educated. There is an article here that proved that the Vatican even has tolerance on the use of condom. RH Bill does not condone abortion, infact, they are against it as well being catholics themselves. I've mentioned once before that I have experienced serving in rural communities in the Philippines before and what I have witnessed gave me the right perspective on how to help the under priveledged citizens of the Philippines, especially the less educated ones... you can't say that the biggest reason for these poor people for having a big family is due to lack of something to preoccupy their minds because these poor people work even harder than a more educated ones with good jobs and often times alot of them have many kids already and shares the same room or even bed as their parents. It is usually the poor people with lower educations who is not very conscious in planning their families and the number of kids, they just have sex because that's what urges tells them and forgets that if they have even one child and they both don't have decent jobs it would be hardship for all of them and most especially the child. Here in the US, it's mostly the catholics who has many children while the non catholic sticks to one or two children. I don't see any harm in RH Bill because it does not legalize abortion, they are more on educating the poor and allowing them to have access to Reproductive health services like Tubal ligation and vasectomy. Condoms, according to the article above shows that the Vatican have some tolerance on the use of these because it does not involved killing a fetus.

I'm sure you would not agree with what I've said above but that is because our opinion on these differ and is influenced by our own chosen profession. I'm in healthfield and you seems to be in the business sector or something related to it. It is expected that you see these whole thing at a different perspective as mine, this is no different than the Catholic priests, lawmakers and medical health professions, there are grey areas that would render each of them no not meet eye to eye, the good news is that it doesn't mean that the Church, medical health professions and politicians can't sit down and have dialogue then learn from one another instead of prejudging things without any attempt to reach out and be informed.

Linguine

November 21st, 2010, 11:03 AM

Birth control program to push through

A MEETING with the Catholic bishops has not changed President Benigno Aquino III’s decision to make artificial birth control available to the poor, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said Friday.

The President was not in the meeting with the representatives of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, but was represented by Health Secretary Enrique Ona and the chief of the Presidential Management Staff, Julia Abad, Lacierda said. He said he was also in the meeting.

Bataan Bishop Socrates Villegas, Cavite Bishop Antonio Tagle, and CBCP secretary general Juanito Figura, represented the Church.

“In a situation where couples, especially the poor and disadvantaged ones, are in no position to make an informed judgment, the state has the responsibility to so provide,” the President said. “In the range of options and information provided to couples, natural family planning and modern methods shall be presented as equally available.”

Lacierda said the administration panel presented Mr. Aquino’s five-point position on responsible parenthood to the bishops.

“We made it very clear to them that the statement of the President on his position on responsible parenthood remains,” he said.

The President’s position is that he is against abortion, but he favors giving couples the right to choose how best to manage their families so that, in the end, their welfare and those of their children are best served.

The government must respect each individual’s right to follow his or her conscience and religious convictions on matters pertaining to the unity of the family and the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death.

The two camps agreed to meet again between Dec. 7 and Dec. 15, said Lacierda, since the bishops were not scheduled to return to Manila until Dec. 6 after their visit to Pope Benedict XVI in Rome.

The Health Department plans to buy 2 million condoms next year from its proposed P400-million budget for family planning. Joyce Pangco Pañares

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2010/november/20/news4.isx&d=2010/november/20

ricoyan

November 21st, 2010, 05:15 PM

Pope Benedict's condom U-turn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/nov/21/condoms-pope-benedict-ban-overturned

Finally Pope allows use of Condoms!!!

mwg12a

November 21st, 2010, 11:35 PM

GodIsNotGreat

November 22nd, 2010, 01:45 AM

Pope Benedict's condom U-turn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/nov/21/condoms-pope-benedict-ban-overturned

Finally Pope allows use of Condoms!!!

I am amazed that the Pope changed his mind somewhat in just a matter of a few years. Usually popes and the Vatican change their position in hundreds of years.

Remember Galileo and the concept of limbo/infant death?

_____________________________________________

Must read books for the non-religious:

The God Delusion – R. Dawkins
End of Faith – Sam Harris
God is not Great, How religion poisons everything – C. Hitchens
God, The Failed Hypothesis – V. Stenger

GodIsNotGreat

November 22nd, 2010, 04:16 AM

What if the world were rearranged so that the inhabitants of the country with the largest population would move to the country with the largest area? And the second-largest population would migrate to the second-largest country, and so on?

Take the world's largest country: Russia. It would be taken over by its Asian neighbour and rival China, the country with the world's largest population. Overcrowded China would not just occupy underpopulated Siberia - a long-time Russian fear - but also fan out all the way across the Urals to Russia's westernmost borders. China would thus become a major European power. Russia itself would be relegated to Kazakhstan, which still is the largest landlocked country in the world, but with few hopes of a role on the world stage commensurate with Russia's clout, which in no small part derives from its sheer size.

Canada, the world's second-largest country, would be transformed into an Arctic, or at least quite chilly version of India, the country with the world's second-largest population. The country would no longer be a thinly populated northern afterthought of the US. The billion Indians north of the Great Lakes would make Canada a very distinct, very powerful global player.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4257/c6agr.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/i/c6agr.jpg/)

http://i.imgur.com/c6Agr.jpg

Strangely enough, the US itself would not have to swap its population with another country. With 310 million inhabitants, it is the third most populous nation in the world. And with an area of just over 3.7 million mi² (slightly more than 9.6 million km²), it is also the world's third largest country (2). Brazil, at number five in both lists, is in the same situation. Other non-movers are Yemen and Ireland. Every other country moves house. A few interesting swaps:

Countries with relatively high population densities move to more spacious environments. This increases their visibility. Look at those 94 million Filipinos, for example, no longer confined to that small archipelago just south of China. They now occupy the sprawling Democratic Republic of the Congo, the 12th largest country in the world, and slap bang in the middle of Africa too.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/25109

RonnieR

November 22nd, 2010, 04:49 AM

I am amazed that the Pope changed his mind somewhat in just a matter of a few years. Usually popes and the Vatican change their position in hundreds of years.

Remember Galileo and the concept of limbo/infant death?

_____________________________________________

Must read books for the non-religious:

The God Delusion – R. Dawkins
End of Faith – Sam Harris
God is not Great, How religion poisons everything – C. Hitchens
God, The Failed Hypothesis – V. Stenger

It is the Sign of the Times. :)

NTprime

November 22nd, 2010, 04:51 AM

RonnieR

November 22nd, 2010, 04:55 AM

^^I love the article!:) Very novel way of looking at things...

If the Philippines were to be relocated smack in the middle of Africa, we would have interesting neighbors....the Taliban, the British Monarchy, the Argentines, the Japanese, the Italians, the Iraqis, etc.

I am also amused on how the author described the Philippines :)

"small archipelago just south of China"

NTprime

November 22nd, 2010, 05:01 AM

I am also amused on how the author described the Philippines :)

"small archipelago just south of China"

Africa then, would be the most diverse continent.:lol: You have a mix of ancient cultures, monarchies, and dictator states.:lol:

GodIsNotGreat

November 22nd, 2010, 05:08 AM

^^ you are right! very amusing.

RonnieR

November 22nd, 2010, 05:28 AM

Thanks for that article ricoyan. Please lets just keep discussions here decent and not dwell on negativities. I guess if we are careful with our words, it helps the flow of the discussion civil and intellectual.

Right. Constructive criticisms are welcome. As long as ricoyan does not treat the Philippines as shit, I will not regard him as one of the ________.

Linguine

November 22nd, 2010, 05:58 AM

Condom remarks stir up debate among Catholics

By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:27:00 11/22/2010

Filed Under: Churches (organisations), Legislation, Family planning, Health, Diseases, Conflicts (general)

MANILA, Philippines—A staunch advocate of the reproductive health (RH) bill Sunday welcomed Pope Benedict XVI’s pronouncement that HIV-infected male prostitutes could use condom, saying this would undermine the Church’s hardline stand against the measure.

House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman, the author of House Bill No. 96, observed that this was a “departure from the strictly very conservative approach of the papacy and the Catholic Church” on contraception.

“That is a welcome development because the papacy is opening up to the eventual contraceptive use,” Lagman said in an interview by phone.

“Once you have opened up and made an exception, the liberalization of the Church outlook has started. And we’d expect further liberalization. He has made an exception, then more exception would be forthcoming,” he added.

But Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez, the author of House Bill No. 13 seeking to protect the rights of the unborn child, said that the Pope’s pronouncement was irrelevant to the RH measure.

“The Pope’s comment is more of a health matter because it’s talking about preventing infection. Whereas the RH bill is about population,” Golez said by phone.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III also said that the Pope’s stand would not affect the RH bill. He said he was against the “myths” being peddled by population control groups.

“I still believe we have no problem on population and that our statistics are bloated,” Sotto said.

Church adamant

Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines said that the rare cases where condoms could be used should be spelled out by Church leaders.

“If a condom is used as a contraceptive, certainly it will be condemned by the Church,” Yñiguez told The Associated Press. “But to use it to avoid a disease in specific circumstances, the church can take another mind-set.”

Fr. Shay Cullen, a Columban missionary who has helped sexually abused children in the Philippines, praised what he said was a crucial change in the Pope’s stand.

“We welcome the Pope’s change of opinion because it is meant to save life and to protect people,” Cullen said. “We see here an enlightened Pope putting his concern over human life as a priority first.”

Businessman George Gueco said the Pope’s remarks did not amount to any change in the Catholic Church’s long-standing stance against contraceptives, a position he strongly backed.

“There may be extreme, extreme exemptions for the church to allow its use,” Gueco said. “I’m thinking hard, but I can’t think of any right now.”

More practical

Housewife Benita Vitualla, 72, said: “The Pope has become more practical; he knows what’s happening to the world,” said Vitualla, who wore rosaries around her neck.

“There are contagious diseases and very high population growth that need to be controlled,” she added.

Public debate over condom use has simmered in the predominantly Catholic Philippines since President Benigno Aquino III recently expressed support for the right to contraception. A Church official has threatened to launch civil disobedience protests.

Aiming to avoid a head-on collision with the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Aquino met Catholic bishops last month and explained that he was leaving it to Filipino couples to choose family planning options, including artificial birth control.

Positive step

In Geneva, the UN agency leading the international campaign against HIV/AIDS on Sunday welcomed Benedict’s statement.

“This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican today,” UNAIDS executive director Michel Sidibe said in a statement.

“This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention,” he added.

Sidibe said he had held far reaching discussions with the Vatican on HIV prevention issues in 2009.

“Together we can build a world with zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths,” he said. With reports from Gil C. Cabacungan Jr., Associated Press and Agence France-Presse

mrboy

November 22nd, 2010, 06:14 AM

Vatican plays down Pope's remarks on condoms (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11806753)

The Vatican has played down the importance of Pope Benedict's remarks appearing to temper the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to condoms.

The Vatican spokesman said the pontiff's comments were not "revolutionary", but added it was the first time Pope Benedict had commented on the issue informally.

The Pope made clear in his view condoms were no answer to the Aids pandemic.

But he said their use could sometimes be justified in exceptional cases.

Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi said the Pope was speaking about "an exceptional situation" in one of the interviews in the book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, which is being published on Tuesday.

"The Pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality is a real danger to the life of another," said Fr Lombardi.

Benedict used the specific example of a male prostitute using a condom to illustrate his apparent shift in position.

"The Pope maintains that condom use to lessen the danger of infection is a 'first assumption of responsibility,'" said Fr Lombardi, quoting from the book.

"In this, the reasoning of the Pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary breakthrough."
'Step forward'

“Start Quote

It is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection”

End Quote Pope Benedict

The Vatican has long opposed condoms as an artificial form of contraception.

This had drawn heavy criticism, particularly from Aids campaigners, who said condoms were one of the few methods proven to stop the spread of HIV.

The head of the United Nations Aids agency, Michael Sidibe, said the Pope's words were a significant step forward.

They were also welcomed by the Save the Children charity, although a spokesman said the Catholic Church needed to go further in supporting condom use for preventing the spread of Aids.

The new book is based on a series of interviews the Pope gave German Catholic journalist, Peter Seewald, earlier this year.

The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published excerpts of the interview in its Saturday edition.

dandelionne

November 22nd, 2010, 03:46 PM

Pope Benedict's condom U-turn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/nov/21/condoms-pope-benedict-ban-overturned

Finally Pope allows use of Condoms!!!

Vatican spokesman: Pope not changing Church teaching on condom use

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-spokesman-pope-not-changing-church-teaching-on-condom-use/

Vatican City, Nov 21, 2010 / 03:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).

Despite media claims of a revolutionary change, Pope Benedict is not altering Catholic teaching on condom use or justifying the disordered use of sexuality, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has explained.

In a Nov. 21 statement from Vatican Radio, Fr. Lombardi discussed the Pope’s comments in Peter Seewald’s forthcoming book “Light of the World: the Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times.”

In these comments “the Pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the Church but he reaffirms it, putting it in the perspective of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility,” the spokesman said.

In Seewald’s book, Pope Benedict says that the Church “of course” does not regard condom use as “a real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS. According to Fr. Lombardi, his treatment of the topic considers an “exceptional situation” in which a sexual act presents a true risk for another’s life.

In a short passage at the end of the tenth chapter of Seewald’s book, the Pope discusses the “banalization of sexuality” which treats sexuality as a drug. The pontiff uses the example of a prostitute.

“In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality,” the spokesman explained. Rather, the use of the condom to lessen the danger of contagion may be “a first act of responsibility” and “a first step on the path toward a more human sexuality” rather than acting to put another’s life at risk.

“In this, the reasoning of the Pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary turning point,” Fr. Lombardi said.

He added that there is some novelty in hearing this discussion from a Pope, even in “a colloquial and non-magisterial form.” According to the spokesman, this was an “original contribution” because it refuted the “illusory path” of trust in condom use. At the same time, the papal comments showed a “far-sighted vision” attentive to the small steps which an “often very poor spiritually” humanity must take towards “a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.”

Fr. Lombardi repeated Pope Benedict’s view that concentrating solely on the condom banalizes sexuality. This obscures its meaning as an expression of love between people and makes it become like a drug.

Fighting against this banalization preserves sexuality's positive value and helps it to have a positive effect on “the whole of man’s being,” Pope Benedict says in Seewald’s book.

dandelionne

November 22nd, 2010, 04:53 PM

POPE IGNITES DEBATE OVER CONDOMS

November 22, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the pope's recent remarks on condoms:

Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges that condoms may make sense in preventing the transmission of disease, and he immediately sets off a firestorm.But he never said condoms are an acceptable means of birth control, nor did he say that they are the answer to HIV/AIDS. Indeed, he said he opposed the widespread use of condoms because that "implies the banalization of sexuality." He also criticized the "fixation" on condoms as a means of combating AIDS.

While what the Holy Father said is newsworthy, it was not revolutionary. Even with regards to the birth control pill, the Catholic Church has allowed for exceptions. In his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI said, "the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever." Moreover, the Church accepts the use of hormonal contraception to treat endometriosis.

- Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

Maxxclip

November 23rd, 2010, 02:04 AM

Surprising advertisement shows foreign intervention in RH bill
by Dick L. Galan

I read with great surprise the full-page ad titled “Population control does not reduce poverty.”

Surprisingly, all the signatories were personalities from abroad, mostly from the United States. Since when did we have to succumb to foreign intervention in our own national agenda, especially something that involves the crusade of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill?

While at it, I am neither for nor against the RH bill. I am content to leave the decision to our legislators and popular sentiment.

Maxxclip

November 23rd, 2010, 03:46 AM

Pope’s Comments on Condoms Sow Confusion

ROME — In a papacy troubled by communications missteps, Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented new book of interviews with a German journalist sought to clarify matters by going straight to the source.

But ever since the Vatican’s official newspaper published highlights on Saturday, the book has created the opposite effect: widespread confusion (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2041:29;Galatians%201:7&version=NIV), most notably over the pope’s comments that in select cases, such as those involving male prostitutes, condom use might be a step toward acting responsibly to reduce “the risk of infection.”

AIDS activists are calling the pope’s comments a breakthrough, while members of the church hierarchy and some Catholic commentators say the comments have been misconstrued. The Vatican itself has furiously played down Benedict’s words, or rather contextualized them, noting that the pope was not changing church doctrine banning contraception, or justifying condom use — even though the Vatican newspaper clearly used the phrase “justified in some cases.”

On Sunday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, added to the confusion. He called Benedict’s remarks unprecedented, the first time such comments had come “from the mouth of a pope,” but he added that they were “not a revolutionary turn,” as they echoed the stance of other moral theologians — and had been offered “colloquially,” not as part of official church teaching.

As is often the case with the Vatican, the clarification yielded more ambiguity. Was Benedict, in his book of interviews with the German journalist, Peter Seewald, opening up a conversation on condom use — albeit in specific cases to prevent AIDS between male sex partners — or wasn’t he? And how is the world supposed to consider remarks by the pope that are not official church teaching?

“It’s not very easy to define the difference,” said Sandro Magister, a veteran Vatican reporter in Italy. In the “graduated spectrum of authority” between official church teachings — encyclicals, laws, homilies — and Benedict’s conversational remarks, “I’d say this is an inferior grade,” Mr. Magister added.

“The important thing is that he said it,” he added. “Said by a cardinal it’s one thing, but said by the pope, it’s another.”

