"Let us deal warily with them lest they increase still more and, in case of war, side with our enemy, fight against us." -Pharaoh against the children of God.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Is "Reproductive Health" anti-abortion?


On the first 17 seconds of this video, can you tell whether it opposes or promotes abortion?

The tone of the narrator and the sound at the background suggest to me that every abortion is a tragedy, and that no one for any reason must permit it. However, the intention of this video is far from that impression.

What it attempts to do is to make people think that though abortion is a sad truth of life, it is a reality that everyone should accept; and that because there are times when resorting to abortion is inevitable, we must provide safe, free, and "dignified" way to provide it. In short: ABORTION FOR FREE! Will you still be surprised when, in the future, they would offer a sort of buy-one-take-one promo?

Let me comment on some part of the presentation.

When the narrator was saying that a mother's understanding of her responsibility as a parent is the reason why she decides not to have another baby "right now", the video reads, "Primary reason for deciding to get an abortion."

According to their statistics:

Three out of four women who had abortions are religiously affiliated. Why the need for this data? Simple. The intention is to make it appear that abortion does not hurt the religious disposition and moral standard of the majority of women. Being irreligious themselves, people from this organization (Guttmacher) failed to truly realize that religion and morality do not depend on people's emotions and opinions; that it must recognize an objective truth.

"Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women overall." The goal of the statement? To make people think that Catholic women do not really "approve" Catholic teachings in its entirety, especially when it comes to contraception and abortion -- their so-called reproductive health. And why is Catholicism so important that it has an exclusive part in the statistics about abortion? Because the Catholic Faith is the greatest enemy of the "culture of death" -- the religion of Satan, whose ministers are these pro-death people. They need to shake the foundation of the Catholic Church in whatever way they can, hoping desperately to destroy it.

Abortions are more rampant among poor and colored women simply because Planned Parenthood planned it to be that way. Their abortion centers and [dis]information campaigns are concentrated on the black areas. This is what we may call the Planned Parenthood's Planned Genocide -- Margaret Sanger's Negro Project, whose current main puppet is the black leader, Barrack Obama.

Not enough access to contraception, affordable health care, not enough education opportunities and good jobs? Are we talking about abortion? Or poverty? Resorting to abortion has no direct relation to unemployment, underemployment or lack of scholastic education. Poverty is not a justifiable reason to commit murder in any form, right? And will they abort less if they are employed, well-paid or a degree holder? On the other hand, contraception cannot make anyone richer, except of course the manufacturer. Really, what's the point of that argument?

Contraception, sex education, information, health care; all sounds familiar, right? Reproductive Health! Now, let's listen to them, first hand, what's next...

"But while prevention is key, there will always be who need abortions." And take good note of the plural term -- abortions. Same tactic ever since. Margaret Sanger started with criticizing abortion and presenting contraception as the best way to minimize the cases of unsafe and illegal abortion. The keywords are "unsafe" and "illegal". If it can be safe and legal, then why not? That's the next part of the story. Suddenly, Sanger claimed that there are cases where abortion is justifiable and necessary. But it did not end there. Eventually, the mother of Planned Parenthood said, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Could it be more twisted? That's exactly the principle of Planned Parenthood, and that is what they plan to do, especially among colored people, including Filipinos.

"Abortion is basic health care for women." There you go! That's the main point of this presentation; that is the main point of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood; and that is the main point of the deceptive RH (introduction to abortion) Bill. Now, are we just talking about the legalization of abortion? No. It's about subsidizing abortion using taxpayers' money. But they cannot do that here in the Philippines until contraceptive mentality becomes a general culture, and the government is already paying millions, if not billions of pesos, for contraceptives and sterilization procedures. Thus, the need for the RH Bill. Even the US Supreme Court recognizes that pattern: contraception first, abortion next. They are best friends forever.
Best Blogger Tips

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Where Has The Respect Gone?

Last Friday, my wife and I visited our barangay health center to have a checkup on our youngest daughter. The attendant midwife asked my wife, "What family planning method do you use?" Before she could even answer the question, the attendant said, "You should better have a ligation procedure." Then she asked how old our eldest is. When my wife said, "Five," she immediately answered back, "Some even had their ligation when their eldest was already two years old." Hmm...What's the connection? What does she want to prove?

I thought the government offers all kinds of family planning methods, including NFP and artificial? What's with the sterilization procedure? Why was the attendant so anxious to promote tubal ligation? She did not even bother to ask whether it is okay with us, and whether we are Catholics. Where has the respect gone? And where are the pills, IUDs, and condoms that the RH Bill always promote, trying to convince the people that it just gives couples the choice when to have their next child? Would there even be a next after sterilization? And where are the natural family planning methods?

But the biggest question still is, "Where is their respect?" It was very rude of them to tell us what method we should choose. We did not even ask their advise or opinion, and yet they were trying to choose for us!

It only proves that the concept of the so-called reproductive health makes a person stupid, insensitive, and shameless.
Best Blogger Tips

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Mga Taktikang Pro-Choice Ayon kay Dr. Bernard Nathanson

Si Dr. Bernard Nathanson ay isang seyintista na responsable sa kamatayan ng 75,000 tao sa pamamagitan ng aborsyon. Isa siya sa mga nagtatag ng National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL)  sa U.S. noong 1968. Siya ang unang gumamit ng salitang “pro-choice” at “woman’s right to choose”. Kaya sinumang gumagamit ng mga ito at nagsasabing wala itong kinalaman sa aborsyon ay ignorante. Bilang beterano sa industriya ng pagpatay ng mga sanggol, alam na alam niya kung ano ang mga pangyayari sa likod ng mga gawaing “pro-choice” lalo na sa usapin ng batas.

