Raul Nidoy: Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill

Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill

Philippine Daily Inquirer

11:52 pm | Thursday, June 9th, 2011

 I just want to help wake the Inquirer up from what I see might be its "RH infatuation," which I believe led it to assert that the "best argument for the RH bill as it now stands is that it will help minimize the number of illegal or illicit abortions we suffer every year. Think of tens of thousands of innocent lives spared."

A cold shower of scientific findings might help.

First, from a study on the link between contraception and abortion (published early this year, not in a prolife magazine but in the scientific journal, Contraception, subtitled "an international reproductive health journal" and conducted through a 10-year period). From 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1,000 women.

Second, Nobel prize winner and liberal economist, George Akerlof, writing at the Quarterly Journal of Economics (published by the MIT Press), described the effect of contraceptives: more premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, and since the contraceptives sometimes fail, more abortions.
Third, leaders of the abortion industry themselves have openly admitted the empirical link between contraception and abortion. Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood: "As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate." Judith Bury, coordinator of Doctors for a Woman's Choice on Abortion: "There is overwhelming evidence that … the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate."

Fourth, silent abortions caused by the use of the pill amount to deliberate killings of innocent lives. Dr. Walter Larimore, who for decades prescribed the pill, tried to disprove the claim that the pill is abortifacient, only to find 94 scientific studies proving that "postfertilization effects are operative to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy." He published his findings in the scientific journal of the American Medical Association, and from then on stopped prescribing the pill. Shouldn't we as a nation also stop prescribing a drug that kills our youngest Filipinos?

Please take note that the basis of Rep. Edcel Lagman's claim of an 85-percent reduction in abortion rate due to contraception is a report of the Guttmacher Institute, which started as a division of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the United States.

It is significant that the Guttmacher Institute itself found in its 2003 study that "levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously" in six countries: Cuba, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea.

These are hard facts. And the rational explanation behind the link is clear: the anti-human mentality at the heart of contraception's falsification of sex, which casually call some children "unwanted" rather than gifts.
—RAUL NIDOY,
ranidoy@gmail.com

Peter Kreeft: Christian Anthropology versus the Sexual Revolution

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Christian Anthropology versus the Sexual Revolution

"Christian Anthropology versus the Sexual Revolution" by Peter Kreeft.
-an address to the The Catholic Medical Association's 79th Annual Educational Conference, October 27-30, 2010.
(excerpts)

To see that the Sexual Revolution has been radical in thought as well as behavior, just look at the revolution in language. When people use the word "morality" today they almost always mean sexual morality. That's a remarkable new development, an astonishing narrowing; it's as if we started to use the word "state" to mean only Russia, or the word "technology" to mean only "computers". The reason for the new development is obvious from my two comparisons: sex, Russia, and computers are where there have been the most radical revolutions.
[...]
Look at abortion. No one defends killing innocent, defenceless human beings, except for sex. That is what abortion is. The whole purpose of abortion is backup birth control and the whole purpose of birth control is to have sex without babies. If storks brought babies, Planned Parenthood would go broke. Sex is the motor that drives the abortion business.

Look at divorce. Suppose there were some practice that did not involve sex that had the same three scientifically provable effects that divorce has. First, it betrayed your most solemn promise you ever made to the person you said was the most important person in your life. Second, it was child abuse, it maimed your children's psyches, it made a happy life and a happy marriage and family much, much harder for those vulnerable little people you brought into the world and who remained largely dependent on you for their future. Third, it infallibly guaranteed that your society would die, would self destruct.
[...]
The moral revolution is confined to sex. We are not allowed to steal another man's money without being put into jail, but we can steal another man's wife. You cannot betray your lawyer without being severely penalized, but you can betray your wife, and SHE is severely penalized. You cannot kill bald eagles or blue whales without being a criminal but you can kill your own children as long as you do it a second before the two blades of the scissors meet in the middle of the umbilical cord rather than a second after, or a second before the body emerges from the birth canal rather than a second after. What kind of logic is this?
[...]
What then do we need to defeat this revolution, which has brought about such immense destruction, and eventual death, to families, and eventually to society? Reason, logic, argument, science, facts, common sense, compromise, return to tradition – none of these are strong enough. What is strong enough? Only one thing. Nothing less than Jesus Christ will do.