For years, local church officials, especially in Africa, have quietly — and sometimes openly — urged the Vatican to loosen its prohibition of condoms as part of a broader program to help prevent the spread of AIDS and H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

En route to Africa last year, Benedict caused a stir when he said that condoms worsened the spread of AIDS, which he said could be prevented only by abstinence and responsibility.

In the new book, “Light of the World,” to be published Tuesday, Benedict said condoms were not “a real or moral solution” to the AIDS epidemic, adding that that “can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

But he added that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

AIDS activists were thrilled. “This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican,” the executive director of the Joint United Nations Program on H.I.V./AIDS, Michel Sidibé, said in a statement. “This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in H.I.V. prevention.”

Yet some Catholic commentators close to the church hierarchy have furiously backed away from the pope’s comments on condoms, contending that they are less important because they are not official church teaching.

One “false assumption beneath the condom story is that all papal statements of whatever sort are equal, such that an interview is an exercise of the papal teaching magisterium,” a biographer of Pope John Paul II, George Weigel, wrote in National Review Online. Mr. Weigel, who wrote the foreword to “Light of the World,” added that nowhere had the pope “justified” the use of condoms.

Yet in the Italian excerpt published Saturday in the Vatican’s own newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, the pope says that condom use can be “justified” in some cases, citing the example of the prostitute. The Rev. Joseph Fessio, whose Ignatius Press published the English-language edition of the book, said that the Italian translation was inaccurate, and that the original German translated more directly as “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals.” The Italian edition of the book also refers to a female prostitute, while the German and English editions use the term “male prostitute.”

Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano, which broke an embargo to publish the excerpts, said he thought that the gender of the prostitute would be corrected to male in future Italian editions. “The important thing is that the pope approved only the German text,” he added. Benedict and his interlocutor spoke in German.

Confining the example to homosexual sex appeared intended to strengthen the Vatican argument that the pope had not changed his view on contraception. Amid the confusion, there is one incontrovertible fact: Since Pope Paul VI released the 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” denouncing birth control, Benedict in the book has become the first pope to put the question of condoms directly on the table — particularly remarkable for a theologian seen as removed from the chaotic reality of everyday life.

For Mr. Magister, the impressive thing about Benedict’s book is that it shows the pope to be firmly rooted in the space between the ideal of Catholic teachings and the messy reality of the world. “He puts himself in this space, which is the real space of people’s lives,” Mr. Magister said. “A book like this is worth more than a lot of homilies,” he added.

dandelionne

November 23rd, 2010, 07:05 AM

Q: Does the Church oppose the use of condoms?

A: The Church of course does not regard them as a real or moral solution, but in individual cases, the intention to reduce the risk of infection may represent the first step to leading a more human and authentic sexuality.

In other words, Pope Benedict never says condoms are good. He says the intention to reduce the risk of disease while engaging in a disordered act is “better” than engaging in a disordered act while in addition recklessly endangering the health of the other person. Just as an alcoholic who begins reducing the number of times he binge drinks may be described as having made the “first step” towards sobriety. But binge drinking is still wrong. Binge drinking is never a “real or moral solution” because it is a disordered act.

Pope Benedict puts it this way: “ is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” Humanization is an important word: in the pope’s view, it is more human to engage in a disordered act with at least some regard for the other person’s health than to engage in the same disordered act with no regard for the other person’s health. But is the pope saying we are called to engage in the disordered acts in the first place? I’d like to see anyone seriously claim he is.

Let’s get to the line that the media has fixated on: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…”

At this point, having seen the principle that the pope is getting at above, expressed again, that the use of a condom by a male prostitute is only the “first step” in the direction of moralization (again, the pope is careful not to call this choice even a “moral” one), an example of taking one responsibility (among the multiple irresponsibilities inherent in disordered sexual acts), but how does the rest of the sentence end? “…on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”

This pathway towards healing and purification that the pope describes is not one where every “stop” along this way is a good act. The serial fornicator who decides to only sleep with one girlfriend instead of multiple girlfriends every week is still committing a gravely sinful act, just with less partners. As Dr. Smith writes, [U]the bank robber who decides to rob a bank with an unloaded gun (lest he be tempted to shoot someone) is still robbing a bank. The heroin addict who decides to find a sterilized needle to inject himself is still killing himself, but may avoid additional infections that will hasten the (tragic) inevitable.

If you think there is a substantial difference between these analogies and the example the pope uses, there really isn’t. The pope introduced no new teaching, made no “real” news with his comments. He simply elucidated (as his private opinion) a position which many orthodox moral theologians have already come to academically. There will be no change in the Church’s policy, or even much in the way of personal moral and spiritual guidance, though hopefully this debate – rehashed now again – will cause more people to attempt to understand the fullness of what the pope is saying, beyond the misleading headlines.

Let me be double-thrice abundantly clear: the pope has not “softened” the Church’s teaching on condoms by talking about the hope we can have that someone’s decision to make a disordered act less immediately physically harmful to their sexual partner may be a first step towards someone’s eventual conversion.

"Damian Thompson is simply wrong when he writes: “Pope Benedict XVI is modifying the Catholic Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms”

BECAUSE:

a) Pope Benedict would not decide to “modify” the Church in an interview.

b) Popes never “modify” Church teaching, they formulate it, in an extremely precise manner

c) The book is careful to point out that it only represents the Pope’s private opinions.

d) The Pope explicitly repeats 100% of the Church’s traditional teaching on the question of condoms which undergirds the Church’s “absolute ban” on condoms being an authentic part of human sexuality or general pastoral prudence."

- taken from Condoms, Consistency, and the Vatican’s Crisis of (mis)Communication by Thomas Peters, American Papist Blog.

Maxxclip

November 23rd, 2010, 07:58 AM

b) Popes never “modify” Church teaching, they formulate it, in an extremely precise manner

i see (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%201:11-12&version=NIV)

Bricken Ridge

November 23rd, 2010, 10:11 AM

hahaha buking. banal na aso, santong kabayo.

When people talk extreme like this "dandelionne" guy, it can make anybody suspicious about his intent. Obviously we now know he is trying to cover up something about himself and that's exactly why his arguments are as solid as swiss cheese. Quite frankly, I don't think anybody cares.

BTW, excitement regarding the Pope's position on the condom use is premature since the comments he made on his book is quite ambiguous.

dandelionne

November 23rd, 2010, 10:18 AM

When people talk extreme like this "dandelionne" guy, it can make anybody suspicious about his intent. Obviously we now know he is trying to cover up something about himself. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone cares- and that's exactly why his arguments are as solid as swiss cheese.

Suspicious? How can that be when all I did was to DEFEND the Church against the vitriolatry hurled at her - vitriolatry BASED on assumptions and prejudices. Most of the posts here just throw insults and invectives on the Church. Naturally,someone has to stand up.

Hardly anyone counter arguments coherently,instead they go by their emotions to make a point. Your attack on me Bricken Ridge is an obvious failure to coherently counteract the topic at hand.

Bricken Ridge

November 23rd, 2010, 10:28 AM

Suspicious? How can that be when all I did was to DEFEND the vitriolatry hurled on the Church - vitriolatry BASED on assumptions and prejudices. Most of the posts here just throw insults and invectives on the Church. Naturally,someone has to stand up.

Hardly anyone counter arguments coherently,instead they go by their emotions to make a point. Your attack on me Bricken Ridge is an obvious failure to coherently counteract an argument.

You can bullspit people and make them look stupid but that won't fly with me. Nice try with your "emotions" argument. Try again.

dandelionne

November 23rd, 2010, 10:31 AM

You can bullspit people and make them look stupid but that won't fly with me. Nice try with your "emotions" argument. Try again.

My point exactly!

dandelionne

November 23rd, 2010, 10:34 AM

Analysis: What the Pope really said about condoms

By Alan Holdren, Rome Correspondent

Vatican City, Nov 22, 2010 / 02:14 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms in a new book-interview have whipped the media into a frenzy.

Many reports interpreted the words as a dramatic shift from Church teaching, but experts say that nothing has changed.

On the afternoon of Nov. 20, the Vatican's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano released a series of excerpts from the new book-interview called "Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times," by the German journalist Peter Seewald.

The newspaper, jumping the scheduled world release, chose to publish only two paragraphs of what is a more extensive response from the Pope to the question of whether the use of condoms could be justified to confront the problem of AIDS transmission.

This fragmented presentation did not give a full view of the Pope's words. But it said enough to lead some international media sources to conjecture that the pontiff had made a "U-turn" on Catholic teaching against contraception.

The actual text of the Pope’s remarks extends over two full pages. It begins with interviewer Peter Seewald asking the Pope about his statement to a reporter during his March 2009 trip to Africa that condoms are not a solution to the AIDS pandemic.

The Pope responds by reaffirming his answer. “People can get condoms when they want them anyway,” the Pope told Seewald. “But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen.”

Secular thinking about AIDS involves a “fixation on the condom” that implies a trivialization of sexuality, he said. As a result, sexuality is no longer seen as “an expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.”

The remark that caused such a stir follows this. The Pope mentioned a situation in which condom use could be positive but still an immoral act. He used the example of condom use by male prostitutes.

Pope Benedict said: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

Seewald followed this up with a question about whether the Church is “actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms.”

Pope Benedict responded, "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

These words — and extremely varied interpretations given to them by commentators — have sent shock waves out from Rome to the world.

But it is apparent that the Pope’s words have been misunderstood or worse, badly distorted. While he said clearly that the use of condoms "is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection," he conceded that they could be used "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

Unable to wait for further explanations, the Australian daily, The Age, reported: "Pope lifts ban on condoms." This became the common theme in the reporting.

However, the Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said Nov. 21 that "the reasoning of the Pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary turning point."

He said that, instead, it offers an "original contribution" and a "far-sighted vision" of taking small steps to "a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality."

Janet Smith, an ethicist at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, published a statement on the website of Ignatius Press, the English language publisher of Seewald's “Light of the World.”

She said the Pope "is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.

The Pope, she added, is not talking about morality, but the psychological state of those who make use of condoms. "If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

"The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDS. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves 'humanizing sexuality'.”

A former student of the Pope's, Father Joseph Fessio, editor-in-chief of Ignatius Press, said the Pope's comment on condoms is "very carefully qualified."

“It would be wrong to say, ‘Pope Approves Condoms'," Fr. Fessio said. "He’s saying it’s immoral, but in an individual case the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he’s got to be more conscious of his actions.’’

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, writing in “On the Square,” the blog for the magazine First Things, explained: “The Church holds that condom use is morally flawed by its nature, and that, equally important, condom use does not prevent AIDS and can actually enable its spread by creating a false sense of security.”

"In the context of the book's later discussion of contraception and Catholic teaching on sexuality, the Pope's comments are morally insightful,” Archbishop Chaput continued. “But taken out of context, they can easily be inferred as approving condoms under certain circumstances," he said.

Archbishop Chaput said the Pope’s aides should have been better prepared for the controversy over his remarks.

“One might reasonably expect the Holy Father's assistants to have an advance communications plan in place, and to involve bishops and Catholic media in a timely way to explain and defend the Holy Father's remarks,” he said. “Instead, the Vatican's own semi-official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, violated the book's publication embargo and released excerpts of the content early. Not surprisingly, news media instantly zeroed in on the issue of condoms, and the rest of this marvelous book already seems like an afterthought.”

Seewald himself is expected to explain his viewpoint and give more context from the interview in a press conference at the Vatican on Nov. 23.

Maxxclip

November 24th, 2010, 02:03 AM

as tension arises in North & South Korea...

Pro, anti RH bill swap insults: Satan, Damaso

MANILA, Philippines—Tension escalated between opponents and advocates of the reproductive health (RH) bill when Pro-Life Philippines tried to drive away rivals from an event at Manila Cathedral and called them “Satan.”

A member of Pro-Life Philippines even said that supporters of the RH measure “should have told your mothers to have aborted you.”

The confrontation took place on Saturday, when members of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) and the Filipino Free Thinkers (FFT) went to Manila Cathedral for a Mass and prayer service “for discernment” on the RH bill.

DSWP and FFT members were in white shirts with the word “Damaso” printed on the front, referring to the fictional friar who was a hated figure in the Jose Rizal novel “Noli Me Tangere.”

Tour guide and historian Carlos Celdran flashed the word “Damaso” on a placard when he disrupted an ecumenical service at Manila Cathedral on Sept. 30 to protest the Catholic Church’s opposition to the reproductive health bill.

Pro-Life Philippines and similar groups disapprove of the bill because they believe that it would promote the use of contraceptives that are considered to induce abortion.

Oxymoron

“You are not Catholics in the sense of real Catholics. You are dissident Catholics,” Manalang said.

Addressing Ferrer, Manalang said supporting the RH bill while calling oneself a Catholic was an “oxymoron.”

He said Pro-Life Philippines was angry because the presence of DSWP and FFT was an insult to the Church.

“We have all the right to be mad. You are insulting our mother Church. If your mother [was] insulted, you’ll get mad,” he said.

“Please get out. Get out now. Satan, get away from us!” he later added.

He also said “Damaso” was a fake, and that the members of the groups were fakes.

Macalintal

Lawyer Romulo Macalintal, who is with Pro-Life Philippines, told the protesters that the Mass was sponsored by his group, and that DSWP and FFT should have their own affair.

Macalintal tried to grab a camera that was filming the event.

Later, DSWP and FFT decided to leave the cathedral. As they were walking away, an unidentified man was heard shouting: “You tell your mother to abort you!”

Then a woman shouted: “You should have told your mothers to abort you!”

Beatriz Torre of FFT said the words of Pro-Life Philippines not only shocked, but also hurt her. “If you’re told to tell your mother to abort you, that’s hurtful to anybody of any faith,” Torre said.

Nenita Megano, who heads Samahan ng Kababaihan ng Laforteza in Camarin, Caloocan City, said that she remained staunchly Catholic even if she was using contraceptives.

Megano said she had resisted her brothers’ attempts at converting her to another religion, which was why it distressed her to be accused of not being a real Catholic.

She also said that using pills had helped her to stop the cycle of having a child practically every year in the 1980s since she had four children in nearly quick succession at the time.

Orderly discussion

Keng said supporters of the RH bill wanted an orderly discussion of the measure’s provisions, with the arguments backed by evidence.

But he also noted that the flyers distributed at Pro-Life Philippines’ events contained sweeping statements about contraceptives, such as the claim that they induce cancer.

In a statement, DSWP national chair Elizabeth Angsioco said the Church hierarchy and its allies were “acting out of desperation” because they were losing ground in the debate.

“We see blunders one after another. People are losing faith and leaving the Church. Instead of the arrogance, they should instead open their eyes to the realities. We need to pass the RH bill,” she said.

She said women need to be saved from deaths due to pregnancy and complications from childbirth.

Maxxclip

November 24th, 2010, 05:04 AM

Congress debates on reproductive health bill start
by Lira Dalangin-Fernandez

MANILA, Philippines—Debates on the controversial reproductive health bills begin Wednesday at the first hearing of the committee on population and family relations.

The committee, headed by Biliran Representative Rogelio Espina Jr., is expected to tackle six bills calling for a comprehensive reproductive health policy to address issues of booming population and maternal and child health and development.

Advocates of both the reproductive health bills and those opposing them trooped to the venue of the hearing as early as 9 a.m.

Anti-reproductive health groups from Pro-Life Philippines and the Apostolate for Family Consecration/Family Land Television Network wore pins with the words “I love life.”

Former Manila mayor Lito Atienza was also present to push for his pro-life advocacy. During his term, he banned the use of contraceptives in the city.

The six bills up for discussion are the following: HB00096 – An act providing for a national policy on reproductive health, responsible parenthood, and population and development by Albay Representative
Edcel Lagman; HB00101 – An act providing for a national policy on reproductive health and population and development by Iloilo Representative Jannete Garin; HB00513 – An act providing for a national policy on reproductive health and population and development by Akbayan party-list Representative Arlene Bag-ao;

HB01160 – An act providing for a national policy on reproductive health by Muntinlupa
Representative Rodolfo Biazon; HB01520 – An act to protect the right of the people to information about reproductive health care services by Iloilo Representative Augusto Syjuco; and HB03387 – An act providing for a national policy on reproductive health for women in development by Gabriela party-list Representatives Luz Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus.

GodIsNotGreat

November 24th, 2010, 04:45 PM

The number of people living in African cities will triple over the next 40 years and by 2050 60% of Africans will be city dwellers, a UN report has said.

In five years Lagos in Nigeria is set to overtake the Egyptian capital Cairo as Africa's biggest city.

UN-Habitat's Joan Clos said Africa needed to invest urgently in housing.

He told the BBC that sub-Saharan Africa could learn from North Africa as Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia had almost halved slum areas in the past 20 years.

Some 199.5 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live in slums, the highest number in the world, the UN said earlier this year.

According to UN-Habitat's State of African Cities 2010 report, urbanisation is happening faster in Africa than anywhere else in the world.
By 2030 the continent will no longer be predominately rural, it says.

Mr Clos, UN-Habitat's executive director, said that cities were attractive places for those wanting to relocate.

"People are looking for a better future and they think the city can offer that," he told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme.

Agricultural reform and poverty in rural areas were another reason for the trend, he said.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7962/50127328africacities464.gif (http://img413.imageshack.us/i/50127328africacities464.gif/)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11823146

GodIsNotGreat

November 24th, 2010, 04:59 PM

Africa has joined India and China as the third region of the world to reach a population of 1 billion people, and it is expected to double its numbers by 2050, the UN says. By then, there will be three times as many people living in Africa's cities, and the continent that had fewer than 500,000 urban dwellers in 1950 may have 1.3 billion.