Inamin niya na kung totoong resulta ng survey ang pagbabasehan, lalabas na mas maraming mga Amerikano ang tutol sa aborsyon. Sa kabila nito, nakumbinsi nila ang Korte Suprema sa loob ng limang taon na gawing legal ang aborsyon sa buong America. Ang mga taktikang ginamit nila para magawa ito ay parehong mga paraan din na ginagamit sa iba’t ibang bansa para isulong ang mga makakamatayang panukala tulad ng RH Bill at Divorce Bill. Sinabi ni Dr. Nathanson na may tatlong taktika na nagbibigay sa kanila ng tagumpay sa kanilang mga gawain.

“The first key tactic was to capture the media.”

Ang media ang unang dapat makumbinsi na mayroong umiiral na problema (tulad ng overpopulation), at ang mga panukalang batas tulad ng RH Bill ang pinakamakatotohanang solusyon. Alam ng mga taong ito na kapag kakampi na nila ang media, mabilis na silang makakapasok sa isip at damdamin ng lahat. Sa pamamagitan ng media ay nagpapalabas sila ng mga sinungaling ng survey na nagsasabing mas maraming mga mamamayan ang pabor sa kanilang inihahaing solusyon. Sa kaso ng US, halimbawa, sinasabi ng grupong ito na ang bilang ng mga ilegal na aborsyon ay umaabot na ng 1,000,000 pero alam nilang ito ay wala pang 100,000. Pinalalabas din nilang 60% ng mga Amerikano ay sang-ayon sa legalisasyon ng aborsyon. Bagamat hindi totoo, nakukumbinsi nito ang publiko sa pamamagitan ng paulit-ulit na pagsasabi.

Sa Pilipinas, napatunayan ng isang matapat na survey na karamihan sa mga Filipino ay hindi sang-ayon sa pagsasabatas ng RH Bill, bagamat may ilan sa mga kababayan natin ang minsang sumang-ayon dito dahil sa panlilinlang ng mga tagapagsulong nito at dahil sa iresponsibleng pagtatrabaho ng media. Ang mapanlinlang na poll na ginawa ng SWS tungkol sa RH Bill ay naglalaman ng ganitong tanong:

Ang "Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2007" ay isang panukalang batas sa mababang kapulungan ng kongreso na magbibigay ng katungkulan sa gobyerno na magtaguyod ng programa ukol sa responsableng pagpapamilya o responsible parenthood sa pamamagitan ng sapat na impormasyon sa publiko at pagakakaroon ng mga ligtas, legal, mura at de-kalidad na serbisyong na pang-reproductive health sa mga taong may gusto nito. Kayo po ba ay PABOR o HINDI PABOR sa panukalang batas na ito?

E kahit sinong matinong isip e sasang-ayon kung ganyan ang imahe ng RH Bill na ipiprisinta sa kanila. Hindi nito binanggit ang mga kontrobersyal na elemento ng panukala, sa halip ay binigyan ng pro-RH na angulo ang mga tanong. Sa resulta ng mas bagong survey na ginawa ng HB&A International Research at Asia Research Organization, lumalabas na 90% ng mga sumagot ay hindi sumasang-ayon na magpasa ng batas ang Kongreso na mag-uutos sa mga eskwelahan na magturo ng tungkol sa sex sa mga batang may edad 10-11 kung saan ipiprisinta sa kanila ang teknikal at biolohikal na aspeto lamang nito, 94% ang hindi sang-ayon sa pagbibigay ng mga kontraseptibo sa mga kabataan nang walang pahintulot ng magulang, 91% ang hindi sumasang-ayon sa pagbibigay ng kahit 2 bilyong piso (ang aktwal na hinihingi ay P3 bilyon) para sa panukalang ito lalo pa kung aagawin ito mula sa mga programang nagsusulong ng totoong kalusugan, 94% ang hindi pumapayag na magpakabaog ang kanilang asawa nang wala ang kanilang pahintulot. Sa kalahatan, 92% ang tutol sa pagpapasa ng RH Bill, salungat sa nauna nang ipinalabas ng SWS.

“The second key tactic was to play the Catholic card.”

Pamilyar tayong lahat sa ganitong mga pakana. Ayon kay Dr. Nathanson, nagpapalaganap sila ng mga paninira tungkol sa Simbahang Katoliko at kinukumbinsi ang lahat na ang mga paraan ng Simbahan ay “paurong” kaya hindi umuunlad ang bansa. Sinasabi nilang ang Simbahan ang may kasalanan sa masasamang resulta ng ilegal na aborsyon dahil tinututulan nito ang mga tangkang pagsasabatas. Ganitong-ganito din ang argumento ng mga tagapagsulong ng RH Bill, at ngayon naman ay ng Divorce Bill. May mga pailalim din na nagsusulong ng legalisasyon ng aborsyon, at ginagamit din nila ang Simbahan para bigyang-katwiran ang kanilang mga pakana. Lagi nilang sinasabing ang mga tumututol lamang dito ay ang mga pari at mga obispo, at hindi talaga ang karamihan ng mga Katoliko. Ang nakakamangha at nakakatawa ay ang patuloy nilang pagbato sa Simbahang Katoliko kahit na ang mga katunggali nila ay hindi Katoliko. Patuloy nilang sinasabing hindi dapat nakikialam ang mga pari kahit layko naman ang kausap nila. Sinasabi nilang hindi dapat magdesisyon ang mga lalaki sa kalusugan ng mga babae kahit babae naman ang kaharap nila. Ipinapakita lang nito na ang kanilang taktika ay lituhin ang publiko at magturo ng kung sino-sino para makakuha ng simpatya at iligaw ang mga tunay na isyu.

