Reproductive Health Bill

Masyado naman ata kayong OA. Ngayon ngayon na nga lang na pinagbabawal ang condom at sex education ay nagkaroon pa rin ng pre-marital sex sina Dhugz at Comby, ayun na rin sa kanilang pag-amin, pero hindi sa isa't isa ha, kundi sa kani-kanilang partner. That proves that trying to hide sexuality under the cover of legal prohibition, stigma and ignorance does not work. It did not work for Dhugz and Comby and many others. (But I hasten to add that it did harm them either; both are still good persons and still spiritually sound and saved; so no big deal even if they lost their virginity. Dhugz said "tao lang po"; Comby added, "mapagmapatawarin ang Diyos".) (Sorry, Dhugz and Comby for using you as an example. I am not a virgin either. Even Harballah succumbed to temptation when he was a student in Manila; but he was not harmed, he is still going to heaven. So don't worry guys.)

The RH Bill will throw away that cover of ignorance and bring in education, knowledge of what is proper, and give people options. Let us try if it works. Let us remove the stigma and let people learn about their sexuality in an open and supportive manner.

On a related manner, only 80% of Filipinos are Catholics and a much smaller percentage is actually practicing Catholics. So, can you give us, the non-Catholics, our rights to practice what we think is right? You can stay virgin for as long as you want, I won't interfere with you; but don't interfere with our lives too.

Exactly Ateo, so what's the purpose of this RH Bill if what it is trying to tell us is already proliferating and being done anywhere.

Can't you see the deeper reason why this is being pushed to become a law other than to push their next agenda which is, but not limited to divorce, aside from the very lionic profit that can be gained from the sale of this contraceptives, condoms etc.

The purpose, Fred, is that the more we educate young people and the more open we are about sexuality, the more educated their choices are. YOu will be pleased to realize that young people will learn from their sex ed classes that it is actually safer to remain celibate (and just masturbate, in case the urge is too much). And for those who decide to have pre-marital sex, and better warned of the health and social burdens of that act. There would be lesser under-aged marriages, lesser abortion, lesser separation.

fredms3 wrote:Ano pa nga ba igan. Idagdag mo pa ang matinding korapsyon ----- Corruption of morality

Worried lang talaga ako sa posibilidad na isa naman itong uri ng korapsyon kapag nai-sabatas na, noong nasa Davao ako noon at nagkasakit ang anak ko at doon ko ipinagamot ay may nag-aalok ng gamot mura lang daw, pero ng tanungin ko ay supply pala ito sa kanila ng gobyerno pero ninakaw nila at ibinibenta, so may posibilidad na iyong gamot at condom na iyan ay nakawin at ibenta ng mga empleyado

I sympathize with you Harby when you were dismayed with the corruption at the hospital where your son was being treated. But the corruption in managing government supplies does not invalidate the need to have an RH Bill.

Kung ayaw nga natin ng corruption, e di na rin lang tayo kakain ng bigas. Ang NFA ay bumibili ng bigas sa Vietnam para makakain tayo pero napaka-corrupt ng NFA. Kung corruption sa gamot ang ating pag-usapan, e di ipasara na lang natin ang ating mga government hospital kasi di lang naman condom ang kanilang ikinu-corrupt kundi mga anti-biotics na rin.

My point is that may reason why we have to purchase rice abroad and why we have to keep government hospitals open even if there is corruption in both places. The same reason for RH Bill. We need condoms and pills even if there is corruption in their supply management.

Thanks ateo sa simpatiya mo at pasensiya na kayo kung naipasok ko ito kasi naranasan ko ang mismong pangyayaring ito.

About naman sa sinabi mong NFA, una sa lahat ay puwede nga natin gawin batayan ang binanggit mong NFA para malaman natin kung bakit isa pa iyan kung bakit nagkakaroon ng anomalya sa pag-angkat niyan, so bakit natin uulitin sa RH BILL ang posibilidad na magamit din ito tulad ng sinasabi mong NFA.

