Population Control Issues

[Nabartek]

What if the pill isn't good for the woman, that it cancels out other medication she is taking? What if it didn't work? Not all medication are good for women. Some may work with others, some may not. Some may even be fatal.

What about couples trying to get pregnant but the fetus will be born without anus, with two heads? What about the if the fetus about to be born will kill the mother and the couple want to abort it? Are we gonna be selfish about 'OUR' "values" regardless if the child will face a harsher future?

This brings about another controversial topic: stem cell research. Basically, what happens is that an artificially produced fetus will be used from treatment. But that is another topic.

I'm not promoting careless abortion(aborting whenever they want). I am promoting circumstantial abortion. After all, if there won't be circumstantial abortion, there will be backdoor abortion. The problem with demonizing abortion is that it will be harder to prosecute those abortionists who had done their patient wrong

[3cr]

How about using Condom?

[Nabartek]

magcocondom yung rapist?

[3cr]

Well you didn't mention rape in the above post I was replying to but since you mentioned it now, why would rape cause abnormal babies like the examples you previously posted? Surely such acts (raping) may cause unwanted babies but these babies can be placed in foster homes for adoption. No need to kill them.

[davidheathe]

in his emotional and fiery speech against RH Bill Sen. Sotto speech plagiarizes a blogger. this is what the country gets for electing comedians and turning them healthcare specialists.

word for word for several paragraphs including wrong punctuations.

http://www.spot.ph/newsfeatures/5174...-bloggers-post

[3cr]

Palusot! What a sorry ass excuse. This is Sen. Sotto's reply to the allegations of plagiarism in his “turno en contra” speech. Just used the same sources he said and didn't plagiarized from Sarah's Blog. So how come he didn't say something like "I quote" and "end quote" in his “turno en contra” speech then? Just that in essence by not doing this, Sen. Sotto is basically lifting word for word somebody's work without due recognition. Isn't that plagiarism still? It's like saying he and Sarah's Blog both plagiarized from the same sources they got their info from which is why they both ended up with respective works that's almost word for word. Sorry Sen. Sotto we're not that gullible! Hehehe...

Sotto: Why should I quote a blogger?
Rappler.com
http://www.rappler.com/nation/10606-...uote-a-blogger
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE) – Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III denied lifting passages written by a blogger who calls herself, “Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist.”

In an interview on Headstart on ANC, the ABS-CBN News Channel, Sotto said he did not plagiarize in his “turno en contra” speech against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. Sotto guested on the show on Thursday, August 16.

“Itong blogger na sinasabi nila, eh pareho kami ng pinagkunan eh. Ang pinagkunan namin si Natasha Campbell-McBride. And in my speeches, even in my first speech and my second speech, I’ve always said, every now and then sinisingit ko, hindi po ako nagdudunong-dunungan ha. Hindi po galing sa akin ito.” (This blogger they’re mentioning, we got it from the same source. Our source is Natasha Campbell-McBride. And I’ve always said, I’m not pretending to be wise. This does not come from me.)

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride.” (Why should I quote a blogger? She’s just a blogger. I’m quoting Natasha Campbell-McBride.)

The senator was referring to the doctor he cited as part of what he called expert opinion and scientific studies showing the damaging effect of contraceptives to children born to mothers who used contraception.

Sotto added that his staff did not examine blogs in getting research to debunk arguments of the RH advocates. Instead, he said they relied on books, columns and editorials.

The RH critic stressed that pro-RH groups should respond to his points instead of alleging plagiarism.

The similar passages were spotted by Alfredo R Melgar who wrote about it on the website of the Filipino Freethinkers, a group staunchly supporting the RH bill. Melgar wrote that the first part of Sotto’s speech delivered last Monday was closely similar to an entry of the US blogger.

“His scientific proof was copied entirely and almost word-for-word from an article by a blogger calling herself ‘Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist.’”

Melgar also said Sotto should have known that ‘Sarah’ had a disclaimer on her site saying, “The information on this website is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the advice provided by your doctor or other health care professional.”