The breakneck transformation of a rural population into a predominantly urban one is neither good nor bad on its own, says UN-Habitat, the Nairobi-based agency that monitors the world's built environment. But in a report it implored African countries to plan their cities better, to avoid mega-slums and vast areas of deprivation developing across the continent. "The pattern is ... oceans of poverty containing islands of wealth. Conditions in African cities are now the most unequal in the world. They are already inundated with slums and a tripling of urban populations could spell disaster, unless urgent action is initiated today. This situation threatens stability and also entire nations," it said.

Cairo is now Africa's largest urban area, with 11 million people, but the UN said that by 2015 it will have been overtaken by Lagos, with around 12.4 million inhabitants. By 2020 Kinshasa is expected to be the continent's second largest city and Luanda the fourth largest, projected to grow to more than 8 million by 2040.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4553/africanpopulation002.jpg (http://img13.imageshack.us/i/africanpopulation002.jpg/)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/24/africa-billion-population-un-report

Maxxclip

November 26th, 2010, 09:10 AM

Church vows to fight RH bill to bitter end

MANILA, Philippines—As debates began on a controversial bill that will allow the government to distribute condoms to Filipinos who wish to plan families, Archbishop Ramon Arguelles said the Philippine Catholic hierarchy would fight the measure to the bitter end.

“Yes, we will oppose it till the final moments because that is our moral duty. It is our duty to promote the teachings of God (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2046:5-7&version=NIV),” said Arguelles, vice chair of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ episcopal committee on family and life.

The reproductive health (RH) bill, the Lipa archbishop said, “is definitely against the teachings of God". (http://www.adoremus.org/0903StMichael.html) He said some features in the bill would lead to corruption and abortion.

“These are really evil provisions (http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#idol) because it takes away the life of the unborn and it’s also considered corruption because there’s money involved here,” Arguelles said a day after the House committee on population and family held its first hearing on the measure.

He was referring to the reports of intense lobbying of pharmaceutical firms selling artificial contraceptives for the approval of the bill as well as the promises of foreign aid to the country’s population program.

The Church is a staunch opponent of the bill, saying the use of artificial contraceptives indirectly promotes abortion.

----

Mmmm.. i see some contradiction

manila_eye

November 26th, 2010, 09:33 AM

Parang anlabo na ok lang mag condom ang hindi lang male to male sex, kundi para pa sa prostitution. That's two sins right there, according to the Catholic dogma. Tapos yun pa gagawing example.

Saka on another note, dapat HINDI mag-condom kapag nakikipagsex sa female prostitutes?

mwg12a

November 26th, 2010, 10:28 AM

Its not about commiting sins, these is that grey area where the Church and the civilian government has two different agendas and assumes two entirely different roles, however, it should complement one another.

Spiritual guidance is very important, it is equally as important for the government to protect it's own people if majority of these people ignores the teaching of their religions or churches. With or without distribution of condoms, the catholic church can't stop it's own people from having sex whether it maybe legitimate or illegitimate. Stoping the government in distributing condoms would not stop men having sex with a prostitute and the women would not be selling their bodies. This is what the church can't understand.

So, what do you think the government should do? Protect it's own people by making these contraceptives available to the public and ban prostitution. That doesn't mean that the government can stop the people for having sex, men and women can be discrete and the government nor the church people would know about it UNLESS, a new form of STDs surfaced all over the world. Atleast with condom, the people would be aware that if they use these, they have a better chance of protecting themselves.

When it comes to family planning, couples would have knowledge on options they can take so that they can plan their families and not have offsprings they can barely afford to feed and take care of. Without these, what should the church people do? Tell married couples not to have sex at all? Teach these couples a more religious way in engaging sex between married couples???

The Cebuano Exultor

November 26th, 2010, 05:31 PM

Linguine

November 27th, 2010, 02:03 AM

Gov’t pushes for increase use of contraceptive

The government is pushing for increased contraceptive use among Filipinos within the next five years to control population that is crucial in the country’s development, an official said on Friday.

Executive Director Tomas M. Osias of the Commission on Population (POPCOM) said in his speech at the 2010 National Population Congress that the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) among Filipinos needs to increase to 63% by 2015 to give the Philippines a "breather" as it strives to become a developed country. Latest data showed in 2008 that the country’s CPR was at 50.7%.

This comes as the agency spearheaded the celebration of the Population and Development Week, which is celebrated every Nov. 23-29. This year, the theme focused on the importance of birth spacing to fight poverty and push for development.

"President Benigno S. [C.] Aquino III gave the Department of Health (DOH) and [POPCOM], in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), a fresh mandate to continue the implementation of Responsible Parenthood classes to provide information on all types of medically safe and legally acceptable methods for family planning, including birth spacing," POPCOM said in a statement.

In line with fulfilling this mandate, Mr. Osias said the country’s population growth rate of 2.04% based on the 2007 census needs to decrease to 1.48% in five years, along with a 2.4% decline in the total fertility rate which was at 3.3% in 2008.

Mr. Osias said POPCOM is using the strategy of promoting responsible parenting and family planning in an effort to control population which is linked to the incidence of poverty.

"It has a big impact to the country’s development efforts," he said.

POPCOM also implements pre-marriage counseling programs which include livelihood trainings and micro-financing and sexual education for both adolescents and parents.

Gemma B. Gabuya, Assistant Director of the Social Technology Bureau of the DSWD, agreed with Mr. Osias, saying in behalf of Secretary Corazon J. Soliman that rapid population growth and poverty affect the country’s development.

Ms. Gabuya added that the agency’s P21 billion conditional cash transfer (CCT) program slated for implementation next year aims to promote responsible parenting and family planning through encouraging the parents to fulfill their duties in raising their children.

The CCT program is aimed at improving health and education among children as well as maternal health in the poor households in the poorest municipalities in the country. Cash grants are given to households which send their children to school regularly and give them health care, and to pregnant women who subject themselves to monthly checkups.

DOH Director Eduardo C. Janairo, who spoke in behalf Secretary Enrique T. Ona, added that responsible parenting and family planning is not just a population intervention but also a family health intervention. He added that the Health department is now looking at addressing infertility as a part of an expanded family planning program to help married couples who are having difficulties in reproduction. -- Jo Javan A. Cerda
|

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=21943

mwg12a

November 27th, 2010, 03:34 AM

^^ I mostly agree with what you said.

However, I do not believe a consensus can be be arrived by the Philippine Catholic Church and the national government simply because their goals and the underlying premises of both goals are far too divergent in nature.

And, since it's virtually impossible to arrive at a compromise position so as to appease both parties. One party has to backdown.

IMHO, this party should be the Catholic Church.

They are far too caught-up in their impractical and oppressive dogma that they can't see past that. By banning artificial contraceptive methods, their supposed moral high-ground with regards to attitude towards sexual intercourse has allowed economic and psycho-social suffering to persist in the country. This is because their "mandate-by-mouth" for couples to only practice abstinence defies the natural urges of humans as sentient erotic mammals. It is clear that this "mandate-by-mouth" is incapable of preventing couples from having sex since our total population is growing by 5,000 daily.

I mean, let's face it, a huge chunk of those 5,000 are unwanted births. CSo, abate this huge population bomb than artificial contraceptives

Nope, you're right, it would be nearly impossible for the government and the church to reach a unanimous decision and compromise because the Catholic Church is unwilling to listen or make their own researches based on science where they can use as another baseline in spreading their words to people.

I believe that the church should definitely backdown and let the government perform it's duty. First of all, the government is not encouraging unmarried couples to engage in any form of sexual acts, they are teaching the people that there are options to prevent any repecussions on whatever decisions they should make, there is no legalization of prostitution and abortion in what the government is offering, but rather, a more informed and smart decisions. The church can continue preaching the words of God in the process, they are not being stopped in doing these. The catholic christians knew what is considered sin based on moral and spiritual issues yet, inspite of all these teachings, it never stop anybody from commiting a sin or to have sex, but it does not stop from there? What about married couples? I don't think they God would punish them if they have sex with their own spouses strictly. What about these people? Just because they didn't want to have anymore children they can not afford, they should also be stoped in expressing their affections towards one another? I just can't believe that the Catholic Church is still unwilling to sit down with the politicians and perhaps medical practitioners so they can identify what is abortive and what is not.

mwg12a

November 27th, 2010, 03:51 AM

Suspicious? How can that be when all I did was to DEFEND the Church against the vitriolatry hurled at her - vitriolatry BASED on assumptions and prejudices. Most of the posts here just throw insults and invectives on the Church. Naturally,someone has to stand up.

Hardly anyone counter arguments coherently,instead they go by their emotions to make a point. Your attack on me Bricken Ridge is an obvious failure to coherently counteract the topic at hand.

What insults and invectives? As far as I cam concern, it's an intelligent discussion. The problem is, you take those discussion as such when it is not. And what's based on assumptions and prejudices? Expressing to you how and when a life is formed? Science proved those facts long long time ago. Those facts where even the vatican covered up for those priests who commited crimes on minor? Those are know fact, they are not made up.

You are definitely guilty of using your emotions to make your points. I don't think brick ridge attacked you. He did expressed his doubts on you but I don't see that as an attack, you are taking it that way. The way you start accusing me and insulted my knowledged based on my own professional judgement on the medical/science matter. And you have the nerve to accuse all of us of attacking you?? I have never said anything once about you, its always been about the topic yet you hurled those invectives and insult yourself, now you're crying foul when you can't help yourself but commit the same act?

Maxxclip

November 27th, 2010, 04:18 AM

Pacquiao to oppose passage of RH bill

GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Philippines—The country's poverty and underdevelopment are not caused by overpopulation but by corrupt officials, world boxing wonder and Sarangani Representative Manny Pacquiao said.

Pacquiao has served notice that he would vigorously oppose the passage of the Reproductive Health bill in the Lower House.

He said government officials should stop blaming the growing population for the country’s economic woes and strive to change the situation by serving with honesty and sincerity.

“We have an annual budget and a certain amount is set aside for various projects. The problem is corruption,” Pacquiao said, adding that money intended for certain projects is being pocketed by corrupt government officials.

“I don't believe that we are poor because there are more people. The problem is corruption (http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=120152&hilit=),” he said.

He cited as an example China, which accounts for a third of the world's population but is fast growing economically.

He suggested that instead of curbing the population, Filipinos should work hand in hand to address and fight corruption in the bureaucracy.

Pacquiao also said politicians should strive to change their image.

“You see, in our country, almost everyone believes that politics is synonymous to corruption,” he explained.

Pacquiao's mother, Dionisia, meanwhile, said she was also against the passage of the RH bill.

“Why control procreation? God told us to go to the world and multiply,” she said in Filipino.

Dionisia said she believes that couples should be given the freedom to decide on the size of the family they want.

She said this could be done through natural methods.

mwg12a

November 27th, 2010, 04:25 AM

Why can't the government do both? Fight corruption and slow down the rate of increase in population? Both are very helpful tool in improving the people's lives. One way or another, in the near future, the population will be an issue. Why not tackle now? After all, RH Bill is not just about slowing down the population growth but educating the people to have a better way of managing their own families and to plan ahead.

Parchie

November 27th, 2010, 08:09 AM

Why can't the government do both? Fight corruption and slow down the rate of increase in population?

I can see why the government can't fight corruption, which you probably missed, IMO!
Somebody said politics is "synonymous to corruption", and government is run by politicians; ergo, government is synonymous to corruption. If that early statement is true, then government can't fight corruption since they will be shooting their own feet in the process, right?
So, government will try to tackle the other side of the problem which they will not be hit - population control! It's going to be the poor who will be sacrificed so that they can go on with sucking the coffers dry. The government has been pushing for this so-called RH (reproductive health) bill for a long time now. The title misleads people as it looks geared towards "health" but in reality a "population control" thing. If all could read the provisions, perhaps this debates could be decided faster. Sans the coatings and the toppings, government is trying to redo (with much spending), what is already being done by the people - planning for each and everyone's family! And to top it all, the reasons for implementing this RH thing is that there's lots of money in it - they can get their hands on these. . . again! There you go!

Linguine

November 27th, 2010, 09:47 AM

DOH insists on P880-M budget for family planning program
By Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) Updated November 27, 2010 12:00 AM Comments (12) View comments

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Health (DOH) yesterday insisted on its P880-million budget for the government’s family planning program and purchase of contraceptives next year.

Health officials led by Secretary Enrique Ona defended the outlay before the Senate during the hearing on the DOH’s P32.627-billion budget for next year.

Ona made the pitch for the budget by citing the statements of Pope Benedict XVI favoring the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Ona took the stand to defend the budget through Sen. Franklin Drilon, chairman of the Senate committee on finance.

“The radical position of the Pope will go a long way in improving (the government’s capability in combating AIDS),” Drilon said, echoing Ona as the DOH budget was being heard before the plenary.

Sen. Loren Legarda questioned how DOH could attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) vis-a-vis Disaster Risk Reduction programs, and on issues concerning maternal deaths and birthing facilities.

Sen. Vicente Sotto III also questioned the P880-million family planning program. “Spending P880 million in people’s money...if you want to use contraceptives, then buy it. Why do you need to ask from the government?” Sotto asked.

Sotto made it clear that he is against promoting the use of contraceptives. “Except for condoms, all the contraceptives, in my opinion and many other Filipinos, these all violate the provision in the Constitution which recognizes the sanctity of life...and shall protect and strengthen the family,” Sotto said.

Drilon, however, expressed optimism when asked if the budget for contraceptives and family planning will no longer be a contentious issue during the budget hearings.

Maxxclip

November 27th, 2010, 01:58 PM

I can see why the government can't fight corruption, which you probably missed, IMO!
Somebody said politics is "synonymous to corruption", and government is run by politicians; ergo, government is synonymous to corruption. If that early statement is true, then government can't fight corruption since they will be shooting their own feet in the process, right?
So, government will try to tackle the other side of the problem which they will not be hit - population control! It's going to be the poor who will be sacrificed so that they can go on with sucking the coffers dry. The government has been pushing for this so-called RH (reproductive health) bill for a long time now. The title misleads people as it looks geared towards "health" but in reality a "population control" thing. If all could read the provisions, perhaps this debates could be decided faster. Sans the coatings and the toppings, government is trying to redo (with much spending), what is already being done by the people - planning for each and everyone's family! And to top it all, the reasons for implementing this RH thing is that there's lots of money in it - they can get their hands on these. . . again! There you go!

^^
there will be no cure, during my college days my professor told us that 'how can you cure corruption if the people itself(majority) are corrupt!

jpdm

November 27th, 2010, 03:05 PM

dandelionne

November 27th, 2010, 03:16 PM

What insults and invectives? As far as I cam concern, it's an intelligent discussion.

A Classic example on this quotes:

Evidence A.

The current Pope made a very unintelligent comment about condom use and AIDS:

He also made another stupid remark about homosexuality:

It is astonishing that in this day and age, people defer to the Vatican and the Catholic church on matters of great import, when this institution has shown itself to be archaic, misogynist, irrelevant and morally bankrupt.

MISOGYNIST? How can you call the Church such when she is protesting the deliberate killing of 22.5 million girls? It is an astonishing reflection on the failure of Church critics to educate themselves, that, regarding the issues of abortion and artificial contraception, the Church's teaching earns the label “misogynist.” The Catholic Church remains today one of the few institutions…whose policies…sanction for the discrimination against and oppression of women. “Pro-women” groups like Planned Parenthood promote an agenda that not only fails to help women, but deeply scars them emotionally, physically, and spiritually. The Church has long pointed out that an abortion claims two victims: mother and child. Post-abortion syndrome is rampant and strikes numerous women, causing physical and emotional pain. Dr. Anne Speckard found that up to 81% of women who receive an abortion experience “preoccupation with the aborted child,” while 65% consider suicide, along with countless other severe physical and emotional traumas (‘Symptoms of Post Abortion Syndrome”).

Evidence B

incests......yuck.......a great catholic country, somebody has to tell these fathers that this is wrong and reprehensable since the bishops are busy doing something else.

The problem is, you take those discussion as such when it is not. And what's based on assumptions and prejudices? Those facts where even the vatican covered up for those priests who commited crimes on minor? Those are know fact, they are not made up.

"vatican covered up for those priests who commited crimes on minor?" Isn't that in itself an assumption? Can you provide facts for your assumptions?

A study by the Washington Post revealed that less than 1.5 percent of priests over the past 40 years have been accused of sexually molesting a minor. The New York Times did a study as well, covering the years 1950 to 2001: it put the figure at 1.8 percent. Currently, less than one percent of priests in the U.S. are under investigation. While one priest would be too many, it is important to remember that scholars who have studied this issue (Penn State’s Philip Jenkins comes quickly to mind) have determined that the incidence of abuse by priests does not differ from that of the clergy of other religions, and may even be lower. The overwhelming majority of those abused are postpubescent males—they are not children.

WHILE

It was reported in 1991 that 17.7 percent of males who graduated from high school, and 82.2 percent of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher.(Daniel Wishnietsky, “Reported and Unreported Teacher-Student Sexual Harassment,”)

17.7 & 82.2 percent compared to less than 1.5 percent? What aghasts me is that the big news corporation like CNN would not make a big deal on this but when the Catholic Church is involved over slight misdemeanors of some of her members,they would magnify such issues.

