13 billion pesos for the Reproductive Health bill. eto ang presyo ng libog.

[definedelirium]

~You're right manila isn't really that progressive. Ibang-iba lang talaga ang lifestyle ng mga taga-Manila sa mga taga-probinsya. Marami kasing mayayaman sa Manila and they can afford to live there.

Of course, we can't blame them because it's their choice. Humans are really ambitious in nature. Gusto lahat convenient.  Dito sa probinsya maliit nga ang sweldo dito, pero hindi ka naman mamatay sa gutom. They don't really have to settle to very remote areas, yung simpleng probinsya lang na kaya silang i-accomodate, pwede na yun. And it's not impossible to have those facilities nationwide, it's just hard to attain, and it will take a lot of time.  You know, you cannot get everything you want in an instant.

we have the Natural Family Planning na hindi naman kailangan ng contraceptives. Contraceptives aren't that safe, it changes the hormonal levels of our body which is not good because it's not normal.Some are abortifacient. Bakit hindi na lang nila hayaan ang bawat family na pumili nang family planning method na gusto nila.


Yes. Some were discouraged, but let's put it in our situation, kung ikaw tuturuan ka ng teacher mo about sex na wala ka namang idea about dun, you'll be curious. Pwede ring isipin ng bata na "Maybe this is taught because it must be applied", some will wonder  how it feels like to be involved.  Tsaka, this thing must be taught by their parents.

Unfortunately, hindi lahat ng naiinvolve sa sex, e alam nila ang gingawa nila. Some were just curious, yung iba para lang masabing astig at lalakeng-lalake sila, yung iba naman nadala lang ng body sensuality nila, yung iba naman sobrang mahal daw yung syota nila. Maraming naiinvolve sa sex na hindi naman nila alam ang ginagawa nila, what's more in the future kapag naapproved ang RH Bill?


The Government should treat people as an asset,  if there's a large population, then make a way para sila ang maging daan sa pag-unlad.

alam mo kasi, magbasa-basa ka muna. alamin mo muna kung ano talaga ang rh bill bago ka tumira nang tumira.

ikaw na nagsabi na dapat ang couple ang pumili ng family planning na gusto nila. hindi ba kasama dito ang artificial means? kung natural family planning methods ang ipipilit mo sa kanila pero hindi naman iyon ang sa tingin nila na pinaka-effective, aren't you robbing them of that choice? again, contraceptives are already available in the market but not everyone can afford them, know how to use them properly or know all the options that are available. kaya nga kaakibat ang sex ed sa rh bill para malaman ng tao kung para saan at kung paano poprotektahan ang sarili nila should they wish to engage in sex.

if you have correct and unbiased information about reproductive health, you will be able to make an informed choice. iniisip mo kasi na kapag may rh bill, magiging hayok sa sex ang tao. pinanood mo ba yung ni-link ko na video?

people ARE already having sex and there's nothing inherently wrong with intercourse, the problem arises when you engage in unprotected sex which exposes you to things like STDs and unwanted pregnancy. can natural family planning methods protect a person from STDs? no. abstinence can, pero the mere fact that you use natural family planning methods means you are having sex.

people are an asset, pero nagiging asset lang sila if they are productive citizens. how can you be a productive citizen when you cant even feed your children? walang masama sa sex, hindi masama magkaroon ng maraming anak pero siguraduhin mo muna na alam mo kung ano ang pinapasok mo at kung kaya mo bang suportahan ang lahat ng anak mo. do you expect people to gain reproductive health knowledge spontaneously? you expect parents to talk to their kids? ako rin gusto ko sana ganon ang mangyari pero hindi. you have to be realistic about things and look at what is happening in the present.

[pach]

                                            

Code:

Orange marks the start of a premise

Red means my quote from previous posts.

Purple means your quote from posts before your last.

Green means quotes from the sources I used

Blue means quotes from the sources you used.

Lime Green means this is the color that connects one of MY statements with another of MY statement in a long sentence so that the connection with one premise with another can be easily identified

Quotebox -  your quotes from your last post

Define Delirium started from 2 arguments from her first post, then expanded to I even lost count.

It is obvious that her arguments are like water that avoids dead-ends and look for the path of least resistance because she failed to answer some of the arguments I used against her such as:

1) The argument from "you don't have a uterus". She accuses me that just because I am not a girl, I can no longer speak for women. Kalokohan itong argument na ito. If a girl complains to me why I'm doing something she does not like, she will get even angrier at me if I say "Wala kang etits kaya hindi mo maiintindihan kung bakit ganito kaming mga lalake"

Moreover, this was my specific reply to her post, which she ignored: kaya ang commonality naten as man and woman is not our reproductive organs but our MINDS! and to retreat behind our genitals is a poor excuse to explain away the opposition.

2) She thinks that I think that the essence of woman is to stay at home and nurse the child. However, I was very very very clear when in my previous post I said that:

I'm not arguing that the essence of Woman is merely to stay at home, nurse the child and wait for the bread-winner come dinner time. Woman can do whatever she wants, just as Man can do whatever he wants. Afterall, ang commonality natin is our intellect and free-will.

What I'm arguing though, is the result of the Women's Lib Movement. Has this changed the plight of Woman in absolute terms? I argue that no, it has not changed Woman's plight in absolute terms. As a matter of fact, the Women's Lib gave men more options and more reasons to exploit Woman, for the simple reason that it has become so much easier for us to do so, thanks to the Morning-after Pill.

3.She ALWAYS SAYS that I am arguing from Faith.

Again, she failed to reply to my answer, and this is my answer from my earlier posts:

my point is this - the abovementioned arguments are not the teachings of the church, but they are arguments that are used by the Church. mayroon tayong clear-cut distinction between doctrine on the one hand, and arguments based on the findings of science and other human fields of knowledge like statistic, economics, sociology. however, these findings show that the doctrines of the church (independent of scientific findings) are still relevant for today. and in fact, these doctrines are are made more relevant by these findings.

Her argument that I always use faith as my ammunition can easily dispelled by a single question: Kindly quote any of my statement which I used scriptures or the catechism of the Catholic Church in order to rebut you?

4. She always accuses me  that I fail to see the big picture

This is clearly wrong, not only is it wrong, it is also a blatant lie. First, Definedelirium needs to define "big picture" - does Big Picture for her means women's rights and women's health in exchange for certain immoral principles like birth control and artificial contraception? If that is what she means by "Big Picture", then she is in error.

What I mean by "Big picture" is this, and I'll quote myself from the other thread (Better than the RH Bill):

 I am looking at the issue from a realist point of view.  Realism is the philosophical tradition which treats being as the starting point of all correct thinking.

Let me unpack what I said: being is man's most universal idea. being is anything that is, and non-being is anything that is not. Summing this up, it is called the principle of non-contradiction. The principle of non-contradiction states that nothing can be and not be at the same time at the same respect. Example: what is a living organism cannot be a dead organism at the same time at the same respect. But a father can be a doctor at the same time, but that does not violate the principle of non-contradiction because fatherhood and doctor-hood are exercised at different capacities at different times. A father is a father to his son when he is scolding his son. The act of "scolding" is not proper to being a doctor.

At any rate, in practical terms, realist is a person who judges her world from the point of view of being, not from the point of view of subjectivity. Instead of the truthfulness of a thing revolving around the self, it is the self that must revolve around the truthfulness of a thing. The principle of non-contradiction is the first pre-requisite of all correct thinking.

The big picture for me means to scrutinize each and every aspect of the RH Bill, by pointing out rational justifications why this bill needs to be passed. My argument is that all the reasons why this bill needs to be legislated are unfounded and groundless. The most common reasons for the pushing of this bill are 1) From Over Population 2) From Gender Equality I have been arguing time and again that all these three reasons do not make sense. Only 1 reason makes sense in the light of the RH bill - which is the total removal of the Catholic Church from the public sphere. Unfortunately, the proponents of the RH bill have not been so honest regarding their true aim.

If only Definedelirium will be so honest as to say "I am in favor of this bill so that the influence of the Catholic Church will disappear from public", then I will readily drop all opposition to her, and just say "I will pray for you." End of discussion.


Her philosophical position is called "Ethical Relativism" and "Moral Subjectivism". Ethical relativism states that all human conduct is relative to one's culture or upbringing. No one can say what is right or wrong because we all come from different backgrounds.

Moral Subjectivism states that morality depends upon the feelings, emotions and self-justification of the subject or the person. If what I think is right differs from what another person thinks its right, then I cannot speak because none of us are right. 

The reason Definedelirium is having a hard time accepting some of my propositions is because her philosophical position is radically untenable.

My philosophical position is called  Moderate Realism

Moderate Realism is the position that starts from the point of view of being. What that means is that the mind or the intellect recognizes external reality, and conforms to that external reality, rather than the other way around.