‘Sarah’ also wrote, “The nutritional and other information on this website are not intended to be and do not constitute health care or medical advice.”

Melgar said that Sotto “ignored decades of studies and declarations by the World Health Organization and the Department of Health that contraceptives are safe, only to rely on an unknown blogger making wild claims. He even ignored the blogger’s disclaimer. Sotto’s reckless method of legislation is inexcusable.”

Below are the similar passages between Sotto’s speech and Sarah’s blog, as pointed out by Melgar. (Read Sotto’s full speech here and Sarah's blog here.)

Sotto’s speech:

Actually, these contraceptives are not just detrimental to women and the unborn. They are scientifically proven to have damaging effects to children born from mothers who were using contraceptives prior to their pregnancy too. According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, the use of the pill also causes severe gut dysbiosis. What is worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change. 1Gut imbalance brought on through use of the pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a woman eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring. 2 Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when the pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and they have the potential to cross the placenta. Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins.3 Not well known is also the fact that use of the pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called “the intelligence mineral” as it is intimately involved in mental development. 4

Sarah’s blog:

1 According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, use of other drugs such as the Pill also cause severe gut dybiosis. What’s worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.

2 gut imbalance brought on through use of The Pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a women eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.

3 Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when The Pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and guess what, they have the potential to cross the placenta! Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins

4 Not well known is the fact that use of The Pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called “the intelligence mineral” as it is intimately involved in mental development.

Other RH supporters pointed out that even Sotto's second speech delivered on Wednesday had text similar to an article on www.feministsforchoice.com:

Sotto's speech, part 2:

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that

"Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil."

Feminists For Choice blog

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that

“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”


Did Sen. Sotto just lie on national TV?
By Raïssa Robles
http://raissarobles.com/2012/08/16/d...n-national-tv/

Minutes ago. Senator Vicente Sotto III denied to ABS-CBNNews anchor Karen Davila that he had plagiarized parts of Sarah’s blog, the healthyeconomist.com.

Sotto denied the charge this way:

Pareho kaming pinagkunan. I’m quoting Natasha Campbell McBride. Why should I quote a blogger?

The problem with that answer is this.

Alfredo Melgar on the blog Filipino Freethinkers found that Sotto stated in his speech:

“According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, the use of the pill also causes severe gut dysbiosis. What is worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.”

Melgar noted that the same paragraph had appeared in Sarah’s blog:

“According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, use of other drugs such as the Pill also cause severe gut dybiosis. What’s worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.”

Except for the addition of the word “the” and the spelling out of the contraction “what’s” in Sarah’s blog, Senator Sotto’s words are an exact duplicate of Sarah’s paragraph.

Senator Sotto and I are both English majors so he understands what I’m talking about.

If Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride was being directly quoted by Sotto, surely the doctor would not have written a paragraph that starts with the following words - According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD…

Anyway you look at it, Sotto’s paragraph is a copy of Sarah’s paragraph.

I would like to invite readers to counter-check further his second speech as well as his other quotations that are similar to those on Sarah’s blog. Were these quoted from the blog or from Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride? Or did Sen. Sotto and Sarah quote from yet another source?

If more evidence turns up, perhaps citizens could file a formal complaint before the Senate Ethics Committee.

Sotto is after all a senior Senate official. He is the Senate Majority floor leader who has a big say on which bills reach the Senate floor.

[Biarway]

Baliw yan si Sotto. Sinabihan nya pa nga si Jose ng eat bulaga na sumama sa kanya sa Rally. Eh alam mo namang sikat yang si Jose sa mga masa. Politiko talaga.

[3cr]

FACT CHECK: Was Sen. Sotto correct in blaming pills for his infant's death?
InterAksyon
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/4...-infants-death

Senator Vicente Sotto III delivered a tearful speech on Monday against the RH Bill, saying he is against the proposed law because of his own family's experience with contraceptives.

