REPORT Secularism Violations
PoliticsScienceSociety

Read ‘Em and Weep: Statements Made at the ‘Faces of the RH Bill’ Forum

Marguerite de Leon
Marguerite de Leon

What was particularly striking about Faces of the RH Bill, the forum I attended last night at the Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health (ASMPH), whose main audience was comprised of med school students and medical professionals, was how the anti-RH folk present claimed that the issue at hand was not a matter of Church vs. State but, rather, a matter of plain human rights. Unfortunately, while the said anti-RH folk did steer clear of invoking their god, their arguments remained unfounded, grossly presumptuous, and just plain deceitful.

The main speaker for the anti-RH position was Dr. Ligaya Acosta of Human Life International. Clicking hastily through her PowerPoint presentation, Dr. Acosta was able to make the following ludicrous statements (terms in quotation marks were lifted directly from her speech and her slides):

  • The push for contraception is part of a “global anti-life/depopulation agenda,” thanks to the 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, a policy giving “paramount importance” to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries — the Philippines being one of them.
  • RH was a mere “marketing term for abortion.”
  • If the RH Bill does not require spousal or parental consent before acquiring RH methods, then that means that the Bill encourages abortion, since the only act which a person would rather not let her spouse or parents know about is abortion.
  • If the Bill prohibits religion and family from meddling with one’s right to RH methods, then what will become of morality and the Filipino family?
  • There are only 2 genders — heterosexual male and heterosexual female.
  • Contraceptives have horrible side effects such as making a woman act unlike herself, cancer, fatal blood clots, and loss of bone density.
  • Chemicals from contraceptives leak into the environment, thus creating “intersex animals.” (Here is an article on why this is bull.)
  • One way contraceptives work is by shutting down the pituitary glands, and in effect shutting down a person’s communication center.
  • Condoms have holes large enough for sperm and HIV to slip through.
  • Excessive masturbation is wrong.
  • RH leads to the Filipino youth’s poor English literacy since the English reading materials available are on sex and reproductive health, which they should not have access to.
  • There is no need for the RH Bill because what we need has been in effect for a while now.
  • If 11 women die everyday because of pregnancy-related complications, why do we claim to be overpopulated?

Tony Roxas from the Pro-Life Coalition also made the following mind-boggling statements during the Q&A portion:

  • If the RH Bill becomes a law, children as young as 10 years old will be able to have sex, and their parents can’t do anything about it lest they (the parents) be thrown in jail.
  • Consequently, the RH Bill will then legalize child prostitution, since dirty old men with money can simply send scouts out to public schools to pick out young girls for their sexual whims.

Renelyn Tan of the World Youth Alliance, on the other hand, did not antagonize the RH Bill but, rather, proposed the following changes:

  • That the referral requirement in the Bill, wherein health practitioners are required to refer RH methods, be eliminated since this would be a violation of one’s conscience.
  • To provide an ‘opt out’ provision for parents, since some of them would insist that they be the source of RH education.

Fortunately, RH advocates former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and Likhaan Board Chair and FF-UP Diliman Senior Faculty Advisor Dr. Sylvia Claudio were also present for the forum, with the former as speaker for the pro-RH Bill stance, and the latter as reactor to Dr. Acosta’s statements.

Former Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel made the following strong, yet simple points in her speech:

  • There is an overwhelming number of pregnancy-related deaths in the country.
  • The mother’s life is very important.
  • The RH Bill is a human rights legislation as it addresses every person’s right to health.
  • The RH Bill is a gender-responsive and anti-discrimination legislation as well.
  • The Bill does NOT promote abortion.
  • (To the people against the RH Bill) Stop lying and start talking about the Bill as a health issue and not an issue of religion. (She also makes mention of the agnostics, atheists, freethinkers and humanists who are very much a part of the local population.)
  • Public health will prevail over dogmatism.
  • Nations who have adopted RH have seen a dramatic drop in abortions.

Later on, Dr. Claudio gave the following reaction to Dr. Ligaya’s speech.

  • It is incredibly important to determine the reliability of an organization presenting any kind of data.
  • Common contraceptives are approved by the World Health Organization (WHO), which means that these drugs help meet the minimum health needs of the population, and are thus safe and efficacious.
  • If you check the contraindications of paracetamol, you would be horrified; all drugs have side effects, which is why the RH Bill is important. The Bill gives people access to a plethora of methods from which they can choose the one that best suits their body and their conscience.
  • When referring to certain studies or memorandums, check the date. Make sure it is the most recent, most updated document.
  • According to the WHO and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), all contraceptives are NOT abortifacients.
  • The RH Bill allows all of us to properly practice our consciousness. (She goes on to mention that she is an agnostic and a member of the Filipino Freethinkers).

I took comfort in the fact that most of the audience didn’t seem to take Dr. Acosta very seriously, audibly gasping at her statements and, during the Q&A, groaning in exasperation whenever she would try to rebut something the pro-RH contingent said. Regardless, it is still harrowing to be bombarded with outright lies within the confines of a medical institution, and I am only too glad that women as sharp and sensible as Former Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel and Dr. Claudio were there to even out the Crazy, doing so with utmost class and clarity.

*The opinions expressed here represent the writer’s own opinions and not those of any employers past or present.

Related content

194 comments

  1. the articles made by those FF doesn't change my view. im PRO-RH and going strong! they are just some of those enslaved by the priests…. pitiful FFs.

  5. Indeed, with the outpour of liberal values brought about by the establishment of the Philippine call center industry, there is no point in making religion an excuse to not support the RH bill. I own that it is flawed too, but so long as abortion and any other inhuman acts are not included in the provisions, then the RH is on the whole… all right.

  8. Yes, yes – because writing in all caps gives your writing so much more resonance and weight. /sarcasm

    Have you taken your meds lately?

  9. I heard that this doctor Liza Manalo speaks well against the RH Bill. I have realized that I am now against the bill cause what she said really made sense!

  11. AND BTW AS YOU ALL KNOW, DR. ACOSTA MAY BE HAS A PHD IN MANAGEMENT, BUT SHE HAS BEEN WORKING AND SENT TO THE UNITED STATES AND ALL-OVER ASIA GATHERING DATA REGARDING WHAT SHE SAYS.

    SHE'S EVEN MORE CREDIBLE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC THAN RISA HONTIVEROS! TELL ME RISA HONTIVEROS' CURRICULUM VITAE ASIDE FROM BEING IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA AND IN CONGRESS. ABER?!

  12. things i don't understand about the RH bill…(i mean honestly…no sarcasm intended)

    1. condoms are not 100% safe (actually we already know that there is no such thing as safe sex), increase in condom usage only increased the the spread of STDs and the so-called "unwanted pregnancies" which later leads to an increase in abortion rates

    2. other contraceptives are either or abortifacients and/or have very harmful side-effects particularly to women (can you site example that are 100% safe)

    Facts only please…thank you very much

    • While condoms are not 100 percent effective, they work well enough to be considered a viable form of birth control. That is, assuming that condom use and education in their use are integrated into a larger-scale sex education program.
      http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm

      [increase in condom usage only increased the the spread of STDs and the so-called "unwanted pregnancies" which later leads to an increase in abortion rates ]

      And where are you getting this information?

    • Even if we use condoms/contraceptives correctly there is still a risk, yes, the risk is signifcantly lowered but a risk nonetheless. It is already a scientific fact the contraception routinely fail at statistically signinifcant rates, in the US 54% of the women who have had abortions were using contraceptives http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortio…

      If we make contraceptives widely accessible we might address some of the problems as mentioned by the proponents of the bill, but it's also possbile that this would result in greater sexual activity and because contraception fails so consistently there would be more "unwanted” pregnancies which later lead to a demand for abortions

      If I am saying is that contracepting is not the solution to our problems, it would only complicate things

      accessible contraceptives -> more people contracepting -> more unwanted preganancies-> demand for abortion

      • [If we make contraceptives widely accessible we might address some of the problems as mentioned by the proponents of the bill, but it's also possbile that this would result in greater sexual activity and because contraception fails so consistently there would be more "unwanted” pregnancies which later lead to a demand for abortions ]

        And if you cared to read the rest of the RH bill, you'd also see that a good portion of it aims to educate women in responsible contraceptive use, which means teaching them the risks that go with each method they plan to use.

        You're only telling half the story by claiming that Reproductive Health is only about making contraceptives widely available – that is only part of the solution. The rest of it involves educating people.

        [If we make contraceptives widely accessible we might address some of the problems as mentioned by the proponents of the bill, but it's also possbile that this would result in greater sexual activity and because contraception fails so consistently there would be more "unwanted” pregnancies which later lead to a demand for abortions ]

        The reality you also fail to understand is that regardless of abortions being illegal, they are still happening.

        According to the locally done study Forsaking Lives, at least 560,000 illegal abortions occur in the Philippines each year, with women falling prey the practices of unlicensed, unregulated clinics. And it is because of these often unsafe unsafe conditions that 90,000 of these women will suffer complications, with a further 1,000 dying every year.

        That is fact. And quite frankly, while I'd rather not see abortions happen – nobody does – I still think it makes far more sense to at least have them done in properly sanctioned clinics and hospitals to ensure a far better chance of survival for the woman involved.
        http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature/forsaken…

        And furthermore, I suggest you take a good look at your own link – the Guttmacher's study also indicated a long-term decline in abortions in the US when contraceptives became more prevalent, from a peak of 29.6 abortions for every sample population of 1,000 women, to just 19.6 in 2008.

        I'm rather surprised you missed it, given that it's right at the top of the link.

        This observation is further confirmed by related studies, as pointed out in one of FF's previous articles:
        https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/20/contra…

      • @Timothy

        Taking a closer look at your own link, Guttmacher indicated that between 2005 to 2008, the overall decline in abortions in the US stalled.

        What the article didn't indicate is that in the same time-frame, several US states had attempted to implement an abstinence-only sex education program for their schools. It failed miserably:
        http://www.statesman.com/services/content/news/st…
        http://www.empowher.com/sexual-well-being/content…

        But still, I thank you for providing us with your link – it has enlightened us to the current situation of abortions in the US, how an aggressive long-term sex ed program can help to decrease abortions, and how abstinence-only policies will only sabotage this progress.

        A pity you were too bloody stupid to read your own damn link properly.

        • But the point I was trying to make was that contraception fails, even if you are well educated on how to use them and considering that you use them properly, chances are that it will fail. Does it bother you that more than 50% of those who are seeking abortion are actually using contraceptives. How can you explain this?

          The rates in abortion has decreased or stalled for so many years and you attribute that to contraceptives but that is just your opinion probably substantiated by some research group or something. So present me with that reliable source concluding that contraception was the reason for the decline in abortion rates because there are also equally reliable sources out there that say that evidences are inconclusive since for the past years pro-lifers have also been very aggressive in their campaign to educate people about the risks of abortion

          • [But the point I was trying to make was that contraception fails, even if you are well educated on how to use them and considering that you use them properly, chances are that it will fail.]

            As compared to what, NFP/Abstinence-only? I have already pointed out that the most probable alternative available has been a failure – just ask the Texas state health department.
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2009/10/17/on-the… http://www.newwest.net/main/article/the_failure_o… http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/26/more-evidence-of…

            [Does it bother you that more than 50% of those who are seeking abortion are actually using contraceptives. How can you explain this? ]

            Reading further into your own figures, the Guttmacher paper indicates that of the 54 percent of the women who had an abortion despite their use of contraceptives, 76 percent were pill users who reported that they were inconsistent with with their use of contraceptive method. That point is further elaborated on here:
            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.h…

            If there is anything your own sources prove, it is the need for a comprehensive sex education program that properly informs women of their options, and their corresponding risks.

            [The rates in abortion has decreased or stalled for so many years and you attribute that to contraceptives but that is just your opinion probably substantiated by some research group or something.]

            It's a fact substantiated by several research groups, including the Guttmacher Institute – whom you cited as well IIRC – the American Medical Association, and various reproductive health organizations worldwide.

            So yes, it is just "my" opinion; it just happens to be backed up by cold facts, which is more than I can say for your sad attempt to distort the data to serve you needs, and dropping it like a hot potato when you realize it's not working in your favor.

            A little word of advice – if you're going to attempt poisoning the well, make sure you're not drinking from it too.

            [So present me with that reliable source concluding that contraception was the reason for the decline in abortion rates because there are also equally reliable sources out there that say that evidences are inconclusive since for the past years pro-lifers have also been very aggressive in their campaign to educate people about the risks of abortion ]

            I already have – four links in my previous replies in fact, and it's not my problem if you haven't read them.

            One of our articles cited several credible studies indicating a long-term decline in abortions with the rise of RH education; and for the umpteenth time, before you mouth off on how I did not provide solid data,

            Read. The. Fucking. URL.
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/20/contra…

            As for your reliable sources for the Pro-Life case, you're welcome to post them. Just be reminded that everybody already has a pretty good idea of how they operate:
            http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/10/28/angry-fat… http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/201008010314

          • Are you willing to change your mind if I am able to present some conlusive evidence that contraceptives will do more harm than good?