Moderate realism always invokes the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) or what's sometimes called the Intersubjectivity of Truth (IT). The PNC states that "nothing can both be and not be at the same time at the same respect" . So, when somebody says I think the foetus is a person and another person says I think the foetus is not a person, we both cannot be right, nor we both cannot be wrong. Either one of us is correct and one of us is wrong.

External reality in this statement means - common sense experience.

Correct in this statement means - it agrees with external reality.

Wrong in this statement means - it does not agree with external reality.

To sum up, my position is always from the position of Moderate Realism

[pach]

5. She thinks that I am against the RH bill because I am Catholic.

This is WRONG. Either this accusation is STUPIDLY WRONG or BLATANTLY MALICIOUS.

She obviously did not read my previous post in the thread "Better than the RH Bill":

The 15th and 16th centuries was the time when Europeans were enslaving the American Indians and other New World Savages. The Church was greatly bothered by this, that's why  a debate within Catholic Universities and other centers of learning had arisen in the Old World whether the American Indians possessed any rights. The thinkers of the Church led by the members from the Dominican Order invoked Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of Natural Law in order to prove that slavery must stop in the New World because these savages, even if they are not Christians or Europeans, still have human dignity by virtue of their free will and rationality.

There is no denying, then, that the concept of International Law is a fruit of the Catholic Church's intellectual activity.

And until now, this Natural Law continues to be a basis in International Law.

So, to reject the Catholic Teachings on abortion and contraception (which follows NLT) on the basis of one's non-Catholicity is a poor excuse. At the very, very least, you do not even need to believe that there is a God in order to be guided by the principles of Natural Law. What you only need is to be alive.


Definedelirium, before reading further, please stop using the 5 most common arguments you are always throwing at me, because these are the same arguments which I have debunked and which you cannot answer back.

Please don't feel like you're talking to a wall. I am not a wall. I'm a person just like you are, it just so happens that I think more logical than you do, regardless whether I am a Catholic or not. You are just accusing me that I am so rigid because of a very simple reason: you cannot counter my arguments.

Anyway, over the course of this post, I have color-coded your quotes, and outlined both of our points in order to avoid a free-wheeling discussion. I will also ask you to clarify some of the words you mean because the some of the words you're using are ambiguous and equivocal. Before we can agree to anything, we first have to agree on what the terms we are using mean.

i never said that the women's lib movement has failed. i said it has a lot of work to do. those are very different things. do you not understand the difference between those two?

Yes, I understand the difference between those two. To prove the point, please read what I typed on my last post. Obviously, you didn't read it because you're falsely accusing me of something you want to accuse me so that you can answer back. You don't realize that we both agree on some points regarding the women's liberation movement.

As for the so-called "Women's Lib" - this term is too broad to cover the wide range of issues associated with the Women's Liberation movement. Meron radical and moderate side nyan. While I certainly recognize the power of the women's lib to transform society, I attribute this change to our Judaeo-christian heritage, because this very tradition upholds dignity, human rights and freedom as our core values.

The women's liberation movement could only have come from a tolerant and open society, and that its success (in certain respects) depends just as much on the society that harbors it.

The negative side of the women's lib comes from certain quarters like Pat Califia, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elizabeth Johnson and Susie Bright. Some of these writers believe woman's liberation means that she should be free from the shackles of conventional morality and do whatever she wants to do with her body.

I emphasize that the negative side of women's lib has only served to exacerbate the deviancy that we see today in western society and culture. It is not just prostitution, but also voluntary acts of deviancy we see in pornography and other forms of live entertainment where the woman acts and dresses like an animal, or getting smeared in feces, or getting urinated upon by the male performer. These deviance behavoirs have never been tolerated even by pornographers before the 1960s. But after this tragic decade, all forms of sexual deviancy have now been deemed 'okay' and that there's nothing 'wrong' with it.

If these scatological acts mean the woman is now 'liberated', it is a very poor form of liberation indeed.

So, in the course of this argument, I will only restrict myself to the negative side of women's liberation. Yung positive side is obvious, and it is for everybody to see

i can say that by reading your entire post, i can infer the following things:

Please stop using the word "infer" because you didn't infer anything from my post, you made illogical and unwarranted leaps about my arguments, plus you also used phrases which I never used like "superior faith" or "do nothing about it."

1. women in non-catholic countries are experiencing worse than those in countries where the church has a strong foothold. this is because they are not catholics.

This is true because it agrees with common sense experience, with external reality. A survey of the history of women in the Judaeo-Christian West tells us that Western Women indeed were better off in the past and more so today, compared to women who are living in the non-Catholic parts of Middle East, India, and East Asia.

Rather than present a negative explanation, I will give a positive explanation.

Negative explanation = explaining why  women in non-Catholic majorities are treated worse

Positive = explaining why women in Catholic Majorities are treated better.

I.

I have three arguments to reinforce my claim that women in Catholic majorities are treated better today compared to non-catholic majorities. I'm also asserting that even during the medieval period until the modern period, women in catholic majorities were treated better, compared to women in non-catholic majorities during the medieval period until the modern period.

I.A - The history of Medieval Europe (which is Judaeo-Christian), compared to Medieval Islam in the Middle East,, and Medieval India (which are not Judaeo-Christian) suggests that women were treated better in catholic majorities

    1. According to Charles Wickham in the book "Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400-1000", Royal and aristocratic women participated in this world of political feasting, as has been seen, and had clear roles on occassion; for example the Danish queen Wealhtheow, 'a lady thoughtful in matters of formal courtesy', was in Beowulf the person responsible for passing around the collective mead-up in the royal hall, at the start of the meal. How many women apart from the host's wife actually attended such gatherings is unclear, however, and the public politico-military world and its values tended to be male.

 By the way, aside from the geopolitics class I have this semester, I also have a university elective on The Fall of the Roman Empire. Charles Wickham's book is the one we are using.

        1.a Ofcourse the public politico-military world and its values tended to be male because like all medieval societies, the medieval western world was heavily militarized. Unless it is offensive to women that men are fighting almost all of the time, I cannot see why the dominance of male virtues and values in medieval western history is offensive to women.

2. The space for honour, loyalty and political protagonism of aristocratic women was substantially more restricted. It was not absent all the same. Women ruling in their own right were not more common in this period than any other.

3. We have seen that in Francia queens-regent such as Brunhild, Fredegund, Balthild and Chimnechild could be extremely powerful, and this gives us an insight into the female exercise of authority. The importance of these women was...very closely associated with the dynastic centrality of the core Merovingian male line

4. But it was real power they had, all the same; people obeyed them, built careers around them, fought for them.

5. This is likely enough as well, although Merovingian queen-mothers were usually poweful, despite the fact that queens controlled the house everywhere.



I.B How about the treatment of women in Islam? Women were treated less fairly and were more restricted in Medieval Middle East (Islamic), compared to the Medieval West (Roman Catholic)

   1. But it has to be said that 'Abbasid political practice gave less scope to female protagonism than either the Frankish or Byzantine tradition. The complicated and ever-developing ceremonial of the `Abbasid Calpihate...had rather less space for women as public players.

I.C Medieval India.

         1. According to Hindu scriptures, a widow is required to mount the funeral of her dead husband and be cremated along with his corpse. If the husband dies at a distant place, the widow is nonetheless to be burned alive on a pyre by herself. A widow who burns herself to death this way is called sati. The guiding force to motivate Hindus to practice sati is the instructions given in their scriptures.


        2.The rite of sati was prevalent in India until it was prohibited by the British Government in 1829. Regulation XVII of 1829 declared sati illegal and punishable by the criminal courts as 'culpable homicide' amounting to manslaughter,' for which a death sentence could be awarded.


           2.a It was the British Government who prohibited this practice. Let me ask you - Isn't the British Colonial Government a product of the Judaeo-Christian West?

          2.b The orthodox Hindus protested that measure and made an appeal to the Privy Council in England, but, fortunately for the would-be Hindu widows of India, the council dismissed the appeal. Thus after having been practiced in India for over two thousand years, the institution of widow-burning became illegal by the law enacted by a foreign power.

II. A - Argument from Current Practice

      1. On September 4, 1987, when the days were still warm but the nights were getting cooler, a young girl of 18 in the village of Deorala in Rajasthan was murdered. She was burnt alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. Yet, according to local tradition, Roop Kanwar had become a “sati” and had “voluntarily” immolated herself as she sat with her dead husband’s head in her lap even as family members lit the funeral pyre and curious villagers watched. Her cries for help drew no response from the spectators.  http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/09/23/stories/2007092350030300.htm

Please tell me, where in the Western World can you see wives being burnt together with their husbands?Even before 1987, even before the 20th century, even before 1000 AD?