Why? Because the heart of the error of the Sexual Revolution is the identifying of love with sex. Christ undoes this fundamental confusion by showing us – not just telling us but showing us – what love is.
[...]
No official teaching in the Church's 2000 year history, no official document, has ever been so hated, despised, ignored, and disobeyed as Humanae Vitae. What is the most unpopular teaching of the Church today? Nothing comes even close. It's the teaching of the Church about sex that is by far the main reason the world hates and fears the Church today...
[...]
And how does Jesus Christ answer that? What does Christ have to do with the Sexual Revolution and its causes and its consequences? Everything. Because Christ alone gives us intimacy with God, and that's the thing the Sexual Revolution is looking for but doesn't know it. As Chesterton said, When the adulterer knocks on the door of the brothel, he's really looking for a cathedral.

Therefore Christ alone is the answer to the Sexual Revolution. Because nobody else gives us intimacy with God.

[read the entire transcript here]

WillyJ: The future for female fertility according to the man who created the Pill

Friday, June 3, 2011

The future for female fertility according to the man who created the Pill

The future for female fertility according to the man who created the Pill

..his vision of the future, Professor Djerassi sees egg freezing as a fundamental tool of family planning - empowering women further...

'It is already happening at Stanford, where I teach. Women assistant professors on a tough ten-year career path, working 60 or 80 hours a week, are freezing their eggs for later use.'

Whoah!

Women chained to a 60-80 hour workweek, for 10 or so years wherein they are not 'burdened' by pregnancy and child-rearing. Thanks to the pill!

Good thing there is a solution according to Professor Djerassi: these women can freeze their eggs for later use. Of course, the wonders of In-Vitrio Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Meanwhile her live-in partner can enjoy sex with her all he wants, without any of the consequences and attendant responsibilities (say, a child for example).

Sooner or later, her live-in partner would likely ditch this busy and aging career woman to live-in with another partner of his choice. A younger one definitely. Now this empowered woman will most probably grow old alone.

Professor Djerassi, the father of the pill, calls this scenario: "empowering women further".

No, I think he's serious. Well maybe a tad crazy, but serious.

Check out the article [here]

WillyJ: A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again)

Friday, June 3, 2011

A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again)

A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again?)

"...There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation. So far I have seen only one drug identified as abortifacient, namely postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes."

- Fr Bernas in his article: Levels of Discourse in RH debate

Dear Fr Bernas,

I am aware that you have asserted time and again that life starts at fertilization, both from the Catholic as well as from the Constitutional standpoint. So it is not a Catholic position alone as it also has a firm basis in the Constitution. This core issue has nothing to do with the non-establishment clause. As far as "authoritative indentification" of abortifacients are concerned, it is obvious that you are referring to the FDA. I believe delegating the issue to the judgment of the FDA should not give us any comfort with respect to its particular relevance to the RH bill. May I respectfully point out that HB 4244 contains a repealing clause: SEC. 31. Repealing Clause. All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

It is therefore evident that the bill intends to dictate the parameters of FDA's contraceptive regulatory guidelines. We all know that contrary to faith and science, the RH bill sponsors have insisted on implantation as the start of life, rather than fertilization. The very premise of the RH bill opens the floodgates to abortifacients of all natures, but with a twisted definition that is dictated by the RH bill with the expected blessings of FDA. FDA would then assume authority over the life and death of the unborn. Are they that "authoritative"?

WillyJ: Angsioco versus unborn

Monday, June 6, 2011

Angsioco versus unborn

With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco's latest tirade entitled "Unborn versus mother", one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco's statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway. Why, is there an inherent war between ''Unborn vs Mother"? Does Angsioco herself feel that her mother is at war with her from the moment of her conception up to every breathing moment of her life? I suppose not, for even Elizabeth Angsioco herself should probably make a convincing case for the timeless adage "only a mother can love''.

Angsioco takes umbrage at the various bills pending in Congress that seek to put teeth into the Constitutional provision requiring the State to ''equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception". While she acknowledges the provision, in the same breath she claims:

''A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights. Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides."