            If I show you the HARD-FACTS, will you even reconsider your position?

          • [Are you willing to change your mind if I am able to present some conlusive evidence that contraceptives will do more harm than good? ]

            If the evidence is better than your spelling and grammar, it'll certainly give us something to think about; not necessarily make us reconsider our stance, but it's a start.

          • That's good to hear, I believe it's very important to have an open mind especially when it comes to issues like the RH bill

            But the thing here is….I cannot present you with any hard facts or conclusive evidence that will give you something to think about let alone reconsider your stand….but neither can you

            I came here, hoping I would come across something new, something more conclusive, unbiased data/argument/reasoning that will shed light on this matter but sadly the ones you have been using have either been disproven or challenged.

          • [That's good to hear, I believe it's very important to have an open mind especially when it comes to issues like the RH bill]

            A little tip, cupcake – having an open mind is not the same as being gullible. Having trouble telling the difference? :3

            [But the thing here is….I cannot present you with any hard facts or conclusive evidence that will give you something to think about let alone reconsider your stand….but neither can you ]

            You're only half-right in this regard. I have posted several links since we started this discussion, including supplementary readings to the Guttmacher article you yourself linked to.

            The FF articles I have also linked to in turn linked to several long-term studies analyzing the effects of contraceptive use in more than half a dozen countries; Studies that were conducted by medical professionals and health organizations based on the most accurate data they had at the time these studies were conducted.

            But to humor you, here is a list of some of the studies that our article had reported on:
            http://www.internationalfamilyplanningperspective…
            http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACP830.pdf
            http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5055/i…

            Is this the fabled hard evidence you claim our side did not provide?

            As for your inability to provide for any evidence, I can only think of two reasons why you cannot:

            1) There isn't any on the web, or at least any that would hold water under scrutiny.

            2) You're a puss-nutted, dimwitted twat who's too fucking lazy to do a proper search.

            As with most things in life, think the truth is somewhere in between.

            [I came here, hoping I would come across something new, something more conclusive, unbiased data/argument/reasoning that will shed light on this matter but sadly the ones you have been using have either been disproven or challenged. ]

            And once again you're resorting to your self-righteous, pandering tone.

            You did not come here to look for something new; You came here to try to hoodwink us into thinking you're right, by distorting data from credible sources, and accusing us of not doing our research into matters.

            You were caught lying, and now that we are rubbing your hypocrisy in your face, you're trying to play the part of a sympathetic peacemaker who's about to be martyred. That's not going to fucking happen. Not on my fucking watch.

            Give it up Timothy – the only thing here that is being disproven and challenged is your rhetoric.

            You have yet to provide any data rebutting the information we have provided – you claim that the data has been disproven, then why not provide evidence that it has been, instead of bitching about us needing to be more open-minded.

          • Come to think of it if we did find a conclusive evidence we would not be having these arguments, but unfortunately we don't have it yet, it is not as clear as black and white, not as certain as the sunrise, sadly, when it comes to these repductive health issues, we are all left on the gray area

            I guess the answers or the facts we are looking for will not come in the form of data or statistics but on a more personal and experiential level. When we have seen our families crumble, our women degraded, treated as objects, our society disintigrate then maybe just maybe we would really have something to think about

            And again, it is only with an open mind, a pure heart one that is not clouded with hate and prejudice but tempered with compassion and love for our nation that we could truly become a true Filipino Freethinker until then all we are doing here is nothing more than intellectual masturbation

          • Timothy, take a look at the newspaper, seriously.

            Our society is disintegrating, our families are crumbling, our women are being degraded and treated as objects, and it's all happening even before the appearance of an RH Bill.

            We are not children to be spooked by your pathetic attempts at fear-mongering, insinuating that an RH program will somehow make us a moral quagmire

            In the case of our women being degraded and objectified, Id would go out on a limb and accuse the Pro-Life bloc of doing that with their bullshit, by trying to prevent women from gaining access to information and resources that will give them a fighting chance in living happy lives.

            In the case of making abortions illegal, all that policy has done is driven the practice underground, into the arms of unscrupulous individuals who are not beholden sanctioned standards of medical safety and hygene.
            http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives

            It is a move that has cost our women dearly.

            [And again, it is only with an open mind, a pure heart one that is not clouded with hate and prejudice but tempered with compassion and love for our nation that we could truly become a true Filipino Freethinker until then all we are doing here is nothing more than intellectual masturbation ]

            Timothy.

            Fuck you. Seriously. You're being a self-righteous gobshite.

            You can wank off to your morality all day, but the fact is that you know nothing about us, and it pisses me off that you think you. The reason we are so pissed off at people like you is exactly because we care for these women.

            We have grown tired of hearing one religious leader after another coming up with scapegoats for the ills of society, and refusing to accept progressive measures of effectively curing the problem.

            We are tired of watching our women suffer and die needlessly to birth and illegal abortion complications, as these so-called stonewall any meaningful attempts to help them just so they can get a moral hard-on.

            We are angry because we are tired of watching people die at the feet of your so-called morality. We love our women, and that's exactly why we hate liars like you, when you try to take away their rights under the guise of "moral" upliftment.

            If there is anybody here who shows prejudice, it is you, Timothy. I have already cited my sources several times, and yet somehow, you failed to read them or at least try to debate them head-on. You instead pretended they did not exist.

            You don't get to tell us about compassion, purity of heart, or whatnot, you stinking, fucking Hypocrite.

            Now in case it hasn't sunk in yet, I don't like you 😉

          • but none of us is like that, pure of heart that is; we are all comiung from a certain perspective, from a particular hurtful, bitter or nurturing experience that have greatly influenced our way of thinking. It's hard to breakfree from these touchstone experiences, the most that we could do is be aware of our issues and don't let them get the best of our reasoning capacities.

            I am praying for you, actually a lot of people are praying for people like you, for the Lord to touch your heart and heal you from your hurtful experiences, hope that gives you some conselation

            I know it will only be a matter of time befor this bill is passed so all we could really do now is pray and hope for a miracle that our dear congressmen/women/senators and most especially our beloived president would have a change of heart.

            "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

            Ezekiel 36:26

          • [but none of us is like that, pure of heart that is; we are all comiung from a certain perspective, from a particular hurtful, bitter or nurturing experience that have greatly influenced our way of thinking. It's hard to breakfree from these touchstone experiences, the most that we could do is be aware of our issues and don't let them get the best of our reasoning capacities.

            And that is why we study on the issue exhaustively – reading and sharing links to studies that will help us find the truth of the matter. We are quite aware of the issue at hand.

            [I am praying for you, actually a lot of people are praying for people like you, for the Lord to touch your heart and heal you from your hurtful experiences, hope that gives you some conselation ]

            And that's your problem right there – you seem to spend so much time praying, when it could be better spent for other things, such as credible evidence to counter my argument.

            Remember the old adage: "Nasa Diyos and awa, nasa tao ang gawa."

            [I know it will only be a matter of time befor this bill is passed so all we could really do now is pray and hope for a miracle that our dear congressmen/women/senators and most especially our beloived president would have a change of heart.]

            You mean they'd suddenly wake up one morning and just collectively tell the CBCP to shut the fuck up, and let the state do its job? I look forward to that day too 🙂

            ["I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

            Ezekiel 36:26 ]

            Ah, let me quote my favorite good book as well:

            "But we were dragons. We were supposed to be cruel, cunning, heartless, and terrible. But this much I can tell you, you ape…we never burned and tortured and ripped one another apart and called it morality."

            – Guards! Guards!, by Terry Pratchett

          • HARD-FACTS:
            http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c927.full
            "Compared with never users, ever users of oral contraception had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.93). They also had significantly lower rates of death from all cancers; large bowel/rectum, uterine body, and ovarian cancer; main gynaecological cancers combined; all circulatory disease; ischaemic heart disease; and all other diseases."

            Participants: 46 112 women observed for up to 39 years, resulting in 378 006 woman years of observation among never users of oral contraception and 819 175 among ever users.

            Main outcome measures: Directly standardised adjusted relative risks between never and ever users for all cause and cause specific mortality.

            Results: 1747 deaths occurred in never users of oral contraception and 2864 in ever users. Compared with never users, ever users of oral contraception had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.93). They also had significantly lower rates of death from all cancers; large bowel/rectum, uterine body, and ovarian cancer; main gynaecological cancers combined; all circulatory disease; ischaemic heart disease; and all other diseases. They had higher rates of violent deaths. No association between overall mortality and duration of oral contraceptive use was observed, although some disease specific relations were apparent. An increased relative risk of death from any cause between ever users and never users was observed in women aged under 45 years who had stopped using oral contraceptives 5-9 years previously but not in those with more distant use. The estimated absolute reduction in all cause mortality among ever users of oral contraception was 52 per 100 000 woman years.

            Conclusion: Oral contraception was not associated with an increased long term risk of death in this large UK cohort; indeed, a net benefit was apparent. The balance of risks and benefits, however, may vary globally, depending on patterns of oral contraception usage and background risk of disease.

      • [Even if we use condoms/contraceptives correctly there is still a risk, yes, the risk is signifcantly lowered but a risk nonetheless. It is already a scientific fact the contraception routinely fail at statistically signinifcant rates, in the US 54% of the women who have had abortions were using contraceptives ]

        Read your own fucking study, dumbkoff: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortio…

        [Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method INCONSISTENTLY, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.]

        Inconsistently, meaning they were not using these contraceptives CORRECTLY, as you've tried to convince us to think.

        Still not convinced? Guttmacher's paper referenced another study that elaborates what the solution for this problem is: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.h…

        [CONCLUSIONS: Women and men need accurate information about fertility cycles and about the risk of pregnancy when a contraceptive is not used or is used imperfectly. Increased use of emergency contraceptive pills could further reduce levels of unintended pregnancy and abortion. ]

        Is this how you play your game – intentionally misinterpreting data, and lying to your readers about what the study really says?
        If this is how you

  15. My stand is simple. If these pro-lifers/ anti-RH/ the Church can provide EFFECTIVE AND LONG TERM ways in solving poverty, maternal and child mortality, STDs and other health care needs that does not involve them shoving their teachings and beliefs in our faces then by all means, don't pass this bill.

  16. I'm a med student who was there, and I can attest to the fact that what Ligaya Acosta was blabbering is utter nonsense. It goes against everything being taught to us in Obstetrics and contraception. Anyone who has read the bill and know a thing or two about Obstetrics would be convinced that the RH Bill does nothing but SAVE AND IMPROVE LIVES. Acosta's fallacies would never fool educated minds.

    • Well the slides she used seem rather impressive. Did she really use these?
      http://www.slideshare.net/frjessie/the-filipino-f…

      Which particular points can you point out as going against everything you are being taught in Obstetrics and contraception? It can be conceded that the RH Bill is seen by many as something that will save and improve lives. But whether its provisions truly will is another matter, I think.

      • @jefferson

        Impressive? Are you fucking kidding me? Let me enumerate the problems:

        1. Copious usage of red text and emboldened letters
        2. Nonsensical images
        3. Poorly made acronyms (D.E.T)
        4. Alarmist, sensationalist wording
        5. Quote mining.

        Dude, if I tried to submit a presentation like that for any of my college classes, theology even, I'd get laughed out of the room.

    • Twin-skies, I also posted that as a reply to

      arm's post
      "Wes, Ligaya Acosta is apparently not a medical doctor. She has "a Doctorate in Management, and Bachelor degrees in Law and Social Work", if her employer's website is telling the truth."

  18. The only immoral thing is to sire a child into this world and deny him the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter. I for one have been in favor of the reproductive health ever since I was a first year nursing student. Fastforward 6 years and my views haven't changed one bit. These anti RH supporters can't even make a decent opposition the RH issue without mixing fact with religion. Backed by the arrogant Catholic Church and promised salvation, these anti RH supporters don't even know a rat's ass about what the RH bill is all about.

    • Just to correct a misconception (pardon the pun):

      The Catholic Church does not advocate for couples to have more children than they can provide for. The encyclical Humanae Vitae is online, and under Responsible Parenthood, parents are told to consider their situation in deciding how many and when. They can be generous if they have the means, or they should otherwise keep it small.

      What the Church is teaching about is the morality of artificial contraceptives as the means to avoid pregnancy. It would be helpful in these discussions if the topics kept to the actual matters at hand. It's a question of method, not principle.

      And to clarify as well, the Rhythm/Calendar method is no longer recommended, because it is indeed flawed. But we've had modern methods like the Sympto-Thermal method and the Creighton method for several years now, and they have been demonstrated to be based on sound and verifiable science. In other words, they are viable alternatives to artificial contraceptives.