      2. a Iran woman escapes stoning death for adultery

Ms Ashtiani says she was forced to confess to adultery during questioning. The authorities in Iran have announced that a woman convicted of adultery will not be stoned to death.But it is not clear whether they have lifted the death sentence against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who has been in prison in Tabriz since 2006. The 43-year-old had already been punished with flogging for an "illicit relationship" outside marriage when another court tried her for adultery.There has been an international campaign to prevent her being stoned. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said stoning was a "medieval punishment" and that its continued use showed Iran's disregard for human rights. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10565103


      Please tell me where else today in the Western World do you see women being stoned to death, or event at the very very very least, almost being stoned to death? (take note, the Iranian authorities announced that they will not stone her)

III. I argue that the successes of the Women's Liberation Movement was mainly confined to Western Societies, and that the very concept of the 'liberation of woman' could only have arisen in a Judaeo-Christian Western Society that is tolerant, and open minded. Even the women's suffrage movement originated in the United Kingdom. The first country ever to allow women to vote in a democratic election was in New Zealand, a country whose government had strong Judaeo-Christian roots.

Looking at the history or the timeline of the Women's Lib, let me quote myself again

1974 MANA, the Mexican-American Women's National Association, organizes as feminist activist organization. By 1990, MANA chapters operate in 16 states; members in 36.

1974 Hundreds of colleges are offering women's studies courses. Additionally, 230 women's centers on college campuses provide support services for women students.

1975 The first women's bank opens, in New York City.

1978 For the first time in history, more women than men enter college.

1981 At the request of women's organizations, President Carter proclaims the first "National Women's History Week," incorporating March 8, International Women's Day.

1981 Sandra Day O'Connor is the first woman ever appointed to the US Supreme Court. In 1993, she is joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

1984 Geraldine Ferraro is the first woman vice-presidential candidate of a major political party (Democratic Party).

1990 The number of Black women in elective office has increased from 131 in 1970 to 1,950 in 1990.

1992 Women are now paid 71 cents for every dollar paid to men. The range is from 64 cents for working-class women to 77 cents for professional women with doctorates. Black women earned 65 cents, Latinas 54 cents.

1993 Take Our Daughters to Work Day debuts, designed to build girls self-esteem and open their eyes to a variety of careers.

1996 US women's spectacular success in the Summer Olympics (19 gold medals, 10 silver, 9 bronze) is the result of large numbers of girls and women active in sports since the passage of Title IX.


This is what I have been telling you time and again, and yet you do not want to recognize the truth about the matter.

[pach]

2. the birth control policy has failed in china and only promotes gender inequality,

you have a WRONG understanding of what I said. I never said that the birth-control policy failed in China. Here is what I explicitly said, and I quote:

China's state-enforced one-child policy/birth control exacerbates China's gender bias all the more, since couples are not given any sanctions against aborting the female foetus and pereferring the male.

It still confirms the findings that the gender ratio in China is 18 males per female on the national average, and 30 males per female in certain provinces.

In fact, the birth-control policy was so effective, according to its aims to curb the population, that a gender-imbalance has resulted in 18 males per female, and in some instances 30 males per female. By 2050, China will have problems in labor and employment because of this lopsided gender ratio thanks to

1) Traditional views on women

2) State-sponsored abortion and birth control that reinforces traditional views on women.

therefore the philippines should not have a state-sponsored reproductive health bill because our society runs on the same culture as china.

Never have I said that our culture and our society is the same with China. Again, here's what I said:

Let me ask you, what country in the world has the highest rate of feminine infant mortality? China. Yet China, more than any other nation, has the most progressive of all family planning methods. Not only is family planning enouraged, it is also enforced.

There is no sign in that statement that I am equating China with the Philippines. I am merely stating the dangers of a state-sponsored birth control programme. And even if it is true that the Philippines is different from China, there is no legal barrier in the RH bill subtexts that says the state will not sanction abortion in the future. . Otherwise, I-quote mo saken kung saan sa subtext ng RH bill nagsasabi na may inalienable right ang foetus sa buhay? WALA.

3. having a high standard of education includes the right kind of reproductive health education. this is guaranteed. so we can say that new york (a state with the highest levels on education in the US) has very good reproductive health education programs in the public school level.

And you quoted a new york times article, saying that: "But city health officials and groups that support access to abortion say that behind the 41 percent statistic — nearly twice the national rate — are complex social and legal factors: fewer obstacles to abortion in state law; the absence of mandatory sex education in New York City public schools; the ignorance of people, especially young ones, about where to get affordable birth control; and the ambivalence of young women living in poverty and in unstable relationships about when and whether to have children."

I will answer this in the later post  where I am rebutting your claims. Right now I am just clarifying my side and pointing out your inferential errors regarding what you think is what I think

4. there is no proof that having the RH bill in place will result in better reproductive health education, therefore we should not have it.

You have a correct understanding of my position in this statement.

we should deal with the problem by not doing a damn thing about it.

NEVER in all of my posts did I say we should not do a damn thing about it. This is an unwarranted leap from premise to conclusion. Bakit ba sobrang sinungaling ka?

Besides, your words again are ambiguous. What do you mean by IT?

parents dont talk to their kids about sex, so we should leave them alone.

True. The state has no right to interfere with family matters, outside physical and psychological harm to persons.

PREMISE I.

1. you're digging your own grave by making this generalization. this only shows how close-minded you are, shunning other faiths and belief system aside from yours and that yours is the superior faith (if there is such a thing). blaming the ills of a non-catholic society on the fact that it IS a non-catholic society is like saying the philippines is poor because of the catholic church. i think different religions are repressive in their own ways but to say that catholic societies have a better life than those in non-catholic societies because they are catholic is an antiquated thinking and only shows that you are not open to reasoning and will defend things based on faith. it's futile arguing with faith.

Another unwarranted lead from premise to conclusion. And another entangled and ambiguous use of words. I could not even give a proper objection because the use of words is so irresponsible. This statement is not even wrong, it is senseless!

I. Never in any of my posts did I say that the Catholic Faith is superior to other faiths. Please kindly quote me where I said what you're accusing me of.

          A. What I said was women in societies with Catholic majorities were generally treated better because the nature of the said society allowed freedom and toleration. Let me explain this further

               1. Europe and America's Christian roots are, in principle, not opposed to the spirit of freedom and toleration. To use the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples to the contrary will not undermine my claim, because the abuses that are associated with them were political in nature and not religious. 

             2. Take note of the term "Better". The word is a comparative adjective. This only means that in relation with other non-Catholic majorities, women in Catholic majorities had it all going their way. Of course, there were abuses against women, yesterday as today. Here, as everywhere. But there is no denying that the nature of Catholic societies proved fertile ground in the furtherance of universal human rights and dignity. In case you forget, because relativists usually suffer from selective memory, let me quote again what I said previously:

The 15th and 16th centuries was the time when Europeans were enslaving the American Indians and other New World Savages. The Church was greatly bothered by this, that's why  a debate within Catholic Universities and other centers of learning had arisen in the Old World whether the American Indians possessed any rights. The thinkers of the Church led by the members from the Dominican Order invoked Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of Natural Law in order to prove that slavery must stop in the New World because these savages, even if they are not Christians or Europeans, still have human dignity by virtue of their free will and rationality.

There is no denying, then, that the concept of International Law is a fruit of the Catholic Church's intellectual activity.

And until now, this Natural Law continues to be a basis in International Law.

So, to reject the Catholic Teachings on abortion and contraception (which follows NLT) on the basis of one's non-Catholicity is a poor excuse. At the very, very least, you do not even need to believe that there is a God in order to be guided by the principles of Natural Law. What you only need is to be alive.

            3.To add to the above statement: I would further argue that the natural law theory, the theory that says "NLT is a universal standard based on human nature and discoverable by human reasoning that is capable of elucidating many aspects of personal and social morality, including the nature and limits of political obligation, the relative merits of diverse forms of government, and the moral legitimacy of specific legislation" cannot have arisen from a social environment that is socially and religiously restrictive.

I am on the side of history and common sense - consult any book on Natural Law, or on the History of Philosophy, and you will get the same answer. The problem is you wouldnt because once you do, you'll know your arguments will fail.

an antiquated thinking and only shows that you are not open to reasoning and will defend things based on faith. it's futile arguing with faith.

                      A. Please substantiate your claim that it is antiquated thinking to think that women in Catholic societies were treated better.

                                   1. Give me a justifiable, verifiable reason why it is irrational to think that women in Catholic societies were treated better. Negatively stated, convince me why women are NOT treated better in Catholic societies if the facts at hand contradict your claim?

                                  2. Remember that my premise hinges on the comparative adjective "better." For sure, abuses against women have happened and are always happening in Catholic societies. But in relation to non-Catholic, non-Western societies such as India, Islam and even in Bhuddist societies, it is fairly obvious to say that women in Catholic societies indeed were treated better.

                                                (a) In Islam, women are stoned to death when caught in adultery
                                                      give me a principle, law, Church doctrine that explicitly stones Catholic                 women when they are caught.