So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is "born into this world". If the unborn is not a "complete person'', what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She attempts to bolster her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State. Why, because the Constitutional Commission precisely said so. If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:

"Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb."

(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)

Not only does Angsioco twist legalities, she also manages to twist mathematics as well. Equal Protection means, well, EQUAL Protection. The right of the mother for protection is EQUAL to the right of the unborn for protection. Not GREATER THAN nor LESS THAN. Of course there are exceptional cases where the medical treatment of the mother might result to a NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED harm to the unborn. Angsioco apparently, is not capable of acknowledging the nuanced distinction whatsoever. She is clearly all for the 'rights' of the mother to abort the unborn regardless. After all according to her, the unborn has no rights whatsoever until it is born. Well, she has a right to her opinion, however twisted it may be. The State guarantees EQUAL protection of freedom of speech to the erroneous person as well as to the factual person. I presume her mother would love her in spite of that. As to the rest of the pro-RH bill advocates, I presume they would love to gag her from now on. She just let the screaming cat out of the bag.

WillyJ - Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Earlier today, Senator Pia Cayetano delivered her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill. In essence, she spells out 5 supposedly earth-shaking points up front of what the Senate version of the RH bill is all about. To cut it to the chaste, the 5 points she enumerated are as follows: 1) REDUNDANT; 2) REDUNDANT; 3) REDUNDANT; 4) REDUNDANT; and 5) REDUNDANT. However, she should be credited with a feel-passionate , heart-tugging sponsorship speech, but at the end of her melodramatic, long-winded speech there is only one conclusion to the discerning listener. Please bear with me for repeating it again for the umpteenth time : REDUNDANT.

Maternal and child health, upgrading of health facilities, addressing HIV, access to different family planning methods, and health/sex education. Who can deny that all of these are not already currently the mandate of the Department of Health? To ascertain, all we have to do is to verify it in the official DOH website. If that is not enough, look up the DOH budget under the 2011 General Appropriations Act, where it is plain to see that about 12.07 Billion pesos are already allocated for the same, same purposes that Senator Cayetano attempts to make a big deal out of. Should we not take to task the DOH for the 12.07 Billion pesos already budgeted to it before we even think of enacting a redundant bill? Yes, 12.07 billion. That is OUR money, my dear co-taxpayers.

Even her concern about HIV control is already rendered doubly moot by RA 8504, "The Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998", of which again, DOH is tasked to implement. And before she tries to make a big deal out of sex education, may we gently remind the good Senator that Catholic schools have been teaching their faith-compatible version of sex education all along. But of course we all know that the various versions of the RH bill (the Cayetano version being no exception) intends to force their own immoral brand of sex-education down the throats of ALL schools, Catholic and otherwise.

At the risk of being repetitive, all that Senator Cayetano proposes in her 5 points are completely unnecessary. Why? because they are REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, and finally for the last and not the least reason, REDUNDANT.

Satur C. Ocampo - Fil-Ams: 'P-Noy, take charge!'

