[totscalilari]

Uulitin ko, hindi na po kailangan ang bill na ito, ang dami na po nating batas, nag do doble2x na, ang problema po ay hindi ang kakulangan ng batas  kundi  po ang pagpapatupad nito, kung basahin mo ang bill na ito 80% po laman ng bill na ito ay naisa batas na dati pa, encompassed na po ng Magna Carta of women section 17 and the only significant element in the reproductive health measure that is not included in the existing law is the budget for procurement of condoms, oral contraceptives and injectables. again yang 3Bilyon budget na yan ay dapat idagdag yan mga ahensiya na talagang makakatulong para maiahon ang mga mahihirap sa kanilang kahirapan tulad ng...

budgets for education, for tertiary educational scholarships, skills training, livelihood projects, assistance for farmers, agrarian reform beneficiaries.

^YAN ANG GOOD POINT , katiting lang ang nagsasabi nito... lahat kasi ng politico sumasabit sa CHURCH argument na "it is against God's words", kumukuha lang ng boto.

if you said this in an earlier post, sorry di nako ng backread..

hope this is true though... no offense.. in Sotto's words, you are just a blogger, este comment poster... or something like that.

^ Is sex education for all ages available on the Magna carta for women's right? None. Is education for various family planning available for both women and men is on the magna carta for women? None. Is population education for all Filipinos available? None. I read the law RA 9710 or the Magna Carta for women are there are none.

Yun ba usuapan sa pulungan ng matatanda lalaki pa rin ba ang basehan ng sex education sa kabataan lalaki? Tulad ng "Iho pag di ka tuli di ka makakabuntis"  o kaya "tignan mo yun hinlalaki mo.. ganyan.."

ay...
Post Merge: Aug 20, 2012, 10:16 PM

Currently, I don't see any part of the bill that will slash the prices on condoms or contraceptives. Healthcare centers in baranggay, pwede din humingi sa ngayon.

didn't know this.

The poor? The budget should then go to income and job generating agendas not to what is readily available. Eliminating poverty should be the agenda not controlling the poor.

i think ung poor kase ang madami ang anak that cannot be supported by their income.. so kung janitor ka, kung less than 4 anak mo, you are more are capable of raising your kids kesa kung more than 5 sila.. i don't know what kind of growth the economy should have para makayanan ng janitor pakainin ang anak niya kung marami sila.

[akoni]

It's quite easy for those who are privilege in the know and has a sex education to say "What's to choose?"

But you also have to consider that some people who are not so fortunate to be knowledgeable and not so educated - which are the most affected by maternity deaths, rampant child birth and severe poverty. They badly need help through education and knowledge which is effective, it is the important and core of the bill - The contraceptives are also needed to those who can't buy them or not available to them. Yun mga nasa bundok na marami anak may alam kaya sila dun sa family planning? May access ba sila sa makabago at ligtas na teknolohiya at kaalaman sa pagbubuntis? Kaya pa ba nila bumili pa nito? Lawakan niyo minsan kasi isip ninyo na hinid lahat ng Pilipino ay nasa Metro manila o malalaki siyudad na ang karamihan na mga tao na alam sabihin ay siya lang tama at may alam at akala nya lahat may alam ng nalalaman nya. May mga kababayan tayo na sa mga liblib na lugar din po.

Thats why I said 80%, and by the way nanashi there is no way you can legislate parenthood, LOL!!

[nanashi]

Thats why I said 80%, and by the way nanashi there is no way you can legislate parenthood, LOL!!

Can't legislate parenthood? what are marriage are for? what are family codes are for? lolz shocking @_@ indeed

[akoni]

"Lee Kuan Yew, now 88 years old: Going extinct is no fun; and he can only watch Singapore's 'waterloo' with distress as it heads into the sunset.

Singapore is trying desperately to rectify an imploding birth rate through generous benefits, louche dating schemes and shady ads; and yet birth rate falls."

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7QhMis3P9No
Post Merge: Aug 20, 2012, 10:50 PM

Can't legislate parenthood? what are marriage are for? what are family codes are for? lolz shocking @_@ indeed

hahaha!! are you serious? we are not a communist country nanashi, if thats the case then that unconstitutional, you are violating Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution.

By the way, it seems you are confuse with legislation versus Codes (family codes or code of marriage). Legislation would be "laws" that must be followed while codes is 'ETHICS" obviously there is a big difference,   In the case of a 'Code' the employer/doctors/families has a choice. They either accept and practice the Code, or they don't. There is no pressure to comply.