    • "10 guidelines when you are already in the midst of sexual intercourse"

      Of the 10 guidelines, only points 2-7 occur in the midst of sexual intercourse. #2 is done only if the penis is uncircumcised. #9 is about condom disposal. #10 is about not mixing drugs and alcohol with sex and condoms–things to avoid before having sex. It is quite easy to remember points 2-7, unless you haven't even touched or unpacked a condom before.

    • [Just want to share this information on contraceptives from the Food and Drug Administration (US): ]

      The link you provided was an interview with Ligaya Acosta, and her personal opinion regarding the Department of Health. Not once did I see any mention of the US DFA – just Ligaya's personal opinions on them. Or are you having trouble telling the difference?

      [Will you be able to remember all those 10 guidelines when you are already in the midst of sexual intercourse just so you use the condoms properly? ]

      The short answer: According to the studies presented in this article, yes. https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/20/contra…

      One particular study indicates that the rise of contraceptive use was related the lowering of abortions, meaning that they do work in helping prevent unwanted pregnancies. http://www.internationalfamilyplanningperspective…

      Now tell us – will you be able to remember the points I've just said and the studies I linked to in the midst of your pro-Life rambling?

  21. If you people are serious about "Contraceptives are killing human beings, it's SCIENCE!", then why not pass a law to ban them? Since you have enough "scientific backup" by your side, why not bring it to the lawmakers and urge them to punish everyone who uses the pill, IUDs, and other 'abortifacient' drug? Can you do that?

  24. I see the problem that just because it requires more studying, like the Science of Reproduction = BAD or Moral evil. Instead of studying the matter closely, anything that requires more work to understand is bad.

    Whats worse is the Holy Men, steeped in Supernatural Lore and Claiming monopoly in the interpretations of the secrets of A Divine being and his designs for Humanity, had made pronouncements before the all the data is in. Quite presumptuous and a very bad manner of "judging" any circumstance, either moral or empirical.

    Considering that these holy men like to protect Pedos http://www.thetakeaway.org/2011/jan/19/vatican-le…
    I don't think it is the MOST reliable of organizations in being transparent or has the best interests of CHILDREN in mind.

    • Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy
      By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
      Published: January 18, 2011

      A newly disclosed document reveals that Vatican officials told the bishops of Ireland in 1997 that they had serious reservations about the bishops’ policy of mandatory reporting of priests suspected of child abuse to the police or civil authorities. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/europe/19…

  26. HEY, IT'S BAD TO KILL HUMANS!! DO YOU NOT REMEMBER YOUR MEMORIES AS A MERE ZYGOTE? IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THAT CERTAIN CHILD WILL LIVE A LIFE OF SUFFERING DUE TO IT'S PARENTS HAVING 8 CHILDREN DESPITE THE INABILITY TO BUY FOOD THEMSELVES, MURDER IS SIN. SIN IS BAD. IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER THAT THESE CHILDREN WHO GROW UP POOR ARE MORE PRONE TO BECOMING CRIMINALS. It doesn't matter! EFF ALL OF YOU BACKWARDS THINKING Pro-RH, you guys are so dumb! PRAISE THE GENIUS THAT IS ACOSTA! TONY ROXAS MAY HAVE AN IQ THAT IS EQUAL TO 8… sideways! yes, only a man with an amazing mind can see the RH bill's effect on Dirty Old Men and Kids who want to have sex, genius.. just genius.

    • Another self-righteous prick. The only immoral thing that you are referring to is siring a child into this world and denying him the basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. I guess you have lived the life full of privilege right? Try a little empathy with those raising 8 kids without any means of stopping since these parents are either too lazy (another Filipino trait among the masses) or the Church which people so dearly look up to fails in its efforts to promote their "ideal" natural family planning methods.

  27. The separation of church clause and state also guarantees that government will not favor one religion over any other when it forms legislation for the people. Regardless of whomever you worship or from where you draw your moral guide, said clause ensures that groups like the RCC cannot simply impose its religious dogma.

    And while I agree that the RH Bill is a complicated matter, from where I'm standing, it's groups like yours that muddle the issue, resorting to scare tactics, misinterpretation of data, and invoking religion.

    Now if you don't agree with the sex education program the bill calls for, nobody is forcing you to follow it – you can also teach your kids contrary beliefs despite what they hear in the classroom, and nobody is forcing you to swallow contraceptives regularly. That is the whole point of the bill – giving women a choice.

    [To separate Church and State, as many have misunderstood, is untennable at best because rights and morality are inseparable. ]

    Now you're resorting to outright lying. Take a look around – you are surrounded with more than enough examples of people who can be moral without religion. What I find monstrous is that your sort would claim the moral high ground, despite the atrocities committed in the name of your faith.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/europe/19…

    Bloody hypocrite – you blur the line between church and state when it's convenient, but your own fucking bishops and priests are more than happy to stay out of the arms of the law when they fuck kids..

    Sod off.

    • I would say I appreciate your post, but you've resorted to profanity and ad hominem attacks. If you read my actual words, you would notice I never said the moral life can only be lived through religion.

      While impassioned, your rationale is lacking. The Catholic Church, by virtue of its members, who are also constituents, are allowed to vote their conscience. Catholic legislators, likewise, are granted that same right and may vote for their respective constituents. It's not an imposition. It's practicing their civil rights. In any law that passes, whether restrictive in nature or otherwise, there will be those who must concede their positions. Your agument in regards to "dogma" is lacking because while nobody will force me to use contraceptives or commit or receive abortions, I am a citizen that will also be subject to its consequences.

      We can go more into that later if you up for an actual discussion. Saying "Sod off," doesn't exactly show that you actually desire freedom of thought. God bless you all the same.

      • [While impassioned, your rationale is lacking. ]

        Lady, you tried to pull the "Big pharma is evil, so go alternative meds" bullshit argument earlier, so don't fucking talk to us about "rationale."

        [The Catholic Church, by virtue of its members, who are also constituents, are allowed to vote their conscience. ]

        Is it also part of their civil rights to deny women vital sex education that they need to better plan their future? You talk of contraceptives, despite the fact that a good portion of the bill is about spreading education, awareness, and STD/AIDs prevention. I guess you don't fancy these either if you're Anti-RH, do you?

        [Catholic legislators, likewise, are granted that same right and may vote for their respective constituents. It's not an imposition. It's practicing their civil rights.]

        Catholic legislators are not just responsible for Catholics – they answer to a demographic that includes Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists to name a few.

        The fact they are elected to a public office means we trust them to make decisions for these people, and that they will, to the best of their ability, grant them the same degree of rights as their Catholic kin. You forget that I am a citizen too, and that whenever idiots like

        As for ad hominems, it only becomes an ad hominem attack if the accusation raised is irrelevant to discussion.

        Given the RCC's IS a hypocrite, and you don't seem to mind following them despite their rottenness, calling you a hypocrite is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact.

        [Saying "Sod off," doesn't exactly show that you actually desire freedom of thought. ]

        And you've just revealed how onion-skinned you are.

        • Forgot to add this:

          The fact they are elected to a public office means we trust them to make decisions for these people, and that they will, to the best of their ability, grant them the same degree of rights as their Catholic kin.

          You forget that I am a citizen too, and that whenever idiots like Lito Atienza decide to outlaw contraceptives just so he can look like a self-righteous twat to his Catholic demographic, it's his Catholicism that is being imposed on people – citizens – like me.

          We trust these legislators to make decisions that act in the best interest of everybody in their area of influence, not just the people that believe in the same fairy tales they do. And while what happens now is far from ideal, that doesn't make it right.

  28. Contrary to popular (and largely indoctrinated) belief, you don't need religion to be moral and righteous. Even St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that the foundations for his philosophy came largely from the more secular philosophers before him, and he built his more theocratic beliefs around it.

    Considering everything the Church bulldozed over and / or assimilated and then presented as their own, most especially with regards to what exactly human rights are and absolute and objective truth, you might want to do more substantial research.

    • i appreciate your post, however, please don't take my words out of context. i said that religion, for those who practice it, provides its believers with their moral and ethical foundations. i never said a person couldn't be moral outside of it. alos, please don't take St. Thomas Aquinas out of context either. He never acquiesced that his beliefs came originally from secular philosophers. i'll stop here since St. Thomas Aquinas and his philosophies aren't the subject of my post and my positions. Thank you for your consideration.

      Amygdala, since you seem to have strong opinions of your own, could you explain your position of what exactly human rights are, to include absolute and objective truths?

    • Contrary to popular (and largely indoctrinated) belief, though it is true that great Theologian St. Thomas Aquinas said that regardless of religion, persons can still be moral beings, it doesn't mean that a non-religious person can have different morals from a religious one. What the great Theologian said is that the moral law is based on natural law and the natural law is engraved in the person's heart regardless of race. Thus, morality should not be different from a religion believing person from an atheist. What we need is not a free mind, but an open mind. I have already given the pro-RH ideas my open mind and up to now, they haven't shown credible facts and data to prove their point. I always recall what is happening now in Africa with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and stop to think, are contraceptives really helping or does it just affect the way people see sex? Who can argue against the effectivity of abstinence from sex as a way to stop AIDS/HIV from spreading?

      • "What we need is not a free mind, but an open mind. I have already given the pro-RH ideas my open mind and up to now, they haven't shown credible facts and data to prove their point."-Teachertwish

        There is no such thing as Credible Data to those who are Biased. They will cherry pick, shift goal posts, change their definitions and requirements, etc. There is no Organization that does studies: WHO, UN, ADB, WB, and others Secular Countries's Health organization you will admit to, just the Catholic and Christian Data. You can't even understand WHY Christian sources are considered biased and why Everyone else, secular can't all be in the Same Side or have the same conflict of Interest (Christianity versus the Scientific Method). Its like you don't even know how competitive and meticulous Peer review research is or how the method of Criticizing information and discovering it sources and criticizing them?

        Prolifers are just too sold to their Ideology. Their in it for Sunk Cost effect, Band wagon effect, Familiarity Bias, Experimenters Bias and it all contributes to their Confirmation Bias which prevents them from even looking at the Consistency of their sources (why there is an respect for the use of US Department sources, WHO, UN research on poverty, drugs, and policy BUT not on RH). Why there is an inconsistent use of Scientific Method, but not on RH or anything The Pro-Lifers say not to explore?

        I will in the end repeat what Mike Aquino pointed out,"This post isn't really intended to convert rabid pro-lifers, but to reach those who don't have an opinion either way. The idea is not to leave anti-RH bullshit unchallenged"

      • [Thus, morality should not be different from a religion believing person from an atheist. ]do not

        Quite different actually. From what i have seen, atheists and other similar non-theists – assuming they are of sound mind – do not use their morality to justify hiding rapist priests from authorities:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_eu/e…

        We do not invoke our imaginary sky daddy when we murder people in cold blood just because they say said sky daddy is fake either:
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-121910…

      • [ I have already given the pro-RH ideas my open mind and up to now, they haven't shown credible facts and data to prove their point.]

        Assuming you're new here here is at least one link to one of our previous articles regarding how contraceptive use has led to a long-term decrease in abortions: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/20/contra…

        Here is an article (with exhaustive links to credible sources) that discusses how the Pro-life group's insistence on focusing protection rights is not only disingeniuous by ignoring scientific studies, but is also damaging to women's welfare: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/18/ignori…

        If you don't agree with the article, then at least read the references it uses. THAT is how it's supposed to be done. And here is locally done study on the effects of how a family is going to have less income as they have more mouths to feed:
        http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21245/

        A word of advice, poppet: If you're going to talk about keeping an open mind, try not to let your brain fall out.

      • [ I always recall what is happening now in Africa with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and stop to think, are contraceptives really helping or does it just affect the way people see sex? Who can argue against the effectivity of abstinence from sex as a way to stop AIDS/HIV from spreading? ]

        The problem is not abstinence per se – that has done wonders for AIDs prevention. The problem is that groups like the RCC and other conservative groups try to push for an abstinence-only agenda for AIDs prevention.

        AIDs prevention groups like AVERT, on the other hand, recommend that condoms be part of any comprehensive prevention program, as illustrated by their use of the cathphrase ABC:
        http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm http://www.avert.org/abc-hiv.htm

        For somebody who uses "teacher" as their commenter name, you do great disservice to that profession with your ignorance.

        • To clarify, Catholics do not consider saints infallible in their writing. Even in the case of popes, only universal teaching on faith and morals are considered infallible.

  29. I am also an advocate of Safe Food. More and more we are seeing that we are really what we eat. We see the dangers of processed foods, Genetically Modified Organisms, additives etc. We also see the side effects of many drugs that were sold which were scientifically tested as "safe" only to be recalled later because of side effects. There are many stories of cover-ups by drug companies about unsafe drugs which continued to be marketed for profits. The trend now is to go natural and organic, away from synthetic. There are now class suits being filed against many multi-national drug companies including Bayer and Phizer, makers of Depo-Provera and contraceptive pills. The side effects such as thrombosis can be fatal. In the forum, Dr. Sylvia Claudio said all drugs including paracetamol has possible side effects and we just have to balance the bad effects with the benefits it brings. Paracetamol is taken occasionally. Contraceptives are taken everyday! With the passing of the RH Bill, these contraceptives will be given to our women free of charge. If these women get osteoporosis, thrombosis, cancers as a trade-off for preventing unwanted pregnancies, will the State also take care of their health needs and medications? As Rep. Baraquel said, loosing a mother is very sad for a family.

