A Response to “TOUGH QUESTIONS THAT PRO-RH BILL CAN’T ANSWER”



This is a response to 
TOUGH QUESTIONS THAT PRO-RH BILL CAN’T ANSWER


1. If the Reproductive Health Bill is for health, why promote oral contraceptive pills when it is known for causing breast and cervical cancer?

No one is forcing anyone to take these contraceptives. People are given education about these contraceptives (like the proper way to use it and its risks) and given a CHOICE whether to use it or not knowing these risks. Just like chemotherapy and other medical medicines and methods, you are educated about them and their risks and given a choice whether to use it or not.

Oral Contraceptives also have health benefits. Oral contraceptives can also significantly decrease the risk of ovarian cancer by 50% in 5 years of use and endometrial cancer. And the cancer diagnosed in women who had used oral contraceptives were “less advanced clinically” than women who doesn’t use contraceptives.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656904

 


2. Why is there no provision in the Reproductive Health Bill to educate women in the adverse effects of using artificial contraception if the RH Bill promotes women’s health?

 

Are you kidding me? Part of the RH Bill is EDUCATION about these contraceptives.

 


3. If a woman develops breast and cervical cancer from using oral contraceptive pills distributed by the government, will the government be responsible for them and provide them with free chemotherapy drugs?

Can you site your source that oral contraceptive CAUSES breast and cervical cancer? The keyword there is CAUSE. A lot of things can cause cancer (lifestyle, genes, environment etc.). “CAUSES cancer” is different from “INCREASED RISK from cancer”. Again, part of the RH Bill is education about family planning and contraceptives. They will be informed of the risks and given a CHOICE whether to use it or not. And why suggest chemotherapy if you don’t like risks?

The government has been promoting Natural Family Planning method for decades. Look at where it got us. Should the government shoulder the expenses for the unexpected pregnancies and STDs?


4. One of the provisions of the R.H Bill says that abortion is still illegal, if it is, then why promote Intrauterine device since its principal action is to prevent implantation thus deliberately aborting the fertilized egg?

Abortion is the termination of a fetus or embryo. And a fertilized egg is NOT a fetus.


5. If life begins at implantation, does that imply that prior to implantation the fertilized egg is not yet human?

Life begins at implantation? Says who? Yes, it is not YET a human.


6. If prior to implantation the fertilized egg is not yet human then what is it?

It is called a FERTILIZED EGG/ZYGOTE. duh!


7. If it is not a human being then how can a non-human becomes a human? Can a blood have the potential to become a human person? or a piece of tissue?

Whut?? It is called cellular division or MITOSIS. Blood can’t turn into a human or a tissue just like wine can’t turn into blood and bread can’t turn into flesh. duh! What kind of a question is that?


8. According to the National Statistics Office our population growth rate is on steady decline, then how can you say that we are over populated?

The growth rate is in decline BUT the Philippines is STILL overpopulated. The growth rate from 2000 to 2007 is at 2.04% and our population is at 88,574,614 in 2007. Growth rate and population are different from one another. The growth rate is declining BUT the population is still growing.

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2010/pr10162tx.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippines-demography.png
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popn.asp

 


9. According to the latest news the budget intended for R.H Bill is 731 million, instead of spending part of this amount for artificial contraception, why not spend it to feed the street children and provide them with decent home and education?

What we need are steady and effective results. You’ll only feed them for a day with what you are suggesting. Give them information and educate them then they’ll be independent and responsible BUT no amount of job can provide for a family with 50 children. The government should work on BOTH education and overpopulation.


10. If the proponents of R.H Bill advocates “choice” then why prosecute health professionals in Sec.21 of the said Bill, if they refuse to educate or perform artificial contraceptive measures?

 

If I went to a shop I am entitled to be GIVEN SERVICE without discrimination. If I go to a pharmacy and in need of contraceptives or medicine the pharmacy should provide me with the things that I need as long as the transaction is within the bounds of law. Nobody gives a fuck if the pharmacists are Catholics or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. It is their JOB. Be PROFFESIONAL. If they don’t want to do their responsibility and provide the services that they should be providing then they should quit their jobs.

 


11. In Sec.10 of the said Bill it classified contraception as essential medicine, by the word itself “medicine” it connotes something we drink or inject, then why is it I.U.D which is not a medicine but a device is included under the ambiguous term essential medicine?

Like the way you want contraceptives to require a prescription just like medicine right? Oh, and not all medicines are orally taken or injected.

World Health Organization DOES recognize IUDs as an essential medicine.
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Health_Organization_Essential_Medicines

 


12. Evidently in countries that vigorously promotes condom (Thailand, India and Africa) the cases of A.I.D.S did not decrease rather it doubled, then why promote condom even if it is not effective?

According to ww.unaids.org, AIDS cases in the Philippines increased by 25% from 2001 to 2009, while the AIDS cases in Thailand, South Africa and India decreased by 25% from 2001 to 2009. Get your facts straight. The AIDS problem was already happening in Thailand before their promotion of condom use. That is why they are promoting the use of contraception, because the AIDS problem was already there.

http://www.unaids.org/documents/20101123_GlobalReport_em.pdf

 


13. If the Reproductive Health Bill is intended for married couples then why make artificial contraception available for everyone?

It is not just for married couples. It is intended for ADULTS who wants to practice safe sex, family planning and their right to choose.


14. Since the Reproductive Health Bill promotes artificial contraception for married couples as well as unmarried ones then would you agree that you are promoting perversion?

Perversion you say? Have you read your bible? So are you using your bible as the standard here? Not everyone believes in your bible. Sex outside of marriage happens with or without contraception to all people of different beliefs.


15. Is a child a disease that there is a need to prevent him from being born?

So preventing something means it’s a disease? Who ever said a child is a disease anyway? So every egg must be fertilized right? Because we should not prevent it from being born. So a guy must impregnate a girl if she is ovulating? No egg must be wasted right? Every sperm and egg must be born right? Wasting sperm and egg is a sin right? Not every egg and sperm deserves a name. Oh, natural family planning also PREVENTS pregnancy.