His wife, actress Helen Gamboa, conceived their first son Vincent Paul, while she was using contraceptive pills, Sotto said. He then said the infant died at five months old, and blamed the infant's death on the pills his wife had been taking.

InterAksyon.com interviewed medical specialists and considered studies released by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society (POGS). Did the senator have sufficient and real basis to blame the death of his son on contraceptive pills?

See the experts' opinions below:

World Health Organization

In a factsheet on family planning published on their website in July, WHO says the pill works by preventing "the release of eggs from the ovaries (ovulation)." Its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy is rated at "greater than 99 percent" with correct and consistent use, and "92 percent as commonly used."

The factsheet makes no mention of the pill's supposed abortifacient effects, nor does it specify any detrimental effect it may have on the health and well-being fetuses and babies.

However, WHO does warn that the pill "should not be taken while breastfeeding."

A WHO Reproductive Health Library commentary also says "women can start all hormonal contraceptives at any time during their menstrual cycle (or at any time if the woman is amenorrhoeic) if it is reasonably certain that she is not pregnant."

Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society

In its website, POGS published a position paper on the proposed reproductive health bills in 2010. The statement contains an entire section titled "Clarifications."

It reads:

"There is much disinformation and misconception in media and other fora on the following issues. We would like to state that:

Contraceptive pills:

Do not cause abortion; in fact they prevent unwanted pregnancies hence nothing to abort.

Do not cause death and disease when used appropriately. Pregnancy and childbirth cause more death and disability than taking oral contraceptives. The hormones in the pills are synthetic hormones that are comparable to those produced by women's ovaries. They are modified in doses and composition to make them better, safer and predictable in their medical effects.

Do not cause cancer; in fact they reduce cancer of endometrium and ovaries. The reported slight increase in the risk for breast cancer is obviated by taking pills based on the national clinical guidelines."

Dr. Rowena F. Rivera, OB-GYN

POGS Fellow Dr. Rowena F. Rivera, who teaches at the Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health and holds her office at the Medical City, said: "It has been proven that the pill does not cause congenital anomalies in the baby. …It is proven to be safe."

She quoted a section on estrogen, a hormone which is one of the two ingredients of the pill, from the Handbook of Prescription Drugs and Comparative Risk Assessment: Drugs During Pregnancy and Lactation:

"The accidental administration of high-dose preparations for other indications, is no-risk-based reason for a termination of pregnancy, either. At least with repeated high-dose administration, a detailed ultrasound examination could verify a normal morphologic development of the fetus."

Said Rivera, "This means there is no established risk [of the pill on the baby]."

Dr. Ma. Ana Patricia Alvia, OB-GYN

Dr. Ma. Ana Patricia Alvia of the Makati Medical Center says that "contraceptives are all chemicals, so we don't know the effect."

She adds that "it really happens [that the woman gets pregnant even while taking the pill]. The protection of the pill is at best 98 percent, so pwede pa ring malusutan. I have patients who still get pregnant."

Given this, she says anything could happen to the baby should it be conceived while the mother is on the pill "because the mother has all these chemicals in the body. Although there are other factors that may contribute to this."

Dr. Alvia says these chemicals "all wreak havoc on the reproductive tract of the mother, making the uterus hostile to life." This is the reason why some people see the pill as an abortifacient, she said.

She does not promote the use of the pill, she says, because "it has a lot of side effects. It's all there in the literature or the product insert inside the box. [For example,] cervicitis. [The pill] has lately been implicated in breast cancer, hypertension, glucose intolerance which may lead to diabetes, venous thrombosis."

Dr. Ma. Cristina Miravalles, OB-GYN

Dr. Ma. Cristina Miravalles, also of the Makati Medical Center, says, "If a woman is taking the pill and then… gets pregnant [and] continues taking the pill, it might have an abortifacient effect."

The pill, if taken in high doses, can render the endometrium, or the lining of the uterus, “unsuitable for implantation for the fertilized egg,” she said.