OPINION

READ OTHER NEWS   READER COMMENToraman wrote: oro821:dapat mo maintindihan malaki galit ni ka Satur ke makoy dahil nabiktima siya ng torture nung panahon ng batas militar. wag mo na asahan ng pulaan ni ka Satur ang china supporter ng NPA ang China.   Reply | Read Other Posts    SHARE facebook yahoo! buzz   ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment printer friendly email article Advertisements Fil-Ams: 'P-Noy, take charge!'  AT GROUND LEVEL By Satur C. Ocampo (The Philippine Star) Updated June 04, 2011 12:00 AMComments (9)  A Filipino-American group that says its members supported President Aquino in the May 2010 elections expresses dismay over his "seeming abnegation of responsibility" over the controversial proposal to bury the remains of ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Responding to this column's discussion of the issue (May 21), a member of the US Pinoys for Good Governance emailed to me the group's May 10 letter to Mr. Aquino, signed by Loida Nicolas Lewis, chairperson, Rodel Rodis, president, Ted Laguatan, spokesperson, and 67 others. Attached were copies of email exchanges among USP4GG members, all outraged over the idea of making Marcos a hero. The letter urges President Aquino to "take charge" and "openly declare to the Filipino people that the late dictator was absolutely no hero and that you owe it as your duty… not to have Marcos buried as a hero at the Libingan ng mga Bayani - not only now but forevermore." Laguatan assures that I can freely quote the USP4GG letter as well as his personal views. Three members, Greg Mariano Jr. (who emailed the letter), Charito Benipayo (who urges "mass action ASAP"), and Jessy Ang likewise have agreed to be quoted. Ang, a psychiatrist, laments: "It is sad that the Marcos family can get away with a national crime, emboldened by unprincipled large number of congressmen and a president who has abandoned his moral leadership to do the right thing… I ask Ted to contact the progressive groups, such as Bayan Muna, Akbayan, and Gabriela to hold a candlelight vigil in front of Malacanang… and the Philippine Congress to show our disapproval. "I am afraid that the civil societies have been demoralized and disillusioned by supporting leaders that promise change, [but] when they assume office . . . become obstacles to the radical reforms our nation needs." Mariano Jr. wonders why President Aquino hasn't replied to the USP4GG letter handed to him on May 16, when the law (RA 6713) requires public officials and employees to reply, within 15 working days from receipt of letters or other means of communication sent by the public, stating the action taken on the request. Portions of the USP4GG letter state: "As an absolute dictator, (Marcos) engaged in all kinds of corruption and also stole directly from the nation's treasury, amassing an indecent fortune while Filipinos starved. US military records also prove that Marcos' claims of having been awarded 27 medals for heroism in WWII are blatantly false. In short, President Marcos was far from a hero; he was a villain who brought shame, suffering and impoverishment to the Filipino people." "[If Marcos were buried as a hero] we would be the laughing stock of the world and be the subject of ridicule. We would be shamed, disrespected and dishonored. Overseas Filipinos would especially suffer much. "We also don't need a Marcos hero's burial for us to move on. If in fact that happens, it will continuously disturb our peace and national self-respect because we know that a terrible lie has been imposed on us." These portions drip with pain: "Like millions of Filipinos in the homeland, we supported [you: President Aquino] in the 2010 elections believing that you would be true to your promise to provide the moral leadership to rid the country of institutionalized corruption and other evils. "However, your seeming abnegation of responsibility on this important issue is very disturbing. By passing this onus to the Vice President, the perception is that as President you do not want to provide the proper leadership to protect the people and nation from being dishonored and insulted by the possible hero's burial of a despotic corrupt former President. "With all due respect, we view as puzzling your reason from recusing yourself from this issue: 'I don't want to appear biased.' Every right-thinking individual should be biased against honoring and burying as a hero a man who in truth and in fact was a villain. While your intention may have been to be fair to all  which is admirable  true fairness involves adherence to truth. The obvious truth: Marcos was clearly not a hero. "Among other things, burying him as one would bring to naught the honor and pride we acquired as a people from the EDSA revolution which toppled the dictatorship and inspired people around the globe to bring down similar corrupt regimes. It would also seem to waste the sacrifices paid for with blood by the President's father and other true heroes and martyrs  for our people's freedom and dignity." Howls Dr. Philip S. Chua, chairman of the Filipino United Network-USA: "Hell NO! Marcos is no hero!" Laguatan, a lawyer, bluntly avers: "When P-Noy passed the responsibility of making the decision to Binay . . . he was playing accommodation with the Marcoses. It's conceivable that he now has a friendly relationship with Bongbong and Imee. His best friend Ochoa and Bongbong's wife are law partners, providing the bridge system to enhance that relationship.  "Commendable if it's for the good of the country; bad if it is for their own selfish personal interests."  What's President Aquino's response to all these? *      *      * E-mail: satur.ocampo@gmail.com View previous articles from this author | Subscribe to this author via RSS

  SHARE:    facebook         yahoo! buzz

Bobit S. Avila: A new RH bill angle exposed! It's about money!