    • [There are many stories of cover-ups by drug companies about unsafe drugs which continued to be marketed for profits. The trend now is to go natural and organic, away from synthetic.]

      In short, you're advocating medical woo over sound science. To quote Ben Goldacre regarding "alternative meds" in light of admittedly true stories of pharmaceutical companies with an agenda:

      "Just because big pharma is bullshit, it doesn't mean that magic beans will cure cancer."

      [With the passing of the RH Bill, these contraceptives will be given to our women free of charge.]

      prolife mom, for everybody's sake, read the bill. While it does call for free access to contraceptives, the bulk of HB 5043 focuses on proper education regarding responsible parenthood, proper contraceptive use, and other related topics.

      [If these women get osteoporosis, thrombosis, cancers as a trade-off for preventing unwanted pregnancies, will the State also take care of their health needs and medications? ]

      Please cite medical studies of your assertion if you want to be taken seriously.

      • No I am not advocating what you call medical woo nor magic beans but wake up and look around at what some "science" has done. We all have to be smart users of either natural or "scientific" meds. We all have to decide for ourselves but in contraception, will I choose to have contraceptives, injectibles and IUDs inserted inside me? No thanks. In the talk, even Rep. Baraquel said she used natural family planning. Why risk when there are natural methods. I admit it is harder and it requires cooperation from the spouse but again if you want the benefits, do the hard work. The spouse is not cooperative or a drunk, then he is a fool for not taking care of his wife's health. Educate him rather than put his wife's health at risk. Medical studies? There are so many. Just google please. Its at your fingertips. For starters google class suits contraceptives canada

        • [In the talk, even Rep. Baraquel said she used natural family planning. Why risk when there are natural methods. I admit it is harder and it requires cooperation from the spouse but again if you want the benefits, do the hard work.]

          The bottom line is that Baraquel had the opportunity to make a choice, based on the information presented to him regarding the possible family planning methods available. And one cannot make an informed choice without proper education.

          • So who is stopping anyone from getting the information? It is everywhere. There is no law against getting information about contraceptives. Why do we have to enact it into a law?

          • [So who is stopping anyone from getting the information?]

            Yes, I'm sure the lower half of the RP social ladder have just as much easy access to the internet, computers, and medical documents, as you do.

            Following your logic, I'd say that we shouldn't provide for public schools because if these impoverished parents really desired an education for their children, they should spend for their books and other required material.

        • Science has its share of failures, but thats the beauty of science. It is self-correcting. Failures are tested and validated through the scientific method! Without the scientific method we wont have anesthesia. True it has its risks but going under the knife without going under is even a greater risk!

          And assuming science is bad, then whats the alternative? Religion? Dont get me started on that.

          BTW, if Rep Baraquel wants to use natural family planning, then good for her! Condoms are also natural—it isn't supernatural! Just because its natural doesn't mean that its good or effective. Snake venom is natural but Im sure you wont resort to drinking it for health reasons.

          • @Buwayahman

            These Pro-Lifers forget another thing: Abstinence isn't natural either – it's quite contrary to our sex drive, if you think about it 🙂

          • @ Twin-Skies—-I thought about it, sorry, I think you are talking about monkeys. Abstinence is natural to human beings and unnatural to animals. That is what makes us humans. We can transcend these base instincts for a higher purpose. The same reason why you write well. You went beyond the rudimentary grunts and groans of a proto-human and can weave words beautifully with some good points. Honestly, I don't see a monkey that can write like you. That is what makes you human. Read some of your stuff and you are a good writer but try to tone down on the sarcasm and arrogance in your responses. We can be civil can't we? No reason to make fun of anyone to make us feel superior. That is just a request. 🙂

          • [Honestly, I don't see a monkey that can write like you.]

            You should've seen the hairy gorilla that taught me to write back in college then XD.

            [read some of your stuff and you are a good writer but try to tone down on the sarcasm and arrogance in your responses. We can be civil can't we? No reason to make fun of anyone to make us feel superior. That is just a request.]

            I can be civil, respectful, and polite when the situation calls for it, moreso if the person I'm talking to makes good points, is honest with his facts, and does not resort to distorting data.

            On the other hand however, poor reasoning, writing in all caps, lying, and behaving like a complete idiot are not characteristics that I think are worth my time, and as such, anybody who willingly engages in these behavior will be treated with hostility and ridicule.

            And if you took the trouble to read my replies, you will note that I do go through a lot of trouble to back up my rebuttals with facts, and that I refuse to lie or distort the data I present, at least not intentionally.

            So when I do call somebody a moron, you will find that it's not an insult, but closer to a statement of fact; I find that people who miss the facts and are overly squeamish with and article's tone are being intellectually dishonest.

    • We see the dangers of processed foods, Genetically Modified Organisms, additives etc. – Grace Chua

      Thats every Human Domesticated Food Crop in Existence. Or is there an assumption that Contemporary Food Crops Burst into the scene with its existing traits by Non-Human Intelligent Design.

      The earliest human attempts at plant domestication occurred in Asia. There is early evidence for conscious cultivation and trait selection of plants by pre-Neolithic groups in Syria: grains of rye with domestic traits have been recovered from Epi-Palaeolithic (c. 11,050 BP) contexts at Abu Hureyra in Syria,**

      **Hillman G, Hedges R, Moore A, Colledge S, Pettitt P (2001). "New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates". Holocene 11 (4): 383–393. doi:10.1191/095968301678302823.

      Please read up on the History and Study of Argonomy, at least the basics before making this misunderstood generalization. The overgeneralization and worse, the lack of understanding regarding Philippine Food security issues is quite saddening.

    • its not like Depo-Provera would even be the first choice for women looking for birth control here. that thing's expensive, almost $40 per dosage in the US. My sister used to take it and so far she hasn't turned into a walking time bomb. But there are other options, you just have to weigh the pros and cons. But dont make the decision for everyone, we don't like in a dictatorship.

      I myself take pain medication everyday, probably for the rest of my life because of my nerve condition. Do you know even over-the-counter drugs like Paracetamol and Ibuprofen can cause internal bleeding? Stronger pain medication have even worse possible side-effects. But so far so good, nothing bad happend yet. But its a risk I am fully aware of and am willing to gamble. It helps me live with my condition. If someone told me I couldn't take those meds "for my own good"… do you think that's fair? Its my body and my life.

      The responsible thing is full disclosure of the risks. Don't exaggerate and dont make the decision for other people. Would I rather believe the Church or the World Health Organization when it comes to the risk-benefits? I think that's obvious.

      • No one is stopping you from choosing what medicines to take. You know the risks and decided to take it. That is your decision. Your sister chose to use Depo-Provera and presumably is aware of the risks. Thats her decision. There are no laws against contraceptives. I don't want to prevent your sister from using Depo but if she were my sister, I would try very hard to convince her to get off it. Everyone is free to choose. What I don't like is that my tax money will be used for something I feel will not be good for women. I believe poor women can be helped more by giving them opportunities, education, micro-finance, etc. That has to be respected too. Read the RH Bill and look at the section on penalties and prohibited acts. Then decide who really is forcing people. Why do you have to choose between just the Catholic Church and the WHO? There are many other credible sources of information.

        • [I believe poor women can be helped more by giving them opportunities, education, micro-finance, etc. ]

          An obvious red herring argument – who says we can't do that aside from giving them proper RH education?

          [That has to be respected too. Read the RH Bill and look at the section on penalties and prohibited acts. Then decide who really is forcing people.]

          I've read it. In a nutshell, the bill will penalize any medical worker who denies their charge proper medical treatment, or lies about the facts. For those asking, here is a snippet straight from the bill on what are grounds for penalties (Section 21):
          http://jlp-law.com/blog/full-text-of-house-bill-n…

          b) Any public official who prohibits or restricts personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning;

          c) Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who requires a female applicant or employee, as a condition for employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo sterilization, tubal ligation or any other form of contraceptive method;

          d) Any person who shall falsify a certificate of compliance as required in Section 14 of this Act; and

          e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.

          If there is anything the Bill forces people to do, it is to do their job professionally, and minus any religious bias. You and your ilk are the only people I have seen who seem to take issues with that.

    • Have you ever eaten, well, basically anything in the past 5,000 years? Then congratulations, you've eaten a genetically modified organism. From rice, to corn, to livestock, these have all been bred with particular traits in mind such as size and fecundity. Laboratory genetic modification uses targeted genetic techniques in order to only allow the transference of specific genes, which is impossible with standard breeding.

      • I beg to disagree. You are talking of hybrids which man have been manipulating since the beginning of time to create better and stronger crops. GMOs are made in the lab. They are organisms that can never come out by natural selection without genetic manipulation in a very high tech laboratory. Examples are corn which have genes of a bacteria. This technology has been in existence only in the last 20 years or so.

        • You worry about corn having bacterial genes when you're 50% virus. Certain viruses insert their DNA into their hosts randomly. And nature is much less discerning than humans. Bacteria have also been used to express human genes such as that for insulin. Basically all insulin being sold now is from genetic modification.

          The manipulation that man has done of livestock and plants have been done without understanding of consequences. Turkeys have been bred to be so plump and fat that they are unable to reproduce naturally. The consequences of breeding experiments are much more unpredictable because they involve the recombination of genes that have not been intended to be modified. The insertion of known and specific genes is a much more responsible and a much safer method over slapdash and unpredictable breeding.

          • You miss the point saying that I am 50% virus. Bacteria obviously helps us live but these bacteria is where they are suppose to be and not in the genetic pool of another species – controlling the very basic characteristics of that organism in ways that is not normal anymore for that organism. Example is again the corn that produces its own toxin. Never mind. Think this discussion has gone too far and useless. I guess it is easier to muddle the issue than to listen. goodbye and good luck.

        • You may not realize it, but these GMOs you're rambling against may have saved countless lives across the world:
          http://www.agrograce.com/news/norman-borlaug-man-…

          So who shall I take seriously – the word of a doctor who has been known throughout the science community as the man "who saved a billion lives," or the word of a somebody who's willing to bank their health over "natural," herbal supplements that have yet to be proven by medical science to work?

          • I think the problem is more of the Over-generalization, the lack of understanding regarding Domestication and Biology, or particularly How Argonomy Works.

            What is excitingly obvious is the Proletyzing with Over-generalization, being unable to even account for Domestication or What problems are currently acting on Food Security.

            Example, What is the economic dependence of the Philippines to
            What happens over time with irrigation, are all farms Perpetual soil is an unlimited supply of nutrients that can provide Tons and Tons of products? Wow water and soil = unlimited food ?
            What risks do farmers incur,especially the struggling farmers in the Philippines? What are the losses to disease, natural disaster?
            What is the average productivity level of the Philippine food producing body?
            Why is it natural = Good? What is this Naturalistic Fallacy about?

            "…the assumption that because some quality or combination of qualities invariably and necessarily accompanies the quality of goodness, or is invariably and necessarily accompanied by it, or both, this quality or combination of qualities is identical with goodness. If, for example, it is believed that whatever is pleasant is and must be good, or that whatever is good is and must be pleasant, or both, it is committing the naturalistic fallacy to infer from this that goodness and pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them"

            Prior, Arthur N. (1949), Chapter 1 of Logic And The Basis Of Ethics, Oxford University Press (ISBN 0 19 824157 7)

            Same naturalistic fallacy applies to the Catholic "Natural Methods" BTW.

            A lot of things need to be addressed

    • Chua, we might as well forsake Western medicine, then. Or cultivated food, for that matter.

      Does the prospect of going back to a hunter-gatherer society give you hard-ons?

      PS: What does "loosing a mother" mean? PINALULUWAG SI NANAY?

  30. If all contraceptives are not abortifacients, as argued by RH proponents, then why would plan B one step say otherwise? If you take a look at the website of this emergency contraception,
    you will see that

    Plan B® One-Step works primarily by:

    •Preventing ovulation
    •Possibly preventing fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or egg
    •Altering the endometrium, which may inhibit implantation
    http://www.planbonestep.com/plan-b-prescribers/ho…

    • Note the phrasing you cited: "…MAY inhibit implantation." Now if this is enough for you to label hormonal contraceptives as abortifacients, then your reasoning will lead you to treat breastfeeding for family planning as abortion too.

      The lactational amenorrhea method (LAM, or contraception through full breastfeeding) affects the lining of the uterus (endometrium) in a manner that may hypothetically interfere with implantation.