She added that most of her patients stop taking the pill after they find out they are pregnant.

Dr. Miravalles added that women with a history of thrombosis and leukemia in their families should not take the pill.

Dr. Cecil Monteblanco, OB-GYN

Dr. Cecil Monteblanco of FortMED Medical Clinic said that the pill, "like any other medicine, has side effects. It has to be taken with the safeguard that you know what you are taking."

A woman must know when to take it, when not to take it, and what the possible side effects are. He stressed the need for a woman to consult with a physician before taking the pill.

A doctor must first interview the patient regarding her medical history, particularly her OB/GYN, before prescribing the pill.

"Pills are not for everyone," said Monteblanco.

What happened to Sotto's son

Alvia said "there are several factors" that have to be considered when discussing what happened to Sotto's son, such as, "What was Gamboa taking during and after her pregnancy?" and, "How she was taking them?"

"We cannot arbitrarily say that [the reason why the infant died] was because of the pills," Monteblanco said. "It could be that the problem was inherent in the child, and was not caused by the pills. This is just an assumption because we do not know the entire story."

He said ill effects on a child are possible should it be conceived while the mother is on the pill, but said he has not handled any such case.

Dr. Diego Danila, an obstetrics specialist at the National Center for Disease Prevention and Control of the Family Health Office at the Department of Health, said that it was "very unfair" for the Senator to blame his son’s death on the pill.

"To focus it on contraceptives is baloney. There is no evidence yet in journals that a five-month-old baby died because the mother was taking pills. Scientifically, medically, he is very ignorant, and to broadcast that to the entire nation (is very unfair). He is misleading the people.”

He said the number one cause of newborn death is infections like diarrhea and dengue.

"The baby might have a congenital effect or a hereditary disease," Danila added. Sotto did say that his son had a weak heart.

[3cr]

Children and the population
by DUCKY PAREDES
Malaya
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/o...the-population

I have four children. The first was Oona, our only girl; three years later came Andy and 13 months after, Mikey. Danny arrived seven years later.

Of course, the perceptive reader will surmise that we used contraceptive pills, but, unlike what is being played up in our Senate (from the experiences of blue babies occurring for Senators Tito Sotto and Lito Lapid), we never had blue babies or any other child-bearing problems.

As Senator Pia Cayetano has decided for herself in judging medical histories, I would also go with scientific fact and explanations rather than blaming pills or other devices for childbearing misfortunes. This is not to say that the drug companies are totally blameless.

The time that we had our children was also when the world was shocked with the discovery that certain chemicals thought to be safe gave the world the Thalidomide babies born with no feet or arms and sometimes even without both essential appendages. Thalidomide, by the way, is not a contraceptive, but a sleeping pill, and was dispensed with a warning that pregnant mothers should not use it.

Thus, while pills in the time that our babies were conceived may not have had zero defects, one also clearly remembers that these had warnings and caveats on their packaging so that even in cases where in doctors prescribing them did not give ample warnings, reading the literature listing health conditions and practices that made these pills toxic was enough to stop a careful user from taking them. These were explicit warnings against using these pills with other specific drugs, alcohol and other substances.

But that was years ago; and, one expects that the drug companies (having experimented on our generation the earlier pills for contraception) now have superior, improved pharmacology resulting in a safer, more effective pill since half a century ago.

Health Secretary Enrique Ona (a member of my Rotary club -- RC Pasig. District 3800) says that the enactment of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill is a precursor to the universal health care program of the Aquino administration. Health Secretary Enrique Ona in effect passed the ball to Congress on whether or not Filipinos are provided with basic health services.

Dr. Ona identified the RH bill as one of five needed to complete the government’s healthcare services for all by the end of 2016. The others include: sin taxes (upgraded taxes for tobacco and alcohol), amendments to the National Health Insurance Act, laws for corporate governance of hospitals, amendments to midwife and nursing laws.

Dr. Ona said: “I believe that these legislations should be a priority for the universal healthcare program.”