[bauer]

In the case of a 'Code' the employer/doctors/families has a choice. They either accept and practice the Code, or they don't. There is no pressure to comply.

I completely disagree.  Are you a professional who had taken his/her oath of profession?  If you are, did you remember that you swear under oath that you will commit yourself to follow the CODE OF YOUR PROFESSION?  If you are not, well... I rest my case.
Post Merge: Aug 20, 2012, 11:40 PMgoing back to topic.

I am PRO RH.  
Graduate of a catholic school for boys.
Financially supports catholic nuns.
Proud relative of priests and nuns.
Member of a catholic fraternal organization.

[bajoyjoy]

in all honesty, has anybody here read the FULL TEXT OF THE RH BILL? can somebody please share a link (very slow ang internet ko, googling it is taking forever)?

and if possible, could you guys/gals cite the specific provisions in the bill that you are discussing for or against? for clarity lang so we know which are "expressly stated in the bill" and those which are just "personal views/interpretations".

My initial questions on the RH bill are: 

Is there a prohibition to use NATURAL BIRTH CONTROL?

MANDATORY ba ang paggamit ng artificial contraceptives?

What are the limits to the use of contraceptives (like pag  lagpas na ng 2 months di na dapat pwede coz that would tantamount to abortion already)? paano nasabing pro-abortion? abortion in LEGAL SENSE or ROMAN CATHOLIC STANDARDS?

In the mean time, still on Sotto's speech (spill-over from the other thread, kasi nagspill over na din kayo dun hehe), he said in part 2:
"Gusto kong bigyang diin na hindi ko tinututulan ang paggamit ng contraceptives dito sa Pilipinas at lalong hindi ko pinagbabawal ang paggamit nito. Hindi ko intensyon na panghimasukan ang personal na bahagi ng buhay pamilya ng bawat Pilipino. Ang sa akin lamang, bilang mambabatas na pinagkatiwalaan ng nakararami, obligasyon ko na suriin, busisiin at pag-aralang mabuti ang pangkalahatang implikasyon ng bill na ito sa lahat ng mamamayan, ngayon at sa susunod na henerasyon."

If i understood him correctly, he is in fact NOT AGAINST THE RH BILL, NOT AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES, just certain parts of the bill -- which can be revised naman accordingly, kaya nga may deliberations/senate readings. but this confuses me, kasi tungkol sa pills ung binanggit diniscuss nyang masama nung first part ng turno diba?) How true that because of that statement e dumidistansya na daw ang Church/CBCP sa kanya (like when Pacquiao admitted Jinky also used pills)?

here's what Fr. Bernas (lawyer/constitutionalist and priest + former dean of Ateneo law school)
previously wrote about RH bill/his position (also worthy to read the comments there):

RH BILL: DON'T BURN HOUSE TO ROASST A PIG (bjj's note: i directly copy-paste kaya yung wrong spelling na"roasSt" nakopya din, see that Sen. Sotto?!)


A little over a year ago, or on May 22, 2011 to be exact, I wrote an article for Inquirer entitled “My Stand on the RH Bill.” With the vote on the RH Bill approaching people have  asked me whether my stand on the bill has changed.  Let me restate the salient points I made then.
First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do.   I know that some people consider me a heretic and that at the very least I should leave the priesthood.  But my superiors still stand by me.
Second, (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church state relations) I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception which is very much at the center of the controversy. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen pressure President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community [like the Catholic church] might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
Third, the obligation to respect freedom of religion is also applicable to the state. Thus, I advocate careful recasting of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, in addition to free exercise of religion, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12).
Fourth, the duty to care for sexual and reproductive health of employees should be approached in a balanced way so that both the freedom of religion of employers and the welfare of workers will be attended to.  In this regard it may be necessary to reformulate the provisions already found in the Labor Code.
Fifth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Thus, for instance, it may be legitimately spent for making available reproductive materials that are not abortifacient.  Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.
Sixth, we should be careful not to distort what the RH Bill says.  The RH Bill does not favor abortion. The bill clearly prohibits abortion as an assault against the right to life.
Seventh, in addition, I hold that abortifacient  pills and devises should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. However, determining which of the pills in the market are abortifacient is something for the judicial process to determine with the aid of science experts.  Our Court has already upheld the banning of at least one device found to be abortifacient.
Eighth, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication!  I find this to be irresponsible.
Ninth, I claim no competence to debate about demographics.
Tenth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can.  I hold that the approval of the RH Bill today will not end all debate about it.  It will only shift the arena for debate from the raucous and noisy rally fields to the more sober judicial arena where reason has a better chance of prevailing.
Finally, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which are desperately needed especially by poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved even if we must litigate later about those which we disagree on.  In other words, let us not burn the house just to roast a pig.

http://fatherbernasblogs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rh-bill-dont-burn-house-to-roasst-pig.html

[totscalilari]

Is there a prohibition to use NATURAL BIRTH CONTROL?

no

MANDATORY ba ang paggamit ng artificial contraceptives?

no

What are the limits to the use of contraceptives (like pag  lagpas na ng 2 months di na dapat pwede coz that would tantamount to abortion already)? paano nasabing pro-abortion? abortion in LEGAL SENSE or ROMAN CATHOLIC STANDARDS?

they will make contraceptives available to the poor and teach them how to use it. and you use contraceptives before you have sex(pills and condoms). so i don't think contraceptives will have any effect if you use after sex.. or after 2 months..

If i understood him correctly, he is in fact NOT AGAINST THE RH BILL, NOT AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES, just certain parts of the bill -- which can be revised naman accordingly

i heard somewhere that sotto has a similar view as Akoni has in this thread, meaning everything in the RH bill can already be found in our laws, implementation lang kulang.. pero humuhirit hirit parin siya ng mga papoging hirit na kung may RH bill, baka wala siya or ikaw dito...

Quoting Father Bernas from Bajoyjoy's post
"Sixth, we should be careful not to distort what the RH Bill says.  The RH Bill does not favor abortion. The bill clearly prohibits abortion as an assault against the right to life. "

"Eighth, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication!  I find this to be irresponsible."

(di gumagana yung quote function for this part) Respect for this man.   

[akoni]

I completely disagree.  Are you a professional who had taken his/her oath of profession?  If you are, did you remember that you swear under oath that you will commit yourself to follow the CODE OF YOUR PROFESSION?  If you are not, well... I rest my case.

The law is generally set by someone else usually the government and must be strictly followed, failure and enforceable by the executive branch, halimbawa employer ka at magiging batas na ang RHbill, wala kanang kawala, pag may nanghingi at hindi ka  mkapagbigay, ito ang labas.....

1. In layman's term, Sec. 17 of RH Bill could mean - Employers must provide employees free ligation/ vasectomy, condoms, pills, breast cancer treatments and information on contraceptives otherwise they are put to jail or fined or both.

aside from that, here's another thing..

2. Spouses may undergo ligation or vasectomy even if the other spouse will not agree to it or objects to it.


SEC. 22. Penalties. -- The proper city or municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this Act and the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_RH_bill#ixzz2481v0DyW


whereas moral codes are set by each individual and can be moulded by upbringing, personal loss or any other events in an individuals life.

[nanashi]

I completely disagree.  Are you a professional who had taken his/her oath of profession?  If you are, did you remember that you swear under oath that you will commit yourself to follow the CODE OF YOUR PROFESSION?  If you are not, well... I rest my case.
Post Merge: Aug 20, 2012, 11:40 PMgoing back to topic.

I am PRO RH.  
Graduate of a catholic school for boys.
Financially supports catholic nuns.
Proud relative of priests and nuns.
Member of a catholic fraternal organization.

I agree and concur. If our good friends can't accept this.. He is poisoning the well. No sense on arguing anymore since where all of us draw water from the well - they poisoned it.

To me. RH bill is good. It educates and empower the citizens to make the choice for their family, for themselves and for their country. Hindi usap-usapan sa kanto ng matatanda ang tungkol sa seskwalidad o kaya ay kailangan may rhythm daw. Hindi lahat marunong mag rhythm at di lahat kaya magpigil tulad na narining ko sa mag-asawa  " Kaya nga ako nag-asawa tapos bawal ko sipingan ka dahil dadami anak ko?' Kung ganun lang maghahanap na ako ng iba na lang!" This could save a family and marriage in this situation. I rest my case.

[akoni]

I agree and concur. If our good friends can't accept this.. He is poisoning the well. No sense on arguing anymore since where all of us draw water from the well - they poisoned it.

No one poisoning the well nanashi, thats how it is, that's the truth, thats the distinction between legislation and codes, if merong nakulong its because most of the morals codes ay naka base sa batas.

To me. RH bill is good. It educates and empower the citizens to make the choice for their family, for themselves and for their country. Hindi usap-usapan sa kanto ng matatanda ang tungkol sa seskwalidad o kaya ay kailangan may rhythm daw. Hindi lahat marunong mag rhythm at di lahat kaya magpigil tulad na narining ko sa mag-asawa  " Kaya nga ako nag-asawa tapos bawal ko sipingan ka dahil dadami anak ko?' Kung ganun lang maghahanap na ako ng iba na lang!" This could save a family and marriage in this situation. I rest my case.

we are entitled to our own opinion nanashi, chastity is still the best virtue and answer nanashi, its your dicision if you look for someone in lieu with your wife, marriage kailangan both of you agreed kung ano man ang mga napag usapan, but in this bill bali wala na ang disisyon ni husband, go na si babae otherwise kulong si husband, Is this will save marriage too?

[bajoyjoy]

Catholic Church Goes After Ateneo Professors for Heresy
http://inquirer.net/newsinfo/?id=254188

It’s not exactly an inquisition but 159 members of the Ateneo de Manila University faculty may face investigation for heresy, and sacked—not excommunicated—if found guilty.

Bishop Leandro Medroso, in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas Monday, called for an investigation of the Ateneo faculty members who signed a statement declaring support for the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill being pushed by the Aquino administration in Congress.

Medroso, the permanent council member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Canon Law, said the university should make sure that the teachers who endorsed House Bill No. 4244 were not teaching concepts against Church laws.

“That has to be investigated. The first principle of Canon law about this matter is that we don’t allow teaching that which is against the official teachings of the Church. Now, if there is somebody who is giving instructions against the teachings of the Church, then they have to investigate immediately,” Medroso said. 

Those found guilty of teaching students concepts contrary to Church teachings could be fired, he said. Church officials have previously raised the possibility of excommunication for Catholics espousing population control.

Ateneo officials were not available for comment Monday, a holiday.

Recently, Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, the current CBCP president, warned Catholic schools and teachers to toe the line or end up in hot water.

“They should be consistent and true to the nature of their calling, which is to enlighten and teach the Catholic doctrine. They should realize how important their vocation and their  mission is, which is of course to impart the Catholic teaching,” Palma said. 

The CBCP acknowledges that there are some differences in the beliefs of teachers and Church teachings on topics like reproductive health. The group said that while it respected academic freedom in colleges and universities, Catholic institutions should adhere to Church laws. 

In issuing the statement of support, Ateneo’s faculty members said the RH bill would provide much-needed maternal and infant health care to all Filipinos regardless of religious beliefs.

“The reality is, despite the Philippines being predominantly Catholic, the majority of Filipinos want the full range of family planning services, including ‘artificial’ contraception,” they said.

“Our reflected and collective appraisal of the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill is that it is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be passed urgently,” the paper said. 

The Guidon, Ateneo’s student newspaper, said it was not the first time that its professors had released a statement endorsing the bill, which has been pending for more than a decade. The first statement was issued in 2008, with 66 signatories. 

The Guidon said another statement followed in 2011,  signed by more than  200 faculty members from Ateneo and the University of the Philippines.  With a report from Dona Z. Pazzibugan

[nanashi]

^ side comments

Maybe the good archbishop see the university and convent school are all the same. Otherwise this is just Rizal Era of Friars suppressing secularism and reforms. The Damaso Effect. I just hope this won't go to Inquisitions. *scary stuff* although they are already doing it in principle. Firing faculties rather ex-communicating first.

[bajoyjoy]

Official memo of AdMU re RH BILL

http://t.co/p3MiUZrF
Post Merge: Aug 21, 2012, 12:20 PMI guess the AdMU did not foresee this when they started hiring/pirating professors from UP.

[akoni]

I'm glad that CBCP has done that, it supposedly they have done that even before then, If you're are teacher of the Catholic institution then you must adhere with the teaching of the Church. It's sad that there are some priest and 1 bishop I know that in favor of this bill, I don't know kung anong nangyari while they were in seminario. natutulog lang seguro.

Matagal ng teaching ito ng simbahan mula pa 33AD  hanggang ngayon,  15th century na unang tumanggap ng contraception ay ang Anglican Church,hanggang sumunod na ibang sekta. But the Catholic Chruch remain firm with his teaching.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word "sorcery." The Greek word is "pharmakeia" which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.

[freeman12]

Once a sperm cell and an egg cell unites, life is created. Buhay na yun eh, by preventing it to grow, technically you are killing it. And killing is a sin.

Siguro ito ang mga maituturing ko na tamang contraception. (just my opinion)

1. condoms
2. tubal ligation
3. vasectomy
4. withdrawal method

Yes, less population, less poverty.

BUT MUST WE KILL THE UNBORN JUST TO LESSEN POVERTY? I DON'T THINK SO!

KILL CORRUPTION = END OF POVERTY!