Sa usapin gamot ay wala naman problema sapagkat bago pa man ipinapanukala ang RH BILL ay uma-angkat na tayo ng mga gamot pero huwag na natin dagdagan ng isa pa lalo na kung ang dahilan lang pala ay pag-iwas sa sakit na AIDS.

Tanggap man o hindi ninyo tanggap ay nagtutulak kasi ang proposal na pag-angkat ng mga condom sa mga kabataan ngayon na puwede rin pala ang pagtatalik basta may condom, natuturuan silang gawin ang isang bagay na labag sa batas ng Diyos.

Sa inyo brad ateo ay walang problema sapagkat atheist po kayo at walang problema patungkol sa batas ng Diyos, ngunit sa mga mananampalataya ng Diyos ay isang kasalanan ang pagtatalik ng walang bendisyon ng kasal, iyan ang nangyayari ngayon sa ating bansa....ang sex ay para lang laro.

Thanks and peace!

Ayon sinabi mo rin na wala palang problema ito sa mga atheists, buddhists, at Evangelicals. So bakit di nyo kami hayaan? Bukas naman dapat ang ating lipunan eh.

Ateo wrote:Ayon sinabi mo rin na wala palang problema ito sa mga atheists, buddhists, at Evangelicals. So bakit di nyo kami hayaan? Bukas naman dapat ang ating lipunan eh.

May point ka naman talaga ateo na walang pakialaman pero hindi mo rin mapipigil ang katulad ng mga katoliko na pigilan ang RH BILL kung sa tingin nila ay makakasira sa imoral ng kanilang mga kapanalig, in fact maski hindi ako katoliko ay iyan din ang concern ko at alam ko rin na mayroon din mga kapatid ko sa pananampalataya na hindi rin sang-ayon sa opinyon ko.

Anyway, siguro nga malalaman natin iyan kung sakali man na matuloy ang makikita natin ang magiging bunga nito sa kalaunan, sana nga hindi rin ito maging daan ng korapsyon tulad ng iba pang inaalaala ko kung bakit kinakailangan pang magkaroon ng RH BILL.

Ateo wrote:The purpose, Fred, is that the more we educate young people and the more open we are about sexuality, the more educated their choices are. YOu will be pleased to realize that young people will learn from their sex ed classes that it is actually safer to remain celibate (and just masturbate, in case the urge is too much). And for those who decide to have pre-marital sex, and better warned of the health and social burdens of that act. There would be lesser under-aged marriages, lesser abortion, lesser separation.

Ateo,

Educate young people and to be more open about what..about the use of contraceptives, pills etc.? You see the very purpose of the RH Bill is doctrinally anti-life.

Now, i disagree with your point that the effect of the Bill would be a lesser under-aged marriage, lesser abortion, lesser separation since these things happened not because of its absence but because of the diminishing morality of this generation.

This RH Bill does not educate us the Christian way but in an atheistic way. It encourages the teeners actually to all kinds of sexual activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otLvZIwKFF0

I hope all of us can watch this video,tnx....The Deadly Path of Contraception.

fredms3 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otLvZIwKFF0

I hope all of us can watch this video,tnx....The Deadly Path of Contraception.

I did not watch, Fred, baka ma-convert back ako into Catholicism, hehehe. Hayaan mo, palakasin ko muna ang pastafarian powers ko, tapos panoorin ko ang inyong video.

Conservatives like you, Fred, keep on harking the theme of "diminishing moral value". But what do you want us to do? Revert back to the Middle Ages? In the Middle Ages, Catholics are segregated into boys and girls. In Saudi, it is the same thing. Why did the RCC decide to make most of these schools co-ed? The atheist did not do it, it is the RCC that is reducing the moral discipline, if we go along your line of thinking.

The Bible said to kill non-virgin wives. Why is that not implemented now? You dismiss that provision as only applicable to the Jews even if it is clearly an inspired word of God. The atheists did not remove that provision, your Church did.