What House Bill 4244 or the “Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011” mandates is that the government provide natural and artificial methods of family planning including condoms, intrauterine devices and pills.

This provision for the state providing condoms, intrauterine devices and pills is the one that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) objects to on grounds that the use of these devices and pills is not acceptable to their religion.

This, despite the clear provision in our Constitution (Article II, Section 6) that states: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

In the ongoing debate on whether or not to pass the proposed legislation, the debate is not whether one is pro or anti-choice. In our country, where most of the unplanned and even unwanted pregnancies occur among the very poor, if government does not provide these means of legal contraception, then, they are not available to most of our population who are mostly poor.

How would they know that these safer pills and devices exist and that these would be affordable to them only if these were available for free from government clinics and hospitals? Having these available also gives our doctors the means to assure that mothers can space their children for healthier pregnancies, child-bearing and actual births.

Our present statistics on the number of women who die from childbirth are unacceptable. This would improve if these mothers were given the means and the knowledge necessary to space their children.

We also have the problem of unplanned and even unwanted children even among very young women who are not given the knowledge about their bodies that they need to understand how children are created and are born.

I am for the RH Bill and feel that I have to be. After all, we did use the pill to space our four children and if this was good enough for us, why should I now shift to the side of the moralists who would deprive our poor women who, from being poor (and being kept ignorant), do not have the means or the knowledge needed to take control over their own bodies?

[up_mc]

Dear Sen. Sotto

In 1999 I conceived and gave birth to a baby girl who happened to have VACTRL association, a non-random clustering of birth defects. Becca had anal atresia, esophageal fistula and vertebral anomalies. In layman’s terms, she had no anus, her esophagus dead ended in the middle of her abdominal cavity and her spinal cord was snagged in several parts of the spinal column. The doctors say there was no identifiable cause. There was no chromosomal problem. This does not run in families.

In short, we, her parents, lost the genetic lottery.

She died of pneumonia arising from surgical complications. The pain was of the most profound nature that echoes in me to this day. And for every baby I see, I still think a thousand thoughts about what might have been. And yes, like you, I still cry over her, thirteen years after her death. So believe me when I say, I understand your pain.

What you do with your pain, however, is what I do not understand.

It is your claim that the birth control pills your wife took resulted in an unplanned, complicated pregnancy and subsequent birth of a child with birth defects that resulted in an infant death. As I have no means of ascertaining the truth or falsity of that statement, I will, for the moment assume that it is true. That much I will give to you.

Since your experience in the 1970s, advances in modern medicines have given us birth control that are far safer than the ones Helen Gamboa took. In fact, there are different ones now. In a few years, perhaps there will already be a male version of the Pill, if there isn’t one already. There are means of determining what forms of birth control are compatible with each person’s biological make up, tests to conduct, adjustments in dosage, injectibles and others that weren’t in the realm of imagination 37 years ago. By now, it is safe to say that the strides in scientific research and discoveries have given us far safer alternatives to the few that were available to you when your wife was of child bearing age.

So while I understand that you feel it is your obligation to spare other parents the pain of the loss of a child, I would like to tell you that the conditions that led to your loss then may not be the same conditions prevailing now. Even more so, I would like to point out that the genetic, physiological or chemical factors that may have led your wife to deliver a child with a weak heart may not be shared by the vast majority of the population. To insist that your experience will potentially be shared by everyone who uses birth control is illogical and presumes that only one factor led to your child’s death.

Furthermore, to argue as though there were no intervening 37 years between your experience is to take a stand of immutability and say that nothing, not you, not medicine, not values or mores has changed in 37 years, and that all conditions of environment, technology and population needs remain the same. They aren’t. Even conditions now will change. For instance, in a few months or years, you may no longer be senator and in control of legislation that could mean life or death for other people.