Another hypocritical element in this is the failure of the media to discuss why mandatory sexual abuse reporting bills are being held up in the states. It is not the fault of the bishops. It is the fault of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Planned Parenthood (a Pro-abortion group) staffers find out about cases of statutory rape on a regular basis, yet they report almost none of them. The Catholic League know this to be true because a sting operation conducted by a pro-life group recently reported as much. The lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood, Family Planning Advocates, has been trying to ward off any bill that would blanket all professionals equally. What they want to do is keep the exemption for abortion providers while ending the exemption for the clergy. And their friends in the ACLU are working with them, providing legal cover.

dandelionne

November 27th, 2010, 03:34 PM

If you want to go into details of human evolution, creation of life through a medical health professional's point of view, there are several of us here including those in nursing field. We all can provide information to you and perhaps we can open a separate thread for this discussion. So, if you are questioning my knowledge and assessment in this are, I can guarantee you I do have the title and the license to back up my claims along with hundreds of books and articles that have links online.

Well, if you need a Physician,(in all modesty) inform me.

I can guarantee you I do have the title and the license to back up my claims along with hundreds of books and articles that have links online.

Well provide me one please. When I was a medical student, this is what we have been taught:

The developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994), discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down’s Syndrome, stated:

"…each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception … As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered … a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again … [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a ‘population’ or loose ‘collection’ of cells, but a very specialized individual …" (Lejeune J. A symphony of the preborn child: part 2. Hagerstown, MD: NAACP; 1989.).

Dr. Kischer, emeritus professor of Anatomy at the University of Arizona, writes,

"…the first thing learned in human embryology [is] that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)" (Kischer CW. Let’s be factual about the human embryo. http://www.all.org/abac/ab020128.htm). He continues, "we should respect a microscopic human embryo because at that time it is an integrated whole organism, just as the human is at every moment in time until death. Every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it is formed as a new individual human life within the continuum of life …" To deny this, Kischer says, is "a trivialization and corruption of the science of human embryology."

And textbooks after textbooks of human embryology agree. The embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., by Moore et al., 1998, notes that so-called emergency contraceptive pills (i.e., "morning-after pills") “prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills … Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term ‘abortion’ could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy." It further states, "The intricate process by which a baby develops from a single cell is miraculous … A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." Bruce Carlson’s 1994 textbook Human Embryology and Developmental Biology states, "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and sperm … Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus.”

The bottom line is that in terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.

In the Hippocratic Oath,an oath proclaimed by physicians, which states, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art."

dandelionne

November 27th, 2010, 03:50 PM

Those facts where even the vatican covered up for those priests who commited crimes on minor? Those are know fact, they are not made up.

It's all so predictable. Bad news about the Catholic Church is front-page news, but good news goes largely ignored. To those who say it's no different with any other group, consider this. The AP reports that a rabbi accused of raping a 7-year-old girl in New York a decade ago was arrested outside his Arizona synagogue (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rabbi_arrested_new_arizona_for_decade_BDjfxgmEgaD1KfE0x19JIP). Aside from a very brief article in the New York Daily News, not a single newspaper in New York or Arizona—or anywhere else—bothered to print it.

OtAkAw

November 27th, 2010, 06:12 PM

Openeconomy

November 28th, 2010, 03:31 AM

I have learned a lot from our discussions here, here are my truths.

1. population control is legal in the philippines but only the rich can avail of it.
2. the church at least in the united states and in ireland cover up crimes.
3. another way to decrease a countries population is to grow its economy but with the philippines close economy system ( its in the constitution) , the economy will grow but never enough.

Im for population control but I also realized because of those that are posting here that are againts this that.

1. it will be a source for corruption.
2. undermining the catholic church, {im not catholic}is the wrong way to do this, since it is the only institution that binds our country together without it, Their will no sense of hope.

3. instead of being angry with the church, it should be pointed out that their are politicians that really believe that population growth is better, golez, enrile, escudero, villar, garcia of cebu etc....these are the people that should be convinced that we are right, since they dont really live with a dogma, the catholic church will not change. these politiciians must know that if they bloc this law they will loose a lot of votes and those that support this law deserve our support.
the catholic church also has the right to defend what they believe. its so easy to criticize the church openly regarding this issue try doing that to enrile.

GodIsNotGreat

November 28th, 2010, 05:16 AM

Pacquiao to oppose passage of RH bill

Pambansang Kamao against RH Bill!

This is gonna be interesting. The whole country has exulted in the stunning successes of Manny. He has brought the country immense pride and joy. It may not be an overstatement to make the claim that he is the greatest Filipino sportsman of the last 30 years. Now as a legislator he has made known his stand on the RH Bill. I doubt if he is going to influence some of his fellow legislators in their stance on the Bill. As a neophyte congressman he may have negligible power to sway the votes of most of his fellow congressmen. But knowing the kind of political culture that pervades our country, we can never be sure that this is going to be so.

On the other hand lay and grassroots organizations may take this as a boost for their position. Surely his popularity will give them some tailwind. The Catholic Church may try to use him in some way, perhaps as a spokesperson. This will happen only if he is going to metamorphose into an articulate and media-savvy speaker. I think that this is a daunting challenge for him. It may turn out comical altogether.

____________________________________

The words of a loving and caring god.

Hosea 13 Verse 16. The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

1 Samuel 15 Verse 3. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

dandelionne

November 28th, 2010, 02:40 PM

____________________________________

The words of a loving and caring god.

Hosea 13 Verse 16. The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

1 Samuel 15 Verse 3. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

How pathetic for someone who rejects the existence of a Supreme Being to cherry pick verses from scriptures to suit their justification akin to a traditional quack healer giving "medical" advice he is not even qualified to give. The interpretation of God's will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had been. God wished to demand back the lives of those innocents AS A LESSON AND A WARNING TO FUTURE GENERATIONS, and it is His moral and legal right to do so.

dandelionne

November 28th, 2010, 02:46 PM

We went to the mall earlier and there were about 5 homeless street children with rag clothes and no footwear trying to enter the mall. Of course the guards wouldn't let them in. I couldn't help but think of these children as victims of the Catholic Church's meddling with the affairs of the state in as far as population control is concerned.

‎"The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not" - G.K. Chesterton, Introduction to A Christmas Carol

Andyan na sila eh, wala na tayo magagawa, buhay na tao na yung limang yun. But in the first place if their parents have been given access to reproductive health measures, wala sanang limang naghihikahos na batang lansangan na magpupumilit makapasok sa mall, wala sanang limang batang sa palimos-limos lamang nakakaraos.

‎"He (the Birth-Controller) always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it produces so many children. The question he dreads is “Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?” His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house, but a smaller family." - G. K. Chesterton

mwg12a

November 28th, 2010, 10:59 PM

A Classic example on this quotes:

Evidence A.

"vatican covered up for those priests who commited crimes on minor?" Isn't that in itself an assumption? Can you provide facts for your assumptions?

A study by the Washington Post revealed that less than 1.5 percent of priests over the past 40 years have been accused of sexually molesting a minor. The New York Times did a study as well, covering the years 1950 to 2001: it put the figure at 1.8 percent. Currently, less than one percent of priests in the U.S. are under investigation. While one priest would be too many, it is important to remember that scholars who have studied this issue (Penn State’s Philip Jenkins comes quickly to mind) have determined that the incidence of abuse by priests does not differ from that of the clergy of other religions, and may even be lower. The overwhelming majority of those abused are postpubescent males—they are not children.

.

Assumptions? Doesn't it that the Pope had an audience from the victims itself and he didn't have a good answer for them.

No one stated that the incident is far more than what the media had reported. The main point is that THOSE who commit crimes where only given minor punishments but were let out to continue working in another parish church and free to have direct contacts with children?? What are you talking about???? All these reports were concealed by the church and has reached Vatican but nothing is done. The prepetrators were not turned in to the police. They roamed around freely for years..

Although, I forgot about about how @Godisnotgreat post are mostly invectives. I was refering to mostly me and the rest who has not attacked you outright. In my case, I shared my opinion but you insulted me right away about my faith. How does that make you different from GodisNotGreat???

It's all so predictable. Bad news about the Catholic Church is front-page news, but good news goes largely ignored. To those who say it's no different with any other group, consider this. The AP reports that a rabbi accused of raping a 7-year-old girl in New York a decade ago was arrested outside his Arizona synagogue (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rabbi_arrested_new_arizona_for_decade_BDjfxgmEgaD1KfE0x19JIP). Aside from a very brief article in the New York Daily News, not a single newspaper in New York or Arizona—or anywhere else—bothered to print it.

It wasn't just the catholic church, there were also cases in Baptist church in the US. Still the point there is that the catholic church didn't turn the accused priest to the authorities to undergo trial in court, instead, they were reassigned to another parish church only to end up commiting the same crimes to other minors.

mwg12a

November 28th, 2010, 11:26 PM

Well, if you need a Physician,(in all modesty) inform me.

If you need a duly licensed psychiatrist, I have several of those who can help you even there in the Philippines. Just let me know your name and contact number. I can help you with these'

Well provide me one please. When I was a medical student, this is what we have been taught:

The developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994), discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down’s Syndrome, stated:

"…each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception … As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered … a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again … [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a ‘population’ or loose ‘collection’ of cells, but a very specialized individual …" (Lejeune J. A symphony of the preborn child: part 2. Hagerstown, MD: NAACP; 1989.).

Are you kidding me? You gave me an example on "down syndrome" ???? We are not talking about abortion of the fetus here Einstein....

You don't sound like a medical practitioner to me at all because you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the simple conception. I do have a degree and license in this field, I work closely with other MDs and pyschiatrist, infact I knew a good psychiatrist in UP PGH campus, I can recomend you there. I am hospital base even nurses knew these basic facts. Don't you think I would know the basic anatomy and physiology?

Techinically, the example above is correct. It goes to show that once the sperm cell reaches the ovum, a life is being formed. But in cases of condom. The sperm cell never reached the egg cell. That is no rocket science and this is what the church people can't see. As far as vasectomy is concern, all chromosomes or the sperm is obstructed down the spermatic cord, preventing it to mix with the semen that act as lubricant and protector of the sperm cell as it travels down IF infact, the sperm is ejaculated outside into the uterus and ovary. So, a semen without sperm cells are INcapable of fertilization. There is the discrepancy. Nobody is talking about killing a fertilized egg. RH Bill or the government just requires distribution of condom. And As the RH Bill is approved, it means there is an access to vasectomy and tubal ligation as well. Now, the morning after pills would be in question because it is given to those who had intercourse or victims of rape almost immediately that if this morning pills is not given a few hours to a day to a female victim, morning after pills are almost useless because once the egg is fertilized, the morning after pills can't reverse these, pregnancy would take place. DO YOU EVEN KNOW THESE? Mister former medical student???

Dr. Kischer, emeritus professor of Anatomy at the University of Arizona, writes,

"…the first thing learned in human embryology [is] that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)" (Kischer CW. Let’s be factual about the human embryo. http://www.all.org/abac/ab020128.htm). He continues, "we should respect a microscopic human embryo because at that time it is an integrated whole organism, just as the human is at every moment in time until death. Every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it is formed as a new individual human life within the continuum of life …" To deny this, Kischer says, is "a trivialization and corruption of the science of human embryology."

Again, whe did fertilization takes place? upon union of sperm and eggcell, without these, there is no mutation on the xx and yy chromosomes. There is not implantation of that genes in the eggcell that would create life. DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU POSTED? You're pathetic!!!

And textbooks after textbooks of human embryology agree. The embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., by Moore et al., 1998, notes that so-called emergency contraceptive pills (i.e., "morning-after pills") “prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills … Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term ‘abortion’ could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy." It further states, "The intricate process by which a baby develops from a single cell is miraculous … A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." Bruce Carlson’s 1994 textbook Human Embryology and Developmental Biology states, "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and sperm … Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus.”

The bottom line is that in terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.

In the Hippocratic Oath,an oath proclaimed by physicians, which states, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art."

Where in the RH bill discussed anything about morning after-pills? Is that even available there in the Philippines? Do a research on that one. And do research on morning after pills and how it acts on a woman's body. Know hoe many days before spermcells are fully implanted in an eggcells.

And even if there is a morning after pills available there in the Philippines. What about young women who are minors that started their period at 9 y/o who was raped either by strangers or a family member. Wouldn't these put the life of a minor in danger because their body is not ready to bear a child. What? Wait for this children to die?? Where is the justice for these poor little girls from the Catholic Church if they don't relax some of it's stance on how the government can better serve it's people in the areas of health atleast???

jpdm

November 29th, 2010, 12:55 AM

How pathetic for someone who rejects the existence of a Supreme Being to cherry pick verses from scriptures to suit their justification akin to a traditional quack healer giving "medical" advice he is not even qualified to give. The interpretation of God's will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had been. God wished to demand back the lives of those innocents AS A LESSON AND A WARNING TO FUTURE GENERATIONS, and it is His moral and legal right to do so.

Tama ka rito sir.

Maxxclip

November 29th, 2010, 02:17 AM

Giving up the demographic advantage
by Jose Sison

The proponents and supporters of the RH bill repeatedly point out and continue to harp on our alleged overpopulation problem as the main reason why the bill should be enacted into law. They cite the fact that our population continues to increase as there are now 90 million Filipinos and still counting, so that by 2025 they project that there will be 120 million Filipinos already. But is there really a population explosion in the Philippines?

To answer this question (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=634471&publicationSubCategoryId=64), our Congressmen and Senators, and even the President should not just rely on the current state of our population as commonly perceived. They should examine the facts and figures compiled by the National Statistics Office (NSO) on our population growth rate over the decades. Statistics show that over the past 50 years starting 1960 up to the present, there is a continuing decline in the growth rate of our population. From 3.01% in 1960-70, it became 2.75% in 1970-80, then 2.35% in 1980-90, 2.34% in 1990-2000, 2.04% in 2000-2007 and 1.95% in 2005-2010. This record of decline over the past 50 years is the best and most reliable proof that there is no population explosion in our country and that the population growth rate will continue to decline in the decades to come.

Of course our population is still increasing because we have not yet reached zero or negative growth rate. But it is not high anymore at 1.95% as to cause alarm that the RH bill supporters and proponents are raising. For a clearer perspective of our present population growth and the inevitable consequences if the RH bill is passed, let me quote again from the article, “RH bill Revisited” of ex-Senator Tatad. He said:

“This growth rate is not high, but the real numbers continue to grow because people finally ‘stopped dying like flies’. The average worker in the Philippines is much younger than his counterpart in most of the world, giving us a long term edge that has been lost forever in so many countries. Population controllers and their propagandists, however, continue to alarm us about our supposedly ‘exploding’ numbers, without looking at the age structure, which puts us above most everybody else, when the world’s most serious problem is irreversible ageing, ‘de-fertilization’, ‘depopulation’ and ‘dechristianization’ now changing the face of Europe.

Writing in the November/December 2010 issue of the prestigious US quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Eberstadt, one of the world’s most respected demographers, reports that ‘almost all of the world’s developed countries have sub-replacement fertility, with overall birth rates more than 20 percent below the level required for long term population stability. But developed countries account for less than a fifth of the world’s population; the great majority of the world’s population with sub-replacement fertility in fact reside in the low income societies…Between now and 2020, the global supply of potential workers is set to grow more slowly than in the previous two decades. According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, the absolute increase in the world’s working age population(15- 64) between 2010 and 2030 will be around 900 million, 400 million fewer than over the past two decades. The projected average rate of global manpower growth for the coming decades is 0.9 per year, only half the rate for the period between 1990 and 2010…It is not alarmist to warn that there is no time to lose in recognizing — and adopting to — the enormity of the world’s unavoidable demographic challenges.

Our situation in the Philippines is tragic and perverse. We are being asked to renounce our enormous natural demographic advantage as a great liability and to embrace the costly and ruinous population policies of the West that have long failed”.

So only the proponents and supporters of the RH bill say that the Philippine population is growing too fast. Statistics say otherwise. Raising the alarm of overpopulation all the more proves that the bill’s real and ultimate objective is population control. They are just hiding this real objective by adopting the western sponsored family planning programs supposedly in the exercise of “responsible parenthood” by the couple, and in promoting “reproductive health” of women by giving them the right to an “informed choice” between the method of using contraceptive and the natural family planning. The objective here is to reduce the size of the population in developing countries like the Philippines considering the overall effects of population growth in developing countries on the economic and security interest of the U.S. (1974 Kissinger report or the National Social Security Memorandum, NSSM 200).

In this connection, let me share another interesting angle on this western population policy written by a Canadian analyst Abid Ullah Jan (http://albalagh.net.population/brutal.shtml). He says that it is the “most populous nations who will dominate the world in the next century” particularly “23 countries with the largest populations’ that includes the Philippines. This is what was written about the Philippines:

“Fully 71 percent of the males in the Philippines between the age of 15 and 49 are fit for combat with over 700,000 more expected to join their number annually. It explains the eagerness of western countries to encourage births at home, while demanding at the very same time to take outrageous steps to prevent fertility in developing world to avoid a shift in the balance of power at some time in the future. This also explains the otherwise inexplicably cruel programs of structural adjustment, the conversion of agriculture to export production, and other policies that impoverish the developing nations. The ‘overpopulation’ propaganda may be simple. And it may have been freely circulated around the world for so long that it has come to be taken for granted. Its contradictions are not invisible. And suspicions of evil motivation do not die. Rather they grow in proportion to the pressures from overseas”.