      In a study called "Relative contributions of anovulation and luteal phase defect to the reduced pregnancy rate of breastfeeding women" (Diaz et al, 1992), researchers at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile sought to compare breastfeeding's contraceptive action via suppression of ovulation ("anovulation") and effects on the endometrium ("luteal phase defect", or impaired endometrial development thought to cause infertility).

      The researchers observed that for breastfeeding women, the 12-month cumulative pregnancy rate was lower at 17% compared to 25% for non-breastfeeding women. However, they also found out that the cumulative probability of ovulating for breastfeeding women was 37% by the 6th month after childbirth, 74% by the 9th month, and 97% by the 12th month. The researchers concluded that prevention of ovulation “does not account for all the contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhea” and hypothesized that “interference with implantation associated with luteal phase defects seems the most plausible explanation.”

      Diaz et al study: http://www.likhaan.org/sites/default/files/pdf/di…
      Luteal phase defect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142421

    • I think the better statement is: not all contraceptives are abortifacients, assuming we define abortifacients as those affecting a fertilized egg. By that definition, condoms are not abortifacients.

      Which leads me to what the RH Bill is all about: EDUCATION. Let the woman choose her contraception.

  31. Now, if a sexually active female uses abortifacientcontraceptives (like copper t iud, mini-pill and plan B one step to
    name a few), she is cutting off the life source of this tiny human being (by preventing it from sticking to the wall of her uterus) thereby killing him/her. The female
    may not know that there is a human being already inside of her but if she understands how the reproductive system works,she knows that at one point she had committed murder.

    • [The female may not know that there is a human being already inside of her but if she understands how the reproductive system works,she knows that at one point she had committed murder. ]

      OF course, when family planning doctors die from accidents or are gunned down by pro-lifers, you guys call it "divine retribution."
      http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/646579835.h… http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/a_hear…

      Like I said – bloody hypocrites, all of you.

      • Violence has been committed by both sides. That is very sad. It looks worse for pro-lifers because it stands for life. No one, I hope, from the pro-life camp encourages violence. If it happened, these are works of misguided and probably unstable personalities. Please do not generalize your anger to all. And don't let your anger blind you from the issue and truths we are trying to discern through our discussions and sharing.

        • [Violence has been committed by both sides. ]

          Would you care to cite actual incidents of violence committed by Pro-RH people?

          [And don't let your anger blind you from the issue and truths we are trying to discern through our discussions and sharing. ]

          This coming from a group that consistently lied when it came to the RH bill – who claims that condoms cause cancer, and resort to baseless generalizations about how the RH bill will lead to poor literacy and child prostitution.

          • I do not think there is a reply to this. At best [Violence has been committed by both sides. ] is a way to derail the topic and screw your efforts over.

            No evidence or information will satisfy these people (those who excuse the lies), your dealing with severe bias and your efforts despite how being heroic will fall on those who have too much to lose being in any way wrong. They are too heavily invested with the Pro-Life stand and very sheltered regarding the situation (hence their ignorance regarding actual conditions and the lack of even concern for the accuracy of their data as compared to reality.

            Sadly, the clues are already there. if they are willing to tolerate their side lying instead of getting worth while evidence then they are willing to do what every their side says. The fact that they don't see how serious is it to make excuses for such a breach of trust and credibility regarding information, means the overall grasp regarding the repercussions are very much alien to them. Its more about being "right" than saving lives and easing suffering.

            It is not a matter of "responsibility" but a matter of Pride and Hubris, when the Conflict is not anymore about facts. Lying for the Faith is quite an interesting course of action, a severe cognitive dissonance in a stand which is trying to argue "means doesn't justify the end" when it comes to Family Planning.

          • [Would you care to cite actual incidents of violence committed by Pro-RH people?]

            Don't you get it, Twin? We are killing her ZYGOTES!!!

          • [It is not an actual count because it is hard to count abortions which are of course hidden because they are illegal. ]

            And she's killing my brain cells.

    • If you truly have evidence that there are abortifacient contraceptives, why not file cases to have these banned by the FDA (BFAD)? Murder is a serious offense. We have anti-abortion laws since the 1930s (Revised Penal Code). The "unborn" clause in the 1987 Constitution was passed 23 years ago, and women were already using IUDs and pills then. Of course FDA will ask for evidence. But the RCC, ProLife Phils, etc. are big, organized, have networks overseas, have many volunteers and advocates, and have had decades to make a case.

      Unless you have absolutely no evidence, and all you are standing on is Humanae Vitae.

  32. If any woman wishes to exercise her "rights" on her own body, she must consider what is actually her body. Another DNA strand, that is not identical to her own
    is not her body. The rights of that human being must also be considered by any true "freethinker."

    Delving deeper into this claim, let's make this argument more robust. Continue to consider the following:[S]he shares the human genetic make up that sets us apart
    from plants and animals (What amazes me also is that when the egg and sperm meet,the
    sex of the baby is determined!). This zygote, as they call it, is not a part of the mother's body anymore.[S]he may still be inside the mother's body but [s]he is
    in no way the mother's property. S]he is her own person with a set of DNA that is unique to her. Given this, [s]he is also entitled to the rights of
    each and every human being on this planet.This tiny creature's life is just as important as the mother's.

    • *Ahem*, let's see what the actual experts have to say as compared to your assertions: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin

      This view states that a genetically unique person begins at conception – a fertilized egg now hosts a complete genome, making it distinct from the sex cells that came before it. This view causes a funny paradox in the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when "its life begins" – that is, when it is conceived.]

      Scott Gilbert, in a recent paper which he has kindly given permission to quote posits four erroneous "stories" which people use to support this view. Here is a very over simplified precis.

      * Instructions for Development and Heredity are all in the Fertilised egg.
      The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are 'methylated' which radically alters how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are 'complete but unformed' at conception is far from accurate.

      *The Embryo is Safe Within the Womb.
      Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

      There is a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.
      Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we're up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

      There is consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.
      There isn't even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there's consensus. However, Scott Gilbert's paper lists embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists. However, there is consensus among embryologists, who are the only ones qualified to speak on this issue[1] (except for the ones who have PhDs on electron microscopy of mammalian implantation[2] and are spokespersons of Planned Parenthood[1]).

      prolife mom, you may also want to read the various medical references cited in the article I've shown you. Now how about sending us your references, hmmm? 😀

      • Interesting comment but considering you cited a single scientist who may have a circle of friends who may support his claim, which you seem hung up on the idea that I subscribe to total consensus to produce truth, let's go back to the basics.

        I pulled out my grade school books, who's authors are doctors who have no agenda supporting or attacking abortion or the pro life positions. Drs. Thomas D. Fahey, Paul M. Insel, Walton T. Roth, Gordon Edlin, and Eric Golanty, who's positions have been reviewed and approved for educational uses, all agree that conception (the fertilization of the egg by a sperm) takes half of the chromosomes from the male and half from the female and produces a unique and distinct DNA strand. I'd love to quote from their text, but like I said, they haven't given express permission seeing as I've chosen sources who are unbiased on the issue.

        • I'd suggest you read arm's comment earlier and the links he provided – he's done a pretty good job of addressing your points.

        • [which you seem hung up on the idea that I subscribe to total consensus to produce truth, let's go back to the basics.]

          Not a total consensus, a general consensus from the scientific community will do, which you have yet to indicate with statisitics. And no, a gradeschool book won't suffice.

        • Have you checked the quality of grade school books recently? No, a grade school book will not suffice, not even a high school book. These are all secondary literature, which are supposedly based on primary lit. The primary literature is what you should be looking at – scientific papers.
          In addition, not everything that is in a book is accepted by the scientific community as true.

          • To set Prolife Mom in the right direction as to what sort of materials will be taken seriously: Studies from accredited scientific journals and similar reports are the way to go.

            Anything from a Catholic-leaning sites or from Jill Stanek's blog will be treated with immediate ridicule and Monty Python reference jokes.

    • It's a stretch to call a zygote a person. When does "personhood" actually begin? Some would contend that personhood begins when a zygote becomes individualized but medical studies have shown that zygotes can still divide into 2 or more zygotes.

      Ok, one can contend that it does not matter if it is one zygote or multiple zygotes since human life has already begun and it's just a question of how many lives will be affected. But the fact that there are differences in interpretation means that your definition of life could be different from mine. Why should you enforce your definition instead of mine? What makes your definition more factual than mine? That, I feel, is the crux of the matter.

    • DNA is not an argument for personhood. Cancerous tumors have mutated genes that are not identical to the host. I suggest that you acquaint yourself with basic biological concepts from reputable sources. Scott Gilbert, Lewis Wolpert—these are developmental biologists whose bodies of work are the bases of entire college courses.

      • Does your definition or my definition matter? We can have a contest on whose definition sounds most scientific and who quoted the scientist who is most credible. It does not matter. There is a truth independent of what we think or how we define it. How can be be so proud as to think we can define what life is and when it really begins? I don't know about you but I will be cautious and make sure that I respect human life from the earliest possible time.

        • [Does your definition or my definition matter? We can have a contest on whose definition sounds most scientific and who quoted the scientist who is most credible. It does not matter.]

          This isn't a pissing contest. We simply present data, and you are welcome to criticize it on an academic level, and citing contradicting reports from an alternative – but equally credible – source.

          if there is anybody here pulling half-assed definitions of "life" out of their ass, it's you.

          [There is a truth independent of what we think or how we define it. How can be be so proud as to think we can define what life is and when it really begins?]

          Ironically, your statement reflects that you claims to know more about the topic than, say, an entire community of doctors and researchers who have spent their entire lives studying this matter. If there is anybody here acting proud, it is you.

        • Lost another argument?

          You seem to resort to this sort of response whenever cornered. In your other argument with Garrick on GMOs, you resorted to these words [Never mind. Think this discussion has gone too far and useless. I guess it is easier to muddle the issue than to listen. goodbye and good luck.] when confronted with his explanation on genes and breeding.

  33. I am in no way a medical expert but if there's one thing that i want to share to you, it would be the lesson i learned way back in grade school about the human reproductive system. i am sure human reproductive system is still a part of the grade school curriculum so most of you probably know this already. When a sperm meets the egg, a human being is formed. Yes, the scientific community calls it a zygote but whatever term they use to call this thing, it does not change the fact that it is a human being. Keeping religion out of it, since most on this website think that religion hinders freedom of thought, let's focus on the scientific evidence to my claim. A human being can be distinguished from other human beings and any other entity on earth through their DNA. Even if there were a genetic anomalie, it is still a fact that a human being's DNA is unique from other organisms.

    • A woman named n.s. wrote this:
      "I had a molar pregnancy in 2009. When it was detected, there was an embryo (which no longer continued to develop) and an abnormally developing placenta. While some molar pregnancies end up in miscarriage, I did not bleed at all. We waited for a week before operating, but I felt like a walking coffin the whole time."
      https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/18/ignori…

      So Prolife mom, was the molar pregnancy n.s. was carrying a "human being" according to the genetic uniqueness test you cited above? When she had it removed, did she have a criminal abortion? Should she be charged and imprisoned for doing so?

      Yes, let's focus on scientific evidence. Here's an image of a partial mole:
      http://w-pregnancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05…

      and an explanation of what it is:
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp090069…

    • apples and oranges argument…

      being a "unique genetic pattern" does not automatically make it "alive" in any medical sense in the same way blueprints does not equate to an actual building

      just ask any licensed medical practitioner how they determine if their patient is still alive… then try to apply the same criteria to a newly fertilized egg

    • […the scientific community calls it a zygote but whatever term they use to call this thing, it does not change the fact that it is a human being. … Even if there were a genetic anomalie, it is still a fact that a human being's DNA is unique from other organisms.] You should really read & research more before posting claims like this.

      Here is a picture of a single cell with a genetic anomaly: http://www.advancedfertility.com/images/triploide…
      Here is the description of the genetic anomaly: "3 pronuclei are seen in the center of the cell
      Each pronucleus contains 23 chromosomes. This embryo has 69 chromosomes instead of the normal 46" From this site, which has more pictures and explanation: http://www.advancedfertility.com/triploid.htm

      Even among couples intent on having a child through daily sex on fertile days, only 25% are successful with each ovulation cycle. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM19951207…

      Many fertilized eggs do not implant at all, or are spontaneously aborted in the early weeks of pregnancy. Chromosomal abnormalities are thought to account for a majority of spontaneous abortions that occur before 10 weeks of gestation. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp100533…

      • That was a good article, thank you, but I think the actual conclusion of the article is that they don't know when life begins because they don't know how to define life. If we were to look at the entire process from the moment that fertilization begins, we can see stages of development. A few things are at least certain in the empirical sense. (1) There is a new being (something that is) by the time you have a zygote, give its unique genetic nature. Even if it does eventually "twin out", we know that the zygote is distinct from either the sperm or the egg. (2) The remaining stages mentioned seem to be no more than stages of development. Whether it is splitting to form twins/multiples, or implantation, growing an organ, etc., the genetic uniqueness remains.