Which brings me to life and death. While contraception for you means the death of your infant son, for others, it spells the difference between maternal life or death. Women in poor communities who can ill afford to feed, house and clothe children who cannot have access to means of preventing pregnancies end up having more children and endangering their own health and survival. Impoverished women have poor children. Poor women, who themselves have barely enough to eat will have little to feed their own children. Is it not the height of insensitivity to tell these poor women that you will spare them the potential deaths of their children if that death is due to birth control, but you will do nothing to help them prevent their own deaths from too many pregnancies or their potential children’s deaths due to starvation or malnutrition?

You say you wanted a son badly then. Your son was lucky. He was wanted and loved. Every child should be so loved and so wanted. But if you deny people access to birth control too many children will not be. I see many of them everyday, living on the streets, sleeping on sidewalks, starving and constantly in life threatening situations from sexual predators, car accidents, opportunistic criminal syndicates. There are so many of them all trying to survive that many tend to see them as problems and no longer as people, and regardless of age or innocence, they are seen as juvenile criminals. Nobody seems to want them, not even their parents who should have wanted them the way you wanted and loved the son you lost.

If you must give meaning to your son’s death, let it be that it has given Filipino children and their parents the quality of life they deserve, let it be for every child to be wanted and cared for and loved. Wouldn’t that be a better monument to your son?

Source: ATTY. TRIXIE CRUZ-ANGELES

[louiegi]

Originally Posted by Nabartek

Reading this, I think we should allow abortion given certain circumstances like this and well, when one gets raped and get pregnant.

Sometimes, it's better and more merciful to have a baby aborted than being born without anus and some other stuff that would let one have a normal life.

this mere statement alone proves why abortion doesn't and musn't go a long way in this country.

[louiegi]

Originally Posted by Nabartek

ARMM is twice the national average.

It is interesting to note that CAR provinces in general have lower population growth rate (except for Baguio since a lot of people tend to immigrate there) has a birthrate lower than the national average despite the lack of facilities and access to information and being one of the poorest region with quite a high poverty rate outside Baguio-Benguet. Some even less than 1% in some provinces. Could it be cultural? Contrary to popular myth, most Cordilleras are Christians by faith.

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html

Stark contrast in population growth rate for the poorest regions in the country.

Neglected regions in North Luzon have lower than the national average growth rate.

Looking at the chart, it looks like most regions have below the national average growth rate especially those outside greater Manila and the Tagalog region. Spme provinces even registered negative growth rate. The problem is there are a few regions, about 2 or 3, that has a population growth rate MORE THAN TWICE the national average . Just look at SOCSARGEN and ARMM. I think the national government should concentrate promoting family planning in these areas. They're like 5% growth rate, the national average in the 60's.

I think most regions are doing good in promoting family planning even without the RH bill. However, there are those who have not done their homework. In the 90's and early 2000, the DOH had a large campaign on family planning. Nothing that is disagreeable with the Church, but more of advising parents to plan the # of children they can afford to raise.

Now, I think what the Philippines do seriously need a HEALTHCARE reform which will include RH provisions. We do not really have a good healthcare program. Even middle class people are struggling with healthcare.

If most regions in the country posted desirable population growth rate, is it not the real cause of our overpopulation is improper or non implementation existing laws? that's why, i may sound anti-RH but i think this bill isn't needed anymore.

[Nabartek]

I think the current RH bill is more of a dummy than an actual solution. You can add that RH bill to an overall healthcare. We need healthcare bill more. After all, if we have a good health care bill, reproductive health will naturally follow.

And given that government statistics, only certain areas have incredible growth rate. Some of our provinces even have negative growth rate. I think there are local politicians who did not do their homework. You see, a lot of regions and provinces that have lower than national average growth rate are still poor and do not have services as accessible as in Manila and the Tagalog region ( these two regions have high growth rate but then I think it has more to do with people moving in though)

By concentrating alone in ARMM and SOCSARGEN(5% growth rate), there will be a significant "rebalancing" of population growth

[Nabartek]

Originally Posted by louiegi

this mere statement alone proves why abortion doesn't and musn't go a long way in this country.