-----

from amaron's comment
our population is one of our greatest assets and at the same time one of our liabilities

GodIsNotGreat

November 29th, 2010, 03:22 AM

The human population took roughly 250,000 years to reach 1 billion (in about 1800). More than a century passed before it reached 2 billion (in 1927). But the next billion took only 33 years (1927-60). The one after that, a mere 14 years. The following two stages, to 5 billion and then 6 billion, took 13 and 12 years, respectively.

Yet the era of shortening time lapses is already over, even though the absolute size of the population is still rising. To understand how this can be, remember that momentum matters hugely in demography. Large families in an earlier generation mean that there will be more mothers in the current one and therefore more children, even if families are smaller and the underlying impetus towards growth has dropped. It takes another generation before the effect of smaller families—that is, of lower fertility—starts to show up in the overall population figures.

The world is just reaching that point. The total size of the population has gone on rising because it still reflects the momentum of the 1960s and 1970s. This was the period of the baby-boom in America and Europe and of very high birth rates in developing countries. But the momentum is shifting.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5238/spirallingup.gif (http://img827.imageshack.us/i/spirallingup.gif/)

http://www.economist.com/node/17492964?story_id=17492964
______________________________

Exodus 21 Verses 20-21. “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished; but he is not to be punished if he gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

(It’s okay to keep a slave. If you beat a slave with a rod and he/she survives, that’s okay as well.)

Proverbs 3 Verse 5. “Trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding.”

(So much for reason and logic)

mwg12a

November 29th, 2010, 04:35 AM

@ dandelion. If you are in the medical health profession, you would know alot about morning after pills. Obviously, you don't. So, you can shut your friggin mouth as you are making yourself look like a fool. Don't pass as someone who works in the medical field when you are not.

Here is something to read about morning after pills which as far as I know, is not yet included in the Philippines' proposal for RH Bill.

The idea of emergency contraception —-or a morning-after pill—- is based on a theory. Under this theory, if a woman has unprotected sexual intercourse (without use of contraception, contraception failure or cases of rape) and fears she may become pregnant, she can take large doses of birth control pills to prevent a pregnancy.

Emergency contraception, essentially, is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended for use after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing pregnancy.

There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. Again, these are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill.

Two of the most commonly used emergency contraceptive pills are Preven and Plan B.

Generic Name Brand Name
estrogen and progestin Alesse, Aviane, Levlen, Levlite, Levora, Lo-Ovral, Low-Ogestrel, Nordette, Ogestrel, Ovral, Tri-Levlen, Triphasil, Trivora

Levonorgestrel, such as Plan B or Next Choice, is specially packaged for emergency contraception. You can buy this medicine in most drugstores.

If you are 17 or older, you can get emergency contraception from a pharmacist, without a prescription. Bring proof of your age.
If you are younger than 17, you can get emergency contraception with a prescription from a doctor.
Emergency contraception is used after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy from starting. It is most effective when it is used as soon as possible after intercourse. It is not necessary to take a pregnancy test before using emergency contraception.

How to take emergency contraception
Birth control experts recommend having emergency contraception pills, or a prescription for them, on hand in case you ever need them.1 Emergency contraception is most effective when used as soon as possible after unprotected sex. Your risk of becoming pregnant increases as time passes.

For the emergency contraception option that contains 2 pills, you can take both pills at the same time. Or you can take 1 pill right away and the second pill 12 hours later.

There is also a one-pill emergency contraception option that lets you take the dose you need in just 1 pill.

For most regular birth control pills, you take one dose of 2 to 5 pills as soon as you can. Then you take a second dose 12 hours later. The dose depends on the type of pill.

You can take emergency contraception up to 5 days after unprotected sex. But it works best if you take it right away or within 48 hours.

Intrauterine device (IUD)

As another option, a copper-bearing intrauterine device (IUD) can be inserted within 5 to 7 days after unprotected sex.

Generic Name
Copper T 380-A (intrauterine device)

How It Works
Emergency contraception pills work by preventing ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.

Emergency contraception hormones may prevent fertilization by stopping the ovary from releasing an egg (ovum). They also make the fallopian tubes less likely to move an egg toward the uterus. Emergency contraception is also thought to thin the lining of the uterus, or endometrium. The thickened endometrium is where a fertilized egg would normally implant and grow.

A copper IUD makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluids that kill sperm and prevent fertilization. These fluids contain white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.2 As emergency contraception, a copper IUD also prevents an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.1

Emergency contraception does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

http://www.morningafterpill.org/

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/emergency-contraception-16010

Maxxclip

November 30th, 2010, 04:33 AM

a very interesting article...

Japan can, why can’t PH?
by Fr. Cecilio Magsino

THE INQUIRER’S November 19 issue carried an article quoting Malcolm Potts, an American population expert, as saying we can end up being like Somalia if our population reaches 160 million in 40 years’ time. “Unless the RH bill goes through and unless you are able to offer the poorest economic quintile the choices that they deserve, then people will be poorer. You will be importing food, you will be more like Somalia than Thailand,” he said.

I think comparing the Philippines to Somalia is a bit too much. We will become like Somalia
if we thought like them and acted like them. Culturally, historically, geographically, psychologically, politically, sociologically and religiously we are very different. And I think our country is more orderly and peaceful compared to Somalia, with all due respect to that country. It is just highly improbable that the Philippines will be like Somalia, economically speaking.

Again, here is a person blaming poverty on population growth. If population growth is the main factor for poverty and for becoming like Somalia, why does he not tell other countries whose populations are also growing that they may end up like Somalia?

I’d like to offer a different perspective. Nearer to home is a country that was once poor like us. It is an archipelago like ours. Its land area is comparable to ours. It has less arable land. It has much less forested area than us. Its citizens are Asians like us. They were also once divided politically. Their present population is 30 million more than the Philippines, and yet their GDP per capita is 30 times greater than of the Philippines! I’m talking about Japan.

Why not think: in 20 years’ time, when we reach the present population of Japan, we can be 30 times richer! If Japan can do it, why can’t we?

--------------------------

as he mentioned above... because

Culturally, historically, geographically, psychologically, politically, sociologically and religiously we are very different

from them too

Maxxclip

November 30th, 2010, 08:14 AM

Pulse Asia: 69% of Filipinos agree with RH bill

A considerable majority of Filipinos, 69 percent, agree with the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill pending in Congress, said pollster Pulse Asia.

The Pulse Asia survey conducted in October, showed that:

69 percent of those surveyed agree with the RH bill
7 percent opposed the bill
24 percent could not say if they agree or disagree with the bill

Measuring the people's awareness about the bill, Pulse Asia said eight out of 10 Filipinos (80 percent) knew about the RH Bill currently pending in Congress.

In Metro Manila, 90 percent of the respondents were aware of the bill.
http://blogs.gmanews.tv/yourvox/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pulseasia_1.jpg

The level of awareness measured by the survey was higher in the best-off Class ABC than in the poorer Class E.

Two out of 10 Filipinos only learned about the bill while being interviewed for the survey.

Opposing the RH bill

Those who disagreed with the RH bill were asked about their opinions on the provisions of the bill.

The majority of those who disagreed accepted the following provisions of the RH bill:

recognizing the rights of women and couples to choose the family planning method that they want on the basis of their needs and personal and religious beliefs (79%)
promoting information about and access to natural and modern family planning methods (70%)
stipulating the use of government funds to support modern family planning methods (55%)

http://blogs.gmanews.tv/yourvox/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pulseasia_2.jpg http://blogs.gmanews.tv/yourvox/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pulseasia_5.jpg

From among those who disagree with the bill, 44 percent disagree with the proposal to include 'Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education' in the school curricula.

The survey fieldwork was conducted from October 20 to 29, 2010 using face-to-face interviews. The nationwide survey is based on a sample of 1,200 representative adults 18 years old and above.

manila_eye

November 30th, 2010, 11:05 AM

^^ Vox populi, vox dei! (The voice of people is the voice of GOD).

:)

dandelionne

November 30th, 2010, 02:30 PM

Assumptions? Doesn't it that the Pope had an audience from the victims itself and he didn't have a good answer for them.

No one stated that the incident is far more than what the media had reported. The main point is that THOSE who commit crimes where only given minor punishments but were let out to continue working in another parish church and free to have direct contacts with children?? What are you talking about???? All these reports were concealed by the church and has reached Vatican but nothing is done. The prepetrators were not turned in to the police. They roamed around freely for years..

It wasn't just the catholic church, there were also cases in Baptist church in the US. Still the point there is that the catholic church didn't turn the accused priest to the authorities to undergo trial in court, instead, they were reassigned to another parish church only to end up commiting the same crimes to other minors.

Response to CNN Documentary on the Pope
William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

The CNN documentary, "What the Pope Knew," which aired September 25, deserves a response.

The program begins with music and graphics that set the tone: those who think Pope Benedict XVI has been adept at combating priestly sexual abuse must realize that there is "a darker, more complicated story." Dark, yes, but from CNN's perch, the story is not all that complicated: the pope is guilty of "foot-dragging and, perhaps, obstruction."

We learn from CNN host Gary Tuchman that "For decades, before he became pope, Joseph Ratzinger was a high-ranking Vatican official who, more than anyone else beside Pope John Paul, could have taken decisive action to stem the sexual abuse crisis." Similarly, author David Gibson says the pope "always took the stalling tactic."

It is simply not true that Ratzinger was in charge of this issue "for decades." In fact, he wasn't given the authority to police the sexual abuse problem until 2001. What is truly astonishing is that Tuchman concedes as much later in the program. After he notes that "By 2001, the sexual abuse crisis was beginning to engulf the Catholic Church," he says, "The pope gave Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) the power to cut through the bureaucracy and handle all sexual abuse cases directly."

In other words, Tuchman was incorrect the first time when he said that "for decades" Ratzinger "could have taken decisive action." He couldn't have been in charge "for decades" if he wasn't given police powers until 2001 (he became pope in 2005).

Nowhere in the program is there any evidence that the pope was guilty of obstruction of justice. This is a serious charge—the most serious made in the course of the documentary. Yet to throw this out, without ever producing evidence to substantiate it, is malicious. It won't cut it to say that he was "perhaps" guilty of obstruction. CNN intentionally planted this seed and never explicitly addressed the subject of obstruction of justice again.

Gibson's quip that the pope "always took the stalling tactic" suggests the pope acted irresponsibly. Now this may play well with those unfamiliar with the process of determining innocence or guilt, but anyone who knows better will find his accusation flatulent at best, and unfair at worst. More than any institution in history, the Catholic Church's development of canon law, which became the basis of many rights in civil law, has long championed the rights of the accused. Why is it that when suspected terrorists are afforded generous rights, over a period of several years, it is generally regarded as an example of America's commitment to freedom, but when accused priests are given their day in court, charges of "stalling tactics" surface?

The program focuses on four miscreant priests. The first is Peter Hullermann. In 1986, he was convicted of sexually abusing boys while serving in Grafing, Germany. His case is central to the documentary because it questions the pope's culpability.

After Hullermann was convicted, he was transferred to Munich for therapy. It should be noted that therapy was the preferred method for dealing with abusers at the time, both inside and outside the Catholic Church. Abusers were not seen, as they are today, as offenders deserving of punitive action; rather, they were seen as disturbed persons who could be rehabilitated via therapy. No matter, after his transfer, Hullermann was placed in a new parish.

The critical question is: Did Archbishop Ratzinger know that Hullermann was a convicted molester who was moved to another parish? We know he approved the transfer, but that's about it. The Vatican maintains that it was Ratzinger's deputy who placed Hullermann in the new parish.

Importantly, CNN makes no claim to the contrary. Moreover, when the New York Times broke this story in March, the best it could do in establishing culpability was to say that Ratzinger's office "was copied on a memo." The Times also said that Church officials said the memo was routine and "unlikely to have landed on the archbishop's desk."

So if CNN has no evidence tying the pope to Hullermann, why bother trotting out this story one more time? And why does reporter John Allen imply that the pope knew about the transfer to the new parish? He has no evidence, either. Worse is Gibson. "If Cardinal Ratzinger in Munich did not know about Father Peter Hullermann, he should have. That’s one of the things that an archbishop does. You always know where your priests are."

In the real world, no leader of any large-scale organization can possibly know where his employees are. It's not as though priests, or school teachers, walk around with a GPS device around their necks, allowing bishops and school administrators to track their every move. For example, how many school superintendents know that a sexually abusing teacher in their district has been transferred to another district? How many heads of multinational corporations know where their employees are and why they were transferred? We know one thing: in 1980, there were 1,717 priests in the Munich archdiocese.

Gibson then goes for the jugular by asking, "How many other abusive priests may have come under his jurisdiction while he was in Munich as archbishop? We don't know." But we don't need to know. All we need to know is that Gibson has indicted the pope by conjecture. CNN did not make the charge because it had no data finding the pope guilty, so it simply passed the baton to Gibson to lay the suspicion.

The case of Father Stephen Kiesle was included not to prove guilt on the part of the pope, but to add to the suspicion that he did not do enough.

CNN reports that Kiesle's bishop, John Cummins, wanted him defrocked in 1981 after he was convicted of sexually abusing boys. Vatican officials, however, wanted more information; Cardinal Ratzinger had taken over as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a week after the Vatican office made its ruling. Following Church norms that existed at the time, Ratzinger said he could not defrock Kiesle because no one under 40 could be laicized, and he was in his thirties. Kiesle could have been ordered to stand trial, but because he was so close to turning 40 (and a trial is not a speedy process), a decision was made to wait. On February 13, 1987, the day before Kiesle's 40th birthday, he was defrocked.

What CNN did not report is that Kiesle was removed from ministry following his conviction. Nor did it mention the curious fact that in 1982, while still technically a priest, Kiesle married the mother of a girl he had abused in 1973. But to mention such an oddity may have shifted blame away from the pope, thus muddying the bottom line.

Father Lawrence Murphy, who allegedly molested some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin in the 1950s, is covered in depth. But it didn't go far enough. What was omitted is startling. Tuchman reports that "Father Murphy's case would come to the direct attention of Cardinal Ratzinger." (My emphasis.) The viewer then waits in vain for evidence that Murphy's case came to the direct attention of the pope. There isn’t any. We know that Terry Kohut, who was one of Murphy's' victims, wrote to Ratzinger's office, but neither CNN nor the New York Times (which first reported on this story) has ever provided evidence that Ratzinger was personally involved in this case.

Jeffrey Anderson, who has made tens of millions suing the Catholic Church, and hates the Church with a passion, is asked point blank by Tuchman, "Do you think Cardinal Ratzinger knew about the case of Father Murphy?" Anderson parses his words in textbook lawyerly fashion. "Well, we know the letters went to his secretary, [Tarcisio] Bertone." This is not in dispute. But was Ratzinger directly involved? Anderson adds, "thus, that Ratzinger was directly involved." So because Bertone fielded the letters, thus Ratzinger was directly involved? That Tuchman never challenged Anderson is telling.

Here is what CNN did not tell the viewer. The crimes alleged against Murphy extend to the 1950s, yet the civil authorities were not formally asked to investigate until the mid-1970s; following a probe, the police dropped the case. Fast-forward to 1996, the first time the Vatican is notified. The Vatican decides to ignore the fact that the statute of limitations has expired and orders a trial. Melodramatically, CNN characterizes the internal inquiry a "secret church trial," as if internal probes at CNN for employee wrongdoing are televised.

CNN, like the New York Times before it, never bothered to interview the one person who may have known about Ratzinger's knowledge of the case, Father Thomas Brundage. He was the Judicial Vicar, the one who presided over the case between 1996-1998. When asked this year about Ratzinger's role, he said, "At no time in the case, at meetings that I had at the Vatican, in Washington, D.C. and in Milwaukee, was Cardinal Ratzinger's name ever mentioned." Brundage added that he was "shocked" when the media tried to tie Ratzinger to the Murphy case.

In CNN's eyes, if there was one hero in this case, it was the Archbishop of Milwaukee at the time, Rembert Weakland. It credits him writing to Ratzinger in 1996 asking how to proceed against Murphy, noting that Weakland acceded to the Vatican's request to stop the trial, knowing the priest was dying; Murphy died two days later. But there is much the viewer does not learn.

Weakland was anything but a hero in dealing with sexual abuse. In 1984, he branded as "libelous" those who reported cases of priestly sexual abuse, and was rebuked by a judge for doing so. In 1994, he accused those who reported such cases as "squealing." Moreover, he had to resign when his lover, a 53-year-old man, revealed that Weakland paid him $450,000 to settle a sexual assault lawsuit (Weakland fleeced church coffers to pay the bill).

With regard to the Murphy case, Weakland is again anything but a hero. Last spring, in a section called "Documents Trail" posted on the website of the New York Times (alongside an article by Times reporter Laurie Goodstein) there is a revealing letter from the Coadjutor Bishop of Superior, Wisconsin, Raphael M. Fliss, to the Vicar for Personnel of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Father Joseph A. Janicki. Bishop Fliss says, "In a recent conversation with Archbishop Weakland, I was left with the impression that it would not be advisable at this time to invite Father Murphy to work among the deaf." The letter was dated July 9, 1980. So why did it take 16 years for Weakland to contact the Vatican about Murphy? CNN does not say.