        That is probably why we can say that life begins at the moment of conception, if by that we mean the moment when you have a zygote. What we have there is a living, human organism. If you were to terminate that zygote, or the embryo(s) it becomes, or the fetus, we have to realize that the zygote is at the root. If the zygote is not formed, nothing else follows. The zygote is human, it is alive, and it's there. Those may be the only empirical points of certainty we have about this.

        • Again, argument for personhood from genetic difference is a blind alley you do not want to walk. Cancerous tumors have genomes distinct from their hosts and I'm pretty sure that you are not advocating for the rights of tumors. It is not genetic uniqueness that necessitates protection under the law.

          If we are to use being human an argument for personhood for individual cells, then we have another problem. Every time you scratch your nose, hundreds of cells are removed and killed. Each sneeze results in genocide by your line of reasoning. Human cells are not what intrinsically constitute personhood.

          What does require protection under the law is consciousness and brains that are capable of accomplishing consciousness. This is why we are able to harvest the organs of the brain dead. What is the difference between a fetus incapable of consciousness and a fully grown adult whose brain has become devoid of activity?

          Fertilization itself is a problematic definition for the beginning of personhood and is only chosen because it is poetic and it comes with the added bonus of allowing conservatives to judge the sexual lives of others with supposed moral authority. Fertilization is not just the meeting of an egg and a sperm. There are numerous stages beginning from the first attraction of the cells via chemical signals in the female reproductive organs to the first protein synthesized. If you're going to define fertilization as an "empirically certain" beginning of personhood, you're going to have to be more specific. Is the first contact of sperm and egg without shedding of the egg coat a person? Is the injection of the male genetic payload before genetic recombination a person? It's not as simple as the Church would like to present.

          • The analogy with a cancerous tumor is very weak, because chances are slim that the tumor will one day become a sentient being. I'm sure the stuff that falls from my nose when I scratch it won't do that either. 🙂

            Regarding the fetus and the brain-dead adult, and note that the diagnosis of the latter is not perfect, the analogy isn't so strong either. We don't take for granted a sleeping person because we know that that person will become conscious again in a few hours, or even a few seconds after you shake him. You only have to stretch that a bit more, e.g., a few days for someone who was brought deliberately into a coma for surgical reasons. A few weeks for someone who has sustained some head injury that is nevertheless healing. A few months for the blastocyst for which the path of development is fairly well known to culminate in delivery as a live baby — as a norm.

            The empirical certainty I was referring to was the result of fertilization, whether it takes 12 minutes or 12 hours: a blastocyst, the offspring in its earliest stage.

          • You presented uniqueness of DNA as an argument for personhood, an argument I promptly dispatched by showing that cancers have different DNA from hosts. Now you present an entirely different argument, that from potential for sentience. You shall find that your distinction is arbitrary because the carbon atoms you now exhale have the potential to become plants, which shall, in turn, possibly be incorporated in another human being.

            Embryos are incapable of development without the proper environment, beginning from implanting in the uterine lining. Even then, 20% of all recognized pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. You argue for potential at whatever stage in fertilization from no scientific basis whatsoever and your argument from faith is betrayed by the strength of your grasp on this idea that fertilization is a single special event rather than a series of continuous steps, with no step discretely distinguishable from the one before. What you are left with, in order to maintain the uniqueness of a zygote so as to deserve personhood, is to argue that the soul enters at some point during the development of an embryo—a rationalization so devoid of intellectual content that even the conservative movement stays away from it.

            A few months after a zygote is formed does not always culminate in a live baby as every coma does not necessarily result in revival. But this is to fall for your trap because what I mentioned was brain death as it correlates with the cessation of neural activity and the failure of oxygen to reach brain cells. This is not a coma and we readily harvest the organs of a brain dead patient without being charged with murder.

            Since you define life, arbitrarily, I should add, as to begin once the zygote is completely formed then you must concede that if the sperm does not fully penetrate the egg or genetic recombination fails to produce a viable diploid nucleus then it would not be abortion if a fertilization event is interrupted before such circumstances have come to pass. At this point, I should ask, what is so fundamentally unique about a zygote with an intact and viable diploid nucleus before it even makes the proteins necessary for developing into a baby?

          • I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the DNA argument just because it does not stand on its own. No science I know would dismiss one factor just because it cannot be the exclusive factor in whatever phenomenon is being studied. That does not make sense.

            Likewise the idea of atoms and plants does not make sense because there is a cohesion to the stages of human life from zygote to infant that cannot be compared to the development of plants from atoms we exhale. You might as well state that a human being is not an individual at all since the organic material he/she sheds everyday will likewise be part of something else in the future. They simply do not compare.

            Taking environment into consideration is also not enough to detach certain embryonic stages from the entire process. The environment is outside of the organism, for one thing. In that sense, the embryo is no different from a mature human being, taking sustenance from external sources and materials.

            BTW I fail to see what is wrong with looking at fertilization as a single event. There would be many natural events that consist of several discrete steps, but they do not preclude looking at the whole as a single event. In fact, my post earlier included "the entire process from the moment that fertilization begins, we can see stages of development." Are you sure you're reading my posts?

            And I never mentioned the soul. Where are you getting that from?

            You also misunderstand: I was not correlating a brain-dead person with a comatose person. Read what I posted again, please. I was using the comatose state as an example of a state of unconsciousness, pointing out that this is not enough reason to treat the person differently when there is a norm or fair likelihood of consciousness returning. Note I say "norm": I know that not all pregnancies are successful. But in science we have consider the normal as well as the abnormal scenarios, treat them separately, but to give due consideration for what is normal.

            BTW are you sure you meant this when you said it? ".. what is so fundamentally unique about a zygote with an intact and viable diploid nucleus before it even makes the proteins necessary for developing into a baby?" Does the zygote actually "make" the proteins necessary for development? I didn't know that, and it seems to suggest something interesting about the zygote's developmental trajectory that is directed from its own nature rather than from an external agent. Fascinating.

          • Your line of reasoning using uniqueness of DNA as a basis for personhood can be dismissed because not only does it fail to stand on its own, it does not support the arguments it is meant to. It is an extraneous pillar on an already crumbled temple. Twins have the same DNA, are they one person? Chimera, the product of two or more embryos fusing in utero, are individuals composed of several genomes. Are Chimeras many persons in one? I can go on and on, but if you refuse to let the point go, then I have nothing else to say on the matter.

            The notion that a human being is not an individual at all because we change through time is actually an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. This only bolsters my case that the potentiality argument for personhood is bunk and intellectually impoverished. Was the person you were 15 years ago the same person as you? You're not composed of the same stuff any more. Your brain has also significantly changed.

            That an environment is distinct from an organism is only a conceit we like to play but we are not at all distinct from our environment, which affects us in fundamental ways. We are the way we are because of how the environment acts on our genetic makeup. While an embryo also takes sustenance from external sources, the same can be said of watches and volcanos. This similarity bears no meaning on the moral calculus of the matter.

            While the stages of fertilization can be viewed as a whole, the endpoints are only marked arbitrarily, which is what I've been saying all along. It is viewed as one event for academic convenience and for keeping textbooks concise.

            I mentioned the soul because it is truly the only recourse you have left to rescue your argument that the zygote is somehow unique and special and worthy of moral consideration over a living and breathing human being.

            Yes, the zygote will eventually produce proteins as you yourself are doing right now. And, yes, the genetic instructions of the zygote directs to a great degree its own development. All the while, it is also responding to environmental factors present in the uterine conditions. These are well-discussed by Gilbert in Developmental Biology and by Wolpert in Principles of Development.

          • perhaps mr. Jeffersontan would prefer that we start filling out birth certificates as soon as the egg gets fertilized? after all, if you're gunning for full legal protection of a fertilized egg as a 100% honest-to-goodness legally-recognized person, one should also make sure that its existence is also recorded by the law.

            but that's going to be a lot of pointless paperwork right there, given the high natural failure rate for successful implantation.

          • [but that's going to be a lot of pointless paperwork right there, given the high natural failure rate for successful implantation. ]

            The solution is simple – have every woman whose fertilized egg dies arrested for involuntary manslaughter, or child abuse. Yeah – that'll show 'em!

    • [Yes, the scientific community calls it a zygote but whatever term they use to call this thing, it does not change the fact that it is a human being. Keeping religion out of it, since most on this website think that religion hinders freedom of thought, let's focus on the scientific evidence to my claim.]

      Let me get this straight:

      You start off by stating you don't care what the scientific community thinks, and that we should assume a zygote to be a human being, point blank…

      …and then suddenly demand scientific evidence to back your assertions?

      Writing comprehension fail, lady.

  34. I was in that forum. I think we should not shoot the messenger but try to seek the truth. This is a complicated issue and our stand on the bill will surely have great effects on us, our family and our country. I am anti-RH Bill. Here are some of my reasons. Rep. Baraquel mentioned there are 800,000 abortions yearly in our country and that the availability of contraceptives will lower this. Sounds logical – Contraceptives will prevent unwanted pregnancies that sometimes end up in abortion. Google abortion rates of the US. In New York City which is suppose to be where the most modern and sophisticated people are, their abortion rate is 41% of all pregnancies in 2009. Spain's rate just doubled. There are studies showing that higher contraceptive use is leading to higher abortion rates. Check how many legal abortions are done in the Western world in spite of the high use of contraceptives. Why? Can it be that more people become more daring in their sexual practices because they can always have "safe sex" but fail to practice it when the passions are high? Make your own conclusions.

    • [Check how many legal abortions are done in the Western world in spite of the high use of contraceptives.]
      I checked. The abortion rate in the Philippines (no. of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44) had a midpoint estimate of 27 (range 22-31) in 2000. http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/310305/3114005t2…

      The Philippines has a higher rate compared to most of what you call the "Western world" where the UN Statistical Division has data http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=i…

      If this type of evidence will swing people on your side to let the RH bill pass, I'm all for getting all the details and pinning down the correct information. However, many on your side cite statistics but go back to moral teachings and Humanae Vitae when cornered by careful scientific studies and evidence. But maybe you're different, so here goes:

      No. of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44
      Poland 0
      Portugal 0.2
      Austria 1.3
      Greece 5
      Croatia 5.7
      Switzerland 7.3
      Belgium 7.5
      Germany 7.8
      Uzbekistan 7.8
      Spain 8.3
      Azerbaijan 9
      Albania 9.6
      Netherlands 10.4
      Italy 10.6
      Finland 11.1
      Slovakia 11.7
      Czech Republic 12.2
      Japan 12.3
      Tajikistan 12.6
      Armenia 13.9
      Lithuania 13.9
      Iceland 14.1
      Denmark 14.3
      Norway 15.2
      Slovenia 15.2
      Canada 15.2
      Kyrgyzstan 15.8
      France 16.9
      United Kingdom 17
      Republic of Moldova 17.6
      Macedonia 18.4
      Georgia 19.1
      New Zealand 19.7
      Australia 19.7
      Sweden 20.2
      United States of America 20.8
      Bulgaria 21.3
      Hungary 23.4
      Latvia 27.3
      Ukraine 27.5
      Romania 27.8
      Belarus 31.7
      Estonia 33.3
      Kazakhstan 35
      Russian Federation 53.7

      • I think you compared two different sets of data. Philippine rates were not in the UN data. You got the Philippine data from Guttmacher Institute. Are you citing comparable data? same year, same methodology, same definitions? Notice that Guttmacher Institute data says the Philippine data is an ESTIMATE done by multiplier. It is not an actual count because it is hard to count abortions which are of course hidden because they are illegal. With estimates, we should always look at presumptions made and even the agenda of the one making the estimate.

        • These are the best available current data. I have cited the sources. The methodologies, dates, etc. are there. If you have better data, cite them. If you have questions about Guttmacher's estimate, state them. If you have questions about the UN data, state them. What are you implying with your all caps "ESTIMATE"? I said explicitly in my post: "midpoint estimate of 27 (range 22-31)".

          The above data contradict Grace Chua's claims-with-question-marks: "Check how many legal abortions are done in the Western world in spite of the high use of contraceptives. Why? Can it be that more people become more daring in their sexual practices because they can always have "safe sex" but fail to practice it when the passions are high?"

          Do you agree with her? Be explicit with your point(s). In the end, will statistics ever change your mind?

          • [Check how many legal abortions are done in the Western world in spite of the high use of contraceptives.]

            Imagine the dismay when you dare people to check their data … and they actually do! Posting the results with verifiable sources that put your arguments to shame.

            What do you do then?

            Of course! Call his data into question, nevermind the verifiable sources. And all this without even citing the sources for your own claims.

            I think we can clearly see who won this particular argument.