16. If an increase in population spawns poverty, then why does countries like China and United States are richer than Philippines even if their population is five times than ours?

Wow! I smell a dumb argument here. Have you seen China and USA on a map and compared it to the size of the Philippines? China is rich but the Chinese people are poor. China is already implementing a one child policy for urban couples. Poverty is not just rooted in population. The US is economically successful than us because a lot of the major corporations are based there. They have been the world-leading center for scientific discoveries and talents. The US also have their own reproductive health care and in some states abortion is legal.

Overpopulation is not just about the SPACE. It is whether the Philippines and the government can provide the needs of its population. So far at our current population the government CAN’T provide the needed services to its people. Have you seen how populated the classrooms are in public schools and how crowded it is inside public hospitals?


17. Would you agree than corruption is the cause of our poverty and not population? If you do, then why not create a law that will combat corruption?

It is BOTH. No amount of job is enough if you have 50 children.


18. Instead of artificial contraception, why not promote Natural Family Planning since it is very efficient and costless?

Natural family planning is effective? Really? It is effective at preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancy? We have already been promoting NFP for decades and it is NOT effective. The RH Bill will educate the people of all types of family planning methods (including NFP). If you want to use NFP then by all means do so. But NFP requires patience and discipline that many filipinos lack. What if married couples want to have sex without conceiving while the woman is ovulating? The RH Bill gives the information and empowers the people by letting them choose the method that fits them.

74 thoughts on “A Response to “TOUGH QUESTIONS THAT PRO-RH BILL CAN’T ANSWER”

  1. [Pinay Ateista] Face palm! Face palm! Woot!

    #15. Them guy loonies should have their briefs baptized and buried every morning. Sad.

    Them girl loonies should have their used sanitary napkins baptized and buried every after their menstruation.

    And oh, they should not forget to MOURN.

    • Hello, IORHB people. As you can see, someone took the time to answer your questions despite being frustrated by them.

      Thanks for the free promotion. Comments are unmoderated, except when you start abusing other people. The thread is open for a dialogue. PS: I was banned in your page, so I couldn’t engage you in a debate. :)

  2. keep on posting this link in facebook moron and we’ll definitely lose this bill! are you even thinking?!

    when you answer a fuckin argument, answer it directly, you dont change it. and if you’ll be displaying ur wit make sure to put links in all of your points. ur giving an opinion instead of facts!

    some fuckin idiot atheist! you give atheism a bad name dip shit. ang bobo!ayusin mo nga yan!

      • Sa number one pa lang mali na! Marunong ka ba magbasa? the fuckin question was why promote hindi why force! idiots!

      • 1. If the Reproductive Health Bill is for health, why promote oral contraceptive pills when it is known for causing breast and cervical cancer?

        — The RH Bill is about freedom of choice. The anti-RH Billers (Your people. Don’t you pretend to be one of us), have always implied that the RH Bill will FORCE people to use contraceptives.

      • isa pang bobo! saan ka nakakita ng tanong na may supporting links?! ang sagot ang dapat may link! moron!

      • LOL, yung sagot po yung may mga links sa ilalim. Baka po kailangan nyo ng salamin. :)

      • you fucking idiot! you dare call yourself an atheist and you can give links for just 4 out of eightheen questions?! freaking imbecele!

        Lets consolidate first. If we want to answer all of these, we should be solid in all of the answers backed by credible links. 18 out of 18! BOBO!

        Your a fucking christian i’m sure. Atheists now better than rushing to this lame effort. BOBO!

      • Jigsawpuzz, you get all riled up because of a blog post… Tipitim… @_@ As if a blog post can cause earthquakes… Hmmn…

        Got a problem with this post? If you really think we’re idiots and morons, and if you are intelligent, then you’ll know what the answer to your problem is. That is, to write an essay to refute this post. Shallow much?

    • Actually, I think the article answered the points concisely enough, and was considerate enough to add links to relevant references where it was needed.

      Don’t blame your questionable reading comprehension on somebody else.

      • ISA PANG BOBO! CONCISELY ENOUGH TO BE IDIOTIC TO FALL TO THE TRAP OF ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE DUMB PROLIFE QUESTIONS? TANGINANG YAN! WALA BANG NAKAKAINTINDI DITO? SANA GUMAWA KA NALANG NG MGA TANONG PARA SA KANILA! HINDI YAN UTO-UTONG SASAGOT NG MGA MISLEADING NA TANONG NILA IN THE FIRST PLACE! PUTANGINA NIYO! MGA BOBO! IMBES NA MAKATULONG SA ADHIKAIN NG GANAP NA KALAYAAN, KATANGAHAN PINAPAIRAL NIYO! NAKAKAHIYA KAYO! MGA BOBO!

        PWEDE BA TANGALIN NA YANG MGA PALPAK NA SAGOT NA YAN! GUMAWA NA LANG NG MGA TANONG?! MGA UTO-UTO! PA INGLES INGLES, SIMPLE LOGIC AND INTELLECTUAL WAR STRATEGY HINDI ALAM! KABOBOHAN NIYO! MGA BWISET!

      • Palusot much? You are what you are. A troll. And what do trolls get, 0 respect.

  3. This is a wonderful message that was sent to me by a friend who thought this is my blog post…

    [Name]: “Tene, I personally appreciate your tirelessness in combating STUPIDITY, but sometimes for your own peace of mind, please refuse on occasion to engage in a battle of wits with those who are unarmed. Give yourself a break every now and then, you deserve it. Minsan wala tayong magagawa marami talagang tanga sa Pilipinas kaya tayo ganito. Kaso nga ang TAGAL gumana ang DARWINIAN theory of evolution… these idiots can’t DIE of their STUPIDITY or OLD AGE FAST ENOUGH. And find solace in the fact that even though these fucking idiots will probably fuck and have kids, at least they’re not YOURS.”
    2 minutes ago · Like

    Awww… How sweet. >=)

    • Hey JIGSAWPUZZ, you seemed to think highly of yourself, the king of genius, and yet you don’t even know how to spell “imbecile”. You’re so stupid you flushed your brain instead of your shit…

      • OY ROSSI! SA HINABAHABA NG SINABI KO YUN LANG PINANSIN MO?

        SABIHIN KO ULIT!

        you fucking idiot! you dare call yourself an atheist and you can give links for just 4 out of eightheen questions?! freaking imbecile!

        Lets consolidate first. If we want to answer all of these, we should be solid in all of the answers backed by credible links. 18 out of 18! BOBO!

        Your a fucking christian i’m sure. Atheists now better than rushing to this lame effort. BOBO!

        Posted by jigsawpuzz | April 13, 2011, 8:56 pm

        THERE! ARE SATISFIED NOW YOU FUCKING IDIOT! YOUR SO FUCKING DUMB YOU CAN GET A THE POINT! BOBA! TANGINA MO! HAHAHAHA

      • Jigsawpuzz, I thought you were going? Why are you still here? Watch your precious gay porn.

      • Jigsawpuzz, I thought you were going? Why are you still here? Watch your precious gay porn.

        Posted by The Atheist Freedom Wall | April 13, 2011, 10:28 pm

        HAHAHAHA! YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE? YOU’RE JUST FUCKING JEALOUS WE GET MORE DICKS THAN YOU DO! UGLY DUMPED BITCH! HAHAHAHA! =P

      • OH SORRY! SPEED OF THOUGHT AND FAST TYPING CAN LEAD TO DROPPED WORDS. IT WAS JUST ONE WORD OUT, COMPARED TO YOUR STUPID SCHOLARLY PIECE!

        IM WORKING ON IT BITCH! BOBO!

        LET ME SAY THAT PART AGAIN:

        IF THIS BILL DOESNT GET PASSED, IM BLAMING PEOPLE LIKE YOU! FUCKING MORONIC AIRHEADS! IM OUTTA HERE! I’M GOING TO WATCH GAY PORN!

        POSTED BY JIGSAWPUZZ | APRIL 13, 2011, 9:58 PM | EDIT

        No. It’s in your reply.

  4. 1. If the Reproductive Health Bill is for health, why promote oral contraceptive pills when it is known for causing breast and cervical cancer?

    — The RH Bill is about freedom of choice. The anti-RH Billers (Your people. Don’t you pretend to be one of us), have always implied that the RH Bill will FORCE people to use contraceptives.

    THEN YOU FUCKING MORON SHOULD HAVE PLACED LINKS PROVING OR SAYING THAT RH BILLERS HAVE IMPLIED THIS FORCE YOU UNBELIEVABLE SHIT HEAD!

    TANGINANG YAN! PINPOINT KO LANG ANG MALI, IM NOT ONE OF YOU AGAD? BOBO!

    IF THIS BILL GETS PASSED, IM BLAMING PEOPLE LIKE YOU! FUCKING MORONIC AIRHEADS! IM OUTTA HERE! I’M GOING TO WATCH GAY PORN!

    • Jigsawpuzz, you get all riled up because of a blog post… Tipitim… @_@ As if a blog post can cause earthquakes… Hmmn…

      Got a problem with this post? If you really think we’re idiots and morons, and if you are intelligent, then you’ll know what the answer to your problem is. That is, to write an essay to refute this post. Shallow much?

      1. If the Reproductive Health Bill is for health, why promote oral contraceptive pills when it is known for causing breast and cervical cancer?

      — The RH Bill is about freedom of choice. The anti-RH Billers (Your people. Don’t you pretend to be one of us), have always implied that the RH Bill will FORCE people to use contraceptives.

      THEN YOU FUCKING MORON SHOULD HAVE PLACED LINKS PROVING OR SAYING THAT RH BILLERS HAVE IMPLIED THIS FORCE YOU UNBELIEVABLE SHIT HEAD!

      TANGINANG YAN! PINPOINT KO LANG ANG MALI, IM NOT ONE OF YOU AGAD? BOBO!

      IF THIS BILL GETS PASSED, IM BLAMING PEOPLE LIKE YOU! FUCKING MORONIC AIRHEADS! IM OUTTA HERE! I’M GOING TO WATCH GAY PORN!

      POSTED BY JIGSAWPUZZ | APRIL 13, 2011, 9:25 PM | EDIT
      LEAVE A COMMENT CANCEL REPLY

      ——— Last line says it all. Behehehehe! >=))

      • OH SORRY! SPEED OF THOUGHT AND FAST TYPING CAN LEAD TO DROPPED WORDS. IT WAS JUST ONE WORD OUT, COMPARED TO YOUR STUPID SCHOLARLY PIECE!

        IM WORKING ON IT BITCH! BOBO!

        LET ME SAY THAT PART AGAIN:

        IF THIS BILL DOESNT GET PASSED, IM BLAMING PEOPLE LIKE YOU! FUCKING MORONIC AIRHEADS! IM OUTTA HERE! I’M GOING TO WATCH GAY PORN!

      • I’m so sorry you commented before you read. If you read before you commented maybe you wouldn’t look this bad. :)

        Can we still be friends? :)

      • Jigsawpuzz’s nose is flairing again. Careful, you might drop what’s left of your gray matter. Ga-booger lang… Ahihihi…

    • And this isn’t my post. Tell that to the author. I think you should learn Braille. Bulag. Ay, maghilamos ka nalang pala. Anlaki ng muta mo sa mata parang ga-piso.

      • I’m so sorry you commented before you read. If you read before you commented maybe you wouldn’t look this bad. :)

        Can we still be friends? :)

        Posted by C’est moi Robyn | April 13, 2011, 10:04 pm

        PUTANGINA MO! GO FUCK YOURSELF. Then we can be friends! =P

      • Classic holier than thou looney. Hey, go take yer meds, Jigsawpuzz.

    • I’m so sorry your highness JIGSAWPUZZ. I do appreciate your very insightful message that clearly conveys your decency, dignity and superior breed… You’re so riled up I’m getting worried about your health, please make sure your medication is handy…

      • I’m so sorry your highness JIGSAWPUZZ. I do appreciate your very insightful message that clearly conveys your decency, dignity and superior breed… You’re so riled up I’m getting worried about your health, please make sure your medication is handy…

        Posted by Rossi | April 13, 2011, 10:41 pm

        PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU BRING YOUR BRAIN ALL THE TIME! IN THAT WAY YOU WONT MAKE A BIG DEAL SPELLING ANG GIVE WEIGHT MORE ON THE MESSAGE DUMB ASSHOLE! BOBO!

  5. Maiintindihan ko kung anti RH is kasama sa isang church org.
    Pero ung tipong nurse, NGO, government associates…
    Ipaliwanag mo kung bakit… Parang awa mo na….

    Utak, ginagamit yan. Pakiayos lang.

  6. The one resorting to name-calling and cussing is obviously out of arguments to logically respond or start one.

    I believe any “idiot” responding to a set of such ignorant and uninformed set of questions shouldn’t actually waste their time, because anyone at a glance can see that the questions are out of bigotry and hatred and are made with a personal agenda in mind. Kudos to those who managed to enter the hornet’s nest and answer them concisely, anyway.

    • They’re making themselves believe that their article, “Tough Questions That Pro-RH Bill Can’t Answer” is really that tough to answer. Their admin can only say “LOL”. Kwenk, kwenk, kwenk…

      • and they say they are civil and that they encourage a discussion tsk tsk tsk

      • Yeah. Tell me about it. The IOTRHB page is the ONLY page in the WORLD WIDE WEB that’s being visited by the opposition. As in. Sila lang. LMFAO. >=))

    • FINALLY! SOMEONE GETS MY FUCKING POINT! THE FUCKING IDIOT WHO ANSWERED THIS AND FELL TO THE TRAP OF ANSWERING BIGORTY AND HATRED STUPID QUESTIONS! YAN ANG PINAKABOBO SA LAHAT NG BOBO DITO NA DI MAKAKUHA SA SIMPLENG POINT KO!

      BAKIT NIYO PINILIT SAGUTIN ANG MGA TANONG NG KABOBOHAN? YAN ANG PUTANGINANG 1 MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION! YUNG IBA NATUTUWA PA! PALPAK NA KABOBOHAN NAKAKAHAWA! ASSHOLES!

      I believe any “idiot” responding to a set of such ignorant and uninformed set of questions shouldn’t actually waste their time, because anyone at a glance can see that the questions are out of bigotry and hatred and are made with a personal agenda in mind.

      • Palusot much? You are what you are. A troll. And what do trolls get, 0 respect. You came here to troll.

      • We are not the ones babbling here of intellectual superiority. You are. Laughable since you couldn’t distinguish the answers and the questions.

        The questions are made out of ignorance, obviously. If you respond with repulsion and hatred all the time, if all you can do is view people as unlearning infants, then you’re no better than the pro-life camp who operates on their myopic view of people.

        There are people who are unreachable. It’s not objective of the post to forcibly drag people from one intellectual standpoint to another. That’s the coercive style of the fanatics and the religious. Your invectives only shows you’re cut from the same material, having “bigotry, hatred and personal agenda in mind.”

        And oh, yes, this is OUR Freedom Wall. We can paint over your ad hominem comments all the time. Sweet, huh?

  7. answers to the questions:
    1. as per the national cancer institute, there really is no clear link of taking OC’s (oral contraceptives) and cervical and breast cancers and attributes the occurence of these cancers to other hormonal factors. “. . .indicated that current or former use of OCs did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. The findings were similar for white and black women. Factors such as longer periods of use, higher doses of estrogen, initiation of OC use before age 20, and OC use by women with a family history of breast cancer were not associated with an increased risk of the disease.” and as for cervical cancer; “. . .although OC use may increase the risk of cervical cancer, human papillomavirus (HPV) is recognized as the major cause of this disease. Approximately 14 types of HPV have been identified as having the potential to cause cancer,” and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)is planning a study to reanalyze all data related to OC use and cervical cancer risk.” which means aside from the hormonal connection, the link between OC’s and cancer is STILL NOT DEFINITE. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
    2. i believe that has been answered in this tweet.
    3. informed choice means all the positive and negative aspects of contraceptive use. being informed then, makes it a personal risk which no court of law will view as a basis for litigation.
    4. all embryo goes through different stages of transformation inside the host’s womb. the embryo of humans goes through the same stages of transformation. the development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. in organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has half of the DNA of each of two parents. in plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo. so the embryo is no different from that of a plant or animal. for humans, it is only at the eighth week that it becomes a fetus.
    5. what is the definition of life anyway? scientists as well as all the different religions have no clear cut, much less, common definition for it. if we use a definition of life that something that moves, then all of us are murderers including the saintly as they have “killed” an insect or a hard to see microscopic life.
    6.the development of the zygote into an embryo proceeds through specific recognizable stages of blastula, gastrula, and organogenesis. for humans, these stages occur before the eigth week of fertilization.
    7. we are still far away from the sci-fi version of human cloning. when we reach that stage, maybe we’ll have a firmer definition of life.
    8. true, population growth is on the decline but not because of any method of contraceptive including abstinence. the links provided by the author also shows a marked increase in non-married individuals. no union = no kids = no addition to population growth. simplistic, i know, but generally true.
    9. that small, huh? the same argument can be made of the roman catholic church’s coffers. realistically, feeding and handouts/dole outs is not and can never be the answer. you’d create a country of dependents. let me show you how feeding is not the answer. you create an agency to oversee this specific funtion, you staff this agency, you disseminate the services to every nook and cranny of the country, THEN YU TAX ALL THE ABLE-BODIED WORKERS. the current unemployment rate of this country is 7.2% multiply that by 4 as the average household then multiply that by the current population which is 90M++ you get a figure of 25M. how much will the government tax YOU? you figure it out.
    10. why penalize the professionals? let me know if you can find anything in their professional code of conduct that allows them to refuse their services for this specific service because i can’t find any. what their professional code of conduct says under section 3 “physicians should fulfill the civic duties of a good citizen, must conform to the laws and cooperate with the proper authorities in the application
    of medical knowledge for the promotion of the common welfare.” http://philippinemedicalassociation.org/pma-codes/FINAL-PMA-CODEOFETHICS2008.pdf there’s nothing there that provides for the health professional’s religious beliefs or dictates of his church. by refusing the services of his profession, he is saying that he doesn’t want to practice his profession therefore his license to practice should be taken away.
    11. as answered here by the author, not all medicine is taken orally nor injected. think about that when you have your xray or visit your dentist.
    12. i agree with the author, get the facts straight. vigorous promotion of contraceptives particularly the condom decreased the incidence of aids in the mentioned countries. in africa, the efforts took some time to take ground because of the catholic church’s resistance wherein even the archbishop was lying about the effectiveness of condoms. its a un report http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/mission/fba-hiv-aids.pdf
    13. when you read adults does that equate to married adults? must e somethong wrong in the brain process somewhere.
    14. promoting perversion? define perversion. are you using the bible as basis for your morality? is it normal then for lot and his daughters? or how about the first people, adam, eve, cain, abel, seth, and the dozens and dozens of daughters (there weren’t anyone else, right?)
    15. is an unborn child a disease? is an unborn child so grave a threat to god’s existence that he orders everyone and everything killed including the animals? with the rh bill, at least we know that we are trying to reduce population growth and give a breather for scarce resources, including jobs to catch up. for god, just to prove faithfulness? because he knows what is best?
    16. go to google maps and look at the size difference of the countries you mentioned but here are the figures: us – 3,790,000, china – 9,826,630, rp – 300,000. rp have LESS than 10 per cent of the physical land AND ocean resources. oh, by the way, china strictly enforced the one child policy for decades. there were several articles in the readers digest that parents who violated this policy were forcibly taken and separated in re-education camps. the child? never seen again.
    17. poverty is caused by several factors. unbridled population growth compounds the problem.
    18. natural family planning is the least effective of all and runs counter to basic human nature

    now that wasn’t so hard to answer, was’t it.

  8. The questions were answered in a very informative manner. Any anti-RH fanatic will have a hard time rebutting each point.

    At the same time though, some posts here are correct too, engaging anti-RH by answering their not so “tough” questions is a trap.

    The anti-RH group particularly the Catholic Church hierarchy in my opinion is not really interested in answering these questions or with the protection of the unborn, etc. They are more interested in protecting the Pope and the dogma of Papal Infallibility it invented at all cost.

    I don’t know if you may have read the information below:

    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2010/06/why-the-church-cant-change/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

    • i don’t understand why someone (especially someone from the church) would still believe this infallibility gimmick. they’ve been wrong so many times in the domain of morality which they claim they have a monopoly in.

      • They are zombies my friend. I long thought too that this crap about Papal Infallibility has long been scrapped in Vatican 2.

        How easy is it for the Church hierarchy to say we’re sorry, the Pope was wrong some of the time including RH? I guess it’s true what they say about power, it corrupts and absolute one’s corrupt absolutely.

        I am a Catholic but was never a zombie.

      • Ah the infallibility of the church. Remember the time when Galileo was considered a heretic for saying the Earth is round? Now they consider most of us evil; for considering the ovum and sperm as simple cells, and believing life begins at Conception/Fertilisation.

        Personally, I believe it’s more political. If they lose this battle, they stand to lose clout.

        IAh the infallibility of the church. Remember the time when Galileo was considered a heretic for saying the Earth is round? Now they consider most of us evil; for considering the ovum and sperm as simple cells, and believing life begins at Conception/Fertilisation.

        Personally, I believe it’s more political. If they lose this battle, they stand to lose clout.

        infallibility is bull, they are human meant to make mistakes.

    • Teka guys. You got infallibility of the Pope all wrong. Hindi porque Pope sya, lahat ng sinasabi nya tama. In-e-exercise nya lang ang infallibility only during times of releasing a dogma.

      Hindi automatic na dogma agad ang mga encyclical letters at catholic teachings. Lalong-lalong hindi dogma ang bible. Isa pa, most church teachings are not dogma.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma

      BTW, I’m a Catholic but I’m pro-RH.

      Catholics who simply are anti-RH because the Church says so, are zombies. It will only be a waste of time to have a dialogue with them. The church leaders leading these zombies are Nazi dictators.

      Trabaho ng mga pari ang itaguyod ang catholic teachings, pero hindi ibig sabihin ay lalabag na sila sa 8th commandment ng catholic doctrine.

      • ” In-e-exercise nya lang ang infallibility only during times of releasing a dogma.”

        The questions are 1) Do Catholics make this distinction? and 2) Does this distinction matter to Catholics? :D

      • @Merg: thanks for the support for the bill. but I need to enlighten you up a bit in terms of Papal Infallibility. if youll observe closely,you will see that,everything the pope said in terms of religious or moral are considered unofficially infallible. reason? coz the pope said it. thats also the reason why many of the old Church teachings even though not dogmatic yet they cant break like their stand in RH,because a pope said it.thats the truth about Infallibility of the pope.

      • @Merg: supports you have to know why the Catholic Church cant break their stance in regard of RH, try to search Humanae Vitae, the decision of Pope Paul VI in the said issue and their reference to (St.)Augustine of Hippo,a Doctor of the Church but not a pope,regarding pro-creation.
        Remember,Humanae Vitae is not considered as dogmatic so its fallible,yet they cant break it.
        you will see there the power of Papal Infallibility.

  9. On the RH bill, I think a lot of time and energy has been wasted on debating the comparatively minor issue of contraceptive use, when the main reason for the proposed legislation is, unquestionably, population reduction.

    The idea that population reduction is will somehow alleviate poverty is complete bullshit. FDR’s “New Deal” program launched unprecedented economic development in the Depression-stricken U.S.A., and lifted millions out of poverty—but never included a government program for “family planning”.

    The RH bill is a cop-out. If the government was really serious about alleviating the conditions of the poor, or reducing infant and maternal mortality, etc. it would stop being afraid to stick up to the IMF, World Bank, and WTO—and launch a real plan for economic development.

    See my whole piece on this subject at http://romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-philippines-underdeveloped-but-not-overpopulated/

    • Perhaps you can tell that to families that can only support two children but ended up having 8 or more, if that is not overpopulation, I don’t know what is. Are you willing to adopt the all excess?

      No one is arguing that people are a valuable resource. But we remain a poor country simply because this valuable resource is barely literate and is therefore unemployable and is unable to contribute. Most eventually turn up as liabilities.

      So our government needs to implement our own “New Deal” or launch a real plan for economic development. This will cost a lot of money, money our government simply do not have. Where will the government get this money for more “free” schools, teachers, “free” hospitals, doctors, nurses, roads, farms, power plants, etc.? Majority of it will come from the very same agencies you named above to which our government should “stop being afraid to stick up to…”. So instead of sticking it up to IMF and WB, we would end up more indebted to these organizations.

      Note that I have free under quotes. Though we have public education and public health care, it is not necessarily free. In public schools, you have to spend out of your pockets for all the basic stuff. That is why there are more kids failing to even finish basic schooling. Same goes with our health care system. To make it all really free would cost a lot of money.

      By the way, FDR’s New Deal alone did not lift the US from depression. There can only be so much public works project you can ask the people to work on given the national budget. What eventually did it (lift it out of depression) for the US was World War II. It took a world war to finally put the United States out of the depression and to full superpower status. Publicly, FDR may have been opposed of WWII as most of the US remains isolationist (and is therefore a very popular position for a President seeking re-election) until December 7, 1941. The US with FDR’s blessing has been sending support (“volunteers” and materiel) to the Allies when the war started in 1939. You seemed to have conveniently left this out in your work.

      • To cite the existence of the many overburdened Filipino families doesn’t necessarily “prove” that a state of “overpopulation” also exists.  You’ve merely made a shallow observation about the current relationship between poverty, population growth, and the state of the economy.  The underlying assumptions informing such an observation would lead one to believe that the conditions and growth-rate of the population should be made to conform to a deteriorating economy—which is complete insanity from a policy-making standpoint—rather than attempting to create an economy that is more suitable to serve the needs of a growing population.

        Not a few economists and others have already pointed out the glaring fact the the most severe cases of poverty exist in those rural areas of the Philippines that are less densely  populated and the least developed.  So, again, we have evidence that it is a lack of modern infrastructure and technology that is the main problem—not a rapidly growing population.

        Further, to declare a state of overpopulation is to succumb to a cynicism that implicitly admits that the national economy would be much better off if a large portion of the population (particularly the poor) ceased to exist.  Under that logic, poor living conditions and social discord may actually be viewed as desirable, since they may help keep the growth of the population in check.  

        Thus it is no coincidence that, before World War II, population control  was only associated with the eugenics movement and/or fascist regimes.  And, since the war, the Malthusian “zero-growth” and related environmental movements have successfully conceived and popularized the idea of “overpopulation” as PR for a post-Nazi “neo-eugenics”.  

        Of course, no rational human being would argue that those poor families overburdened with more children than they are capable of supporting are not victims of a serious social problem.  However, the facts of the matter tell us that such cases can arise from a multitude of different circumstances.  Some children may be born out of wedlock, and/or the result of unplanned pregnancies.  Others the result of intended pregnancies.  In some cases, the children may be wanted and loved.  In others, unwanted and unloved.  Additionally, many poor families deliberately plan to have an abundance of children because there will be a need for those children to make enough income to support their aging parents.  (This is especially true where there are cases of high infant mortality.)  

        Thus, the alleviation of such specific problems would most effectively be dealt with through methods that acknowledge their case-by-case nature.  Indeed, in certain situations, the promotion of better family planning and even the availability of contraceptives for those who cannot afford them may play a limited, but useful, role. 

        But such initiatives can only assist in seriously reducing poverty as predicates to more ambitious programs for large-scale economic development—and not under a program driven by an ill-intentioned policy to manage population growth.  Instead of accepting the lies that development and population growth are an inherent problem, policy-makers must look toward a real solution that lies in fostering the proliferation of the kind of high-technology infrastructure necessary for bringing into existence a greater potential for the national economy to support a larger population.   If the Philippine government has, in the recent period, even attempted to put together a comprehensive and rigorous long-term economic development policy program for the whole archipelago, I have yet to be made aware of it.  

        Also, your response argues that such a New Deal-like approach would be impractical, if not impossible.  But to me, your dismissal actually betrays a pessimistic attitude.  I take it that you see no problem with the government’s “don’t anger the gods” policy approach, and their complacency in allowing the Philippines to remain a victim to “neocolonialism”.

        When I cited the New Deal, I was merely stating the fact that policies modeled on FDR’s methods are the only viable solution for a underdeveloped country like the Philippines.  But never did I imply that pursuing that course would be a quick and easy fix for the Philippines’ Third World woes.  I am, of course, aware that it will be a mammoth undertaking for this country.

        Although you prematurely assume a New Deal-type program will be entirely around a domestic policy, you did correctly point out that that approach would yield no possible solution, since the Philippines will have to borrow large amounts of capital from foreign creditors to carry out such a program.  Therefore, I hope to clarify exactly what kind of policy I was referring to.

        For starters, we will have to reassess the role that international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, et.al.) play in relationship to national sovereignty.   Are the Filipinos not a sovereign people?  Does their government, which is constitutionally obligated to promote their general welfare, not have a right to defend its economy against the IMF and other institutions if such parties are acting in such a way that is destructive to that economy?  For policy-makers throughout the underdeveloped sector, the alternative to taking a defiant stand on such issues is to further relinquish national sovereignty and continue to allow the IMF system to continue its looting.  