The last case involves Father Alvin Campbell, an Illinois priest who pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of boys in 1985. Bishop Daniel Ryan visited Campbell in prison, asking him to leave the priesthood. After Campbell refused, Ryan asked Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock him. CNN reports that the request was refused because it did not come from Campbell.

This sounds strange, but there is more to the story. Bishop Ryan wanted Campbell defrocked quickly because he wanted to spare the victims a trial. This is understandable at one level, but there is still the matter of civil liberties: the accused are entitled to their day in court. What CNN omitted from its coverage was that Bishop Ryan had the authority to remove Campbell from ministry, or go forward with the trial, recommending defrocking. He elected not to do so.

As CNN acknowledges, Ratzinger learned from the Campbell case and pressed Pope John Paul II to make serious changes in the way these cases were handled. "And from 2001 forward," says Allen, "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith became the beachhead for the Vatican for an aggressive response to the crisis." True enough. And 2001 was the year that Pope John Paul II charged Cardinal Ratzinger with overseeing this issue. It is not by accident that these changes occurred on Ratzinger's watch: he made them happen.

Finally, there is the matter of Father Thomas Reese, the editor of America magazine, who was forced to resign. CNN frames his ouster this way: "His crime? Publishing a magazine." But as CNN likes to say, it's a "more complicated story." In actual fact, Father Reese was accused of publishing a series of articles challenging the settled teachings of the Catholic Church. He says he tried to "encourage a conversation, a dialogue, a debate in the magazine about issues facing the church." The issues he focused on were abortion and gay marriage.

Tuchman uses the Father Reese case to conclude, "Cardinal Ratzinger was passionate about stamping out dissent. But there was never any public indication he was passionate about getting rid of pedophile priests." This, along with the suggestion that the pope was guilty of obstruction of justice, marks the lowest point in the documentary.

If it wasn't passion that provoked the pope to speak of the "filth" within the Church—he did so right before being elected—what was it? A cerebral exercise? And what was it that triggered him to reopen the case of Father Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, and then seek to reform the Legionaries? Was it boredom?

Tuchman opines that "Vatican experts say Ratzinger silenced, censored or otherwise punished dozens of theologians during his reign at CDF." The charge is risible on the face of it: there is infinitely more tolerance for dissent in the Catholic Church than exists in the typical American college or university.

Besides a stint in the Air Force, and a year at The Heritage Foundation, I have spent my entire life teaching in a Catholic school or college, or serving as president of the Catholic League, and I can say without reservation that the attempts to silence speech that challenges the prevailing wisdom are more frequently employed in the academy than in the Catholic Church.

From top to bottom, what CNN did was the televised version of what the New York Times did in print form earlier in the year. The goal was to tarnish the image of Pope Benedict XVI, making him out to be a co-conspirator in the scandal. Though it came up empty handed with proof of his culpability, there was enough innuendo to convict Snow White.

The timeline of the scandal, it needs to be said, was from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Ironically, those within the Catholic Church who pushed for "progressive" reforms, e.g., making the case for more relaxed sexual strictures in the seminaries, and who then recommended therapy to treat molesters—most of whom were homosexuals—are the very ones today pointing fingers at the Pope for the scandal. That's the real scandal, though it is not likely to be covered by CNN.

dandelionne

November 30th, 2010, 02:50 PM

Are you kidding me? You gave me an example on "down syndrome" ???? We are not talking about abortion of the fetus here Einstein....

Did I? The sentence said:

"The developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994), discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down’s Syndrome, ". DISCOVERER. It was this discoverer's definition of a new human being that I was emphasizing, not Down Syndrome.

You don't sound like a medical practitioner to me at all because you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the simple conception.

Astounding! Simple conception? I had to remind you on when does a human individual is being formed which is during Fertilization. Eh diba that is what you don't want to happen? CONTRA-conception. You are trying to PREVENT a human being from existing because you are for contraception.

I work closely with other MDs and pyschiatrist, infact I knew a good psychiatrist in UP PGH campus, I can recomend you there.

What does the psychiatrist have to do with me? Ahh. You seem to be implying that I am mentally-incapacitated because of my opposing stance. Now isn't it a direct attack on me and a direct evidence of your argument fueled with EMOTIONS? tsk.tsk. Cz we should have OBJECTIVE arguments,not imply that an opposing side seems to be mentally-deranged.

dandelionne

November 30th, 2010, 03:10 PM

Exodus 21 Verses 20-21. “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished; but he is not to be punished if he gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

(It’s okay to keep a slave. If you beat a slave with a rod and he/she survives, that’s okay as well.)

Proverbs 3 Verse 5. “Trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding.”

(So much for reason and logic)

Citing verses again like randomly picking cherries to suit your own justification? Well here are other verses:

Colossians 4:1 - "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, realizing that you too have a Master in heaven."

Ephesians 6:9 -" Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying,.."

GodIsNotGreat,you have no right to interpret bible verses since you do not believe on the Author of it in the first place and second, you do not explore the meaning of one verse on one gospel and then shutting off the other verses in another gospel. As you cited Proverbs 3: 5 - “Trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding.”

__________________

Sigmund Freud on contraception

“...it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.” - Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis,translation By Joan Riviere (New York, NY: Liverwright, 1935), p. 277.)

dandelionne

November 30th, 2010, 05:49 PM

mwg12a

November 30th, 2010, 07:00 PM

Well, you are guilty of the same thing to begin with, infact, you're the one who maligned me personally and I had not said any word about you and your faith. Stop being hypocrete.

I've already posted articles about morning after pills, gave you 3 links about that topic. The difference between you and me is that the information I have been giving you came from my own professional judgement based on how I was trained which, even if you research it, you'd be guaranteed that the info I gave would conform with textbooks and congruent to all mechanics and principles i've explained from text books. Yours are mostly picked up from articles you have no comple knowledge about or perhaps mastery, this is why your justification for "the begining of life" backfired, what you showed to me are facts after conception and a complete development of the fetus. Did you even know that it can take 5days to 2 weeks an egg can be fertilized? It all depends on the motility of the sperm cell and the quality of eggcells? Again, RH bill is not targeting abortive measures but just the that phase where sperm cells implanted itself in an eggcell.

You last quote above:
Just how funny you love borrowing quotes from here and there and use it for an arguement. Don't you have your own ideas?

“Artificial methods [of contraception] are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless,,. . . As it is, man has sufficiently degraded women for his lust, and artificial methods, no matter how well-meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Without the use of contraceptives, morning afterpills, condom for men and women... What proofs can you give me or us here that men and women would not lust and engage in sexual acts? For all I care couples can use "withdrawal method" just to prevent pregnancies. Will these stop men and women having sex? This is why there are teenage pregnancies, they have no access to birthcontrol pills in the Philippines yet, they still managed to engage in a sexual activities. Even during the time of Christ on earth this has been a problem, they have no real source of contraceptives except perhaps herbal medicine, but, did it stop them from having sex? Having no available contraceptive methods, would these stop men and women being reckless? heck NO!! They will have sex when they wanted to just to satisfy their carnal needs. What about married couples? Should we or the church stop them from having sex when sex is a way and form of expressing ones effection on their spouses? You seems to have no knowledge in this area.. I sensed you're younger, single and inexperience and you based all your knowledge through reading here and there but you have not really experienced life and the real world. Naive....

BTW, you still haven't answered my question about rape victims of either from strangers or through incest. cases of minors under 13 y/o who has experienced menstruation already? You do know that their bodies are not capable of bearing a child on their bellies right? The danger is greater....

peejay202

November 30th, 2010, 07:52 PM

The issue is basically simple, "why won't we let the couple choose whatever method is best for them, whether artificial or natural, and provide them the means to have access to these methods"? Reproductive health is not an issue about morality because there are several ethical points-of-view. This is an issue of placing responsibility and not imposing what the church and other people deem appropriate.

Maxxclip

December 1st, 2010, 01:04 AM

Proverbs 3: 5 - “Trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding.”

:)nice axiom!

Linguine

December 1st, 2010, 03:33 AM

Big majority of Filipinos back RH bill

Wednesday, 01 December 2010 00:00

By Jovee Marie N. Dela Cruz, Cris G. Odronia and Llanesca T. Panti Reporters

Majority of Filipinos stand behind the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill pending before Congress, a recent Pulse Asia survey revealed on Tuesday.
There are six pending bills before the House of Representatives of which the most popular apparently is the one filed by Minority Leader Edcel Lagman.

President Benigno Aquino 3rd said that he will maintain his pro-responsible parenthood stand regardless of what surveys say on the RH issue.

The Pulse Asia survey showed that 69 percent of Filipinos agreed with the RH bill while one in 10, or 7 percent, disagreed with the bill and 24 percent were undecided on the issue.

The survey also showed that the support for the bill was strongest in Metro Manila with 74 percent and Classes A, B and C with 78 percent.

On the awareness of the RH bill, Pulse Asia said that eight out of 10 Filipinos, or 80 percent, knew about it—ranging from 66 percent in Visayas to 90 percent in Metro Manila.

In socio-economic classes, the survey showed that 72 percent to 93 percent of respondents have heard, read or watched something about the RH bill.

But two in 10 Filipinos, or 20 percent, only learned about the bill while being interviewed for the survey.

Meanwhile, Pulse Asia said that a small minority, or 7 percent, who disagree with the bill were asked about their opinion regarding specific provisions of the bill, with the majorities in this small group agreeing with the following provisions—recognizing the rights of women and couples to choose the family-planning method that they want on the basis of their needs and personal and religious beliefs, 79 percent; promoting information about and access to natural and modern family planning methods, 70 percent; and stipulating the use of government funds to support modern family planning methods, 55 percent.

The survey, however, said that 44 percent of respondents disagree with the proposal to include “Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education” in the school curricula, while 39 percent are in agreement.

“More particularly, at least half of those in the rest of Luzon [50 percent] and Mindanao [55 percent] are not in favor of including this subject in the school curricula. The plurality sentiment in Class E is also one of disagreement [47 percent],” it added.
The survey also showed that the public opinion on the issue in classes A, B, C and D was split with 41 percent to 43 percent expressing agreement, and 42 percent to 43 percent supporting the proposal.

In Metro Manila and Visayas, 50 percent of respondents who opposed the bill agreed that sex education should be taught in schools.

The Pulse Asia survey said that public indecision on sex education among those opposing the RH bill was highest in the Visayas with 32 percent.

The survey, which was conducted on October 20 to 29, 2010, used face-to-face interviews of 1,200 representative adults in Metro Manila, the rest of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

The survey had a plus or minus 3-percent margin of error at a 95-percent confidence level.

No change in position

In Malacañang, President Aquino said that his position on responsible parenthood will not change.

“I have not changed my position, it’s still called responsible parenthood and what it seeks to do is paalala sa lahat ng mga magiging magulang or magulang na na ‘yung responsibilidad nila ay dapat nilang tugunan [to remind those who will become parents or those who are already parents that they have responsibilities],” the President pointed out during a chance interview when sought to comment on the Pulse Asia survey on the RH bill.

Mr. Aquino said that recent remarks of Pope Benedict XVI on condom use have not changed his position, and it would be helpful if the Catholic Church became more “sensible” toward the issue of responsible parenthood.

Catholic bishops and the President have disagreements on responsible parenthood and free distribution of condoms to couples who request them.

But a lawmaker said that those respondents who favored the RH bill did not know the dangers of the health services the measure is trying to put in place.

Rep. Anthony Golez of Bacolod City (Negros Occidental), a public health doctor by profession, said that more than half of the services under the RH bill are for abortion, since they involve intrauterine contraceptive devices and pills that not only stop conception, but prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus as well.

“This should signal the different medical society groups and medical scientists to come out and inform our public that when we consider that life begins during fertilization, many of RH services can kill a life in utero,” he added.

Rep. Roilo Golez of Parañaque City (Metro Manila) backed Anthony Golez’s view, saying that at least 90 percent of Filipinos have not even read the RH bill.

But for Lagman, who has been pushing his RH bill since the previous Congress, the recent Pulse Asia survey revealed the dwindling influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy on its flock, particularly on persuading its followers not to adopt modern methods of family planning.

“The people have spoken yet again. They do not only approve of the passage of the RH bill [since] 79 percent recognize the right of women and couples to decide for themselves which family planning method is best suited to them; 70 percent agree that all forms of family planning methods should be promoted; and 55 percent agree that government funds must be used to support modern family planning methods,” he said.

Rep. Arlene Bag-Ao of Akbayan party-list said that the results of the Pulse Asia survey showed who the real moral majority is in the RH debate.

“We have always known that the bill has the firm support of majority of Filipinos who believe in the bill because of their conscience and pro-life principles,” she added.

http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/top-stories/33355-big-majority-of-filipinos-back-rh-bill

Maxxclip

December 1st, 2010, 03:33 AM

Medical doctor opposes RH Bill
by Robert E. Roperos

Butuan City - Following the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Bill which is now seeking for approval at the House of Representatives, Dr. Rene Joseph Bullecer, a medical doctor and Director for Human Life International presented salient points why there's a need to oppose the RH bill during the peace forum held Tuesday (Nov. 30) as part of the Mindanao Week of Peace celebration.

According to Dr. Bullecer, originally, RH bill is not written by any Filipino lawmakers but crafted by the UNFPA and USAID. Also, he said, it is against our constitution as the highest law of the land promotes a pro-life.

Bullecer also said RH Bill promotes immorality as it implies fornification. It is also anti-child and anti-parent bill because it promotes abortion.

Bullecer added the bill is against one's religious freedom and "against our Catholic faith as it destroys our demography," he said.

He further said poverty is an economic problem which needs economic solution and the approval of the reproductive health bill is definitely not a solution.

Meanwhile, the young medical doctor from Camiguin province said the true cause of the so-called overpopulation is the increase of the human lifespan and curbing the infant mortality rate.

When asked why the country remained to be poor, he presented six reasons. He said the country is very poor in agricultural advancement, there is an uncontrolled massive urbanization, uneven or unequal distribution of wealth, bad politics, graft and corruption and the very reason whey we are still below poverty line is "because of our mega heavy foreign debt servicing," he said.

"We deserve to become a better nation. Politics decide what kind of life we can have. So, we must take politics seriously," Bullecer disclosed.

Maxxclip

December 1st, 2010, 04:00 AM

The truth and half-truths about reproductive health
by Fr. Gammy Tulabing

Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, spoke of a rise of a new threat to destroy humanity — the Conspiracy Against Life. (EV12)

Fr. Michael Schooyan, a Belgian and guest theologian of the Pontifical Council for Family Life calls it an all-out war greater than all the other world wars because it involves scientific, psychological, spiritual, moral, as well as biological wars. (Sept. 18, 1995. Taiwan- International Congress on Demography and Family in Asia and Oceania Conference). The Conspirators want to destroy the Roman Catholic Church and Society. They try to dominate the world by controlling all religions and politics. Politics is manipulated by centralizing banking, trade and military. Global religion is syncretized by ranking Jesus in the same level as Allah, Vishnu, Buddha and other ancient religious leaders. They proclaim the fallen angel, Lucifer, as the highest of all gods from whom the conspirators receive power, inspiration, and knowledge.

Their mission is to build a kingdom of material prosperity, A One World Government… A New World Order, under Satan’s reign. Their weapons, the seven (7) deadly capital sins, are now beginning to gnaw at the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church and the family, which they consider as the main obstacles for a global takeover.

The Holy Father takes the frontline in this colossal battle, steering the great bark of St. Peter towards its two pillars of strength: the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+3:15&version=NIV). All the Catholic faithful, and all the faithful Catholics, faithful to God and to the Church, are called upon to join the Holy Father in fighting the Conspirations against life. Bishop Fabian Brskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska supports the Pope by excommunicating anyone joining freemasonry, proabortion, and euthanasia groups. (The Tidings, Los Angeles Diocesan Weekly Newspaper, March 29, 1996.p8) All of you can also become conspirators against life if you are uninformed about the schemes and tactics of the devil.

Former Senator Franciscto “Kit” Tatad presents the half-truths about the Reproductive Health Bill. He explains that several bills have been filed in the two Houses of the Philippine Congress, proposing a law on “reproductive health.” These bills have provoked the most polarizing public debates. Many are puzzled by it. Why should anybody be so afraid of “reproductive health” when nearly the entire world has come to terms with it, and freely practices contraception, sterilization and even abortion, and some countries have even legalized euthanasia? What has happened to our exceptional ability to adapt to the latest fads and fashions of the West? Are we foolishly rejecting things which the rich consumer societies have long associated with progress? we shall examine the real issues involved, and show why the proposed legislation has proved so divisive. What is “reproductive health?”

In its plain meaning, it refers (or ought to refer) to a person’s health in both body and mind, in the mature and responsible use of his or her reproductive organs and faculties; its primary concern is the safe, licit and natural generation and proper upbringing of a new human being (a child).

But as a United Nations’ verbal construct, “reproductive health” or “reproductive rights” refers to what an individual wants to do with his or her body and sexuality, including but not limited to the “right to abortion.” This language was formally incorporated into official U.N. usage at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo; it has gained wide official currency since.

Thus, when some women, who had been victims of China’s “one male child policy,” heard it for the first time at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, they literally danced for joy, believing they would finally be able to bear as many children as they wanted —— only to be told promptly that the phrase meant “the right not to reproduce at all.”

