"Better than the RH bill" by Jose Sison

[Hanzo23]

One of the summaries of the RH bill includes universal access to the different methods of contraceptives. That is the important point I was making.

the question I am posting is there is still access to the artificial contraceptives in both laws. How does it benefit your cause? Why are you bringing the topic to the origin of life and conception? Why are you evading the question?

Since you are not completely capable of responding to the question above, lets take a look at another

The definition of Conception is only difficult for people who want to push an ideology. It has always meant fertilization. Even embryology texts presently still use the term interchangeably. The Merck manual uses fertilization and conception interchangeably. Intentional Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy. Here is the general medical definition: "In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy"

How can we even discuss abortion here when the topics are about contraceptives? Dont you get it? life doesnt even begin yet. There is no fertilization that will happen, no fertilization = no abortion. Is that a concept that is hard to follow? How can you kill a life when there is none formed to begin with?

[pach]

now now now, calm down. there need be no verbal attacks here. remember, we are rational, educated, cultured men talking about lofty issues on social justice, morality and philosophy.

we are not marxists, we are not activists, we are not militants, we are not radical muslims so the way we are to resolve this issue and arrive at a greater understanding is through rational discourse.

One of the summaries of the RH bill includes universal access to the different methods of contraceptives. That is the important point I was making.

Since the current pharmacy law is almost the same as regards the issue on the universal access of different methods of contraceptives, as you yourself said

this ordinance regulates it. Either way, alternative contraceptives will still be accessible. So how is it any better than the RH Bill other than slight restrictions?

i find no reason why the RH bill should be furthered, if there already is an existing law that is almost the same to it (regarding the distribution).

the reason why i am against the RH bill is that it covers a broader range of issues other than artificial contraception. and these, i believe, are immoral.

How can we even discuss abortion here when the topics are about contraceptives? Dont you get it? life doesnt even begin yet.

there are some contraceptives that are what is called "abortifacients" as far as i know, the RH bill also covers the distribution of these abortifacients, or that the RH bill will promote the use of these abortifacients.

abortifacients are immoral too, because these neutralize the life after it has been conceived. now, there are some artificial contraceptions that are not abortifacients, such as condoms..but they are still immoral since they are not open to life. there is that artificial blockage that prevents the egg from uniting with the sperm.

[Hanzo23]

now now now, calm down. there need be no verbal attacks here. remember, we are rational, educated, cultured men talking about lofty issues on social justice, morality and philosophy.

we are not marxists, we are not activists, we are not militants, we are not radical muslims so the way we are to resolve this issue and arrive at a greater understanding is through rational discourse.

Please dont address me as such. You yourself question my education, so that is a fair assessment. I am free to point out the way you deflect the questions.

Since the current pharmacy law is almost the same as regards the issue on the universal access of different methods of contraceptives, as you yourself said

i find no reason why the RH bill should be furthered, if there already is an existing law that is almost the same to it (regarding the distribution).

Please read the citation below

“Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

the reason why i am against the RH bill is that it covers a broader range of issues other than artificial contraception. and these, i believe, are immoral.

Huh? So I need a doctor's prescription to purchase condoms? 

there are some contraceptives that are what is called "abortifacients" as far as i know, the RH bill also covers the distribution of these abortifacients, or that the RH bill will promote the use of these abortifacients.

abortifacients are immoral too, because these neutralize the life after it has been conceived. now, there are some artificial contraceptions that are not abortifacients, such as condoms..but they are still immoral since they are not open to life. there is that artificial blockage that prevents the egg from uniting with the sperm.

In abortifacients, I can be of agreement to you as far as morality goes, the legality and distribution however, should be subject to strict regulations.

Condoms however, I am in strong disagreement, at that point, neither morality nor the legality (and even logically) speaking, should not be restricted. Let me cite your last sentence

but they are still immoral since they are not open to life. there is that artificial blockage that prevents the egg from uniting with the sperm.

Isnt this the exact point as to WHY you are using contraceptives (whether natural or artificial) in the first place? 

[xCharmCandyx]

Abstinence. Sex in the context of marriage.  Self-control.


Now don't shoot the messenger. Even I find the church's teachings hard, but it's the truth.  It goes to show that truth stands on its own and does not depend on feelings.

Moreover, that humans are capable of moral judgments apart from moral circumstances. (ex. even crooks know what they're doing is wrong)

and you have a point, sure we're not really that commited to the church's teachings but they are right, you can't stop life from happening and you shouldn't be doing immoral stuff. During Bill Clinton's recent visit here in the PH (which happened last year, i think), he said our country is blessed when it comes to population so if the RH bill was used to slow down the population, i don't think that's a good idea, it's already a former president from USA who said that our country is blessed when it comes to population. Another disadvantage of the RH bill is that if condoms were to be sold without a prescription once this bill gets aproved, it may encourage teens to have sex and teen pregnancy rates may go up unless the government does something to make sure this doesn't happen and this bill may also cause broken families and relationships (think: condoms=safe sex and this would mean people can have sex without worrying about getting someone pregnant). Anyway, for short, I'm mostly against the RH Bill.