OPINION

READ OTHER NEWS   READER COMMENTCENSORED_PS_READERwrote: RF13: Mr Borit Avila cannot tell the difference between truth and lie. In last May 2010 elections, he sang to high heavens the faked pscy report of PNoy as a gospel truth.  The man lacks credibility! Reply | Read Other Posts    SHARE facebook yahoo! buzz   ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment printer friendly email article Advertisements A new RH bill angle exposed! It's about money!  SHOOTING STRAIGHT By Bobit S. Avila (The Philippine Star) Updated May 20, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (150)  The debate on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill resumed in Congress this week, where the pros and the antis debate once more on this highly-toxic issue, often with those supporting the RH bill (notice they have dropped their new name Responsible Parenthood and returned to using once again the term Reproductive Health) peddling lies in order to sell their proposed bill. I fully agree with pundits that this controversy has polarized the Filipino people. I would even dare say that something good has come out of this debate because it allowed the Filipino people to totally look at the RH bill from different angles... from the moral, the legal to the economic issue - whether our large population is the cause of our poverty. Yes, those supporting the RH Bill would dare, misinform, cajole or even lie to the Filipino so that they could have this bill passed, while those that are against the RH bill can only tell you one story... the truth! We've so often quoted the world's foremost liar, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister (who at the end of the German Reich killed his own family and committed suicide) who made this most quoted quotation, "A lie repeated a thousand times, assumes the substance of truth." The RH bill has been peddled in Congress since the year 1999 in so many different House Bill numbers, selling us all sorts of lies, like for instance, contraceptives are not abortifacient. The latest that was revealed no less than by the former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral is that contraceptives can cause breast cancer, though it reduces the risk of cervical cancer. But one good news out of this debate comes from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who expressed his opposition to the RH bill saying, "As far as we are concerned here, I don't think it is a priority. I'll be very frank with you. As far as I'm concerned, I am not ready to tinker with anything that is an act of God." Thank God for Sen. Enrile, but what about Sen. Ed Angara and Sen. Miriam Santiago, who recently attacked the Pacman? Ah, that's what we shall tackle in our column tomorrow. Meanwhile, there's that alleged anomaly that Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III exposed during his privilege speech concerning a P2.6 billion allocation for Family Health Programs during the time of Health Sec. Cabral dubbed the Maternal Neonatal and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) program of the local government units (LGU) which some LGUs say they never got. Sen. Sotto is right in asking for an investigation into this potential mess before the Senate would tackle the RH Bill, which also earmarks a large amount of government funds. There's more to the corruption issue now plaguing the RH controversy and it's about money, money and more money from faceless pharmaceutical lobbyists who no doubt are funding Congressmen and women who support the RH Bill. Here's a letter that reveals this reality. "Dear Bobit, I have always wondered why the RH Bill is being pushed through even though with or without it, the consumer is free to purchase contraceptives in the counter. So I made some analysis. Based on National Census Statistics Board data 2000, about 24 percent of the Philippine population is above 20 years old. Based on the same statistics, about 50 percent of that are females.  "Considering we have a total population of about 90 million that means the total population of Filipinos above 20 years old is about 22 million. Half of that would be 11 million females. This is the present target market for contraceptives. If I am not mistaken, based on what I have found out from the internet, the cost of using birth control pills is about P1,000 a month.  "The total potential value of the market in the Philippines is therefore computed to be: 11 million x P1,000 per month x 12 months or a total of P132 billion per year. The problem for the contraceptive manufacturers is that 90 percent of the market belongs to the lower income who cannot afford to spend P1,000 per month. So in order to give this market purchasing power, the RH Bill is now being pushed to enable the government to use taxpayer's money to subsidize these contraceptives. "To further expand the market, the 10 to 15 years old will be given sex education in school and they will be allowed to purchase contraceptives even without the consent of their parents. That could mean another 4,000,000 potential users. The value of this additional market is calculated to be another P48 billion. Adding the two markets gives us a whooping valuation of P180 billion per year. Now I understand why the RH Bill is being pushed very hard. God bless! - Bobby Tordesillas." No bill in Congress has been so thoroughly debated, dissected and discussed by the pros and the cons of various sectors of society. I have read and heard most if not all the comments for and against the RH Bill, but this angle has never been presented in this manner. *      *      * For email responses to this article, write to vsbobita@mozcom.com or vsbobita@gmail.com. His columns can be accessed throughwww.philstar.com. View previous articles from this author | Subscribe to this author via RSS

  SHARE:    facebook         yahoo! buzz