Bulok na ang istilong ito bagamat marami pa rin ang naloloko, kasama na ang media. Ganito rin ang taktika ng kanilang ina na si Margaret Sanger. Noong nalaman niyang wala sa mga senador at sa mga kinatawan ang gustong magsulong ng panukalang mag-aamyenda sa Comstock Act, sinabi niya sa kanyang mga tagasunod na napakarami na ang sumasang-ayon sa ideya ng pag-amyendang ito maliban sa mga relihiyosong grupo, lalo na ang Simbahang Katoliko. Kasunod nito ay nagpalabas siya ng mga balitang magdudulot ng pagtatalo-talo sa pag-itan ng Simbahan Katoliko at Protestante. Naging matagumpay si Sanger na ilagay sa kanyang panig ang mga sektang pangrelihiyon na hindi Katoliko tulad din ng nangyayari sa Pilipinas.

“The third key tactic was the denigration and suppression of all scientific evidence that life begins at conception.”

Laging sinasabi ng mga tagapagsulong ng aborsyon at RH Bill na imposibleng malaman kung kailan eksaktong nagsisimula ang buhay. Ito ay upang alisin sa isip ng tao na mayroong pagpatay na nangyayari. Para sa kanila, hindi na dapat maghulaan tungkol dito dahil ang higit na mahalaga ay ang buhay ng ina. Ang tanong daw tungkol sa kung saan nagsisimula ang buhay ay usaping teolohikal, moral, at pilosopikal at hindi siyentipiko. Pero alam natin na kahit ang mga batang nag-aaral nang mabuti ay alam ang katotohanan tungkol dito.

* Sa awa ng Diyos, si Dr. Bernard Nathanson ay naging pro-life.


Source: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
Best Blogger Tips

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Time is Running Out

 

"Araw-araw, labing-isang Filipina ang namamatay dahil sa mga komplikasyon sa pagbubuntis at panganganak."

Dahil araw-araw ay milyon-milyong piso ang ninanakaw ng mga nasa pwesto na dapat sana ay sumusuporta sa pangangailangan ng mga kababaihang nagbubuntis at nanganganak. Ano ba ang pumapatay sa labing-isang Filipina araw-araw; ang pagbubuntis o ang pagnanakaw? Kung ang pagbubuntis, dapat ay ipagbawal na ito; pero kung ang pagnanakaw, dapat lipulin na ang korupsyon. Kayo na ang sumagot kung alin ang tama: ipagbawal ang pagbubuntis para makapagpatuloy ang pagnanakaw, o tapusin ang nakawan para sa ikabubuti ng mga nagbubuntis?


"Dito sa ating bansa, apat na sanggol ang isinisilang bawat minuto o dalawang milyon bawat taon."

E ilang tao ang namamatay bawat minuto, at ilan din bawat taon? Masama ba talaga ang implikasyon ng pagkakaroon ng apat na sanggol na isinisilang bawat minuto? Sinong nagsabi? Ang World Health Organization na naniniwalang kailangan ng mundo ang aborsyon? O ang Estados Unidos na pumapatay ng milyon-milyong mga sanggol bawat taon? Kung naniniwala tayo sa tinatawag nilang "problema", hindi ba't kasunod nito ang paniniwala natin sa tinatawag nilang "solusyon"?

"Bawat isa sa kanila ay nangangailangan ng pagkain, edukasyon, tahanan, kalusugan, at pagmamahal."

Ano ang solusyon ng RH Bill? Pagkain ba, edukasyon, tahanan, kalusugan, at pagmamahal? Wala sa mga nabanggit. Sa P3 bilyon na gagastusin ng pamahalaan, wala dito ang mapupunta sa pagkain ng mga sanggol o ng kanilang pamilya. Hindi rin sila gagawing "RH Bill Scholars". Hindi sila ipagpapagawa ng bahay o bibigyan man lang kahit isang hollow block. Kukumbinsihin silang gumamit ng mga kemikal at instrumentong nagdudulot ng medikal na kondisyon. Higit sa lahat, tuturuan sila at ang kanilang mga magulang na ang karapat-dapat lang sa pagtanggap at pagmamahal ay ang unang dalawang anak.


"Mas maraming malalaking pamilya ang sadlak sa kahirapan."