                                                 (b) In India, there was the practice of sati or the "voluntary" burning of widows together with their deceased husbands (until 1829, when the Judaeo-Christian British colonial government outlawed the 2000 year old practice). Give me a principle, law, Church doctrine or even de facto Western practice that is even near the hindu practice of burning women together with their dead husbands

                                                  (c) In buddhist societies, some Buddhist religious teaching in some east Asian countries explicitly mention that women are spiritually limited, and could not achieve spiritual heights that men could. Please give me a principle, law, Church doctrine that says women are spiritually limited.

                                                                  (1) Only in Roman Catholicism are women venerated through beatification and canonization. Nowhere in Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist societies are buildings, plazas, schools, and houses of worships named after women.  Saint Scholastica, Santa Isabel, Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Mother Teresa Center, Saint Elizabeth Anne Seton, Santa Ana are but a few of the hundreds of buildings, colleges, universities, hospitals, public squares and even whole towns and cities whose names are derived from Catholic women saints. You do not find such precedence even in Non-Catholic Christian societies such as in countries where Protestantism is the main religion.

 B. Again, WHERE IN ANY OF MY POSTS DID I QUOTE SCRIPTURE OR THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NOT HISTORY, SOCIOLOGY, ECONOMICS IN ORDER TO PROVE MY POINT?

PREMISE II.

the rh bill is not proposing a ban on how many children can be borne to a family (as was the case in china) so saying that we should not pass the bill because the one-child policy in china has created a lot of problems is like comparing apples to oranges.

I. Part of the RH bill calls for the limiting of children a couple can have. (I have problems with the term couple. The RH bill was not very specific in setting the meaning of the term "couple")

                  A. How can you mandatorily limit children without banning couples to bear a certain number of children? Such statement is impossible. In other words, if the government is not proposing a ban on the number of children a "couple" can have, then it is useless to "suggest" that the ideal number of children a Filipino family can have is only two.

                   B. Furthermore, if mere suggestion of 2 children/couple is the aim, why invest 13B Pesos on condoms, pills and aritificial contraceptives? A simple advertisement will do. Unless you want to tell me that the word "suggestion" comes with free goodies. If suggestion is used in the same way, then the RH bill proponents are analogically no different from drug dealers in the street who are "suggesting" people to try drugs that comes with a free offer of cocaine. 

                                1. The government is not therefore "proposing" = "suggesting". The government IS ENCOURAGING
                                           a.If the government is ENCOURAGING that couples should have ideally 2 children, then the government is no different from the Church, which encourages people to be fruitful and to multiply

                                                   (1.) Therefore, the Government and the Church use the word "ENCOURAGE" in the same manner. However, it seems to me that you get a violent spasm when the Church encourages something, yet you ape the government when the government encourages as well.

                                                       (a) The logical conclusion, if we are going to follow you line of reasoning is this: YOU ARE ANTI-CATHOLIC. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM BEING DISHONEST ABOUT YOUR BEING NOT ANTI-CATHOLIC, BECAUSE I GENERALLY SEE LIARS AS SIMILAR TO FEMALE DOGS

For what is the meaning of Reproductive Health education, according to the RH bill?

Reproductive Health Education —Refers to the process of acquiring complete, accurate and
relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and
processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity,
interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the
necessary skills to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and
critically evaluate and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related
sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.

To which Jose Sison replied:

After this bill becomes law, two things are established by law: (1) that the Catholic Church is the
enemy of knowledge, progress and social well-being, most certainly in the field of sex and
reproduction, and (2) the advocates of this bill are champions of knowledge, progress and social
well-being who will achieve by statute what they have failed to do by argument: The destruction
of the main intellectual opposition to the triumph of their system of beliefs on the subject; to wit,
the spiritual and moral authority of the Catholic Church.
The bill requires State-sponsored and tax-paid propaganda to demolish the uncompromising
Catholic attitude and belief on birth control. It makes Catholics pay with their taxes for the
demolition of their religion.

                   C. Moreover, the RH bill uses ambiguous wording (although you are worse than the bill) regarding the punishment of people who "disinform" other people of the bill. Yes, THE RH BILL DOES INCLUDE PUNISHMENT, targeted at those who want to "disinform" other people.

                              1. Section 21 F of the RH bill says that “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this(the bill) act”.

                                          a. Without defining what “disinformation” means, anyone who says something about the act can be convicted and anything they say can be interpreted as a “disinformation”. For example, RH Bill proponents dismiss the scientific fact that some contraceptives are abortifacient and life begins at implantation, and safe-sex should be promoted (including children), anyone who teaches or preaches about the sanctity of life, that life begins at conception, and that sex should be between married couples will be violating the RH bill and therefore, subjected to a penalty of imprisonment ranging from 1 month to 6 months and/or a fine of 10,000 to 50,000.

                                    2. Please understand that The RH bill is about Birth control first, and reproductive health second.

                                              a. Wikipedia says the RH bill = universal access to methods/information on BIRTH CONTROL and Maternal Care

                                    3. The RH bill also says that the state shall encourage 2 children per couple

                                                a. The bill furthermore says that no punitive measures may be imposed

                                                          (1) I have a problem regarding the word "may." This word implies that the bill's wording can change. Instead of the word "shall", which is an imperative.

[pach]

just because a policy has failed in one country it doesn't mean that it wont work in another, especially when the policies are different.

II. This statement is problematic. In the Philippines then (Philippines = another country), what kind of policy will make the RH Bill different? In other words, what kind of Reproductive Health policy, other than limiting the population, will work in the Philippines? This question cannot even be answered. Here are the multiple problems with this statement:

           A. Define "Control"
                     
                  1. If control means "limit", then Birth Control is interchangeable with "Birth Limitation"

                            a. If you agree with me that "control" is the same as "limit", then you finally admit that the RH bill wants to limit the population of the Philippines. But Government cannot dictate how many children a couple ought to have. Therefore Government-sponsored birth limitation in the RH Bill goes against the very fundamental right of the couple to 1) bear how many children they want or to 2) not bear any children at all.

                                        (1) To say the the government is encouraging (not-some) Filipino couples, then the government is encouraging EVERY COUPLE (not-some)  to have the ideal number of children, EVEN those who do not want.

                            b. If you don't agree with me in equating "control" with "limit" then,

                            c. you ought to agree with me that "control" could either mean "increase the population if it is too few relative to land area" or "decrease the population if it is too many relative to land area"

                            d. If you ought to agree with me that "control" could either mean "increase" or "decrease", then this is the only logical conclusion that would follow:
         
                                       (1) It should include the time frame by which the "ideal 2 chilren/family" can be lifted or not.

                                                    (a) However, NEVER IN THE RH BILL IS A TIME FRAME FOUND WHEREIN THE IDEAL 2 CHILREN/COUPLE RATIO IS OPEN TO CHANGE OR REVISION If there is no openness to revising this child/couple ratio, then the RH Bill is basically a piece of bull-sh.it. We are no better than China's one-child policy, only that Filipino couples are limited to two.

                                                    (b) Moreover, please don't tell me AGAIN AND AGAIN that the bill does not propose to limit how many children a couple can have. Please refer to the sections PREMISE II, I,A, and PREMISE II, I,B,1

 It is wrong to suppose that surveys show that most Filipinos prefer 2 children per family. If we are going by surveys, then the minority is left out. Here, the minority is anyone who 1) wants only 1 child 2) does not want any children 3) wants more than 2 children.

However, a majority does not dictate the truth.


          B. Define policy failure and what kind of policy is it that fails?

                     2. If what we mean by "policy" is birth control, then
                                 a. failure of birth control policy means population does not diminish, but increases.
                                        (1). In the case of China, the birth control was more than successful, because this birth control policy has achieved a state of affairs such that the non-senior generation cannot sustain a senior population in as fast as 30 years.

PREMISE III

3. new york has a high standard of education, i wont argue with that. however, that does not mean they also have a high standard of reproductive health education. general education (math, science, language) is different from reproductive health education. having a high level of education does not guarantee a high level of RH education, in the same way that having a college degree does not guarantee that a person has street smarts. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/nyregion/04abortion.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

in case you're too lazy to read that, here's an excerpt.

"But city health officials and groups that support access to abortion say that behind the 41 percent statistic — nearly twice the national rate — are complex social and legal factors: fewer obstacles to abortion in state law; the absence of mandatory sex education in New York City public schools; the ignorance of people, especially young ones, about where to get affordable birth control; and the ambivalence of young women living in poverty and in unstable relationships about when and whether to have children."

you see that? NYC, with such a high rate of education, has no proper sex ed program in their public schools. proper RH education does not come by spontaneously and even if those kids are highly educated it doesn't mean that they are well-equipped to handle matters of reproductive health. that is what sex education will try to address.
 

I. Since the facts are there at hand, then I have no choice but to agree. I recognize the fact that New York has no mandatory sex education.

            A. To make the leap from one premise to a conclusion however, I would have to suspend judgment, because New York has just passed a legislation that will make sex education mandatory. http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/10/new-york-city-mandates-sex-ed-classes-for-public-school-kids/

II. Even if PREMISE III,II,A is true, there is an example where mandatory sex education did not deliver the desired results, even in a country of high education, indeed even higher than America's national average.