That is why it should be on CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, right? Will you allow a child to be born without anus and other normal parts of the body and live the rest of his life relying on machines or bedridden?
This brings up another issue: Euthanasia. But then, that is another topic. But the issue: will you see a person suffer more just because of our personal conviction? What if the person in deep pain without any remedy available just want to rest in peace? Is it not selfish of us to let him/her suffer under pain even more just because of our personal conviction?

I am not advocating careless Euthanasia or abortion. I'm speaking here of certain circumstances. After all, should there not be as much choice as possible?

[Askal82]

Originally Posted by Nabartek

Stark contrast in population growth rate for the poorest regions in the country.

Neglected regions in North Luzon have lower than the national average growth rate.

Looking at the chart, it looks like most regions have below the national average growth rate especially those outside greater Manila and the Tagalog region. Spme provinces even registered negative growth rate. The problem is there are a few regions, about 2 or 3, that has a population growth rate MORE THAN TWICE the national average . Just look at SOCSARGEN and ARMM. I think the national government should concentrate promoting family planning in these areas. They're like 5% growth rate, the national average in the 60's.

I think most regions are doing good in promoting family planning even without the RH bill. However, there are those who have not done their homework. In the 90's and early 2000, the DOH had a large campaign on family planning. Nothing that is disagreeable with the Church, but more of advising parents to plan the # of children they can afford to raise.

Now, I think what the Philippines do seriously need a HEALTHCARE reform which will include RH provisions. We do not really have a good healthcare program. Even middle class people are struggling with healthcare.

If we have a successful population management campaign back in the 90's, then why it does not seem to tame the population growth rate to at least the ASEAN level?

Of course, the church would agree to it because it's the natural method of birth control, not unless you bring up artificial method and that would be an entirely different story.

Healthcare reform is achieved with a better economy. Right now, the best healthcare service that the government would provide is population management through a compulsory sex education which is not that different from requiring children to undergo formal education and informing them of the alternative means of family planning.

[Nabartek]

Take a look at the government statistics I posted

There are some regions that have 5% growth rate, more than double the national average Most regions average 1%-1.50%. Manila and Tagalog regions are about 2% but we have to look into the immigration factor since these places are growing immigration hubs.

There should be certain areas where family planning should be actively pushed. Ironically, the areas that have more than double the national average are NOT heavily Catholic/Christian areas -- ARMM and SOCSARGEN. Some provinces even recorded negative birth rate or very low birth rate, about 0.5 % Certain provinces in Northern Luzon, Bicol, Cordillera, Visayas have very low population growth rate -- as in even lower than the national average of our neighbors.

Our problem mainly seems to be the imbalance of population growth rate. A very low population growth rate can be threatening to us. A very high population growth rate will make it difficult to progress.

SOCSARGEN, the Cordilleras, Cagayan Region and ARMM are among the poorest regions in the country but if you look at it, their population growth are polarized. CAR and Cagayan Valley have low growth rate compared to the national average; while SOCSARGEN and ARMM have growth rate more than twice the national average and these two aren't even "immigration hub" like Manila is or Southern Tagalog.

I think what the government should do is promote a universal healthcare while concentrating on ARMM and SOCSARGEN as regards to family planning.

[Askal82]

Originally Posted by Nabartek

Take a look at the government statistics I posted

There are some regions that have 5% growth rate, more than double the national average Most regions average 1%-1.50%. Manila and Tagalog regions are about 2% but we have to look into the immigration factor since these places are growing immigration hubs.

There should be certain areas where family planning should be actively pushed. Ironically, the areas that have more than double the national average are NOT heavily Catholic/Christian areas -- ARMM and SOCSARGEN. Some provinces even recorded negative birth rate or very low birth rate, about 0.5 % Certain provinces in Northern Luzon, Bicol, Cordillera, Visayas have very low population growth rate -- as in even lower than the national average of our neighbors.

Our problem mainly seems to be the imbalance of population growth rate. A very low population growth rate can be threatening to us. A very high population growth rate will make it difficult to progress.

