Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Reproductive health bill: Facts, fallacies

This is an article written by Rep. Edcel Lagman, the principal author of the Reproductive Health Bill. The more salient points have been written, as well as some of the misconceptions that are being spread. Read on, and pass on.


Bob Guerrero said...

Thanks! I need to read this too. :)

Mrs. O . said...

The Filipinos have the right to know that this new 'bill' is being sold to your country by International Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger an American Birth Control activist, an advocate of negative eugenics. Sanger spent a lot of time with Hitler, they shared the same philosophy of a 'master race'. Planned Parenthood under the guise of the American Birth Control League set up their abortion shops within the minority communities here in America [minority = Blacks, Jews, Asians, Latinos/Chicanos]...Just for the record, Sanger was a racist who wanted to reduce the country's black population through "selective breeding" and who apparently held similar distaste for the American Indians. Today, Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion provider in the US and they want to set up shop in The Philippines. It starts with this bill. My prayers go out to your country. International Planned Parenthood has sold false presuppositions that access to contraception will alleviate poverty, and decrease the number of abortions.....This is wrong. This will not cure poverty.....I understand the country is going through some financial crisis. We here in Michigan are experiencing the same. But please don't allow Planned Parenthood to play on your fear of no hope...God bless you as you discern for your country. It is my prayer and hope that you re-consider your stand. God bless the Filipino people!

Bob Guerrero said...

I find it very hard to believe much of this.

Here is PP's wiki site.


Kaiser Fernandez said...

Hi Bhobg. I believe what romanza2005 is saying is true. However I also believe the objective of the RH bill is not Eugenics which is eliminating the undesirable sectors of the population.

Also, Bhobg, here is Population Control's wiki site.

And at the section about Population Control and Economics, three different views, one is use population control for eugenics, another is overpopulation having a correlation with poverty and lastly overpopulation not having any direct correlation. I stand with the latter.

(Idiots like Erlich and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the State Department's Agency for International Development (AID) and NEPRHA constantly sound nonsense warnings about how overpopulation produces disaster and poverty. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster and poverty. Population control idiots might consider Zaire's meager population density of 39 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong's population density of 247,501 people per square mile is problematic. Hong Kong is 6,000 times more crowded than Zaire. Yet Hong Kong's per capita income is $8,260 while Zaire, the world's poorest country, has a per capital income of less than $200.

Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.

So-called overpopulation problems are really a result of socialistic government practices that reduce the capacity of people to educate, clothe, house and feed themselves.) from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/99/Population-Control.htm

And for an in depth discussion. You may want to join the discussion. You may also want to check Rep. Garin's comment as one of the co-author of the bill.


Bob Guerrero said...

Lets go Micro here instead of Macro.

Lets say there is a woman from a poor family. She marries a security guard making minimum wage. That minimum wage will not increase. Is it advisable to have as many children as she can or should she control the size of her family to one or two children?

This is a hypothetical situation. But does this situation happen in the Philippines? Of course it does. Therefore women should be given all the tools to control the sizes of their families.

I run a microfinance program for very poor women in Bicutan. One of our borrowers has 8 children. She is pretty much broke, especially when her husband lost his job. I am helping her send one of her children to school. Do we want more stories like this in this day and age?

By the way people need more than just room. They need food as well. Ask anybody who knows anything about the fisheries sector here. The average catch has plummeted greatly. A lot of rural fishermen are unable to make a living fishing and have to find other work or go to Manila to look for jobs. There is such a huge demand for fish, for sure because there are just so many people. This problem is not going to get better. It will just get worse, especially if we don't allow this bill to pass and our population continues to balloon.

Monica Xavier said...

That's really good, sending her child to school. If the bill is passed, that child will get 1 hour a week less of basic education (reading, writing, math, science) because it will be converted into a sex ed. class. taught by "qualified" people, same as they are taught math by "qualified" people. overworked and underpaid public servants... teachers like me.

If the bill is passed, that lady can avail of, maybe free access to the pill - which she has to take every day of her life until menopause. Pills that 30% of women in the US discontinue because of side-effects. Pills that increase breast cancer risk by 30%...doubt that she'll have access to chemotherapy.

I don't think this bill is the answer - there are other ways of implementing responsible parenthood programs. The Billings life method is so good that China has turned to it for its population control program. Try reading www.woomb.org.

Bob Guerrero said...

Is the one extra hour worth it? In my opinion, yes.

Does the bill ask for an hour of basic education to be taken out in favor of reproductive health education? I do not recall, based on my reading of the bill, that it does so. Can someone post the section on the bill pertaining to this?

Bob Guerrero said...

May we have an impartial reference to these stats? Thanks!

Bob Guerrero said...

The bill supports all legal, safe and effective forms of family planning. If the Billings method is as good as its proponents say it is, then I'm all for its promotion. But at the end of the day, families still have the right to choose which method they prefer.

Monica Xavier said...

sure -increase breast cancer risk by 30%: from
Kahlenborn, Chris, MD et al. Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis. October 2006;81(10):1290-1302 www.mayoclinicproceedings.com (accessed 16 October 2008)
also they're classified as Type 1 carcinogens - on the same list as asbestos

Bob Guerrero said...