[Hanzo23]

^^
the problem is someone already "assumes" teen pregnancy will already come up. You have to be a realist when it comes to these issues. Teens who wants to have sex WILL HAVE sex. Condoms or no condoms, thats the core of the problem. Whatever you tell them, the decision will still be entirely up to them to follow

By the way, when Bill Clinton says something, you gotta take it with a grain of salt. Politicians have to be great at the art of being "politically correct". When a politician says we are "blessed with population" what he would usually mean is "there is just too many people here"

[pach]

Please dont address me as such. You yourself question my education, so that is a fair assessment. I am free to point out the way you deflect the questions.

Ofcourse I do. you do not have any legal credentials so why should you even interpret the law in that capacity? The thing is, I dont want to get into the legal maze of this RH bill, for that is beside the issue.

IT's not that im calling you stupid or idiot or uneducated, but I am however questioning your capacity to interpret the law. There are nuances and minute details which the eye untrained in legal matters cannot see. There's a reason why law students have to study 8 years just to get that degree. Basically, it means, "get out of the way ordinary citizen, and let us do our own job, and know where you stand"

Likewise for priests who study for 8 years.

I am attacking it from the moral standpoint, not from the legal positivist standpoint. If you say that you stand by the rule of the land, so be it. You have just admitted Abortion and contraceptions' moral bankruptcy

In abortifacients, I can be of agreement to you as far as morality goes

There we go.

As for the legality, that is beyond me. I shall not wish to dwell on matters I know no knowledge, so I shall leave that be to people of due estate.

Isnt this the exact point as to WHY you are using contraceptives (whether natural or artificial) in the first place?

Like I said, both NPF and artificial family planning have but one goal - that is to prevent pregnancy. What I dont agree with is the means towards that goal.

[Hanzo23]

Ofcourse I do. you do not have any legal credentials so why should you even interpret the law in that capacity? The thing is, I dont want to get into the legal maze of this RH bill, for that is beside the issue.

IT's not that im calling you stupid or idiot or uneducated, but I am however questioning your capacity to interpret the law. There are nuances and minute details which the eye untrained in legal matters cannot see. There's a reason why law students have to study 8 years just to get that degree. Basically, it means, "get out of the way ordinary citizen, and let us do our own job, and know where you stand"

Likewise for priests who study for 8 years.

As such is why people get screwed over by lawyers (and priests, on some occasions)

I am attacking it from the moral standpoint, not from the legal positivist standpoint. If you say that you stand by the rule of the land, so be it. You have just admitted Abortion and contraceptions' moral bankruptcy

the act itself IS immoral, you have no disagreement there, however, different lands have different freedoms which protect the people from certain chains of obligation.

As for the legality, that is beyond me. I shall not wish to dwell on matters I know no knowledge, so I shall leave that be to people of due estate.

Like I said, both NPF and artificial family planning have but one goal - that is to prevent pregnancy. What I dont agree with is the means towards that goal.

Which you are entitled to disagree, however, banking on the lack of necessity of this law just based on moral principles and its preferred method's terrible reliability is not sufficient to stunt the approval of this law.

[pach]

the act itself IS immoral, you have no disagreement there,

good. case closed.

[Hanzo23]

good. case closed.

great, hope to see you on the picket fences when this bill gets approved. 

[pach]

it will not be. the Catholic Church is too powerful. She cannot be defeated.

[Hanzo23]

it will not be. the Catholic Church is too powerful. She cannot be defeated.

Ah yes, separation of church and government? ring any bells? 1987 Philippine Constitution? Article 2 Section 6?

No rule shall every be made to restrict your freedom to practice religion, however, only on the laws which restrict your religious freedom, will the weight shift on the government to prove that the law has a higher secular objective.

[pach]

the church does not legally interfere with the process of law. all she can do is to influence her members - be they politicians, or ordinary citizens.

[Hanzo23]

the church does not legally interfere with the process of law. all she can do is to influence her members - be they politicians, or ordinary citizens.

Yup, all we need is a real secular president and we can finally see some progress.

[alyloony]

is it abortion part of the RH bill?

I am just wondering why a lot of people support the bill when it also includes abortion.

[definedelirium]

is it abortion part of the RH bill?

I am just wondering why a lot of people support the bill when it also includes abortion.

NO.

read the bill, people, before making any claims and forming an opinion.