SOCSARGEN, the Cordilleras, Cagayan Region and ARMM are among the poorest regions in the country but if you look at it, their population growth are polarized. CAR and Cagayan Valley have low birthrate compared to the national average; while SOCSARGEN and ARMM have growth rate more than twice the national average and these two aren't even "immigration hub" like Manila is or Southern Tagalog.

I think what the government should do is promote a universal healthcare while concentrating on ARMM and SOCSARGEN as regards to family planning.

A positive or negative population growth is detrimental because either way, they are adding constraints to our economic and financial resources.

It doesn't matter, the average growth rate is still higher within the ASEAN standards. It's not balanced.

That's why the RH bill should be universal. The Catholic Church shouldn't really make a fuss about it.

What these regions need are infrastructures so they become more integrated in the national economy. Provide them jobs so they become productive and not reproductive members of the society. Healthcare reform would follow. For now, the RH bill is a better preventive medicine than running a more costly healthcare program. It costs way less to buy a condom than getting baby for 9 months, giving birth and a lifetime commitment doesn't it?

[Nabartek]

It is more practical to have a universal healthcare with an RH clause on it and concentrate resources in regions with 5% growth rate.

Yes, infrastructures are needed. But isn't it ironic that regions with equally poor infrastructure (in the case of the Cordilleras, certain regions in the Visayas) but have growth rate LOWER than the national average? Some provinces even recorded NEGATIVE population growth rate among their low density population. A lot of places in Northern Luzon, and the Visayas are as equally neglected by the national government, but they managed to have a lower than national average growth rate. The national government must look into ARMM and SOCSARGEN since they have higher population growth rate than areas in the country where people immigrate to.

The national average is more or less 2%, ARMM has 5%, SOCSARGEN, around 4%. This is where the family planning resources should be more concentrated. Maybe, we should ask the imam's down there? These places are not largely Catholic/Christian. Maybe, the imams are discouraging family planning more than the Catholic church?

[3cr]

Originally Posted by Askal82

A positive or negative population growth is detrimental because either way, they are adding constraints to our economic and financial resources.

It doesn't matter, the average growth rate is still higher within the ASEAN standards. It's not balanced.

That's why the RH bill should be universal. The Catholic Church shouldn't really make a fuss about it.

It costs way less to buy a condom than getting baby for 9 months, giving birth and a lifetime commitment doesn't it?

Tumpak! In the end of the day condom cost the least so in essence it offers the best bang for the tax payer's buck so to speak given that Gov't funds are limited to start with.

[Askal82]

Originally Posted by Nabartek

It is more practical to have a universal healthcare with an RH clause on it and concentrate resources in regions with 5% growth rate.

Yes, infrastructures are needed. But isn't it ironic that regions with equally poor infrastructure (in the case of the Cordilleras, certain regions in the Visayas) but have growth rate LOWER than the national average? Some provinces even recorded NEGATIVE population growth rate among their low density population. A lot of places in Northern Luzon, and the Visayas are as equally neglected by the national government, but they managed to have a lower than national average growth rate. The national government must look into ARMM and SOCSARGEN since they have higher population growth rate than areas in the country where people immigrate to.

The national average is more or less 2%, ARMM has 5%, SOCSARGEN, around 4%. This is where the family planning resources should be more concentrated. Maybe, we should ask the imam's down there? These places are not largely Catholic/Christian. Maybe, the imams are discouraging family planning more than the Catholic church?

A universal healthcare would simply cost a lot taxpayer's money. It's not practical with the severely limited resources the country have.

The RH bill would get the job done just fine.

Also, the RH bill is universal, everybody is required to undergo it just like how children is required to have formal, secular education. The RH bill is nothing more than a mandated nationwide sex education but the choice ultimately rests on the couple and the State provides artificial contraceptives if they select that option. It's not a one-child policy.

Religion and State shouldn't mix whether it be Catholics, Muslims or others.