Hangal ba kayo o talaga lang mapanlinlang? Mas maraming malalaking pamilya ang sadlak sa kahirapan. Ibig sabihin, may ilang malalaking pamilya ang maunlad at mayaman. Dahil ba sila ay maliit? Malaki nga e! Dahil ba nagmana sila ng yaman ng mga magulang nilang may mas maliit na pamilya? Hindi. Dahil ang "normal" na pamilyang Filipino noon ay sadyang malaki. Sa halip, mayaman sila dahil pinili nilang maging mayaman. Mayaman sila dahil hindi sila nagpalinlang sa kaisipan na dahil malaki ang kanilang pamilya ay nakatali na sila sa kahirapan. Mayaman sila dahil alam nilang ang sinumang myembro ng pamilya ay hindi pabigat kundi tulong sa kanilang pag-unlad. Ang magulang at ang buong pamilya ang nagpapasya kung paano at gaano nila gustong maging maunlad. Hindi ito nakatali sa bilang ng mga anak.

"Iginagapang ang kapakanan, edukasyon, at kalusugan ng mga anak dahil salat sa kabuhayan."

Dahil kuntento na ang pamahalaan na panoorin silang gumagapang habang ang nasa kapangyarihan ay laging nakaupo. Ang paggapang alang-alang sa pangarap na kaunlaran ay hindi masamang gawain o sitwasyon; ang tunay na napakasama ay ang kawalan ng pakialam ng mga taong dapat sana ay humahawak sa kamay ng mga taong nakadapa sa lupa.

"Kahirapan ba ang ating ipamamana sa kabataan?"

Hindi ako at hindi rin ang mga taong nagmamahal sa buhay. Ang mga taga-suporta ng RH Bill ang magpapamana ng kahirapan sa mga kabataan -- kahirapan ng kalooban dahil sa hindi mapagkasundong katotohanan at kasinungalingan; kahirapang magkaroon ng matibay at mapagmahal na relasyon sa kapwa at sa pamilya; kahirapang dulot ng mga problemang medikal na dulot ng paggamit ng kontraseptibo at kawalan ng disiplina; at kahirapang pang-ekonomiya na dulot ng mababang pangarap. Sa kabilang banda, ang responsableng magulang ay hindi nagsasabing, "Mahirap tayo dahil malaki na ang ating pamilya," sa halip ay buong sigla at pagmamahal na nagsasabing, "Pagsisikapan nating mas lalo pa tayong umunlad dahil malaki na ang ating pamilya."


"Taon-taon, mahigit sa kalahati ng pagbubuntis sa bansa ay hindi nakaplano."

Anong ibig sabihin? Na kapag naging batas ang RH Bill, ang mahigit sa kalahati ng pagbubuntis sa bansa ay nakaplano na? Anong pag-aaral ang nagsasabi na ang paggamit ng condom, birth control pill, at IUD ay makatutulong sa pag-unlad ng diwa ng responsibilidad ng isang tao? Sa paanong paraan matutulungan ng kontraseptibo ang mag-asawa (o hindi mag-asawa) na magkaroon ng pagmamahal at kasabikan sa pagiging magulang kung ang gawain nito ay tulungan silang tanggihan ang pribilehiyo na maging kamanlilikha, at bigyan ang tao ng kaisipan na hindi lahat ng sanggol na ibinibigay ng Diyos ay dapat isilang? Ito ay isang malaking kabaligtaran.


"Isa sa bawat Filipinang may edad 15 hanggang 24 ay mayroon nang anak."

Hindi nyo ba alam na kayong matatanda ngayon ay maaaring isinilang ng inyong ina noong sila ay nasa edad 15 hanggang 24? Bago ba ito sa mga Filipino? Hindi. Ano ang talagang bago? Ang bago ay ang pagiging "immature" ng mga kababayan natin ngayon na nasa ganitong edad. Ito ba ay dahil masyado pa silang bata? Hindi. Ito ay dahil lalong naging tanga ang mga Filipino noong tinuruan sila ng mga taga-Kanluran -- mga aral na gustong paigtingin ng RH Bill. Itinuro sa kanila ang tamang paraan ng pagiging iresponsable, ang kawalan ng respeto sa magulang, ang paghahanap ng madaliang solusyon, ang wastong paglapastangan sa katawan at sa mga kababaihan, at kung ano-ano pa.


"Ang pagsasabatas ng Reproductive Health Bill ay makapagliligtas ng maraming buhay..."

Buhay ng mga sanggol na hindi man lang naramdaman ng mga ina sa kanilang sinapupunan dahil pinatay sila ng kemikal na aborsyon?

"...makapagpapabuti sa kalusugan..."

Kalusugan ng mga babaeng mai-expose sa masasamang epekto ng contraceptives, at sa mga sakit at problemang medikal na maaaring idulot nito tulad ng breast cancer?

"...magtataguyod sa kapakanan ng ating pamilya..."

Sa pamamagitan ng pagbalewala sa mga karapatan at autoridad ng mga magulang, at sa pamamagitan ng pagsasabi sa mag-asawa na wala silang pakialam sa isa't isa sa usaping pangreproduktibo at pangkontraseptibo?

"...at makapagpapaunlad ng ating ekonomiya."

Sa pamamagitan ng pag-ubos ng bilyon-bilyong piso para sa mga proyektong walang kinalaman sa kapakanang pangtahanan, pang-edukasyon, at pangkabuhayan; sa halip ay para sa pagbili ng mga kemikal at mga instrumento na magtutulak sa mga mamamayan para paglaruan ang kanilang katawan, ilagay ito sa nakamamatay na sitwasyon, at akalain nilang ang lahat ay maaari nilang gawin nang walang pananagutan dahil protektado sila nito laban sa responsibilidad at mga sakit?