The RCC a hundred years ago require that women must wear mantilla (head covering) when in church. Paul (NEW TESTAMENT not OLD) required it too. It is supposed to make women modest and not tempt men. What happened? The Church stopped its enforcement of this biblical provision. Let me ask you, Fred, if your mom goes to church without the mantilla, is she immodest, immoral? Not anymore, because thankfully we have changed our clothing standards into being less conservative. The mantilla is not a big deal nowadays. It used to be controversial.

My point is that all these cry for changing values is false controversy. One hundred years from now -- even one hundred months from now -- these controversies on RH will be over and the church will have moved on to another issue. You will be dragged screaming in the path of liberalization, Fred, but that is how the world is going. If you look at the young people now -- they will be the decision makers in the future -- they are all liberals (except for a few in this forum). Liberal laws will happen, whether you like it or not.

So, reflecting on all these, it is better for the RCC to accept that social progress is going to happen, whether it likes it or not. And pretty soon, the RCC likes these social advances anyway -- like what happened to relaxation about rules of virgin brides, the mantilla, and the segregation of the sexes.

Ateo wrote:
The Bible said to kill non-virgin wives. Why is that not implemented now? You dismiss that provision as only applicable to the Jews even if it is clearly an inspired word of God. The atheists did not remove that provision, your Church did.

The RCC a hundred years ago require that women must wear mantilla (head covering) when in church. Paul (NEW TESTAMENT not OLD) required it too. It is supposed to make women modest and not tempt men. What happened? The Church stopped its enforcement of this biblical provision. Let me ask you, Fred, if your mom goes to church without the mantilla, is she immodest, immoral? Not anymore, because thankfully we have changed our clothing standards into being less conservative. The mantilla is not a big deal nowadays. It used to be controversial.

May punto ka diyan Ateo, mabuti sa amin ay ipinapatupad parin

Ateo wrote:

I did not watch, Fred, baka ma-convert back ako into Catholicism, hehehe. Hayaan mo, palakasin ko muna ang pastafarian powers ko, tapos panoorin ko ang inyong video.

Conservatives like you, Fred, keep on harking the theme of "diminishing moral value". But what do you want us to do? Revert back to the Middle Ages? In the Middle Ages, Catholics are segregated into boys and girls. In Saudi, it is the same thing. Why did the RCC decide to make most of these schools co-ed? The atheist did not do it, it is the RCC that is reducing the moral discipline, if we go along your line of thinking.

The Bible said to kill non-virgin wives. Why is that not implemented now? You dismiss that provision as only applicable to the Jews even if it is clearly an inspired word of God. The atheists did not remove that provision, your Church did.

The RCC a hundred years ago require that women must wear mantilla (head covering) when in church. Paul (NEW TESTAMENT not OLD) required it too. It is supposed to make women modest and not tempt men. What happened? The Church stopped its enforcement of this biblical provision. Let me ask you, Fred, if your mom goes to church without the mantilla, is she immodest, immoral? Not anymore, because thankfully we have changed our clothing standards into being less conservative. The mantilla is not a big deal nowadays. It used to be controversial.

My point is that all these cry for changing values is false controversy. One hundred years from now -- even one hundred months from now -- these controversies on RH will be over and the church will have moved on to another issue. You will be dragged screaming in the path of liberalization, Fred, but that is how the world is going. If you look at the young people now -- they will be the decision makers in the future -- they are all liberals (except for a few in this forum). Liberal laws will happen, whether you like it or not.

So, reflecting on all these, it is better for the RCC to accept that social progress is going to happen, whether it likes it or not. And pretty soon, the RCC likes these social advances anyway -- like what happened to relaxation about rules of virgin brides, the mantilla, and the segregation of the sexes.

Nawala ang post ko hay naku...

Ateo,

I don't see the logic of separating the boys from the girls in the school with respect to degradation of faith. Same goes with combining them. What makes such school immoral is when it teaches contraceptive, abortion as ok.

May we have the verse regarding the killing of non-virgin wives.

The discipline of not wearing veil is not as disgusting in the eyes of God as using contraceptive and doing abortions.

Now, we can never find RCC documents stopping the enforcement of wearing veil. What we can see now is the very lax position of the church in enforcing it. Having said that, anywhow, we can still find women wearing them inside the church. Now, is not wearing it immoral or immodest ---- i don't think so. But if i'd asked about that, i would say that it's better to put on the veil upon their head.

I cannot conceive an anti-life policy as a social progress. I's more of retrogression. We can hear people saying they love God yet hate His command. People love sex but abhor responsibility of rearing a child. People want to be with God (i suppose) when they die yet hate to follow what God's purpose in creating us.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, (unmarried women) then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.


The good thing with Evangelicals, Fred, is that they don't ask me for verses. They know the Catholic-compiled Bible better than all of us.

If your Catholics co-religionists are having sex and not following God, the only explanation is that they don't really believe that there is eternal punishment. Nobody fears that anymore, Fred. It is as if everybody has become a nominal Catholic but a true Pastafarian.

Contraception is social progress, Fred. You should ask the women. Look who are the leaders of this bill in Congress. It is the many women's groups. And who are the oppositors? Conservative men like Enrile and Sotto, and of course, those virgin old men.

fredms3 wrote:Parang tinamad magpost dito ah....ang tagal kong pinagmuni-munihan ang post ko then nung sinend ko na ------- ayun -------- nawala hay naku...

I agree. Parang may technical problem related sa ad. Nangyari rin sa akin, yung draft ko kinain ng ad.

pwede naman iblock yung mga ads eh.

Bakit kasi may Ads pa at ako rin nga bigla-bigla may dumadating na ADS kung saan kinakailangan mo pang i-exit para bumalik sa original form, minsan nakaka-disturb, pero hindi ko pa naman naranasan na nawala agad ang post ko kasi mas nauuna ang ads bago ako magpost dito.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20110409-330145/Cardinal-Sanchez-returns-from-Rome-to-fight-RH-bill

The 91-year old Cardinal Rosales arrived in the Philippines to join the fight against the SRH Bill. I surrender. When all these old and powerful virgins leading the fight, there is no way that SRH Bill is going to pass.

But this is an exciting fight. On one side are the Women's party list proponents of the SRH Bill with support from the playboy/playgirl President. On the other side are the holy old virgins trying to make sure that all of us will remain virgins too (or if not, at least we should not use condoms).

In a few months we shall the know the result.

Leah Salonga joined in their village rally in favor of SRH.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20110409-330207/Lea-Salonga-ex-health-chief-lead-protest-vs-ban-on-sale-of-contraceptives

Ateo wrote:Leah Salonga joined in their village rally in favor of SRH.

[url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20110409-330207/Lea-Salonga-ex-health-chief-lead-protest-vs-ban-on-sale-of-contraceptives

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20110409-330207/Lea-Salonga-ex-health-chief-lead-protest-vs-ban-on-sale-of-contraceptives[/quote[/url]]

Contraceptives are used during fornication to prevent the birth of bastard children. As a bastarda, I find it curious that Lea S. joined this rally.

Makes sense. Leah does not want any unwanted children. She favors contraception.

By the way, don't call a child born out wedlock as bastard. The International Covenant for the Rights of the Child gave full rights to any child in whatever marital status of his/her parents. In effect, there are no more bastard children, only bastard parents.

The Catholic practice of not allowing "bastard" children in your Catholic exclusive schools is already declared illegal, Father. Again, secular laws are getting ahead of religious practices.

@gordon you aint gettin any lurvin' eh? hahaha +_+

harballah wrote:Bakit kasi may Ads pa at ako rin nga bigla-bigla may dumadating na ADS kung saan kinakailangan mo pang i-exit para bumalik sa original form, minsan nakaka-disturb, pero hindi ko pa naman naranasan na nawala agad ang post ko kasi mas nauuna ang ads bago ako magpost dito.

Korek igan, pag exit mo goodbye ang post mo. Anyway, naging busy kaya di na tuloy makapagpost hehehehe