          A. LONDON, UK, March 15, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new survey conducted in the UK has revealed that teenage pregnancy rates are highest in areas that have been most aggressive in promoting sex education. The report revealed that explicit sex education and providing condoms to young girls simply encourages them to become sexually active.

Source:
http://www.plataforma-rn.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:uk-sex-ed-backfire-survey-reveals-increased-pregnancy-rates-in-teens-subjected-to-program-&catid=35:consulta-obrigatoria&Itemid=59

        B. Ministers admit - in a document quietly released before the Christmas parliamentary recess - that the 2010 target to cut teenage pregnancies is doomed to failure.
A performance report on the Department of Health website confirms progress towards the target has been hit by "slippage" and warns that "progress needs to accelerate" for the target to be met.
Amid a rising teenage population, the conception rate has dropped by only 11 per cent since 1998, in stark contrast to the 50 per cent target. At the same time, the overall number of teenage pregnancies has gone up to more than 47,000 a year.

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574043/Sex-education-failing-to-halt-teen-pregnancy.html


III. If the cases above are indeed true, and let us assume they are since we are swimming in theoretical waters here, then what makes the RH bill proponents so confident that unwanted teen pregnancies in the Philippines will be addressed by mandatory sex education? You now have NY which has high education/no mandatory sex ed, plus UK which has a higher education/mandatory sex ed. How is the Philippines going to fare compared with these two advanced and industrialized societies?

            A. So it is wrong, I conclude, to blame mandatory sex education or the lack thereof for unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions. I BLAME THE CULTURE

[pach]

PREMISE IV

4. should we stay mum about this issue and ignore it? ignoring it wont solve anything. the rh bill aims to do a lot of things and while there is no guarantee that it will live up to its worth, doing nothing is worse than doing something and falling short. it's like saying a stupid person should not go to school because there's no way to tell if he can keep up with the courseload. if our society shunned action because of uncertainty, walang nangyari sa atin.

I. I could not even properly begin to answer this claim because of the word "IT". Assuming the the word "IT" refers to a "better" reproductive health education, then:

II. There is indeed no proof that having a Reproductive Health Bill will solve unwanted teen pregnancies (if indeed THAT is just the aim of the government).

          A. I have even shown that in the case of the UK, unwanted teenage pregnancies have never been higher, in spite of mandatory Sex Ed.

          B. Venereal diseases are also on the rise

                   1. A better comparison to the Philippines is Africa, we and the African nations both belong to the 3rd world. In Africa, the contraceptives that are being supplied by governments EVEN DOUBLE THE RISK OF H.I.V

                             a. The most popular contraceptive for women in eastern and southern Africa, a hormone shot given every three months, appears to double the risk the women will become infected with H.I.V., according to a large study published Monday. And when it is used by H.I.V.-positive women, their male partners are twice as likely to become infected than if the women had used no contraception.

SOURCE:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04hiv.html?pagewanted=all

                            b. Please don't give me the poor excuse that "Oh, the government will not use the same brand". That's bullsh.it reasoning, and something that I, and my USD 62,000 education do not deserve to answer. Since those who implemented artificial contraceptives in southern and eastern Africa did not give a squat about further health risks of contraceptives. The situation in Africa is the fact that we have at hand. I do not want such things to happen to the Philippines.

III. Even then, mandatory sex-education is unconstitutional

                A. Art.15, Sec. 3. of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, The State shall defend:
(1)   The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;

                          1. But, a mandatory sex education to all children undermines parental authority.  It will not give parents any choice but to submit their children even if it goes against their religious convictions! Parents will be forced to compromise their religious belief and impede them from founding their own family in accordance with their religious convictions under the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 1 month to 6 months and/or a fine of 10,000 to 50,000.

doing nothing is worse than doing something and falling short.

                           
III. But you are wrong in thinking that I believe we should do nothing about it.

IV. Besides, what is that "something" which you speak of?

        A. Does "doing something" mean giving carcinogenic substances to women (part of the 13B funding for the RH bill)?


                        1. A press release issued on July 29th of this year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared the little publicized classification of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (OCs) as carcinogenic. The IARC placed the contraceptives into their Group 1 classification, the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only "when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans." (emphasis theirs)
Combined estrogen-progestogen OCs are the most commonly prescribed forms of contraceptives. According to the IARC "worldwide, more than 100 million women - about 10% of all women of reproductive age - currently use combined hormonal contraceptives."
This outright declaration by the World Health Organization of the proven dangers of combined OCs comes as an unexpected surprise to many who have been working for years to publicize their dangers. "I'm stunned that they would come out and say that, because they've been denying this for years," said Toronto area MD and medical adviser to Campaign Life Coalition, Dr. Shea. But he added, "They're really only admitting something that's been known."

SOURCE:http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html

           B. 13B pesos a year for contraceptives, you say? If it is indeed true that limiting the population will spur national growth, and that one way of limiting the population is through the purchase and distribution of contraception, the case could also be made that this 13 Billion pesos will be better used in infrastructure, hospitals, farm-to-market roads, schools, tractors, land-development and more.

There is no need to kill the unborn, nor to artificially prevent life from conceiving in order to attain national progress. Besides, why focus on the not-yet (unborn), if those who are HERE AND NOW are already suffering?

                           1. Consider the proverbial "Aling Nena who has 10 children." Go to any slum, and ask a mother of 5 or 6 this simple question: "Manang, mayroon akong 1000 pesos dito. Ibibigay ko sa'yo ito sa isang kondisyon: dapat mong igastos lahat sa pills. Meron naman akong 500 pesos dito, ibibigay ko sa'yo ito sa isang kondisyon: dapat mong igastos sa pagkain." Tell me, for a woman with 5 hungry children, what is the most rational decision?

                          2. kaya isang malaking KALOKOHAN at mas malakaing KABOBOHAN para ipagtanggol na ang 13b budget para sa pills ay magpapaunlad ng bayan kesa sa 13b para sa imprastraktura o agrikultura. KABOBOHAN YAN.

                                    a. Now, ofcourse a good rebuttal would be: We already have the Php. 72B stimulus package which includes infrastructure, poverty alleviation and resettlement projects, to pump-prime the economy amid a global slowdown.

In a speech at the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) forum, Aquino said he authorized additional expenditures of more than P72 billion until the end of 2011.

SOURCE: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/10/12/11/aquino-unveils-p72b-economic-stimulus-package

                                                      (1) Then let's make the stimulus package Php. 85 Billion. 13B pesos on contraceptives is a waste! A total waste in relation to a starving nation.

                                                                  (a) You might say - not all of the 13B will be spent on contraceptives and birth control.

                                                                               (i) To which I reply: We already have RA 9502 for cheaper and more accessible quality medicines.

                                                                                2. S e C .   3 .   Construction  in  Favor  of Protection  of Public  Health. - All  doubts i n  the  implementation  and interpretation
of  the  provisions  of  this Act, including its implementing  rules 
and  regulations,  shall be resolved  in favor of  protecting public
health

Source: http://www.juanponceenrile.com/ra/ra9502.pdf

              3. Will part of the 13B, if not for contraceptives, be for "maternal health"? No, THAT IS NOT NEEDED

                       a. We already have the Magna Carta for Women for that, passed in 2009.

PREMISE V

[/b][/u][/color]
 

I. it seems like you think that we have gender equality in status quo, just because there are girls like me who say what's on their mind, women who go against norms are not as frowned upon and women are given more freedom in general. this does not mean na talagang equal na ang babae at lalaki sa pilipinas at wala nang gender bias. there will always be a struggle.

II.the fact na kailangan pang gumawa ng anti-violence against women act, limited ang financial capacity and independence ng babae, the existence of gender discrimination in the workplace dito sa pilipinas, etc etc ay senyales na mayroon pa ring problema at mas pinapaboran pa rin ang lalaki. i never said that the philippines is as hard-up as, say, saudi, but that doesn't mean that total gender equality exists here.

III.the rh bill will not bring about total gender equality by itself but it is a step towards it. it aims to give women the tools to make an informed choice and making that choice available to her.

IV. oo, pwede namang bumili ng condom dati pa but can a poor person afford it? does that mean a person should be restricted from having sex because she cant afford to buy a condom and does not trust natural family planning methods? that is against her rights.

I. This is an unfalsifiable*** statement which is why it is logically impossible to offer a logical reply. I can, however say that this statement is downright stupid, it is even lower than stupid, it is SENSELESS. As a matter of fact, suchstatement can be applied to ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING in the world. In short, your claim cannot be falsified because it is applicable to anything and everything without EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of error. The logical mistake here is called "To retreat into 1000 reasons."