Thanks! Will take a look.

Any information on health risks associated with any family planning method most certainly has to be disseminated.

Bob Guerrero said...

wiki site on combined oral contraceptives.


PBS docu on The Pill. I haven't watched this. I dunno if it is favorable or unfavorable to the Pill. I just want more information to be out there.


Bob Guerrero said...

Wiki site on a different kind of pill.


Monica Xavier said...

Try reading through this too. The progestogen/progesterone pill has been around for a while. Q and A format by a pharmacist.


Lea Salonga said...

Yeah... so are alcohol and cigarettes.

Monica Xavier said...

exactly right girl, and it's illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to minors

kristina imperial said...

This bill is in no way, another form of government's strategy to whitewash their own failures in governing our country. To make us believe that the real problem of our country is the poverty caused by the bloating population,.but see..in reality, it isn't..oUr very problem is the bloating corruption, not the population. We humans are capable oF letting things hAppen.and as whAt they say, the more the merrier. why is this promoting the use of contraceptives, how do our legislators see children??are they the problem of the couNtry that's why they're making ways tO coNtroL conception??aren't children suppose to be the hope of the country??????

Bob Guerrero said...

Children are great. They are the hope of the country. But individual families need to have just the number of children they can afford to bring up, so that the family thrives in a healthy and sustainable manner. That is what this Bill is trying to encourage; ideal family size. What they are trying to discourage are poor families having 6, 8 children that they cannot take care of.

km ramos said...

one cannot just look at a country's problems as separate elements. one should have a wider and more integrated perspective. it is not just population per se. it's about population in RELATION to a country's capacity to sustain it: from land mass (space, population density), food, employment, education... it's not a matter of being "the more, the merrier". it's a matter of the quality of life we could offer to the children who will be the citizens of the following generation. thanks

Monica Xavier said...

It depends on whose "big picture" you are looking at. The public and the media seem to accept Malthusian-based theories as fact, but not all researches think that way.

Excerpt of an article from the USA:

"...Contrary to the myths we hear about how overpopulation causes poverty, poor health, unemployment, malnutrition and overcrowding, human beings are the most valuable resource, and the more of them the better. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations and economic despair. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire, has a meager population density of 22 people per square kilometer, while Hong Kong has a massive population density of 6,571 people per square kilometer. Hong Kong is 300 times more crowded than the Congo. If there were any merit to the population control crowd's hysteria, Hong Kong would be in abject poverty while the Congo flourishes. Yet Hong Kong's annual per capita income is $28,000 while the Congo's is $309, making it the world's poorest country.

What are the chances for the United States to become overpopulated? The population census has us at 304 million. How many more people could we handle? I don't have an answer, but here are a couple of facts that suggest we have a ways to go before we have to worry about overpopulation. All urban areas, any community of at least 2,500 people, cover less than 3 percent of the U.S.'s 2.3 billion acre land mass. The world's population is 6.7 billion. That means if the entire world's population were put into the U.S., each person would have about a third of an acre. Nobody is talking about putting the world's population in the U.S. It is merely to suggest that neither the U.S. nor the world is running out of space.

Population controllers have a Malthusian vision of the world that sees population growth as outpacing the means for people to care for themselves. Mankind's ingenuity has proven the Malthusians dead wrong. As a result of mankind's ingenuity, we can grow increasingly larger quantities of food on less and less land. The energy used, per dollar of GDP, has been in steep decline, again getting more with less, and that applies to most other inputs we use for goods and services.

The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government. A recent example is Zimbabwe's increasing misery. Like our country, Zimbabwe had a flourishing agriculture sector, so much so it was called the breadbasket of southern Africa. Today, its people are on the brink of starvation as a result of its government. It's the same story in many countries -- government interference with mankind's natural tendency to engage in wealth-producing activities. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook, it encourages the enactment of harmful policies.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Copyright C 2008 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved."

Bob Guerrero said...

Your logic is deeply flawed.

True, population is not the only cause of poverty. But that does not mean that a poor country can just have as many children as it wishes without regard to how that country can sustain the growing population.

Ask anyone involved with the fisheries sector. The average fish catch of the poor rural fisherman has been greatly reduced over the years. There are just too many people eating too many fish.

True, modern technology can improve agricultural yield. I don't doubt that for a second. But improving agricultural yield to be able to sustain a population that is growing as unchecked as ours is far easier said than done. Who will do the research? Who will implement the technology? Who will reform the government to make it more efficient so that these new technologies will be adopted by all farmers and fishermen in the country? It is a mammoth task.

I think it's better to not assume that the future and its promise will fix our problems.

And lastly, we do not believe that overpopulation causes poverty. Poverty has many causes. It is a very complicated matter. What we are merely saying is that properly managing population growth can help lessen the spread of grim poverty in this country. And that if we do not do this, the awful cycle of poverty and helplessness will only be perpetuated.

km ramos said...

i don't think the promoters of the RH Bill points to overpopulation as the greatest threat to mankind's prosperity. besides econometric studies could be misleading. if there is a positive correlation between the arrival of migratory storks and babies born, could we conclude that babies come from storks?

on the other hand, one cannot compare the cause of overpopulation in hongkong and in congo. most of the population in hk comprises of immigrants and they become part of its labor force. the initial investment in forming the potential workers is already done. in poor countries population rise is caused by a high birth rate. those newly born would have to be fed, educated in some way trained to be able to "serve" the society.

it's not a matter of wanting less people in our country- it's wanting to give the optimum opportunities to those people living and forming it.

lastly, it's not the government as it is which could pose a threat to mankind. even governments could be overthrown. it could be the fear of alternative ways to progress, which is the obstacle.

Michelle S. said...

You know, I wrote him a letter about the bill. :D

Silagra Brand said...

Very much it was pleasant! Thanks!

Silagra Brand said...

Very much it was pleasant! Thanks!

rommel natanauan said...

Based on your case, poverty is not caused by having more children but the lack of a better source of income.Your hypothetical woman is already poor even before she marries and rear children.The solution is increasing the earning capacity of the family proportionate to the needs of every member.Of course,sense of responsibility plays a big role in parenthood--be responsible with your sex life.Idleness is also a mother of poverty...have you failed to observe how capable men are wasting their time with their barkadas over bottles of gin? How will they feed their families? They don't deserve a family! So, instead of spending billions of pesos for these contraceptives allocate more budget for formal and non-formal education and livelihood; thus will have responsible productive citizenry and continue to supply the world with our humanpower.

rommel natanauan said...

bhobg wrote on Jan 8, '09 "Ask anyone involved with the fisheries sector. The average fish catch of the poor rural fisherman has been greatly reduced over the years. There are just too many people eating too many fish."

If I were those fishermen, I will find other alternative livelihood while the government implements fishery rehabilitation programs. Your scenario limits the creativeness and innovativeness of mankind.

Contraceptivism is a simplistic approach to the challenge of sustainable human development insulting the human capacity to innovate, not to mention the actual risks that it poses to the health of women.

Bob Guerrero said...

Why should it be just one over the other? There is no reason we cannot attack the problem from all angles.

rommel natanauan said...

We cannot attack the problem by introducing another problem.For example, condoms, those made of latex, contain potentially carcinogenic component like Nitrosamines.Also, its lubricant nonoxynol-9, a spermicidal chemical, causes urinary-tract infections in women.Talc, a dry dusting powder used in condoms, is toxic if it enters the abdominal cavity of women. In other words, contraceptives, like condom, do not promote the reproductive health of women; they destroy it. The only effective solution to family planning without sacrificing women's health is to go the natural way and sense of responsibility. Hindi pa natin pinag-uusapan ang Christian perspective dyan. Scientific common sense lang yan.Instead of allocating billions of govt funds to buy these contraceptives, intensify information/education on natural family planning methods--abstinence, billing, basal temperature, mucus--and responsible parenthood.

Bob Guerrero said...

I don't believe that condoms are inherently unhealthy. If they were proven to be so, they would be banned in many countries. Instead they are available everywhere.

In your ideal world, people would practice abstinence from marriage. It's not an ideal world and it never will be one. People will always be having sex of various ages, for various reasons. Either we allow them to procreate irresponsibly and spread STDs or we do something effective. Preaching abstinence-only sexuality education is, in my opinion, ineffective.

rommel natanauan said...

Cigarettes are dangerous to your health...but are they banned? They are also available everywhere. It is not about believing. It is about scrutinizing actual and potential risks.

Sexuality education should not only be abstinence-only. As i said, there are other methods: billing, basal temperature, mucus. A sex maniac, irresponsible as he is in his sexuality, engages in sex without minding to use condom. To avoid STD is to avoid having sex with just anybody. Condom is not even 100% effective in preventing the spread of STDs. STDs are spreading because of irresponsible sex which cannot be solved by merely distributing condoms for free (as it appears, but funded by the taxpayers' money).

Bob Guerrero said...

The harm that cigarettes do to a person's health is very well-documented. This is the first time I hear about condoms being dangerous. The way I see it, condoms have far more health benefits that outweigh whatever minor danger you mention.

The billings method, which involves testing mucus, sounds fussy and imprctical to me.

Anyway I'll be moving on. I respect your views and I doubt if I can change them and vice versa. Have a nice day. :)

dissertation456 dissertation456 said...

Thanks for this particular piece of writing. I honestly preferred reviewing it and shall discuss it with individuals.
Best Dissertation

Galena Karsson said...

A good writer is the one who takes people along with them in the story. You belong to one of those good writers category because your article surely does take me along with you to places and events. This makes me feel so fresh and cool after reading them.

Generic Viagra

Tessa Densing said...

Did you ask the woman if, given the chance, she would give up any one of her eight children, so she can be less financially challenged?

Efos Gorgeous said...

Find Out How to Relieve Anxiety and other problems related to your health, visit How To Relieve Anxiety