Kaya huwag na nating patagalin pa. Nauubos na ang oras. Kill the Reproductive Health (Bill) Law.

"Reproductive Health Saves Lives"

"Reproductive Health includes access to abortion." -- Hilary Clinton
Best Blogger Tips

Saturday, April 9, 2011

RH is Pro-Chance

Hindi nga? Sinasabi ng mga supporter ng RH Bill na hindi daw ito tungkol sa aborsyon dahil wala daw nakalagay sa teksto na isinusulong nito ang aborsyon. Ngayon naman, kung ano-anong klase ng panloloko ang sinasabi nila sa tao on national television tungkol sa isinusulong nito. RH Bill is pro-chance daw; nakasulat ba?


"Chance para sa ipinanganak na mahirap. Chance na makapag-aral nang tuloy-tuloy; mapakain ng tama ang mga bata; magkaroon ng pangarap at di lang mga panaginip. Chance na makaahon. At yun lang naman ang hinihingi natin -- chance sa buhay."
Saan banda? Kahit saang bersyon ng RH Bill, walang nakasulat kung paano yayaman ang mga ipinanganak na mahirap; kung paano sila makakapag-aral nang tuloy-tuloy; kung paanong mapapakain ng tama ang mga bata; kung paanong matutupad ang kanilang mga pangarap; at kung paano sila makaaahon. Isa lang ang solusyon ng RH Bill -- pigilan ang panganganak. Ang tanong, sigurado bang yayaman ang mag-asawang konti ang anak? Sigurado bang makakapag-aral nang tuloy-tuloy ang dalawang magkapatid? Sigurado bang kakain ng masustansya at sapat ang maliit na pamilya? Siguardo bang matutupad ang kanilang mga pangarap at makaaahon sila sa buhay? Matapat bang makakasagot ng diretsong "oo" ang mga tagapagsulong ng RH Bill? Hindi. Dahil tulad ng sinasabi nila, ito ay tungkol sa tyansa -- sa tyamba -- baka sakali.



Pagkatapos ng pagtatapon ng bilyon-bilyong pisong pera ng mga mamamayan, sumusuporta man o tumututol sa panukalang ito, ang tanging maibibigay ng RH Bill ay "baka sakali." Pero ayon sa kasaysayan at sa pag-aaral, hindi automatikong magiging mas masagana ang buhay kung itutulak ng pamahalaan ang kontraseptibong mentalidad. Ang kabaligtaran ang mangyayari. Mawawala ang atensyon ng tao mula sa totoong problema ng korupsyon at kawalan ng pantay-pantay na oportunidad, dahil sisisihin ng lahat ang populasyon, na kung tutuusin, ayon sa mga mapagkakatiwalaang ekonomista, ay siyang dahilan kung bakit umuunlad ang isang bansa.

Image: I Oppose The RH Bill Facebook page
Sa halip na pagpapayman sa mga kompanya ng contraceptives ang isinusulong ng mga mambabatas na dapat sana ay kumakatawan para sa ating personal, materyal, at pangkomunidad na pag-unlad, dapat sana ay ginagamit nila ang kanilang isip, oras, at pera para bigyan tayo ng totoong mapagkukuhanan ng, at mapapaunlad na, kabuhayan; at hindi sandamukal na mga inutil na condom, pills, at IUD. Nagkukumahog silang maipanalo ang laban na ito dahil malaking "budget" ang pinag-uusapan, habang ang iba naman sa kanila ay talaga lang ignorante at nagpapadala sa mga ideyolohiyang nagmumula sa pagiging makasarili sa halip na sa diwa ng tunay na paglilingkod

Desperado na ang mga tagapagsulong ng RH Bill kaya malawakang panlilinlang na ang ginagawa nila, at wala silang pakialam kung tuligsain sila sa kanilang mga kasinungalingan dahil alam nilang kahit gaano kakatwa at kaliko ang kanilang sinasabi, laging may mga taong maniniwala. Pero hindi tayo kasama sa mga taong iyon, at hindi rin tayo papayag na mas marami pa silang malinlang.

Chance -  the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

All possibilities are just around; we do not need laws to create possibilities What we need are laws that will give us assurances, protection -- not against people but for people, and security that comes from having our own source of wealth, beginning with effective personal development programs and proper financial education.
Best Blogger Tips

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Is It Really About Empowering Women?

Read and discern who has the real intelligence that would benefit the people. Below are the letters that might help Filipinos to decide which fence they should be in.

The Philippine Bishops wrote a pastoral letter to the Catholic faithfuls to guide their conscience regarding this life issue. In response to this, Representative Risa Hontiveros post an open letter to the Bishops on her Facebook account. The congresswoman was very dismissive with her approach, but some of the women that she presume to be representing is not as silent and stupid as she thought. They know where they are coming from and they know where they are going. The first open letter to Risa Hontiveros came from Aisa, a woman, a blogger, and a sophomore at The Midwest Culinary Institute. The other response was a comment note posted on the I Oppose the RH Bill Facebook page.

A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines
A Woman's Letter to the Bishops  
An Open Letter to Risa Hontiveros
And the Women Speak….
Best Blogger Tips

Monday, April 4, 2011

What Future Do We Have in the Hands of Planned Parenthood?