*** Falsification Theory

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

Let me give you an example, using your exact syntatical structure, albeit with different words:

               A. It seems like you think that Apple is a high-tech company, just because Apple has created the iBook, iMac, the iPod, the iPad, the iPhone4, and the iPhone4S. This does not mean na talagang hi-tech na ang apple. there will always be a struggle for perfection

                        1. Does this mean then, that Apple must to invent an iBlender, iCoffeeMaker, iPrinter before it can be truly and genuinely called "hi-tech"? If yes, then we may as well add an iToilet, iRefrigerator and iElectric Fan NO.

                                  a. We always place our own judgment and opinion on statements and facts IN RELATION TO SOMETHING -  TO A FACT AT HAND. An opinion is always in relation to something. That is why I can say that Apple is Hi-Tech, only because Android is not. For instance, Android has yet to come up with its equivalent to Iphone4S's new features.

                                        (1) Likewise, I can say that the women's liberation movement in Catholic Philippines has gone a long way in relation to other countries, especially in Islamic countries. Even Tunisia, which is the most "gender-equal" amongt Islamic states, do NOT COMPARE to the freedoms that women are enjoying right now in the Philippines. NOT EVEN SOME WESTERN COUNTRIES compare to the Philippines.

                          B. Even assuming that we haven't gone a long way, the "women's rights'' aspect (if there's any) in the RH bill IS REDUNDANT.

                                1. As recently as 2009, we already have RA 9710, a.k.a "Magna Carta For Women"

                                        (a.)Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - Recognizing that the economic, political, and sociocultural realities affect women's current condition, the State affirms the role of women in nation building and ensures the substantive equality of women and men.

                                                                  (b.) Moreover, the Magna Carta For Women has already provided for the well-being of women.

                                                                          (1) Section 17. Women's Right to Health. - (a) Comprehensive Health Services. - The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, culture-sensitive, and gender-responsive health services and programs covering all stages of a woman's life cycle and which addresses the major causes of women's mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision for comprehensive health services, due respect shall be accorded to women's religious convictions, the rights of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, and the demands of responsible parenthood, and the right of women to protection from hazardous drugs, devices, interventions, and substances.

                                                                         (2) Moreover, Access to the following services shall be ensured:

                                                                                 (i.) Responsible, ethical, legal, safe, and effective methods of family planning;

                                                                              I argue that contraceptives are neither ethical nor safe.

[pach]

the fact na kailangan pang gumawa ng anti-violence against women act, limited ang financial capacity and independence ng babae, the existence of gender discrimination in the workplace dito sa pilipinas, etc etc ay senyales na mayroon pa ring problema at mas pinapaboran pa rin ang lalaki. i never said that the philippines is as hard-up as, say, saudi, but that doesn't mean that total gender equality exists here.

II.

A. Okay, let me ask you - on what grounds will condoms and pills make women MORE EQUAL?

                     1. Does the 13B peso budget for pills and artificial contraceptives give women more work opportunity?

                   2. How will the 13B peso-RH bill budget for contraceptives/pills prevent gender discrimination in the work place?

                             a. Regarding PREMISE V, II, A, 2, Sana nga ganito, so it will be much easier for women to be "equal" to men. Imagine, magsusuot lang ako ng condoms, equal na tayo.  Or imagine, susubo ka lang ng Depo-provera, EQUAL NA TAYO!  KALOKOHAN ITONG ARGUMENT NA ITO. WALANG KWENTA.

the rh bill will not bring about total gender equality by itself but it is a step towards it. it aims to give women the tools to make an informed choice and making that choice available to her.

III.

       A. "but a step towards total gender equality"

               1. Again, I have a HUGE ISSUE WITH YOUR WORDING or syntax.

                          a. First, define "total gender equality"? You cannot, I cannot, no one can because the statement "total gender equality cannot be subject to logical falsification. The word "total" is a superlative adjective. Which means, if "total" is the last in the sequence of words, then there must be something before it, just as the word "large" is senseless without the words "medium" and "small." The term "Grand Total" in an official receipt makes sense because it is a closed system. There is the price, then the tax, then the tip, so there's a grand total.

                                But in the case of "total gender equality", could you say there is "partial", "mediate" and "total gender equality"? No, because we would have to ask what makes "partial" gender equality as such? Don't tell me the Middle Ages just had "partial" gender equality, because now we have to measure that up against "Islamic middle ages", "Japanese Middle Ages" and "Indian Middle Ages."

                                Nor could we say that Finland (which is the "freest" country) right now has achieved "Total Gender Equality" because then we would have to measure that up with the Finland of 2100 AD, who knows, "gender equality" by that time could mean for every 1 male born, there must also be 1 female born. Who knows?  Nor could we say that even if Finland has no comparison when it comes to "gender equality", it already has "TOTAL gender equality", because Finnish women might have a thousand and one more freedoms than Filipinas, but Finnish men could always conjure up of ways to create gender discrimination, who knows?


                         b. "but a step towards"

                                   (1). Simple question - What STEP in the RH bill will promote gender equality aside from the pill, condoms and other birth control paraphernalia? Let's once again go back to PREMISE V,I,B,1(b),(1). Nanjan yung sagot.

oo, pwede namang bumili ng condom dati pa but can a poor person afford it? does that mean a person should be restricted from having sex because she cant afford to buy a condom and does not trust natural family planning methods? that is against her rights.

IV.

           A.       Right from the very start of this statement, I can already see a logical loophole. Look at the word "PERSON". Last time I checked, a person can either be a woman or a man. Let me go even further, are condoms for women or for men? Last time I checked, condoms are for men. Now, you cannot use this pseudo-question to further "women's rights" because condoms do not advance women's equality!

          B. Moreover, supposing that women can wear condoms, I also still have a problem with the word "restricted". What ever do you mean by restricted? There is

                       1. Physical restriction i.e - I cannot stand up because I have no limbs.

                       2. Legal restriction i.e - I cannot play chess properly if I move the bishop in a straight line.

                       3. Moral restriction i.e - I cannot permit myself to be deceived by another person.

                       4. Religious restriction i.e - I cannot miss Sunday Mass if I am a baptized Catholic.

                       5. Social restriction i.e - I cannot wear shorts and flip-flops in a formal gathering.

                       6. Health restriction i.e - I cannot eat lechon because I have a heart condition

                       7. Economic restriction i.e - I cannot buy a Mercedez-Benz SLK because I do not have 4.5 million pesos

                       8. Intellectual restriction i.e - I cannot become employed as a rocket scientist because I have no physics degree.

                      9. Epistemological restriction i.e - I cannot know what life feels like after death because I haven't died yet

           C. So, your question "does that mean a person should be restricted from having sex because she cant afford to buy a condom", applies to none of these 9 restrictions I could think of, or ANY RESTRICTION FOR THAT MATTER, in relation to not being able to afford a condom KALOKOHAN ITO.

                              1. In other words, no one is restricted to have sex on account of poverty, EVEN ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE! Please don't bull sh.it me with the reason "One is restricted from sex because she might get pregnant because her partner cannot afford condoms", because the very nature of the word "restriction" in relation to sex w/o condoms DOES NOT APPLY.

                                         a. However, if you mean, "One is restricted from sex on the grounds that her partner cannot afford condoms, because unprotected sex leads to pregnancy, and early pregnancy may ruin one's future" THEN

                                                    (1) that is not really restriction in the strictest sense of the word. That is 'worry'. And if it is 'worry', the very concept of rights DOES NOT APPLY

                 D. Furthermore, our government is not a WELFARE STATE. This means that constitutionally speaking, the government is not obliged to provide services which the poor cannot afford.

                             1. Provided that we are a welfare state, we would have to go back to PREMISE V,I,B,1,(B),(1) or the 'Aling Nena Example'.

PREMISE VI

 

this is simply laughable. it's as if you're saying that the advancement of our civilization is all thanks to the church. the church has done a lot good things, but that doesn't mean they are always right or that they can do no wrong. this ties with the first point.

I do argue that whatever advancement our Western Civilization has achieved is all thanks to the foundations laid by the Church.

Ofcourse, not that they are right all the time, and I agree with you, nor that they can do no wrong (except on matters of Dogma).

I. If you want to debate me on this, just post your thread on Food For the Soul

PREMISE VII.

studies have said population growth worldwide is expanding at a rate that our current resources cannot support. you forgot to consider the relationship between population and sustainability. you're a self-proclaimed economist, you should know this. take note that we are in the 4th place in countries who top both population and population density in terms of total population.

I. Studies? O baka naman STUDY?

                 A. Utang na loob This document was signed in 1994. This declaration IS TOTALLY OUTDATED. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF ARTICLES, AND ACADEMIC JOURNALS HAVE DISPLACED THE MALTHUSIAN THEORY UPON WHICH THIS DECLARATION IS BASED.

The academies note that "the world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion", and that it is necessary to stop it. In fact, we must reach "zero population growth within the lifetime of our children", if we are to achieve the "common goal", which was defined as "the improvement of the quality of life for all, both now and succeeding generations", including "social, economic and personal well-being while preserving fundamental human rights and the ability to live harmoniously in a protected environment".

let me repeat, because this is the most important point:

               B. This document is based on Malthusian economic theory. As you know, Reverend Thomas Malthus was an english economist who predicted a world of misery and constant warfare because of too many people relative to declining food resources and physical space. His theory was later popularized by Paul Erlich in his 1968 book "The population explosion"

                                1. In the 1970s, Ehrlich predicted, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death,” and it was too late to do anything about it. “The cancer of population growth … must be cut out,” Ehrlich wrote, “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” The very future of the United States was at risk. In spite or perhaps because of such language, the book was a best seller, as Malthus’s had been. And this time too the bomb proved a dud. The green revolution—a combination of high-yield seeds, irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers that enabled grain production to double—was already under way. Today many people are undernourished, but mass starvation is rare.

SOURCE: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text

            C.The article further says that Paul Erlich did predict that the world population will grow, BUT NOT WITHOUT THE CATASTROPHIC STATE OF AFFAIRS HE PREDICTED.

and now, the grand mama:

            D.THE FERTILITY DECLINE that is now sweeping the planet started at different times in different countries. France was one of the first. By the early 18th century, noblewomen at the French court were knowing carnal pleasures without bearing more than two children. They often relied on the same method Leeuwenhoek used for his studies: withdrawal, or coitus interruptus. Village parish records show the trend had spread to the peasantry by the late 18th century; by the end of the 19th, fertility in France had fallen to three children per woman—without the help of modern contraceptives. The key innovation was conceptual, not contraceptive, says Gilles Pison of the National Institute for Demographic Studies in Paris. Until the Enlightenment, “the number of children you had, it was God who decided. People couldn’t fathom that it might be up to them.”

Other countries in the West eventually followed France’s lead. By the onset of World War II, fertility had fallen close to the replacement level in parts of Europe and the U.S. Then, after the surprising blip known as the baby boom, came the bust, again catching demographers off guard. They assumed some instinct would lead women to keep having enough children to ensure the survival of the species. Instead, in country after developed country, the fertility rate fell below replacement level. In the late 1990s in Europe it fell to 1.4. “The evidence I’m familiar with, which is anecdotal, is that women couldn’t care less about replacing the species,” Joel Cohen says.

Wake up and smell the roses: THE MALTHUSIAN THEORY HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY DEBUNKED. That's the truth.


PREMISE VIII

there's nothing wrong with having a lot of children but our current economy cannot support everyone.

I. I'm sorry but you just contradicted yourself. You said there's nothing wrong with having a lot of children, but you also said our current economy cannot support everyone. If our economy cannot sustain our current population level, then there must be something wrong with having a lot of children, whether you're rich or not!

                                A. You mean to tell me that if our economy cannot support EVERYONE, TAKE NOTE EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY, then it also means even those honorable people who live in Ayala Alabang and Forbes Park cannot support their own children?

                                 B. Or maybe you're merely talking about the urban poor, those who live along the Pasig River?

                                  If no, then

                                            1. go back to A.

                                 If yes, then

                                             2. My, my, my - this has got to be an Anti-Poor statement. By saying "our economy cannot support you", you're euphemistically giving them the shaft, on other words "HUWAG NGA KAYONG MANGANAK, PAHIRAP LANG KAYO"

                                If so, then
                                   
                                                            a. who the hell are you not to tell our poor brothers and sisters not to bear more chilrend?    uulitin ko ha. para malinaw  who the hell are you to say our poor brothers and sisters should be limited in their child-bearing. Truth be told, you're no different from Ebenezer Scrooge who said something similar: “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”—from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol

Sorry, but, you know, I work everyday in the soup kitchen in New York City's most dangerous area to serve the city's underbelly, and yes, sometimes I get the shaft for serving them, but the poor belongs to my heart. The pillars of the moral legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church lies in the fact that she will defend the weak and the powerless, no matter what. Even if it means martyrdom.


Scrooge, and by extension Charles Dickens, can be forgiven because they and their contemporaries did not notice the transition to incredible wealth that we associate with the modern world.  We can’t.  The last two and a half centuries have shown us our dizzying capacity for innovation.  When our minds—and our minds what economist Julian Simon called The Ultimate Resource—are free from political oppression, and when innovation is afforded the dignity it deserves, we have an unbounded ability to solve problems and enrich those around us.

This is the thrust of the research projects being pursued by Deirdre McCloskey, most recently in her newest book Bourgeois Dignity, and Matt Ridley in his book The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.  The themes they discuss give the lie to the notion of an inevitable “surplus population.”

Under the right conditions, there is no such thing.  History has seen its share of crises and famines, but not merely because of overpopulation. Rather, this has largely been because of our failure to adopt the kinds of institutions, rules, and norms that would allow us to do more with less.  If there are limitations to what we can do with natural resources—and what makes something a “resource” if not our ability to conceive of a way to direct it toward the accomplishment of some goal?—they are limitations imposed by rules and institutions that prevent us from taking full advantage of our innovative capacity.

SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2010/12/15/surplus-population-sorry-mr-scrooge-but-youre-mistaken/


                                                           b. It's so easy to give the Catholic Church the same euphemistic shaft, afterall, we are the posterboy for all that represents backwardness in the Philippines. However, this tells alot about the very same people who are opposing the Church.                                     

PREMISE IX

the bill will not impose how many children a person can have,

I. you are mistaken on this point, I believe. Let's go back to PREMISE II, and let me quote myself:

         Part of the RH bill calls for the limiting of children a couple can have.

[pach]

PREMISE X

I but is giving options to people who have made the decision to not have children, or to stop having children. II. a couple who can only support two children III. should ideally have only two children for their kids to have a quality life.

I. This statement is an outright lie. As if the "people" you are talking about never had options before!

II. I still find a lot of syntactical issues with this statement, especially with the phrase "A couple who can only support two children"

                A. First, please define "support", is this support in the sense that a family of four should be having a minimum household income of about 20-25,000 pesos, according to studies, so that the family can live a "quality life"? If so, then:

                     1. This may not be applicable to an Igorot family because their notion of a quality life is not what 25,000 pesos a month can afford

                     2. Support, in the sense of elementary education, urban housing, and urban food is totally irrelevant to the Mangyans

                      3. Moreover, this "support", measured in median household income totally does not apply to you and your fellow Benildeans, nor to me and our family's household.

                      4. If this is your notion of "support", then clearly you are pertaining not to everybody, but only to a specific group of people - the urban poor.

                                a. Hence, a validation of why you deserve the shaft coming from me. 

a couple who can only support two children should ideally have only two children for their kids to have a quality life.

III.

should ideally have only two children for their kids to have a quality life.

             A. Once we have defined "quality" life, as the minimum household income to survive in urban Manila, we now have to question whether the government can dictate or impose such "quality of life" on people.

               1. Again, the question is, if quality is defined as "adequate housing, food, and clothes" and the term adequate as satisfying the urban requirements to live in Manila, then:

                     a. Such 'quality' life only applies to our sisters and brothers who live in Payatas, and not, for example, to our Badjao or Tausug sisters and brothers.


            B. I also have the an issue with the word "should ideally only have 2 children"

                     1. First of all, such statement is a blatant double-standard. As far as I know, the word "should" or "ought" implies a normative ethical judgment. The word "Should" IS NOT A CHOICE
 
                             a. "Free-choice" just like "total gender equality" is therefore bulls.hit. It's not even wrong, it does not make any sense.

                             b. So what the RH bill says about the ideal 2 children per couple, is not really an offer of free choice, but a suggestion.

                             c. If it is true that you agree about the government's suggestion,

                                  THEN, either

                                       (1). You recognize your hypocrisy on accusing the Church of meddling with family affairs OR

                                       (2.) Be silent about the issue, as in, absolutely totally silent. No, ofcourse I'm not shutting you up arbitrarily. What I meant by silence is that the very framework of your mind, or your intellectual orientation towards the issue does not grant you any legitimate voice. Why? Because you already said it yourself - the Church should ought not to dictate what one should do. But you just said that a couple ideally ought to have 2 children.


PREMISE XI
 

however, the couple should not be restricted from having sex just because of that. this is where family planning comes in and whether the couple decides to use natural or artificial methods rests on them alone. these decisions should be made by the couple and should not be imposed by religion; the state does not impose but provides options.

I. This is  a contradictory statement. If as you say, the decision rests on the couple, then there should be no need for the government to suggest that couples should ideally have 2. Otherwise, if you say you agree that the government can suggest that couples should ideally should have only 2 children, then by logical imperative, you also ought to permit that the Church, as a private body, can legitimately speak out on behalf of its interests.

          A. My issue here is not whether the government is allowed to suggest anything or not. My issue here is that if indeed the government gets no flack by suggesting something, then we see a very unfair leverage against the Church for being shut-up because of her own suggestion!

                 1. The word "impose" is also very problematic. Define impose?

                      a. Is to "react strongly" the same as imposition?