        • An article published in Lancet 13 October 2007
          Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide
          Findings
          An estimated 42 million abortions were induced in 2003, compared with 46 million in 1995. The induced abortion rate in 2003 was 29 per 1000 women aged 15—44 years, down from 35 in 1995. Abortion rates were lowest in western Europe (12 per 1000 women). Rates were 17 per 1000 women in northern Europe, 18 per 1000 women in southern Europe, and 21 per 1000 women in northern America (USA and Canada). In 2003, 48% of all abortions worldwide were unsafe, and more than 97% of all unsafe abortions were in developing countries. There were 31 abortions for every 100 livebirths worldwide in 2003, and this ratio was highest in eastern Europe (105 for every 100 livebirths).
          http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/…

          The "Western world" have rates well below the world average of 29. I hope Grace Chua (or G chua if you are the same person) will be honest enough to admit her mistake.

        • [It is not an actual count because it is hard to count abortions which are of course hidden because they are illegal.]

          Oh come on arm, we can both do better than an "estimate" from the Guttmacher institute – the name itself reeks of Nazi influence after all. Let's humor Grace with a report from local sources regarding the plight of Philippine Women, and how the abortion ban has done anything but improve their lives:
          http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicacti…

          And before you pull that "estimate" bullshit on us again Grace, do read where the report got its information.:
          http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives
          "The information is based on the experiences of women who have undergone unsafe abortion procedures and survived to tell their stories. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for a dialogue on government accountability for the human suffering caused by the criminal ban on abortion and the challenges it creates for health service providers."

        • Lot of rhetoric Not enough Data, grabe naman sya pa ang nag sabi: " I challenge you to research on your own." – Grace Chua
          Saan ang "Unbiased scientific/empirical" data mo?

      • The top countries in that list are also the most impoverished european nations. If there's one conclusion we can draw from those trends is that poverty is the determining factor in the prevalence of abortion.

        Is it that hard to imagine that 3rd world countries will have an even worse problem with abortion rates?

        If parents are already having a hard time feeding themselves, how can they even think of having an unplanned pregnancy which would result in another mouth to feed?

  35. the catholic church should never let acosta attend public discussions or forums about the RH bill if they are totally serious of strengthening their stand. she's such an embarrassment to their cause and to herself. she's coming out with all the pretentions of a non medical doctorate degree delving into (or attempted to) the field of science/medicine but displaying a low level of intelligence. pathetic.

  36. " ◦ If 11 women die everyday because of pregnancy-related complications, why do we claim to be overpopulated? "

    OMG. what a statement. -_-

  37. I was extremely upset with the amount of unfounded information that "Dr." Ligaya presented during the forum. I actually came into the forum with an open mind to hear what the anti-RH stand was, but once again I was presented with garbage/propoganda!

    Her research was from TWENTY YEARS AGO. And her statements were just ridiculous. Watching the open forum was like watching a circus show, with Ligaya hogging the mic and preaching more nonsense without ever really answering the intelligent questions from the students.

    • If Ligaya didn't present the issues well, I challenge you to research on your own. Almost everything is at your fingertips. Use google. It is important enough for you to spend some time on. Dr. Sylvia Acosta said that the Billings method prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg just like synthetic contraceptives and this to me is ridiculous also. But let us see. I will try to look it up.

      • Oh God please don't tell me your a student of ASMPH because shit son, if you are then it means that the public health part of our curriculum never made an impact on you. Thinking freely has always been imparted to us by our professors but freely doesn't mean you can think or accept illogical and irrational statements such as Ligaya's.

  38. I was extremely upset with the amount of unfounded information that "Dr." Ligaya presented during the forum. I actually came into the forum with an open mind to hear what the anti-RH stand was, but once again I was presented with garbage/propoganda!

    Her research was from TWENTY YEARS AGO. And her statements were just ridiculous. Watching the open forum was like watching a circus show, with Ligaya hogging the mic and preaching more nonsense without ever really asking the intelligent questions from the students.

  40. [RH leads to the Filipino youth’s poor English literacy since the English reading materials available are on sex and reproductive health, which they should not have access to.]

    How about this: Sex education manuals that narrate the sexual act in steamy, lucid detail, using traditional tagalog and proper english?

    That will certainly encourage kids to read more 😀

  41. I said this some place else, but it bears repeating here. The fact that anti-RH proponents are consistent liars and that they unfailingly misrepresent scientific data belies any well meaning intention on their part.

    What they want is to control sex. They believe that sex is dirty and no one should be having it outside marriage. They do not care if the RH bill helps alleviate suffering because the real suffering they fear is that from their loving God's fires of hell. No deception is unjustified and all untruths are noble as long as they are in the service of puritanism.

    • I would just like to clarify that the Church does not say that sex is dirty. They say that it is sacred. It is more positive than you think. What the RH people actually imply is that pregnancy is a "disease" which should be avoided = "There are many pregnancy related deaths." "Women die daily due to pregnancy."

      You call the anti-RH proponents liars. The other side will say that the pro-RH are liars. I guess the battle now is who is speaking the truth.

      Although this blog was posted by an anti-RH bill person, I'm sure there is no lie here. Here is a brief history of Dr. Acosta's journey from being DOH secretary for 29 years to where she is now: http://mataehary.blogspot.com/2007/11/lets-tell-t…

      • I defy you to find anywhere in the current or previous iterations of the bill that refer to pregnancy as a "disease."

        I call the anti-RH camp liars because that is what you call people who intentionally misrepresent facts. If people advocating the RH bill are liars, then let's see some evidence. Let's see some peer reviewed studies.

        This blog has consistently documented lies from people against the RH such as cancers resulting from condom use. I suggest you read up. As for Dr. Acosta's story, it is uninteresting and beside the point. The fact is, she has told provable untruths. This, by definition, makes her a liar.

      • "DOH secretary for 29 years"

        DOH secretary!!! Here is a DOH Department Order dated 21 April 2004 allowing "Ms. Ligaya Acosta" with designation as IO (probably Information Officer) for the CHD Eastern Visayas (regional office of the DOH), to attend a conference. She was not even head of a regional office. Get your facts straight.
        http://home.doh.gov.ph/do/do663-04.pdf

      • [What the for that RH people actually imply is that pregnancy is a "disease" which should be avoided = "There are many pregnancy related deaths." "Women die daily due to pregnancy." ]

        Would you like a match for your poorly made strawman? The fact is that thousands of women die in RP each year due to birth complications arising from unwanted pregnancies. The fact is that both sides, in all sincerity, would prefer to avoid abortions if at all possible, but this is reality. There will be grey areas. And imho, the woman's welfare has to come first in worst-case scenarios, and as much as we would nor rather have to see her expected child to die, in several cases it has to be done to save her life.

        The child is not a disease you fucking twat – I'd attribute that title more to the line of thinking your ilk resorts to, and to how you distort data to suit your needs. That is a mental disease.

      • [I would just like to clarify that the Church does not say that sex is dirty. They say that it is sacred. It is more positive than you think.]

        Yes, I'm sure that a bunch of lifelong celibates have plenty of insight into sex.

        Given that they think homosexuality, and gay marriages by connection, are a sin, I think that their stance or sexuality is as fucking sick, medieval, and stupid as I have made it out to be.

      • OMG that DOH secretary for 29 years is stupid.

        One, no one is a DOH secretary for 29 years goddamnit! And two, good Lord, we are absolutely screwed if that woman makes it in becoming one. Might as well just abolish the whole department.

    • Well if you are really into the truth and passionate against lies, then presumably, you can be prevailed upon to do some research. In fact sex is considered so sacred that the Catholic view is that it should be confined to the committed and loving context of a married couple, and that it should be blessed by God. Sex, also known in some circles as the marital act, is also considered a renewal and strengthening of marital vows at each instance.

      No doubt some anti-RH advocates can get some facts wrong, but you have to admit that there truly are legitimate scientific studies that can be used to argue against artificial contraception. You might disagree with them, but they are not necessarily pulled out of thin air.

      And on the good that you ascribe to sex outside of marriage, please consider the plight of children who grow up without one parent because the other parent did not think that it was necessary to confine sex within his/her marriage.

      • Whatever the Church's views on the matter is is irrelevant. It cannot and should not be legislated because the government may not transgress the wall of separation between Church and State.

        There have been studies that show that any drug has undesired side effects. The same goes for contraceptives. But these scientific facts will be part of an RH law. What will not be part of the RH law, and what has conservatives raging, is the dogmatism of the Catholic obsession over controlling sex as well as the lies necessary to propagate this obsession: condoms cause cancer, condoms fail all the time, condoms have holes, etc.

        Your objection that sex outside of marriage leads to unwanted single parenthood is an odd one because that is exactly the consequence the RH bill wants to avoid. All children deserve to be wanted and to be raised in the context of a loving and caring family that is able to fend for them. Depriving abused spouses and the poor of access to contraceptives is not only a crime against the woman but against the child who will be sired.

        I don't care what you think about sex and you shouldn't care about what I think. These are private matters that should be left up to the consenting parties to decide in whatever context they choose to enjoy (or not to enjoy) sexual activity. Government policy should be devoid of any argument obtained not from scientific research but from old men in dresses listening to voices in their heads.

        • Certainly the government should not enact laws just because the Church says so. That's not what the public debates is about today on the RH Bill. The Church is not sending an army to invade Congress. The Church is offering its mind, its perspectives. Those same perspectives are the basis for many good things today, including the institution of hospitals, nurses, universities, taking care of the poor, etc. When you say that whatever the Church's views are, they are irrelevant, you're singling out one group as being unworthy of free speech and participation in the democratic process. That's wrong. What you can say is that specific Church views on specific issues, upon close inspection, should not be legislated because it is wrong or would lead to certain evils and so on. That would at least be fair and in keeping with a democratic society.

          I'm not sure if these facts about side-effects will be part of the RH law if enacted. Nothing in the bill requires it. In fact, the terminology is very concerning because the bill patterns its definition of terms very closely to the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood jargon. And that is worrying because of how these organizations use terms very loosely. For example, in the Philippines, if we said that one is going to use a drug in order to expel the embryo, we call that an abortion. But in UNFPA/PP terms, if the expulsion is prior to the embryo's implantation, then it is not yet an abortion. That isn't scientific, but that's how the justify advocating for the so-called "emergency contraceptive" which can be taken AFTER unprotected sex, because according to the fairly recent revised definitions, one is not pregnant until the embryo has implanted. Strange, but there are 7-14 days before that happens, when there's this other organism growing inside. Hence you have strange terms floating around like "the egg implants after.." or "fertilized egg" — all problematic of course, but that's the mess caused by the redefinition of what should be straightforward terminology. The RH Bill inherits that mess.

          Regarding unwanted single parenthood, you misunderstand: I wasn't referring to single parenthood as a result of pregnancy arising from sex outside of marriage. I cited the case of a multitude of children growing up with only one parent because their other parent committed adultery — sex outside of marriage. I was pointing out that license for sex outside of marriage is not something to cheer about. You should also consider the question of contraceptive effectiveness given the alarming number of unwanted pregnancies in countries where contraceptives are promoted and widely available. In case you're not aware, the United States has recorded about 48 million abortions since 1973. Add to that those cases where the mother chose to keep the baby despite being unplanned. With figures like those, it is at least worth taking a second look at the data.

          BTW I do not wear dresses and I don't have voices in my head. Does that mean my arguments count for something, or are they worthy of consideration only if they do not sound Catholic?

          • Certainly not armies but fundamentalists who seek to derail proceedings with distractions such as debating when life begins, a matter that cannot be decided by legislators but by scientists. I am not seeking to take the free speech that I tenuously enjoy from the Church. However, our society is explicit in saying that the government must make no action respecting the views of any one religion, a principle so commonly trampled upon by the President himself. Personally, I view the Church's teachings irrelevant to the real world in the same way I view a man's belief that he is the reincarnation of Elvis irrelevant to the real world. They may freely hold their ideas but I do not need to feign interest in them and, since they are faith-based views, they are most certainly not welcome in the arena of public policy.

            The definition of conception as the implantation of the fertilized egg is a more useful working definition since it is only at this point does the embryo receive nutrients and growth factors that allow development to proceed. But this is a moot and uninteresting point because the Church will never acquiesce to scientific progress.

            If you believe that condoms and contraceptives provide license for sex outside marriage then you think so little of humanity thinking that children must be used as deterrents against infidelity. Whatever happened to staying faithful to one's partner out of love? You view humans as unleashed beasts—always in heat and ready to hump anything on two legs. The Philippines has 400,000 abortions every year—all illegal, many done at high risk to the woman. What the Church preaches is the condemnation of these women to back alley abortions and to die from the complications, all in the name of self-congratulatory puritanism and schadenfreude.

            While I will take your claim on face value that you do not hear voices in your head, those who claim to know the mind of God, as our blessed bishops and saints so often do, are proud of hearing them. Should your arguments proceed from such sources, then it stands to reason that I should be suspicious of their validity.