        If you read the entire essay I have written on this subject, you will find that I have outlined how the only real solution to any of these problems would be a complete reorganization of the global financial system.  American economist Lyndon LaRouche has called repeatedly for a just such a “New Bretton Woods”.  If one studies his proposals, many of the questions on how to finance the major economic projects urgently needed for a kind of global New Deal—such as the difference between a monetary system and a national credit system—will be addressed.

        Perhaps a very basic case of this difference can be illustrated by entertaining your mention of the relationship between the New Deal and the WW2 mobilization.  Although conventional academic opinion alleges that the New Deal did very little to fight the Depression (some even claim that it made it worse), this is fallacy of composition.  Yes, World War II may have created an idea of a unified, national mission to rapidly mobilize economic activity around, the fact still remains that if it was not for the massive investments made to build up America’s industrial and technological potential through New Deal-directed policies, the logistical capability of the US to prosecute the war would have been non-existent.

        If you’d like to engage in further debate, I first request you read my entire piece at the link referenced in my previous comment. Your future comments can be made in response to that essay on that website.

      • I’m not the author(obviously), but consider me a fan of your comment and I will read your essay as soon as my time permits me.

        “Further, to declare a state of overpopulation is to succumb to a cynicism that implicitly admits that the national economy would be much better off if a large portion of the population (particularly the poor) ceased to exist. Under that logic, poor living conditions and social discord may actually be viewed as desirable, since they may help keep the growth of the population in check. ”

        Although people can admit to the cynicism, it doesn’t mean people will start implementing policies based on such cynicism. Population Explosion here in the country that has seen little economic growth prompted the OFW culture and strained public education and health – not to mention the pervasive corruption dogging every political move. Many of the RH proponents I have met do not believe the Philippines is overpopulated, but without intervention it will be another India. I feel the same. For women, education and fertility control are crucial in getting out of poverty or not sinking into poverty.

        Poor living conditions and social discord are recipes for increased or uncontrolled fertility. Poor people believe more children will help them get out of poverty but fail to address their children’s education, health and encourages them to work instead. Moreover poor people do not have the knowledge or the means to control their fertility. Both problems can be addressed by an RH policy.

        Economic models may succeed at painting the bare pictures of X, Y, Z but that model will not be true at a certain point in time. Even RH policies don’t guarantee economic success, but comparing similar economies with different population programs like China/India or the Philippines/Thailand, fertility control or more generally, population management has been a component of economic success. In subSaharan Africa where population management have stalled 30-40 years ago are now seeing a revival for a number of reasons: one of which is the conflict over resources, which are strained due to population growth without sufficient technologies or economic growth and their dependence on the west to subsidize them.

        Thank you for this insightful comment. It’s a gem compared to the useless trolling I’ve seen in this post.

      • Robyn, I appreciate the your sincere and intelligent reply.   

        Although I will naturally encourage you to read my entire piece if you find ample time, the reasons for my opposition to the RH Bill can be summarized as follows:

        1.  I have yet to be convinced that the overall RH policy is necessary, effective, and morally and socially responsible.  Although there are some aspects of the bill that I find to be legitimate, the intentions of the bill are what I find highly objectionable.  (See point 2 for clarification).  As long as the the bill is governed by the blatantly false assumption that population “management” is a necessary and just policy, it should be rejected by all sane and moral legislators.  Its provisions that are worth salvaging should then be repackaged in a more comprehensive policy for economic development—the general principles of which I discuss in my piece.

        2.  Through my studies on British Imperialism, eugenics, and fascism, it became evident that the post-war propagation of the ideologies associated with “environmentalism”, the “population explosion” and (later) “sustainable development” all stem from a well-funded and carefully orchestrated  public relations campaign to achieve eugenic goals under different, and less controversial, monikers—since Hitler’s racialist policies had forever tarnished the word, “eugenics” in the eyes of the common public.  (These methods have since been dubbed “crypto-” or “neo-” eugenics.)

        The consolidated House version of the RH bill reads as if it was lifted directly from the International Conference on Population and Development’s Plan of Action (ICPD POA).  The ICPD and related UN Population Fund are implicitly based on eugenics, and their seed money was provided through significant grants from eugenics fanatics like John D. Rockefeller III and Henry Fairfield Osborn.  Other objectors to the RH policy have also cited the US National Security Study Memorandum 200 as evidence of the sinister, ulterior motives behind the move toward a population control policy.

        In other words, I just don’t see how the RH bill is anything but a more sophistical rehash of Thomas Malthus’ end-poverty-by-eliminating-the-poor.

        3.  I am convinced that what is perceived as overpopulation in the Philippines is the effect of economic policies (or, in actuality, a lack thereof) imposed upon this country through so-called “globalization”.  National sovereignty over economic and financial policy-making has been almost completely eroded through the demands of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial interests.  (Such neocolonialist financial policies are also interrelated with the same forces pushing neo-eugenics.)

        Many government officials who tout the RH Bill as a great step forward in the fight against poverty have opted to ignore this reality in favor of creating a fantasy picture of the Philippine economy where poverty is the result of predominantly internal (corruption and cronyism, lack of job opportunities here in the archipelago, etc.), rather than external (neocolonial exploitation, complacency of political leaders to such exploitation, etc.) forces.  (Obviously, this is not to say that the internal problems aren’t very real and very serious, but solving them will be impossible unless their relationship to the external problems is competently acknowledged and addressed.)  To treat these external factors is if they don’t exist is not only immoral—it’s insane.

        Additionally, in response to your comment:

        While you were correct in observing that impoverished conditions and social discord are usually related to high birth-rates, I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said that the perpetuance of such conditions act to curb population growth.  I was referring to the fact that, in cases of economic breakdown and severe poverty, high death-rates occur due to widespread disease, famine, civil conflict, etc.  (I am aware that across the developing world, birth-rates are often higher than death-rates, but my essay briefly addresses some of the reasons for this phenomenon.)

        The RH Bill, of course, focuses only on bringing fertility rates down.  But, again, I still think that it’s not a very large jump to go from declaring the population growth needs to be “managed”, to policies (or lack thereof) that express the more anti-social sentiments of Malthusianism.

        Also, I agree that most economic forecast scenarios are based on assumptions that are often too arbitrary.  However, one point of reference we can begin from is that human population growth will only create a socio-economic crisis in circumstances where the rate of scientific and technological progress is too slow or too limited.  Of course, there are many possible causes for such circumstances, and more specific and complex predicates that follow, but that basic principle of economic science remains true.

  10. To cite the existence of the many overburdened Filipino families doesn’t necessarily “prove” that a state of “overpopulation” also exists.  You’ve merely made a shallow observation about the current relationship between poverty, population growth, and the state of the economy.  The underlying assumptions informing such an observation would lead one to believe that the conditions and growth-rate of the population should be made to conform to a deteriorating economy—which is complete insanity from a policy-making standpoint—rather than attempting to create an economy that is more suitable to serve the needs of a growing population.

    Not a few economists and others have already pointed out the glaring fact the the most severe cases of poverty exist in those rural areas of the Philippines that are less densely  populated and the least developed.  So, again, we have evidence that it is a lack of modern infrastructure and technology that is the main problem—not a rapidly growing population.

    Further, to declare a state of overpopulation is to succumb to a cynicism that implicitly admits that the national economy would be much better off if a large portion of the population (particularly the poor) ceased to exist.  Under that logic, poor living conditions and social discord may actually be viewed as desirable, since they may help keep the growth of the population in check.  

    Thus it is no coincidence that, before World War II, population control  was only associated with the eugenics movement and/or fascist regimes.  And, since the war, the Malthusian “zero-growth” and related environmental movements have successfully conceived and popularized the idea of “overpopulation” as PR for a post-Nazi “neo-eugenics”.  

    Of course, no rational human being would argue that those poor families overburdened with more children than they are capable of supporting are not victims of a serious social problem.  However, the facts of the matter tell us that such cases can arise from a multitude of different circumstances.  Some children may be born out of wedlock, and/or the result of unplanned pregnancies.  Others the result of intended pregnancies.  In some cases, the children may be wanted and loved.  In others, unwanted and unloved.  Additionally, many poor families deliberately plan to have an abundance of children because there will be a need for those children to make enough income to support their aging parents.  (This is especially true where there are cases of high infant mortality.)  

    Thus, the alleviation of such specific problems would most effectively be dealt with through methods that acknowledge their case-by-case nature.  Indeed, in certain situations, the promotion of better family planning and even the availability of contraceptives for those who cannot afford them may play a limited, but useful, role. 

    But such initiatives can only assist in seriously reducing poverty as predicates to more ambitious programs for large-scale economic development—and not under a program driven by an ill-intentioned policy to manage population growth.  Instead of accepting the lies that development and population growth are an inherent problem, policy-makers must look toward a real solution that lies in fostering the proliferation of the kind of high-technology infrastructure necessary for bringing into existence a greater potential for the national economy to support a larger population.   If the Philippine government has, in the recent period, even attempted to put together a comprehensive and rigorous long-term economic development policy program for the whole archipelago, I have yet to be made aware of it.  

    Also, your response argues that such a New Deal-like approach would be impractical, if not impossible.  But to me, your dismissal actually betrays a pessimistic attitude.  I take it that you see no problem with the government’s “don’t anger the gods” policy approach, and their complacency in allowing the Philippines to remain a victim to “neocolonialism”.

    When I cited the New Deal, I was merely stating the fact that policies modeled on FDR’s methods are the only viable solution for a underdeveloped country like the Philippines.  But never did I imply that pursuing that course would be a quick and easy fix for the Philippines’ Third World woes.  I am, of course, aware that it will be a mammoth undertaking for this country.

    Although you prematurely assume a New Deal-type program will be entirely around a domestic policy, you did correctly point out that that approach would yield no possible solution, since the Philippines will have to borrow large amounts of capital from foreign creditors to carry out such a program.  Therefore, I hope to clarify exactly what kind of policy I was referring to.

    For starters, we will have to reassess the role that international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, et.al.) play in relationship to national sovereignty.   Are the Filipinos not a sovereign people?  Does their government, which is constitutionally obligated to promote their general welfare, not have a right to defend its economy against the IMF and other institutions if such parties are acting in such a way that is destructive to that economy?  For policy-makers throughout the underdeveloped sector, the alternative to taking a defiant stand on such issues is to further relinquish national sovereignty and continue to allow the IMF system to continue its looting.  

    If you read the entire essay I have written on this subject, you will find that I have outlined how the only real solution to any of these problems would be a complete reorganization of the global financial system.  American economist Lyndon LaRouche has called repeatedly for a just such a “New Bretton Woods”.  If one studies his proposals, many of the questions on how to finance the major economic projects urgently needed for a kind of global New Deal—such as the difference between a monetary system and a national credit system—will be addressed.

    Perhaps a very basic case of this difference can be illustrated by entertaining your mention of the relationship between the New Deal and the WW2 mobilization.  Although conventional academic opinion alleges that the New Deal did very little to fight the Depression (some even claim that it made it worse), this is fallacy of composition.  Yes, World War II may have created an idea of a unified, national mission to rapidly mobilize economic activity around, the fact still remains that if it was not for the massive investments made to build up America’s industrial and technological potential through New Deal-directed policies, the logistical capability of the US to prosecute the war would have been non-existent.

    If you’d like to engage in further debate, I first request you read my entire piece at the link referenced
    In my previous comment. Your future comments can be made in response to that essay on that website.

  11. USA: introduced sex education effects: 7-10yrs old premarital sex, 12yrs old above increase pregnancy, introduce contraceptives, increase abortion, legalized abortion effects: inclined to eat fetus =Cannivalis. Welcome rh bill

  12. Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is truly informative.
    I’m going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

Penny for your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s