As used in the bills, “reproductive health” is not concerned with the safe, licit and natural generation and moral upbringing of any new human being. Its main thrust is the very opposite —— how to prevent pregnancy and reproduction through contraception and sterilization.The bills are, strictly, anti-reproduction bills.

peejay202

December 1st, 2010, 04:22 AM

^^ Vox populi, vox dei! (The voice of people is the voice of GOD).

:)

:applause::applause::applause:

peejay202

December 1st, 2010, 04:39 AM

absinthe_888

December 1st, 2010, 12:27 PM

P-Noy risks impeachment if RH bill is enacted into law (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=635192&publicationSubCategoryId=200)
By Paolo Romero (philstar.com)
Updated December 01, 2010 06:15 PM

MANILA, Philippines – President Aquino could expose himself to a torrent of impeachment complaints if he enacts into law pending Reproductive Health (RH) bills in the House of Representatives without removing provisions that promote abortions, a lawmaker warned today.

Bacolod City Rep. Anthony Golez aired the warning at the resumption of the hearings on the controversial RH Bill in the House committee on population and family relations that stalled on the issue of agreeing on when life begins.

“Before we can even decide at all (on whether to pass or not the RH Bill), we have to decide whether or not this state, as enshrined in the Constitution, would protect the life of mother and unborn from moment of fertilization or conception? I think Mr. Chair, we should discuss that first,” Golez, a medical doctor, said.

He said most of the medical literature define that life begins upon fertilization or when the woman’s egg cell meets the male sperm cell. The view was shared by Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon and Dr. Primitivo Chua of the Philippine Medical Association during the hearing.

Deputy Speaker and Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia said records of the discussions of the framers of the 1987 Constitution showed they equated conception with fertilization.

Golez noted that may RH services contemplated in the various measures entail the killing of the fertilized egg and therefore abortificients that are banned.

He said the Department of Health has allocated P400 million for the purchase and distribution of contraceptives like pills and IUDs to prevent pregnancies and those responsible for this would be answerable to the Constitution.

“Will they (RH proponents) drag the President's name into the controversy? That is a culpable violation of the Constitution. And the President can be impeached because of that. Who is going to be answerable for this? Will Tomas Osias be answerable for that?” he said, referring to the head of the Population Commission, who pushed for the RH Bill in hearing.

Garcia said the committee, headed by Biliran Rep. Rogelio Espina, should first tackle issue of when life begins so the panel can remove provisions that promote abortion.

However, other members of the panel thought the move would delay deliberations on the RH Bill so Espina said the hearings would proceed as planned with the issue to be resolved along the way.

absinthe_888

December 1st, 2010, 12:29 PM

Poll: 7 of 10 Pinoys in favor of RH bill (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=634981&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
(The Philippine Star)
Updated December 01, 2010 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines – Seven in 10 Filipinos, mostly residents of Metro Manila, favor the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, the recent Ulat ng Bayan Survey conducted by Pulse Asia showed.

The survey results also showed a high awareness rate of the bill’s existence among the general public – 80 percent of the 1,200 respondents across all socio-economic classes nationwide.

A majority of the respondents in all geographic areas have heard of, read or watched something about the bill, broken down as follows: National Capital Region (90 percent), Luzon (82), Visayas (66) and Mindanao (80).

The same is true for a majority of the respondents in all socio-economic classes: Classes ABC (93 percent), Class D (82), Class E (72).

Only 20 percent of respondents learned of the existence of the bill while being interviewed for the survey.

The survey showed that 69 percent of the respondents across all geographic areas and socio-economic classes agree with the bill.

Geographically, this is broken down as follows: NCR (74 percent), Luzon (67), Visayas (66) and Mindanao (72).

Across economic classes: Classes ABC (78 percent) Class D (66), Class E (72).

Only seven percent of respondents, mostly in Mindanao, disagree with the bill; 24 percent, on the other hand, remain undecided.

Pulse Asia said the disagreement may be attributed in part to a provision seeking to include reproductive health
and sex education in the school curriculum.

The minority who disagree with the bill were asked for their opinion regarding specific provisions.

Respondents in the group agree with the following provisions: recognizing the rights of women and couples to choose the family planning method that they want on the basis of their needs and personal and religious beliefs (79 percent); promoting information about and access to natural and modern family planning methods (70); and stipulating the use of government funds to support modern family planning methods (55).

Forty-four percent of the minority disagree with the proposal to include “Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education” in the school curricula; 39 percent, however, agree with this provision.

Fifty percent of the minority in Luzon and 55 percent in Mindanao are not in favor of including sex education in schools; 47 percent of the minority in socio-economic class E disagree to this provision.

Opinion among the minority in socio-economic classes ABC and D is split, with 41 percent to 43 percent expressing agreement and 42 percent to 43 percent supporting the provision.

Fifty percent, however, of the minority in Metro Manila and Visayas favor the inclusion of reproductive education in schools. Public indecision on the provision is more prominent in Visayas at 32 percent.

The survey has a plus or minus error margin of three percent at 95 percent confidence level.

‘Misleading’

Lawmakers with a pro-life stance said the conduct of the survey was misleading because most of the respondents have likely not read the bill.

“I understand at least 90 percent of the folks have not read the RH bill. How can someone who has not read the bill have an informed opinion on the bill?” said Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez.

“If it is about reproductive health as a general issue, just like cardiovascular health, or pulmonary health or gastric health, etc, the answer will be positive. In fact, who would go against reproductive health as a general health issue?” he added.

He said the respondents should have first been asked if they have read the measure.

Bacolod City Rep. Anthony Golez, a medical doctor, said the survey “clearly shows that 69 percent of Filipinos are not informed about the danger of the health services the RH bill is offering to our people.”

“More than half of the services it (RH bill) offers are abortifacients. This should signal the different medical society groups and medical scientists to come out and inform our public that when we consider that life begins during fertilization, many of RH services can kill a life in utero,” he said.

“When we offer an informed choice as a pillar of family planning, we should make sure that the choices we give to our people are considered lawful, legitimate or do not violate any provision of our Constitution,” he added.

Fence sitting

Amid the new discussion on the controversial bill, President Aquino still refuses to take sides, maintaining that he wants couples to decide for themselves on the birth control method they consider appropriate.

“I’m not going to base any of my decisions or my stand on what the survey says. But, let me reiterate, I have not changed my position, it’s still called responsible parenthood and what it seeks to do is remind all those who will become parents or are already parents that they must fulfill their responsibilities,” Aquino said in a chance interview at the Palace.

He said even the softening of the Vatican’s stand on the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS
would not change his position.

“I have a responsibility as leader of this land. My bosses, who are the people, are having a hard time fulfilling the needs of their families. So that’s where it begins, if the Church will be more sensible, of course it would also help,” Aquino said. - With Aurea Calica, Paolo Romero

dandelionne

December 1st, 2010, 05:30 PM

Well, you are guilty of the same thing to begin with, infact, you're the one who maligned me personally and I had not said any word about you and your faith. Stop being hypocrete.

Not said any word about my faith? In fact your attack on the Catholic Church is itself an attack on my faith! You dig up the dirt of the scandals and throw all the mud on the Church so as to discredit her position akin to discrediting the whole Supreme Court because some miscreant judges are accepting bribes. Now let's put this an example by analogy: IF a couple of Pinoy gay OFWs were REPORTEDLY molesting minors in Qatar, BY YOUR LOGIC, would you say that all Pinoy gays in the Philippines are molesters also?

It is so pathetic for people to highlight the Church scandals as a platform to discredit the Church's stance on contraception. I mean why don't you Pro-RH people build an objective case with regards on defending the need of it? All the attacks hurled at the Church has always been fueled by conjectures and opinions. Yes. Just opinions. Nobody has come up with solid empirical datas that prove your stand. It's just always PROJECTIONS of datas. For the last several decades, it has always been like that. Does Dr. Paul Ehrlich ring a bell? In 1968,wrote his hugely popular Population Bomb containing all sorts of scary predictions of doom for all of mankind and the entire planet due to limited resources, unchecked human population growth and the already starving populations in underdeveloped lands. He elevated the population problem to an actual bomb. He took strong issue with the lack of massive government and intra-government plans to deal forcefully with the human population problem. His whole silly premise rested on the notion that there are too many people, there is too little food, too little of other needed resources, too much pollution and contamination, and we are thus residing on a dying planet. See? It was a best seller, and the whole thing was largely bought by the "secularist intellectuals" of his time, hook, line and sinker. But, none of his dire predictions ever came to pass. Every single prediction proved false. No exceptions. No food riots in America, no famine, no pestilence, none of the things he attributed to increased number of human beings on Earth, except the increased number of human beings on Earth.

dandelionne

December 1st, 2010, 05:59 PM

I've already posted articles about morning after pills, gave you 3 links about that topic. The difference between you and me is that the information I have been giving you came from my own professional judgement based on how I was trained which, even if you research it, you'd be guaranteed that the info I gave would conform with textbooks and congruent to all mechanics and principles i've explained from text books. Yours are mostly picked up from articles you have no comple knowledge about or perhaps mastery, this is why your justification for "the begining of life" backfired, what you showed to me are facts after conception and a complete development of the fetus. Did you even know that it can take 5days to 2 weeks an egg can be fertilized? It all depends on the motility of the sperm cell and the quality of eggcells?

http://www.morningafterpill.org/

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-contr...aception-16010

Sorry,those websites are for patients/lay people who needs medical information. Physicians don't go to these sites to dig for more infos.

Again, RH bill is not targeting abortive measures but just the that phase where sperm cells implanted itself in an eggcell.

"that phase where sperm cells implanted itself in an eggcell". So what do you call that PHASE?
Now your statement highlights your ignorance.

This "phase" you are referring to will form a ZYGOTE. By definition, Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—which combine to form the single diploid cell.

Didn't medical scientists and textbooks have already defined the stage when a human being is formed?

* Dr. Kischer, emeritus professor of Anatomy at the University of Arizona, writes, "…the first thing learned in human embryology [is] that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)" (Kischer CW. Let’s be factual about the human embryo. http://www.all.org/abac/ab020128.htm).

* "The intricate process by which a baby develops from a single cell is miraculous … A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., by Moore et al., 1998,

Abay dinaig mo pa ang talino ng mga doctor na to ah by disregarding their definition!

dandelionne

December 1st, 2010, 06:12 PM

BTW, you still haven't answered my question about rape victims of either from strangers or through incest. cases of minors under 13 y/o who has experienced menstruation already?

The most important point to remember here is that no reasonable person would say we may kill a child for the sins of his father. In reality, pregnancies from rape are extremely rare, partly because rapists often do not perform the sex act to its normal completion. Finally, keeping the baby has often been part of the healing process from an attack.

You do know that their bodies are not capable of bearing a child on their bellies right? The danger is greater....

That's why there is a procedure called CAESAREAN SECTION.

A question, a hypothetical one: What if you were told you are a product of incest? Would you say to your mom that she had rather aborted you too instead of keeping you alive?

What proofs can you give me or us here that men and women would not lust and engage in sexual acts? For all I care couples can use "withdrawal method" just to prevent pregnancies. Will these stop men and women having sex?.

Proofs? Isn't the Porno industry a big proof? They are not afraid of having sex with strangers because they have condoms anyway to "protect" them.

This is why there are teenage pregnancies, they have no access to birthcontrol pills in the Philippines yet, they still managed to engage in a sexual activities. .

Contraception is supposed to prevent "unwanted babies." Yet unwanted births have rocketed since the social acceptance of contraception. This is easy to prove; just count the bastard children before and after the sixties. In fact, count up the times the term "unwanted baby" was ever even used in public discourse, before and after. Count the number of broken marriages, before and after. Count the number of times couples just shacked up rather than getting married, before and after. Count the number of times people just switched partners, before and after. Count the cases of spousal abuse, and even spousal murder, before and after. Count the number of single parent families, before and after. Count the divorces, before and after. Count the re-marriages, and re-divorces, and re-re-marriages, ad infinitum, before and after.

After the advent of "safe sex" provided by artificial contraception, count the venereal disease infections, before and after. In fact, count the number of known venereal diseases themselves. (Before, there were three; after over some fifty, with over twenty being incurable, along with new drug-resistant strains of the original three.) When half of the so called sexually active (meaning practitioners of illicit sex) population is already infected with incurable HPV, something no contraceptive in the world can protect anyone against, the preventative promise has been exposed as a lie.

So with condoms on and access to OCPs, the more these teenagers will engage into sex! You don't see the moral implications of this. What would your reaction be if you happen to know that your 13 year old beautiful daughter met and had sex with many boys as she liked since she has a condom for protection anyway and can acquire naman an OCP like it was Paracetamol. It's like saying we need to legalize marijuana and cocaine since there are many users out there anyways who steal and kill just to obtain these illicit drugs so why not legalize it to prevent any further crimes.

dandelionne

December 1st, 2010, 06:54 PM

and since some people here are using God and morality as their line-of-argument, I would like to quote Dr. Timbreza, a well-renowned Filipino bioethics professor:

"Morality is a dynamic process, and so an individual's dialectical growth in self-awareness increases his consciousness of right and wrong. Thus, the realm of moral ambiguity in moral actions and issues serves as an invitation to grow in self-awareness and freedom. It calls on every freedom-conscious person to act and decide by and for himself, and not to rely on the stars or upon any outside power transcending him. DECIDE WE MUST BY OURSELVES, FOR IT IS WE WHO WILL ULTIMATELY BEAR THE BURDEN AND CONSEQUENCES OF OUR MORAL ACTIONS. Despite the outcome of our moral judgements, whether we survive or die, the stars will continue twinkling and the sun shining". :okay:

Morality is a DYNAMIC process? As in ACTIVE and CHANGING? So there are no REAL STANDARDS? If right and wrong really are merely cultural conventions and really are relative from society to society, then how could we ever say that one society was morally superior to another?

How can we argue, for instance, that modern liberal society is any better or more moral than the Nazi society, or that the morals of a group like Habitat for Humanity are any better than Al-Qaeda? The moment we say that the morality taught in the Mosque is superior to the morality taught to members of the Colombian drug cartels, we are appealing to a standard of morality that exists independent of those societies -above them, if you will - and by which we believe can measure them both. We are assuming the existence of an ABSOLUTE moral measuring stick - a LAW OF MORALITY!

But if there really are NO REAL STANDARDS for MORALITY and it depends rather on "self-awareness" and being "freedom-conscious",then isn't it nonsense for us to argue, say, that the murderers who perpetrated the September 11,2001 terror attacks did anything "wrong"? Perhaps they simply live by a different set of conventions. As the adage says, "Who are we to judge?" those terrorists if it was "morally right" in their minds to kill in the name of Allah.

dandelionne

December 1st, 2010, 08:08 PM

The issue is basically simple, "why won't we let the couple choose whatever method is best for them, whether artificial or natural, and provide them the means to have access to these methods"?

The Catholic Church has the right to be entangled in this issue because it covers her flocks who comprises the majority of the population and which is CONTRARY to her teachings. Catholics are NOT free to choose which teachings on FAITH and MORALS to obey. We are bound to obey the Church’s disciplinary directives as expressed in her canon law and liturgy. We are free to not like them and even to disagree with them. But we are expected to obey them.When the Pope or bishops express their personal opinions on matters, Catholics are free to embrace contrary opinions. An example of this would be the Pope’s statements on capital punishment or the war in Iraq.

The most orthodox practicing Catholics embrace everything that's in it, with no exceptions, reservations, modifications or hesitations. But heterodox Catholics will pick and choose from among the Catechism's Magisterial teachings the ones they will live by, and how rigidly they will adhere to any of them, as a simple matter of cultural convenience.

Reproductive health is not an issue about morality because there are several ethical points-of-view. This is an issue of placing responsibility and not imposing what the church and other people deem appropriate.

On whose ethical point of views basing on what?

Parchie

December 2nd, 2010, 01:56 AM

Maxxclip

December 2nd, 2010, 03:24 AM

Town mayors back RH bill
by Cecille Suerte Felipe

MANILA, Philippines - Mayors belonging to the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) backed yesterday the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, saying they wanted their constituents to have an informed choice.

Bacoor, Cavite Mayor Strike Revilla, LMP national president, said the RH bill will promote responsible parenthood.

“In Bacoor, I promote family planning because I believe there should be an informed choice and responsible parenthood,” he said.

Revilla said the RH bill would be one of the issues to be discussed during the first meeting of the new sets of LMP officers, who took their oath of office before Vice President Jejomar Binay.

He hopes to get the support of all the 1,511 members of the LMP, he added.

President Aquino could face impeachment if he signs into law the RH bill containing provisions promoting abortion, a lawmaker said yesterday.

When the hearing on the RH bill resumed at the House of Representatives yesterday, Bacolod City Rep. Anthony Golez, a medical doctor, said most medical literature teaches that life begins at fertilization when the egg cell meets the sperm cell.

“Before we can even decide at all (on whether to pass or not the RH bill), we have to decide whether or not this state, as enshrined in the Constitution, would protect the life of mother and unborn from moment of fertilization or conception?” he said.

Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon and Dr. Primitivo Chua of the Philippine Medical Association agreed with Golez.

Records of discussions in the 1987 Constitution Commission showed the framers equated conception with fertilization, according to Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia.

Golez said many RH services contemplated in the various measures entail the killing of the fertilized egg.

“Will they (RH proponents) drag the President’s name into the controversy?” he asked.

“That is a culpable violation of the Constitution. And the President can be impeached because of that. Who is going to be answerable for this?”

Minority Leader Edcel Lagman, a staunch advocate of the RH bill, said Golez was going overboard in thinking Aquino could be impeached for the RH bill.

“I think he (Golez) was extrapolating too much on the constitutional issues,” he said.

“Definitely, the testimonies of those who are knowledgeable were practically unanimous that measures (contemplated in the bill) are not abortifacients,” Lagman said.

Maxxclip

December 2nd, 2010, 03:30 AM

CBCP: Stop surveys on RH BILL

A CBCP official asked survey firms yesterday to stop conducting surveys on the RH bill to stop any influence on lawmakers (http://www.cbcpnews.net/?q=node/5611).

Fr. Melvin Castro, CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Family and Life executive secretary, said these survey firms should allow the public to see the questionnaires before they are distributed to respondents.

“Our impression is that they are trying to influence the legislators,” he said.

“We are also appealing to them, we cannot form the mindset that the legislators, especially if a majority of the people is for the bill.

“So there should be no undue influence on our legislators, who are still beginning to discuss the RH bill.”

Castro said he wants to know how the survey questions have been formulated.

“If they are objective enough then we would appreciate it,” he said. “At least, we can see beforehand these questions.”

Castro said some respondents have reportedly admitted that they have not yet read the RH bill.

“So do they read to the respondents the full content of the RH bill… They should mention every provision,” he said.

Castro said the RH bill must also be considered from a moral, economic and political point of view.

Filipinos must be given an informed choice, he added.

Maxxclip

December 2nd, 2010, 03:51 AM

Church questions RH survey: You can’t poll morality
by Jerome Aning, TJ Burgonio

MANILA, Philippines—An official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on Wednesday cast doubts on the Pulse Asia survey showing that nearly seven in every 10 Filipinos support the reproductive health bill.

Fr. Melvin Castro, executive director of the CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said it was not clear if the people who said they supported the bill had read its provisions.

He acknowledged though that the Church needs to intensify its information drive on the bill.

“Definitely morality can’t be based on a survey. If at all the survey results are true, then the more that we have to explain [our opposition to the bill] to the people,” Castro told reporters.

The Pulse Asia survey, conducted from Oct. 20 to 29, found that 69 percent of Filipinos supported the RH measure. It also found that 80 percent of Filipinos were aware of the measure.

Castro advised against the holding of surveys on the bill, saying the results may unduly influence lawmakers as they deliberate on the measure.

“Our impression is that they are trying to influence the legislators. They have to discuss the merits of the bill and not the number [of its supporters],” he said.

Mind-conditioning

The survey might also create a sort of mind-conditioning while the debate on the bill is raging, he added.

Castro said one good thing about the survey was that it shows many were aware of the discussions regarding the measure.

With President Benigno Aquino III’s support for the measure, proponents had predicted that the House would pass the legislation by the end of the first regular session of the 15th Congress in June next year.

The bill mandates that the State offer modern natural and family planning methods to enable couples to plan the number and spacing of their children.

From Rome, CBCP president and Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar said the CBCP was determined to proceed with its opposition to the bill.

Don’t be swayed

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile cautioned the government against adopting the present reproductive measure based on the Pulse Asia survey.

“If you are a politician and a leader, you have to respect public opinion, but don’t be swayed by public opinion because public opinion might not be correct,” he told reporters.

Enrile acknowledged that the figures in the Pulse Asia survey might be “true and solid.”

“But nevertheless, it’s our duty to scrutinize that law and make a judgment on it based on other factors that may not have been taken into account by the people who were polled because those people have no deep notion of what the RH bill means to a lot of people,” he said.

peejay202

December 2nd, 2010, 08:55 AM

Morality is a DYNAMIC process? As in ACTIVE and CHANGING? So there are no REAL STANDARDS? If right and wrong really are merely cultural conventions and really are relative from society to society, then how could we ever say that one society was morally superior to another?

How can we argue, for instance, that modern liberal society is any better or more moral than the Nazi society, or that the morals of a group like Habitat for Humanity are any better than Al-Qaeda? The moment we say that the morality taught in the Mosque is superior to the morality taught to members of the Colombian drug cartels, we are appealing to a standard of morality that exists independent of those societies -above them, if you will - and by which we believe can measure them both. We are assuming the existence of an ABSOLUTE moral measuring stick - a LAW OF MORALITY!

But if there really are NO REAL STANDARDS for MORALITY and it depends rather on "self-awareness" and being "freedom-conscious",then isn't it nonsense for us to argue, say, that the murderers who perpetrated the September 11,2001 terror attacks did anything "wrong"? Perhaps they simply live by a different set of conventions. As the adage says, "Who are we to judge?" those terrorists if it was "morally right" in their minds to kill in the name of Allah.

You are seeing Timbreza's statement out of context. Being dynamic does not necessarily means being relative. Let me give you a perfect analogy on that.

absolutism: amputation is evil

relativism: amputation is either evil or good, It doesn't matter

dynamism: amputation can be justified if it is used to preserve the totality of the entire body

In as much as moral decisions imply uncertainty and risk, they are at the same time afford us a great chance to make ourselves grow by exercising our will power, our fortitude, our self-determination. This uncertainty in every moral decisions will test the stoutheartedness of every individual. THEY WHO SHUN IT WILL BECOME CONTENTED WITH MERE PRESCRIPTIONS, PROSCRIPTIONS, AND ROUTINES. BUT THOSE WHO CONFRONT IT WILL GROW IN SELF-AWARENESS AND FREEDOM.

You have to accept the fact that not all of us are catholics. That's why the church should stop imposing their fanclub. I am a devout catholic not in rituals and dogmas, but in practice and how I see people not as a means, but as an end of every actions.

The problem with ultra-conseratives like you is that you take every word the church has to say as the HOLY GRAIL. GOD gave us wisdom to see in many perspectives. To challenge GOD's creative wisdom just because of the prescriptions of the catholic church is an insult to his BEING.

There is more to Catholic dogmas and traditions - it is COMMON SENSE :okay:

mwg12a

December 2nd, 2010, 09:18 AM

Not said any word about my faith? In fact your attack on the Catholic Church is itself an attack on my faith! You dig up the dirt of the scandals and throw all the mud on the Church so as to discredit her position akin to discrediting the whole Supreme Court because some miscreant judges are accepting bribes. Now let's put this an example by analogy: IF a couple of Pinoy gay OFWs were REPORTEDLY molesting minors in Qatar, BY YOUR LOGIC, would you say that all Pinoy gays in the Philippines are molesters also?

What's wrong about digging up the dirt? Should it be kept secret just like what happened before? The catholic church kept those incidents secret for years and transfered the perverted catholic priest in another parish only to prey another dozens of victims? That is not digging dirt, it's the exposure of truth that the catholic church tried to conceal the problem to protect it's image. That was not an attack on YOU, OTHERWISE, THE LAW AND THE MEDIA IS ATTACKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH by exposing these tragic incidents and interviewed the victims and made public? WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO AND YOUR PERSONAL LIFE AND YOUR FAITH, Did I friggin QUESTION YOUR F**king faith? NOPE NEVER, YOU HOWEVER, insulted me on my faith! You hypocrete! REVIEW the previous pages when you started attacking me.

AND WHAT'S UP WITH THAT ALL PINOYS GAYS ARE MOLESTERS?? You're f**ked up in the brain, you keep on adding different issues not related to the topic RH bill, you dimwit!!!

TELL ME AND I ASKED YOU THE 3RD TIME YOU OXYMORON! What would you do with girls who are 8 to 10 y/os who was raped by a stranger or a family member? Would you let the poor child suffer through pregnancy that would cost her life because her body is not designed to bear a child in their womb more so give birth to it??? This is about the morning after pills. Remember, Catholic priest or a Baptist preachers are all human being also just like you and me, they are capable of commiting a mistake. The Religion is not the problem, it's not the Holy Bible is the problem ITS THOSE WHO INTERPRET AND ENACT IT. This is why we have many other Christian religions, they all interpret the bible differently. ARE YOU SAYING PRIEST ARE GODLY AND HAS NEVER EVER SINNED? You're definitely out of your mind if you think the priest don't make any mistake!!!

Parchie

December 2nd, 2010, 09:56 AM

What's wrong about digging up the dirt? Should it be kept secret just like what happened before? The catholic church kept those incidents secret for years and transfered the perverted catholic priest in another parish only to prey another dozens of victims? That is not digging dirt, it's the exposure of truth that the catholic church tried to conceal the problem to protect it's image. That was not an attack on YOU, OTHERWISE, THE LAW AND THE MEDIA IS ATTACKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH by exposing these tragic incidents and interviewed the victims and made public? WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO AND YOUR PERSONAL LIFE AND YOUR FAITH, Did I friggin QUESTION YOUR F**king faith? NOPE NEVER, YOU HOWEVER, insulted me on my faith! You hypocrete! REVIEW the previous pages when you started attacking me.

AND WHAT'S UP WITH THAT ALL PINOYS GAYS ARE MOLESTERS?? You're f**ked up in the brain, you keep on adding different issues not related to the topic RH bill, you dimwit!!!

TELL ME AND I ASKED YOU THE 3RD TIME YOU OXYMORON! What would you do with girls who are 8 to 10 y/os who was raped by a stranger or a family member? Would you let the poor child suffer through pregnancy that would cost her life because her body is not designed to bear a child in their womb more so give birth to it??? This is about the morning after pills. Remember, Catholic priest or a Baptist preachers are all human being also just like you and me, they are capable of commiting a mistake. The Religion is not the problem, it's not the Holy Bible is the problem ITS THOSE WHO INTERPRET AND ENACT IT. This is why we have many other Christian religions, they all interpret the bible differently. ARE YOU SAYING PRIEST ARE GODLY AND HAS NEVER EVER SINNED? You're definitely out of your mind if you think the priest don't make any mistake!!!

The key to winning debates is never to get your opponent get into your skin! I suggest you all take chill pills guys! And please, respond to posts point by point to avoid getting misunderstood. Peace!

mwg12a

December 2nd, 2010, 10:04 AM

The most important point to remember here is that no reasonable person would say we may kill a child for the sins of his father. In reality, pregnancies from rape are extremely rare, partly because rapists often do not perform the sex act to its normal completion. Finally, keeping the baby has often been part of the healing process from an attack.

What the hell are you talking about? What do you mean extremely rare? DO you have a statistic for these? If you said it's 50/50 I'd say yes, and what do you mean not completion? How did you know it's not completed when the rape is proven by DNA through semen???? So are you saying let this poor little child go through the pregnancY?? REMEMBER it takes several weeks to find out if the woman or girl is pregnant:ohno::ohno: And what did I say and the article stated about morning after pill??? It prevents the ovum to secret eggcells and the spermcells enter the eggcell, WhAT DOES THESE TELL US?? IT MEANS THERE IS NO LIFE DEVELOPED YET. LIFE STARTS AFTER FERTILIZATION "nOT BEFORE" FERTILIZATION!!!!!

That's why there is a procedure called CAESAREAN SECTION.

A question, a hypothetical one: What if you were told you are a product of incest? Would you say to your mom that she had rather aborted you too instead of keeping you alive?

Did you even read the statement/Question???? It says clearly that a child's body is not capable of bearing a child in her womb. Do you even know that during the whole trimester of a woman or girls pregnancies, they are always in danger??? The danger isn't just on delivering babies, THE COMPLICATIONs. I thought you said you are in the medical field? This are all basics that even nurses aids who assist in the delivery have knowledge about. I DO AND THE FACT THAT I AM MARRIED AND HAVE a CHILD, I go with my wife in her monthly check up SO NOT JUST BY VIRTUE OF PROFESSION BUT THE AQUIRED KNOWLEDGE through experience and education from her OB-GYN. This is why I knew you're a ponny!!! Simple medical explainations like these you make mistakes, GOD HELP YOUR PATIENTS if you have these poor training if you happen to be in the medical health profession. THERE, that's my attack on you personally..... But I don't think its a bad thing , i did not swear or curse on you on this one, you deserved it too I think!!!

Proofs? Isn't the Porno industry a big proof? They are not afraid of having sex with strangers because they have condoms anyway to "protect" them.

:lol::lol: Boy, you need to get yourself a bit more experience in life so you know better, and you really know what you are saying, it is all coming from your emotions and not from your hands on experiences...... HAVE YOU REALLY WATCHED PORNOGRAPHY??? DID IT LOOK TO YOU THAT ALL OF THEM ARE ALWAYS USING CONDOM????? as far as I am concerned since I have watched porns before, majority does not wear condoms. Some do have it but mostly no. PORNOGRAPHY STARTED outside the era of condom my friend, See the point there??? EVEN WITHOUT CONDOMS AND CONTRACEPTIVES, PEOPLE ARE ALL HAVING SEX. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE WAS AN EPEDEMIC ON AIDS in the past??? BECAUSE NONE OF THEM WEAR PROTECTION!!! THis is why AIDS advocates encourage condom use, to protect THOSE SINNERS WHO ARE COMMITING SIN from AIDS which affects even their innocent family members, like wife, children and such. Again, it proves one more time how less you know of the medical health profession. I hope you are learning from these.

Contraception is supposed to prevent "unwanted babies." Yet unwanted births have rocketed since the social acceptance of contraception. This is easy to prove; just count the bastard children before and after the sixties. In fact, count up the times the term "unwanted baby" was ever even used in public discourse, before and after. Count the number of broken marriages, before and after. Count the number of times couples just shacked up rather than getting married, before and after. Count the number of times people just switched partners, before and after. Count the cases of spousal abuse, and even spousal murder, before and after. Count the number of single parent families, before and after. Count the divorces, before and after. Count the re-marriages, and re-divorces, and re-re-marriages, ad infinitum, before and after.

the number of population before and the population now have changed tremendously, DEFINITELY, there would be more recorded unwanted pregnancies because of a much bigger population. In the Philippines, condoms are not always readily available, it can also be expensive and if it is expensive, a perverted sinner would not buy it. Besides, a sexual addict just thinks of pleasure and would not be responsible enough to protect themselves or their partner. DID YOU EVEN KNOW THAT MAJORITY OF MEN DOES NOT LIKE THE USE OF CONDOM BECAUSE IT DECREASE THE SENSATION? I know i don't like it either. You must still be a virgin. It's all good, I won't put you down on that one, that is not a bad thing. BUT DON"T PRETEND THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU DONT!!!

After the advent of "safe sex" provided by artificial contraception, count the venereal disease infections, before and after. In fact, count the number of known venereal diseases themselves. (Before, there were three; after over some fifty, with over twenty being incurable, along with new drug-resistant strains of the original three.) When half of the so called sexually active (meaning practitioners of illicit sex) population is already infected with incurable HPV, something no contraceptive in the world can protect anyone against, the preventative promise has been exposed as a lie.

Again, these bastards don't use protection, this is why they spread the disease. Check the data for VD and AIDS prevention. Why do you think the advocates for these and the world health organization is supporting all these? BECAUSE THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO STILL REFUSE TO USE PROTECTION. HAD THEY USED PROTECTION, there would be less cases of unwanted pregnancies there would be less cases of VDs/AIDS. Do you think a sexually active individual would even bother to think about contraception? Their top priority is to have sex to as many people as they can possibly can... CHECK AIDS FOUNDATION on their stand on condom! They are insisting its use pretty much. People are just stubborn and some are just too embarrassed to buy condom and pay for it in the cashier, WHAT USUALLY HAPPEN IF ITS A MINOR? STEAL, but then again alot of times these teenagers don't think of the consequences of having sex..... THEY ARE LESS EXPERIENCED, HAVE NOT Enough knowledge and inexperienced in life.

So with condoms on and access to OCPs, the more these teenagers will engage into sex! You don't see the moral implications of this. What would your reaction be if you happen to know that your 13 year old beautiful daughter met and had sex with many boys as she liked since she has a condom for protection anyway and can acquire naman an OCP like it was Paracetamol. It's like saying we need to legalize marijuana and cocaine since there are many users out there anyways who steal and kill just to obtain these illicit drugs so why not legalize it to prevent any further crimes.

Just because you never thought about having sex in your teen years means every other Peter is doing the same as you. FOR ONE, teenagers have no money, YET MORE AND MORE in the Philippines alone shows an incidence of teenage pregnancies. It never stopped them. Considering the Philippines is a conservative country. IF AND IF THESE CHILDREN ARE EDUCATED ENOUGH AND SHOWED THE CONSEQUENCE ON THE HARDSHIP ON PARENTING, IT WILL DISCOURAGE MOST OF THEM FROM ENGAGING SEX EVEN IF THERE ARE CONDOMS. CONDOMS ARE NOT A 100% guarantee, it depends on the user if they tear it up during the intercourse because of wrongful or misuse. Its very rare if there is a manufacturer defect but that is a different story. There were condoms available when I was a teenager there in the Philippines, I never knew where to get them, I cant afford to get one and too embarrassed to even go down the ISLE even as an adult to buy condom. SO what are you talking about?

IHO, PAPUNTA KA PA LANG PABALIK NA AKO. Wala akong paki kung insultuhin mo ako na matanda na pala ako, pero sa totoo lang lahat ng sinasabi mo based lang sa bible at mga nababasa mo, there should be a balance between reading, knowledge and experience.