 Who is behind all of these reproductive health chaos and deceits? Right! The Planned Parenthood and all its partners in crime, thanks to its eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger, who said, "more children from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief aim of birth control."

Is Sanger a murderer? It seems that her autobiography claims that Margaret Sanger is against abortion and she actually believed it is wrong because it kills a human being: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." In another occasion, she also said that birth control is "no abortion. Abortion kills life after it has begun. . . Birth Control is neither harmful nor immoral." That is the exact argument of the RH Bill advocates -- that we need contraception to minimize illegal abortions. Sounds plausible; or does it? History showed that Sanger is not really anti-abortion after all. She actually spent the rest of her life convincing Americans and the whole world, through her (now) worldwide organization, that abortion is a normal part of a woman's life, and that the government should support it.

But of course, it would have not been easy to say that you oppose abortion today and promote it tomorrow. The first part of the plan was already put in place and rapidly getting popularity and support; that is the propaganda that contraception would minimize abortion. Americans underestimated Sanger's cunning and failed to see what she was up to.

With a very subtle intention, she said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." It conditions the readers' minds that she was really a champion of women and that she personally opposes abortion, although the law and the health care providers consider it acceptable in particular cases. Through this statement she wanted to imply that there are times when abortion is not absolutely wrong. She even claimed that "the woman who goes to the abortionist's table is not a criminal but a martyr." Sanger was a very crafty woman. She had written and spoke self-contradicting statements but instead of being put under scrutiny she had successfully confused the whole world, changing it's values, cultures, and notion of life. While continuously claiming that contraception is far better than abortion, she encouragingly stated, "We know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient, and we also know that particular diseases can be more easily combated after such an abortion than during a pregnancy allowed to come to full term." Planned Parenthood doctors still use this deception, telling women that abortion is safe..."even safer than giving birth."

Now, what do you think Margaret Sanger really wanted to promote, contraception or abortion? Was she an anti-abortion or an abortion promoter? Let her answer that question: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." At first, she said that abortion is always wrong; then she subtly implied that it is justifiable in some cases; and finally, that killing an infant is a merciful act.

Followers of Margaret Sanger and of Planned Parenthood believe it is their right to demand government-paid contraception and abortion, and that they should not feel sorry for killing their own children as their "Mother" taught them. This was exactly the future that Margaret Sanger had in her mind. She said that "women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." Between the lines is her notion that womanhood is also being a child-killing machine.
So what kind of citizens do Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood want us to be?
  • Promiscuous
  • Disrespectful
  • Irreligious
  • Murderers
  • Adulterous
  • As perverse as we can possibly be

RH Bill advocates can say forever that this is not about abortion; that this is about women's health; that this is about preventing abortion; but we already know their color. Planned Parenthood is the largest organization of baby-killers and their dirty tactics are already EXPOSED.


Sources:















The Autobiography of Margaret Sanger (Google Book)
What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger
Best Blogger Tips

Relationship of Church and State

RH Bill advocates untiringly invoke the concept of the "separation of Church and State," but do they really understand what they say? I have enlisted here the provisions that supply the details regarding the separation (or should it rather be the relationship) of Church and State. Little do the RH advocates know (or little do they want to know), that it is their bill that attempts to disregard this "wall of separation".

Article II
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

Does this sound that the Church and the State has nothing to do with each other? The contrary is true. The Church shares with the State the same advocacy to promote and protect the whole aspect of youth and the citizens’ human person. It also encourages their involvement in public and civic affairs. The Church opposes the RH Bill because it puts the physical health of men and women at risk; it attempts to reshape their morality, to discredit spirituality, to poison the intellect with manipulated science and false self-image; and it will eventually ruin their social welfare because the bill promotes hedonism and self-serving lifestyle.

Article III
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

This section was written to protect religious freedom. The expression, “separation between Church and State” that Thomas Jefferson coined was originally intended to create an imaginary separating line that would emphasize the constitutional fact that the government has no right to prevent anyone from practicing his religion, or to violate his rights of conscience. The RH Bill, on the contrary, disregards and attempts to breach the “free exercise” clause and, thus, the “separation” provision by obliging everyone to practice particular actions that would violate the individual’s rights of conscience.

Article VI
Section 5. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

This provision is perfectly compatible with the Church’s teaching that no clergy can engage in partisan politics, which means they cannot run for an office or directly endorse a candidate. However, they can speak about politics since they are also citizens of the country and, most of all, because love and justice would sometimes demand it. That is part of their mission to be the salt of the world.

Section 28. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non- profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

This is another example that there is no divorce between the Church and the State as RH Bill advocates want to believe. The Constitution is very specific about its relationship with the Church and all other religions. It is not indifferent to it.

Section 29.  (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

Article IX - C
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

Article XIV
Section 3. (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Some people want to believe that the State is absolutely secular in the sense that it must not be influenced by the concept of a power greater than itself but should rather be godless. Unfortunately for them, that is not the case. The Constitution recognizes God and even implores for His aid “in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.”

And since the State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building (Article II Section 13), and the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions (Article XV Section 3), one of its ways to promote the welfare of the youth is to allow religion to be taught in public schools. If the State has really nothing to do with the Church, then it would rather prohibit prayers, let alone religion class in public schools since these institutions are run by the government. But since the State understands its relationship with the Church, it would not do that.

The ill-defined “separation of Church and State” just cannot hold any ground.
Best Blogger Tips

The Less Popular Truth About RH Polls

A more recent survey shows that SWS and Pulse Asia's results regarding the Filipinos' awareness and approval of the Reproductive Health Bill are inaccurate and misleading. The poll, which was conducted by the HB&A International Research and the Asia Research Organization, shows that 73% of the respondents are not aware of the ongoing debates regarding the RH Bill.

Below is the survey result presentation.


Proponents of RH Bill are so desperate that they need to resort to deceits just to pass their anti-life proposal.
Best Blogger Tips

Saturday, March 19, 2011

The Kissinger Report: What is NSSM 200?

Kissinger Report 2004
Best Blogger Tips

Friday, March 18, 2011

Do They Look Unhappy?

Do they look unhappy? Not to me! I think the American contraceptive/abortion mentality is the one hurt by the sight of this big happy family. Their "experts" say that women should have an average birth rate of 2.1 to have a stable world population. It is proven to be flawed, though, by just using simple scientific arguments.

Some people will surely say, "They have money, we don't have." That's exactly the reason to wonder! Why some have small family and yet stay poor, while others who were not wealthy to begin with can sustain their big family? Why some small families are unhappy and even end up broken, while other big families can even extend their joy and love to others? Is it really about the number? I believe it is rather about the mindset.



Step-by-Step Genealogy Guide
Best Blogger Tips

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Why The Change of Name?



Evil cannot show its true face -- at least, not at first. It has to operate in the shadows and in secret. It can't stand the light.
Best Blogger Tips

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

RH Bill Survey


Best Blogger Tips

No one from the CBCP read the entire bill?



No one from the CBCP read the entire bill? Where did the report come from? This is a "very" irresponsible comment if coming from somebody who is using the power of the internet to inform (or rather misinform) the whole world.

Pro-RH always misrepresent the Church and the issue by saying that so and so are strong in their stand for "responsible parenthood" but the Church opposed the Reproductive Health Bill. For 2000 years, the Church is consistent with its teaching on responsible parenthood.
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time. -- Humanae Vitae

"Reproductive health", as defined by the UN and the US, is not about responsible parenthood but about population control through contraception and abortion (although the latter is unpopular in the Philippines hence it is illegal -- at the time being). Some pro-RH claim that the Constitution would not allow the legalization of abortion in the country but in reality, that "was" also the case with the United States. Through political, medical, and social manipulation, the impossible was done.
Priests argue that it is the command of God to go and multiply. Theologically, this command only applies to the old testament. (From the video)

Theologically? Whose theology? The owner of the video was accusing the Catholic priests of being biblically illiterate but where in the Bible did it say that God's words in the said passage was obsolete and that it only applies to the old testament? This is another irresponsible and ignorant claim. On the contrary, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to remove the Law and the Prophets. I have not come to remove but to fulfill them." Besides, propagation of species is subject to the natural law -- a law which could not be changed, and a law which no one is wiser.
If to them this is a moral issue, priests are blinded. (From the video)

The author claims to be biblically correct and yet, he was saying that marriage, sex, education, and freedom has nothing to do with morality. The Bible talks about these things big deal because God requires man to treat them in a right (that is moral) way.
Priests say using all contraceptives is sin believing that it kills unborn children. While this is true to some pills, condoms and natural family planning don't kill children. (From the video)

Again, this is ignorant, irresponsible, and misleading. First, it is not the use of contraceptives itself that is a sin but the contraception. If for example, a woman is not sexually active and needed to take hormonal pills for a period of time to take advantage of its good side effect, it would not be a sin because there is no intention nor a chance to avoid conception. Second, contraception is a sin not because it kills unborn children but simply because it disrespects the natural law. The abortifacient effect of the oral contraceptive pills and IUDs is another reason. Third, natural family planning should not be listed as contraceptive because it is not, and because doing so will further confuse the issue.
Population is linked with poverty. (From the video)

Consider this: if we, as a nation and as individuals, would help to eradicate ignorance, disease, apathy, dishonesty, and dependency, don't you think we would be wealthy? Some will say, "We cannot educate the underprivileged children because the government does not have enough money." There you go...a very typical reasoning! And what does it show? Yes, dependency. Everything is dependent on how much money can the government allocate to help the people. Were the millionaires today, who were once "rats", got out of their poverty because of the government's help? Absolutely not. They are the kind of people who take charge of their lives no matter what circumstances they are in. On the other hand, dependent people are not and could not make millions for themselves simply because they are dependent.
Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. - John F. Kennedy

The same is the case with health -- "The government can't afford it." Some Filipinos are unhealthy not because they are poor; but some Filipinos are poor because they are unhealthy. Watch the Safeguard ads and you will have a clue. Even "balot" vendors can be millionaires but they should be healthy first. Unfortunately, we blame our unhealthy lifestyle on poverty. In reality, though, as long as you can eat and sleep, you can be healthy. But the case is, we prefer delicious over nutritious foods. There are those you can consider poor but can drink colas, can smoke cigarettes, can drink liquors, and can eat "tasty" junks. Moreover, they are not taking care of their body because of the mentality that "too much cleanliness is bad" and that "hindi ka mamamatay sa dumi." This one is also part of ignorance and laziness.

Now, apathy. We always hear, "Ganun talaga e," "Bahala sila," "Wala na tayong pag-asa," "Mauubos na ang resources." These are statements of selfishness and of wrong kind of contentment at the same time. "Basta makakain lang ng tatlong beses sa isang araw," is a favorite expression of Filipinos, but this should not be the case. We should decide to really get out of poverty, and only then can we begin the journey. To decide is not to wish but to have a clear goal, a strong faith, and the readiness to act promptly. If you cannot make that decision to get out of the rat race, then you should not make a family in the first place -- that means, don't get married and don't engage in any sexual activity. Besides, to be wealthy is everyone's vocation and it is everyone's duty also to help others.
You can have everything in life you want, if you will just help other people get what they want. - Zig Ziglar

Often just the process of thinking of what I want, and how could I give what I want to someone else, breaks free a torrent of bounty. - Robert Kiyosaki

A man reaps what he sows. - St. Paul

Dishonesty, which also means corruption, is one of the greatest problem in the country. From childhood until before death, many people are living a dishonest life wherever they go. In the government alone, billions of tax pesos that could give livelihood to millions of citizens are being plundered and squandered by some government officials and their relatives. Meaning, if we can eradicate dishonesty, we will be wealthy. On the contrary, proposals like the RH Bill will just invite more corruptions. The Bill itself is a big lie.

Finally, dependency. It's already a culture. Filipino children were not taught to take charge of their lives. Students still have "baon" even if the parents are already "baon" in debts. They can even buy cigarettes or whatever using the parents' money. Those who are still in their parental house can remain "tambay" as long as the parents can support them. Married children can still live with their parents and be supported by them. We cannot fully take charge of our lives because we are accustomed to being dependent, and some of us even believe that they are still their parents' responsibility and that the government should be the one to take in charge of their life to get them out of poverty. What's ironic is they become poorer as they become more dependent, and so getting out becomes impossible.
God designed sex to be pleasurable -- free from worrying about unplanned pregnancies. (From the video)

For God, there is no such thing as "unplanned pregnancy". When the farmer sowed the seeds, he just let it follow the law of nature. If for some reason it did not grow, then so be it; but there is no such thing as unplanned/unintended growth. You sow to reap. However, with humans, we know that it is not always the case because there is a period of fertility and a period of infertility, and that is a natural design. Commonsensically, to manipulate this design just to indulge the flesh violates nature and insults the wisdom of God. Sex is designed to be pleasurable but not to be an object of pleasure-seeking. Pleasure is an incentive and not the end of sexual activity.
The person who sows for the benefit of his own flesh shall reap corruption and death from the flesh. - St. Paul

Be quite sure that there will be difficult times in the last days. People will become selfish, lovers of money, boastful, conceited, gossips, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy. They will be unable to love and to forgive; they will be slanderers, without self-control, cruel, enemies of good, traitors, shameless, full of pride, more in love with pleasure than with God. - St. Paul

The author of the video said that the priests should know that "Christ came to make peace," as if peace means compromise.  Jesus said, "Peace be with you; I give you my peace. Not as the world gives peace do I give it to you." What he is giving is "his peace" and not the peace as defined by this world. It is rather an inward peace that comes from faith and obedience to God's will. On the contrary, he said, "Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." Obviously, that is what's happening. There is a great division between the conformists and the non-conformists; between those who seek pleasures and those who find delight in God's will.

[The five factors of poverty was cited from Phil Bartle, PhD.]
Best Blogger Tips

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Divorce Law Proposals

Here is a chronology of divorce law proposals in the Philippines.

1999 - Manuel C. Ortega filed House Bill No. 6993.

2001 - Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon filed Senate Bill No. 782.

2001 - Bellaflor J. Angara-Castillo introduced House Bill No. 878.

2005 - Liza Masa of Gabriela filed a divorce bill.

14th Congress - Gabriela filed again a bill (HB 3461) to introduce divorce in the Philippines.

Source: JLP-Law Blog

//
Best Blogger Tips

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Does Colmenares refer to Annulment?

MANILA, Philippines—A bill filed in the House of Representatives Spouses seeks an easy way out of marriage for those who are battered by their partners, abandoned for one year or are victims of infidelity. - INQUIRER.net

Should I be surprised by this news? Of course not! We have been expecting this move from the lawmakers even from the start (of the pro-RH activities). First is the already decade-long attempt to pass  a law on, and in favor of, State contraception. Then just last year, a certain Clara Rita Padilla came out to try to convince the Filipino people and the government that abortion should be legalized. Now it is another representative, Neri Colmenares of Bayan Muna party list, who pushes a fight for the loosening of the grounds on annulment, making it an arbitrary and purely legal issue. The congressman suggests that it should not be based on moral grounds.

Colmenares wants to amend the Family Code of the Philippines through the House Bill 3952, and one of the purpose is to define spousal violence, infidelity and/or abandonment as “presumed constitutive of psychological incapacity,” artificially making it consistent with one of the grounds for annulment of marriage.

The representative should be reminded that annulment is a process of proving that a couple's marriage is null and void. It recognizes its non-existence instead of making it, as if it is possible. What Colmenares really wants is to make divorce legal by hiding it in the guise of annulment.

What's next? State promotion of homosexuality and legalization of assisted suicide in the name of "mercy"?
Best Blogger Tips