                2. Again, the word "options" is what I'm having trouble with. Even before the RH bill, people (men and women) already had options regarding their sex lives. If there are any barriers to these options, it is 1) lack of money and 2) lack of knowledge. As I can see, the RH bill, and more so the 13b pesos allocated for these RH paraphernalia are going overboard. The RH bill is going overboard because the cost (13B pesos) does not justify the seemingly innocent notion of "giving options" to people. It is also going over board because the mere existence of legal prosecution*** and punishment to anyone who spreads 'misinformation' regarding the RH bill DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE SEEMINLGY INNOCENT NOTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT IMPOSING

***Sec. 21 of the RH Bill - “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this(the bill) act”. 


You see no 'punishment' coming from the Church. The Church does not send anybody to prison nor physically coerce anybody to obey their beliefs. Sure, one might be ex-communicated. But since she does not believe in the Catholic Church teachings, ex-communication means nothing to her anyway.
 

        B. Moreover, stretching the the meaning of "couple", to which does this word refer to? Sure, the Filipino couple. But then again, how are we to define Filipino couple? Legally speaking, any couple are two people who have been legally married in Philippine territory, as recognized by the state. But we need not go there, a couple can be also be defined (albeit not legally) as two heterosexuals living together having sexual relationships. A couple can even be defined as two homesxuals living together having sexual relationships. And more than the issue of legality, having a definition of "couple" is difficult for the word is understood in different contexts. Which Filipino couple are you talking about?
 
                        1. A Tausug couple?
                        2. A Mangyan couple?
                        3. A couple who lives in Serendra?
                        4. A couple who lives in Payatas?
                        5. A couple who lives in Forbes Park?

                                 a. If your argument is TRUE that couple who can only support 2 children should only support 2, then by logical transposition, the couple who can support 10 children may have 10 children as well. No disagreement with that, so far.

                                       (1.) BUT,  in the following premise,  you also said

PREMISE XII

we have a lot of problems supporting our current population, what more kung dadami pa tayo?

I. If it is indeed true that we have problems, and if we do have problems THEN EVEN THE COUPLE WHO CAN AFFORD** TO SUPPORT 10 CHILDREN MAY NOT HAVE 10 BUT ONLY 2!

**Afford defined as the minimum wage for a decent standard of living

II. Furthermore, define "we", in your statement?

        A. Obviously you cannot even be referring to those honorable people living in Forbes and/or Ayala Alabang or any other village in metro manila as "pabigat." My parents, for one, were wise enough to have had 2 children but could have afforded more. I might not be studying abroad because of increased mouths to feed but certainly I'll have a decent respectable life by any stretch of the imagination.

                   1. Obviously, you cannot refer too, to those ethnic minorities whose lifestyle barely changed even before our Western Mentality has arrived our shores.

                   2. Is 'we' your fellow Benildeans, or the Mangyans, Tausugs and Badjaos?

                   3. Or is 'we' the people who fall in line for days to get into Willie Revillame's game shows? And if that's the case, it will no longer be "we" but "they", since you obviously do not belong to that social strata.

                   So, once again, the onus lies on the shoulders of our poor sisters and brothers who are being used as pawns in this intellectual gymnastics.  And by extension, it is the urban poor which the RH bill wants to 'deal with' through "population development".


PREMISE XIII.

kulang na sa education, walang trabaho at makain. maraming pregnancies sa pilipinas ang unwanted at kaya naging ganoon ay hindi nila alam kung paano i-prevent iyon.

I. Ambiguous and poor use of words here. Sino ang "kulang" sa edukasyon? Sino ang 'walang trabaho' or sino ang walang 'makain' I need not go to the motions of naming the "we" since it is obvious you are referring to the Urban Poor. You cannot be referring to yourself otehrwise, you'd be scouring for food instead of wasting your time debating with me.

Anti -poor, both you and this RH bill are anti-poor.

PREMISE XIV

kahit ba ayusin mo ang educational system, public health system at gumawa ng trabaho at bahay kung talagang marami ang tao it's always going to be unbalanced.

I. Let's translate this statement in English to get a better grasp of the major illogic in this statement. (I believe that English is more precise than Tagalog) At any rate,

    "Even if we fix/address/stabilize the 1)educational system, 2)public health system, 3)jobs creation programs, these will always be unbalanced if there are a lot of people [in the county]"

    "Even if we fix/address/stabilize 1) 2) and 3), these will always be unfixed/un-addressed/unstable"

You just contradicted yourself.

II. Assuming that you would have said this: Even if the government puts massive amounts of money in 1) 2) 3), money will not solve our problem because there are alot of people in the country [which makes more sense] then,

                A. You would still be dead wrong. Taiwan, which is only half of Luzon Province, has 23 million people in its western side, and yet is a 1st world economy that an able to address the needs and luxuries of its population.  (Take note, not all of the country is populatted, just the Western and northern portions) Don't tell me that Taiwan is rich because of natural resources. Compared with the Philippines, Taiwan is light years away.

                   The answer is investment in education, infrastructure and other capital-intensive projects, not BIRTH CONTROL! Infact, at present, birth control is being blamed for Taiwan's economic woes

Lower birthrates and longer life spans are transforming Taiwan into an island of fewer grandchildren and more grandparents. Now is the time to gear up for a graying population.

“Thirty years from now, it will be rare to see children walking along the streets of Taiwan,” says Chen Kuan-jeng (陳寬政), a research fellow in the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica. “Instead, the streets will be full of elderly people.” Chen's prediction may sound a bit drastic, but he voices a growing concern among sociologists over the dramatic shift under way in Taiwan society toward a graying population. As in many developed countries, island families are having fewer children, while at the same time the average life span is increasing to create a larger and larger pool of senior citizens.

The result is an overall “graying” of society and a new set of social welfare needs that must be met---nursing homes rather than nursery schools, daycare programs for the elderly rather than for preschoolers. Social scientists predict that these demands will be hard to fulfill. “In the future, there won't be enough young people to support the older people,” says Chen. Sociologists are particularly concerned that expanding health care costs for senior citizens will mean a large financial burden for taxpayers. Another concern is that a dwindling population of working-age adults will slow economic growth.

The 1980s marked a turning point in population control. After three decades of steady increase, the growth rate began tapering off. The population doubled between 1950 and 1970, and rose by more than one-third between 1970 and 1990 (see graph). By the mid-1980s, the average number of children per couple was below two, near the rate of most developed countries. Sociologists now predict that total population figures will remain flat over the next few decades and will likely begin declining after the year 2030.

In addition to official family planning campaigns, a number of social factors have led to the declining birthrate.

                    B. Assuming that we do lack these essentials, as you readily admit and I quote:
                          kulang na sa education, walang trabaho at makain.
                       
                              THEN, with all the more reason that the 13b pesos should be earmarked for these essentials, rather than spending them on birth control pills that are carcinogenic and hazardous to women's health, and condoms.

PREMISE XV

i have said time and time again that the rh bill is not just about population management, nor is the only and best solution to our problems. it is just a PART of it. how many times do i have to repeat myself?

I. Right, and I recognize the fact that population management is part of the RH bill, but I, too am constantly arguing that population control, management or to use the RH bill's phraseology "development" IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN THE ANSWER.

                A. One could make a good argument that if not for birth control policies, then the industrialized Western countries would not have achieved economic success. But it is apparent that the very same birth control policy which has speeded up economic progress is the same policy which is to blame for the West's demographic winter (throw in Taiwan, Japan, China, and South Korea). Besides, Western countries have achieved economic progress in the past even before the invention of birth control.

II. You yourself said that it is not the only nor the best solution. If one could even think of a "best" solution, then why settle for something less? Because if you can think of something that is 'not' the 'best', then for sure some solution other than the RH bill is better. The very possibility of superlatives (i.e going beyond good, better) is implied in its negation.

[pach]

PREMISE XVI

I.you have your own standards of morality, others have as well, but do not shove your beliefs down on everyone's throats especially when majority of filipinos support the rh bill. you can shout to the masses that they are immoral and they are slowly being corrupted by liberalism if that is what you think, II. but who's to say that you are right and they are wrong?

I. Shove? Define shove? Shove is to physically coerce someone into doing something. I am not shoving my beliefs, I just happen to be as vocal as you are. Likewise, you are not shoving your beliefs upon me, you just happen to be as vocal as I am.

II.

  but who's to say that you are right and they are wrong?

A. Very simple reply to that - if you think that there is no right or wrong in the world, then why are you so adamant in disagreeing with me? There has to be a basis of disagreement, and there could only be three bases

        1. Because either of us is in error (Moderate Realism)

        2. Because of personal feelings/emotions (Emotivism)

        3. Because of custom/habit/popular convention. (Cultural Relativism)


But then again, a relativist has no concept of right or wrong. So, you're not even epistemologically permitted to even utter the very words "right" or "wrong" because, as you say, there is no basis for such words!