          • Please stop using labels like 'fundamentalists' — name-calling does not help your cause. I don't know what you mean by derailing proceedings with debates on when life begins. It would have to be a fundamental (pardon the pun) question, don't you think? Centuries ago, keeping African slaves was thought to be justified because they thought they knew the fundamentals of what made one a human being. BTW I am aware that many Christians also kept slaves back then. But the point is that fundamental questions have to be answered in order to proceed with the truth. Without the truth, we build on sand and perhaps, as with the slaves of those times, on innocent blood, too.

            BTW I am curious how you understand 'respecting the views of any one religion' — by that do you mean that there should be no respect for the views of any one religion, or there should make no laws based on the views of any one religion? The former understanding is incorrect, while the latter is. The Church is not demanding that Church law be legislated as it is. The Church is speaking its views on such fundamental questions as this because human lives are at stake — by that I mean not only the unborn, but also married couples and society in general.

            Which of the Church's teachings do you see as irrelevant? Is "forgive your enemies" one of them? How about loving your neighbor? Or taking care of the orphan and the widow, i.e., the weakest among us.

            BTW not all Church teachings are faith-based. Respect for all human life is based on natural law, for example.

            As for the Church and science, I would suggest you revisit history. Much of what is the bedrock of science today comes from the Church, and much of what we now know from scientific discoveries were by Catholics with Church support. To this particular point, however, let me mention the Billings Ovulation Method, which is entirely scientific in its findings on ovulation cycles and fertility. Napro Technology is another, in its approach to what causes infertility.

            You don't need to even consult the Church in studying much of what is on the table now. That oral contraceptives are linked with cancer is based on research, as are considerable failure rates in condom use. That abortions themselves are linked with cancer is also scientific, and findings linking contraceptives and abortions. They are in journals like "Contraception" and "Lancet", among others.

            I think a more healthy approach for you, even if you are entirely skeptical of Church views, is to actually examine the claims of the Church and to cross-reference that with the best available scientific data. A just society does not shut out the views of any particular group simply by virtue of their identity. A rational, just society will admit all counsels and weigh them rigorously. That is the scientific approach too, you know. You don't go with presuppositions and labels that have nothing to do with particular ideas that are being offered in the debate.

            The definition of conception as being implantation is illogical. What is being implanted has already been conceived by at least a week before it implants. The reception of nutrition has nothing to do with conception.

            BTW I had to smile when you thought I view humans as unleashed beasts. I'd heard that line of thinking at least once in these here forums, as a rational for the RH bill. Actually, neuroscience has not so long ago discovered that adolescents and teens have not sufficiently developed certain parts of their brain that would help make rational decisions involving risk. (I have to say that we sort of know that just from experience and observation.)

            Back to the point you make, no, I do not think that people are mindless beasts, which is why I can advocate for modern NFP methods which require more deliberation and conscious effort for couples. But you are right, it does seem to be the reasoning behind the Church, e.g., Humanae Vitae, pointing it out as a peril in the contraceptive mindset. Let me clarify then: human beings have appetites which are part of our nature, but without conscious effort, we can let those appetites go too far. I had a bit too much lecho kawali just now, I think, and I know people who go ahead and do that even when already on cholesterol medication. On the other hand, I know that we can exercise conscious effort to control those appetites, which is why I can say that NFP can work.

            Yes, I know that illegal an dangerous forms of abortions occur in the Philippines, However, indications from other countries suggest that abortions do not disappear, nor even diminish below those figures, when contraceptives come into play. Why? Risk compensation and inexperience of users. There are many countries where abortions (presumably legal) rise along with contraceptive use. Is there a correlation? Yes, and the points I'd mentioned cannot be dismissed as factors in that.

          • [The Church is not demanding that Church law be legislated as it is. The Church is speaking its views on such fundamental questions as this because human lives are at stake — by that I mean not only the unborn, but also married couples and society in general. ]

            The problem is that it's not just the church asking questions or expressing its views. It's a matter of Catholic conservatives exercising their political powers just to enforce the Catholic mindset on reproductive health:
            http://www.gmanews.tv/story/213863/barangay-ayala…

            And let's not forget Lito Atienza's banning of birth control products in manila: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,181…

            Like I said, if it was just a couple of self-proclaimed holy men demanding that we hear their side, that wouldn't be a big problem. The problem is that people who are affiliated with said religion have already proven on one occasion that they are willing to step over the line of separation between church and state just to impose their religious doctrine, regardless of the rights of non-Catholics in their areas of influence.

            [On the other hand, I know that we can exercise conscious effort to control those appetites, which is why I can say that NFP can work. ]

            jefferson, there's a big difference between controlling one's gastronomic appetite – I tell you this, as somebody who's on a diet – and controlling one's libido.

            The other difference is that responsible contraceptive use does work. NFP programs, on the other hand, are already proven to be unreliable and very, very difficult to implement:
            http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/abstinence_only_fail… http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-healt…

            By comparison – and while you may not like it – contraceptives are a far easier and more practical solution to implement for most people, especially for younger people of both sexes who may not have the patience or self control to remember everything they're taught in NFP classes.

            While I don't mind a program that includes NFP and abstinence as part of its curriculum, the problems begin when people try to shoehorn NFP as the ONLY sex ed program that should be available for our people, which the Church seems hell-bent on doing

            [However, indications from other countries suggest that abortions do not disappear, nor even diminish below those figures, when contraceptives come into play. ]

            *Ahem*
            http://www.psrh.org/pubs/journals/2504499.pdf

          • I'm sorry if you find "fundamentalist" offensive. It is an accurate characterization of a believer that adheres strictly to the doctrines of their faith. If their religion is true, then being a fundamentalist is something one should strive for. If you believe the tenets of your faith, it should not be offensive to be called a fundamentalist, one should be proud of it. Anyway, comparing embryos to slaves is not just wrong, it is appalling. Embryos are incapable of consciousness, feeling, or suffering. The African slaves faithful Christians kept were as capable of emotion and experience as any human being.

            The government does not need to respect, that is, consider, the faith-based views of any one religion. And, I strongly disagree that the Church is not trying to have its dogmas legislated as the law of the land. Human lives are at stake regarding the RH bill but not in the direction that you are implying. 11 women die every day due to complications in pregnancy. The value of any conscious person capable of suffering outweighs that of any fetus or embryo. The reason why we even have to have this discussion is because the Church needs to impose its views on people who disagree with them and those who are not even a part of its flock.

            Of the teachings of the Church that are irrelevant, I find that everything that it teaches on faith is irrelevant. No one needs to be a Christian to forgive my enemies. People have been forgiving each other for much longer than 2000 years and even those who were never exposed to the Abrahamic religions are capable of forgiveness. The only intelligent being that seems to be incapable of forgiveness is the very God Christians worship who casts unbelievers in never-ending hellfire. No one needs to be a Christian to love one's neighbor. The human race wouldn't exist without being able to find a means for cooperation and coexistence. No one needs to be a Christian to take care of orphans. But it seems to take being a Catholic priest to brutally rape a deaf orphan.

            I put no premium on human life over any other form of life based on solely being "human." If humanity is unique in any way, it is because it is capable of a range of conscious experience, an attribute not shared by embryos and fetuses up to a certain stage that we have yet to determine.

            Whatever discoveries Catholics have made that helped science along are not useful to science just because they're made by Catholics. Mendel's and LeMaitre's discoveries are useful because they are based on sound evidence without appeal to faith. Their motivations are irrelevant. You may as well argue that alchemy should be adhered to because the world's greatest scientist, Isaac Newton, practiced alchemy. The Billings Method, while probably effective, attracts no interest from me. That is my personal opinion and you shouldn't care about what I think about that as I don't care what you think about condoms or artificial contraceptives. No pro-RH advocate will break your door down and force you to use condoms.

            Yes, some oral contraceptives may cause cancer. Going out in the sun may cause cancer. Having a burger may cause cancer. That's how your God designed humans, cancer-prone. If you don't want to take the risk, then go use barrier modes of contraception. No one is forcing you to do anything. The RH bill merely provides means for those who cannot acquire contraception as well as educate them in the risks of them. This should be to your advantage if you want people to know about how oral contraceptives will instantly shut down their bodies.

            Thank you for providing for me suggestions in how to approach my view of the Church skeptically an organization that is based entirely on the proposition that the Creator of the Universe sent his son to be born as one species of millions on one planet out of billions and billions as a blood sacrifice in a tiny parcel of land. I do not dismiss the Church's views offhand as if I'd never considered them. I dismiss them because I have considered them. I grew up as a Catholic. I loved attending catechism. I debated evangelicals in defense of the Catholic Church. Not to brag, but I know more than the average Catholic. You are probably not the average Catholic. But, as Saint Paul said, "when I became a man, I put aside childish things." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

            The definition of conception as being implantation is just that, a definition. You may have your own but the scientific consensus does not need to abide by your own definition.

            There are some disgusting men who use their wives as sex dolls. The only defense of women against being perpetually pregnant is through the use of contraceptives. But to say that just giving people condoms will give them free license to fuck around, that's plainly wrong. And even if they did, it's none of your business. I lose no sleep over the sexual affairs of others, and yet the Church is all hot and bothered regarding the RH bill.

            You mention that children are incapable of completely grasping certain concepts because their brains have not yet developed. That means their minds are incapable of exercising the full responsibilities of a human being and enjoying all the rights of a human being (voting, drinking, etc.). And yet you argue that a mass of cells incapable of thought should be prioritized over a person with a fully developed brain.

            I do not deny NFP works. It's based on scientifically sound principles assuming that women always regularly ovulate (a massive assumption). No one is denying you of using that method.

            I have mostly been arguing taking the assumptions you put forward at face value and deconstructing your conclusions. However, I simply cannot let slide that I am completely unconvinced that abortion does not decrease with improved use of contraception. I'm going to have to see the real data this time.

          • (part 2)

            Linking contraceptives to lower abortions cannot be taken for granted. Many countries with the most liberal attitudes towards contraception, where abortions are also legal, have the most mind-boggling statistics on abortion, e.g., the US, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, etc.

            It is also illogical to claim that objecting to the promotion and subsidy of artificial birth control is tantamount to condemning women to back alley abortions. That would be like equating the objection to promoting and subsidizing high cholesterol and salty food with obesity, blocked arteries and heart attacks. BTW, if you do not see human beings as mindless beasts, then you should also see that human beings need not put themselves in a situation of unwanted pregnancy. But of course, there are those cases of rape and incest, but the solution there is not contraception, which would not discourage the rapist or abuser in any way, but to jail the animal and, if necessary, give the child up for adoption.

            BTW as I'd cautioned you about name-calling, I'd also caution against claiming to know what motivates the Catholic Church in resisting artificial birth control methods. I have known a few priests and bishop, and none of them have ever shown signs nor told me of hearing voices in their heads. Which ones have told you? If you are referring to prayer, that's not what prayer is. A great deal of what would help a believer make a decision, brought to God in prayer, is careful consideration of the matter at hand, the moral law, and what is practical or actually possible. By this I refer to contemplative prayer or, in some cases, when someone prays for guidance.

            And again, go ahead and be suspicious, but don't let that keep you from examining the claims. I presume that you have a great deal of respect for the scientific process of study? Well then you should follow the process, examine and analyze the claims and the available data, and come to sound conclusions. We Christians refer to it as "test[ing] everything, hold[ing] fast to what is good."

            BTW I know that we (Christians in general, including Catholics) are not immune from name-calling and going down conclusions without insufficient data. We're human too. Which is why all ideas should be tested and validated. Including Christian/Catholic ones.

          • Abortions are made largely due to unwanted pregnancies. The context in which abortions are done is greatly important, especially when considering places like China and its bias against females and developed nations where people are even capable of living well into fertility. I'd like to see the data you have showing that contraceptives have no effect on abortion rates, considering population and cultural contexts.

            Let me see if I understand your analogy correctly
            What I said: the Church's objection to birth control subsidy = a condemnation of women
            What you say: that this is analogous to a person objecting to high cholesterol product subsidy = heart attacks?

            That doesn't make any sense at all.

            I agree that people shouldn't put themselves in a situation that could lead to unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence is of course the best way, no one can disagree with that. Virginity has only ever failed once to prevent pregnancy in the history of the world. The solution for unwanted pregnancy is not just one thing. Consenting adults can use contraception or learn to not desire sex ever. It's up to them. And I will not argue birthing rape and incest babies. I find it reprehensible to force a child to live the life of being the product of rape or to live with the genetic disfigurations of incest.

            If a person claims to be talking to God, how else would that be except through hearing voices? If you expect an answer through prayer, how do you receive that answer? Is it not just you mediating on the situation and the possible courses of action you may take then deciding for yourself? Then where does God come in? If you believe that a divine being is answering you, then you are hearing voices, and I mean that with no implication of insanity.

  42. Can't Dr. Ligaya risk losing her medical license for disseminating misinformation like that?
    It's full of half-truths and out-dated info.

  44. Damn it Margie, you owe me a new Bullshit Detector!

    The bloody thing imploded into a singularity about halfway into Acosta's ramblings 🙁

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles