Imbak para sa RH Bill

CBCP disowns Arguelles

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , on Nobyembre 29, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Two days ago I wrote an inflammatory comeback to wordpress about Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles for telling people to vote for political candidates who were “true christians” and kick out candidates who wnet “against” the teachings of the church. An example of a religious leader attempting to control freedom to vote towards a religious agenda by using his influence and guilt tripping anyone who takes him seriously.

Unfortunately a lot of people take the words of an Archbishop seriously. Fortunately smarter heads prevailed (although it really doesn’t take much to be smarter than this guy). Senator and lawmakers (probably sensing the threat to their own seats of power) rebuked him for his statement and denied that there was any such thing as a Catholic block vote, most prominent of these was Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Most of them reminding him of the constitutional provision of separation of church and state as I have stated previously.

Arguelles remained adamant saying that the responsibility of remaining separate was the states alone. Stating the example that the only thing that the constitution provides is that the state cannot impose any test of religion to those seeking office. Which is true, if we were talking about the American Constitution. Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution (and anybody correct me if I’m wrong here) merely says “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” That’s it.

And smarter heads seem to still remain within the CBCP as CBCP president and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma (a man I’m not particularly fond of) effectively disowned Arguelles saying “it’s up to the people to make their own decisions” which is how it’s supposed to be.

The only thing I have with this statement is that he followed it up, in attempt to salvage some of Arguelles’ dignity, by laying the blame on the reporter “The paper misinterpreted the statement of one of our bishops in CBCP… there is a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter.”

Oh yeah, when in doubt blame the media. Nobody misinterpreted anything. We all saw and heard what he said. He was stupid and he said something even more stupid, end of story.

Advertisements

Getting Back on the Wagon

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , on Nobyembre 26, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

I haven’t written anything in the last three months and I didn’t even notice. My time has been stocked with nothing but reading books and cases; activities of the frat; quality time with my girlfriend; and just trying to keep up with the daily news. I haven’t even thought of exercising and have the growing gut to prove it.

So, this is an attempt to try and get back on the writing wagon and hopefully display some of whatever talent I had squandered by neglecting to hone it for so long, and I can’t think of a better way to get back to what I love doing the most than by systematically bashing a stupid move, statement, or policy by a status quo institution like the government or the church (whichever commits one first) and the big winner is *ding* *ding* no other than the backward moaning of self-righteous prelates out to revert whatever social advances mankind has achieved back to the middle ages.

Was that too harsh? Ok, maybe not the middle ages but definitely colonial Spain. Don’t believe me. Then let’s discuss a recent little thing that has propelled modern society into a system of better governance and acceptance for the general populace of the world but an otherwise nasty thorn for established religion more specifically the Catholic Church, the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a vague concept to many and very few really understand what it means, even those few have a hard time trying to explain it to those who don’t. The idea was first introduced at the birth of the United States of America during the signing of the Declaration of Independence by a faction of founding fathers most notably Thomas Jefferson. Solidified in the provision that stated no religious test be required for the holding of office.

The separation of church and state came about as a practical divergence from the way of government of the Empire of Great Britain because the founding fathers saw how a system wherein a religion integrated into government could easily corrupt. Pretty easy to understand if you consider that the Catholic government system is basically authoritarian in nature.

The writers of the Malolos Constitution realized this as well when they decided to use the same policy when we liberated ourselves from Spain (another country with considerable theocratic influence). So what does this all mean? So many questions. Does it mean the church has absolutely no say in government policy? Will public officials be forced to leave their faith at the door? etc.

No and no. The church, like all parties in a democracy has a say in the government process. Also we cannot expect people to simply discard what they consider as their values when making decisions concerning government. So where does the separation actually take place? Where is the line drawn?

Many people bemoan the constant nagging of the Catholic Church concerning the RH bill and the supposed moral issues it conflicts with. However (and I can’t believe I’m actually saying this), what they’re doing does not violate the separation of church and state. Yes they have made a very strong oppository stance to a proposed bill. They have that right. Yes they have campaigned and protested against it, also their right. They’ve even spread a lot of misconceptions about the bill and a lot of misinformation about the science around it. No matter how amoral, under-handed and dirty as it may sound it is also their right to do so and does not violate the separation. In such cases it is up to each of us to sift through all the information and (based on the science) identify which is true and which is false.

We cannot fault politicians who make decisions based on their values. We can only assume that they are only doing what they think is right.

The church has (rather unknowingly) toed the line between acceptable behavior given their complicated relationship with government and policy making, that is until now. In a rather nasty turn of events the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP) actually told people who to vote for.

“If there is a candidate who does not follow Church teachings, we should reject this candidate. We must use the Catholic vote and show them what the real Catholic is. There are fake Catholics here, they are the ones ruling in our country,”

This is the most bare-faced, hair-brained piece of filth I have seen in a long time. Archbishop Ramon Arguelles’ brains must consist of complete horse shit still warm from the beasts ass crack! The only reason I can think of for him to say something so inebriated is that idiocy was bred straight into his DNA. He is basically saying that anyone who even dare challenge the church should be kicked out of office and replaced with those who would cow-tow to their every word.

And if any of you were wondering, yes this is a violation of separation of church and state. The man (and the CBCP) are spitting on the seeds of democracy. Our government was founded on the idea that its leaders would be decided by the choice of the individual, not that individuals parish priest. No one and I mean  no one  has the right to order people who to vote for, especially not the church.

Babies bring down economy

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , on Mayo 8, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

More wood for the claim that there are still too many babies born per household in the Philippines. Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University shares his views on why despite the seemingly continuous upswings of the Philippine economy its real life effects are yet to be felt by…well anyone.

“Fertility rates are “too high” and something should be done to bring down the number of babies born per household to an average of two instead of the current three to promote economic growth and achieve “social inclusion,”

“The Philippines of course is a very complicated country, very diverse; it’s an archipelago. It’s very crowded. The population has increased more than four times since 1950. The fertility rates remain quite high in this country, I think too high, actually, because most places that have really made the breakthrough — sustained economic growth, more social inclusion — had their fertility rates coming down voluntarily to the replacement level, two children per household,”

“In the Philippines, [fertility is] still on average about three and it’s much higher in rural areas, of course. This is very hard for this archipelago,”

“The world should aim to stabilize the population within the next 30 years. We’re a very crowded planet. Rapid population growth in this era of environmental troubles creates big problems — lots of poverty, lots of marginalization, lots of environmental stress,”

“Resiliency [is] going to become more and more central because the climate is becoming more dangerous and more unsustainable. So, climate change from the point of view of the Philippines is not a small matter, it’s a very large matter,”

“The phrase sustainable development is the summary of what needs to be done, and I think the world will adopt sustainable development goals … Everybody is coming to understand GNP (gross national product) is not enough, it doesn’t really summarize very well what society needs to do. It doesn’t capture the environmental side, it doesn’t capture the inequalities. Therefore, keeping sustainable development is the challenge. It will not only reorient policies but it will also reorient the way we measure things,”

“On the positive side, it’s good to be in the dynamic part of the world. The North Atlantic right now is in crisis. It grows slowly, unemployment is high; whereas in the Philippines, the Asian developing countries are the fastest-growing region in the world … [A]ll the benefits of rapid technological improvement and lots of market opportunities, a lot of dynamism and shifts of production, [are] within this region. So, a country that really makes a determined effort to be competitive in Asia can have very big results,”

The full story can be read at business world online

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=TopStory&title=Philippines-%E2%80%98very-complicated,%E2%80%99-Sachs-says&id=51248

CBCP FAQ 1-5

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , on Abril 21, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

1) What is reproductive health? The UN defines reproductive health as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. It states that people have the right to a “satisfying and safe sex life.” The conjugal union is natural and proper in marriage, but in contrast, reproductive health disposes all people, including children and adolescents, to the sexual act and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to reproduce, provided that these are not against the law. (UN Cairo Conference, Program of Action).

Following this definition, if having a satisfying sex life results in an unwanted pregnancy, the mental anguish this causes will negatively affect the person’s mental and social well-being unless one has access to contraception and abortion. This is the convoluted reasoning behind UN agencies’ insistence that reproductive health necessarily presupposes access to contraception and abortion.

Furthermore, the Reproductive Health bill (House Bill 5043), which carries the same definition of reproductive health, will penalize with one to six months imprisonment, and/or 10-50 thousand pesos fine, parents who for example prevent their grade school and high school children from using contraceptives, or from having satisfying and safe sex. This item, along with the fact that certain contraceptives actually cause the abortion of 5-day old babies, is often ignored in supposedly unbiased and scientific surveys on the acceptability of the Reproductive Health bill. All these are in the name of reproductive health and rights. What about the rights of parents? And the rights of the unborn?

The answer to the first question is always the most important one because its the one that should address that basic premises of any discussion. It feeds the discussion with rudimentary whats and whos that need to be satisfied in order for anything to go forward. The CBCP Faq however fails at this by misrepresenting the stand of its opponent in the most obvious way in that the provisions they are opposing no longer exist. This is a question that has already been dealt with a year before at the  very latest. The arguments raised here are against RH Bill 5043, the current form of the RH Bill (the one everyone’s talking about) is RH Bill 4422. 5043 was four versions old a year ago and thus, most if not all of the provisions opposed in this particular (and probably most important) question were already deleted. No one for example will be forced to use contraceptives, and no one will definitely be imprisoned or fined if they decide not to let fifth graders use condoms. In fact, I’m not sure even if 5043 itself ever allowed such vivid scenarios. The CBCP is aware of this fact and even have a different set of faq’s for 4422. I have no idea therefore, why this erroneous answer, with the capacity to greatly misinform, is still kept up in the main FAQ.

2) What is the difference between procreation and reproduction? Reproduction is the process by which living things replicate, to assure the continuity of their species. It is necessary for the species, but not for the individual. Reproduction, as in the case of plants and animals, does not require any bond between persons. On the other hand, procreation is the proper term for human generation as it refers to a loving act between spouses which prepares for a possible creation by God of a new person. Procreation points to a collaboration of parents with God as the ultimate source of this new life. None of these characteristics of human procreation may be found in plant and animal reproduction. The conjugal act is like a language with two meanings: the unitive and the procreative. Through their union in the conjugal act, a man and a woman give themselves totally to each other in and through their bodies. They are telling each other: “I give myself totally to you, and I love and accept you totally; we are one flesh.” That is the unitive meaning. Furthermore, the structures and functions of the male and female reproductive systems are such that when a sexual act is performed, there is a possibility of new life to be formed. This gives a procreative meaning to the sexual union. Thus, to accept each other totally includes saying, “since I love and accept you totally as you are, including your bodily functions, I also totally accept the possibility of our love bearing fruit, the gift of a new child.” Thus, the unitive and the procreative meanings of the sexual act cannot be separated from each other. Textbooks consistently using the term “reproduction” instead of “procreation,” even if intended for Catholic schools, should be thoroughly checked for the contraceptive mentality. They may confuse the students on the Church’s clear teaching on family and life. Presenting the views of dissenting theologians as being on equal authority with Church documents would bring about such confusion.

This is an outright lie. No dictionary, encyclopedia or internet translator would ever differentiate the definitions of reproduction and procreation to such a vast degree that the two seem to be on completely different levels. Reproduction is procreation, they mean the same thing. The sexual act does not require any kind of bond or supernatural intervention in creating life for it to be called procreation. Likewise there is no difference between the siring of animals and humans on any level.

This is another fallacy that misdirects all later arguments.

Words are a tricky thing. They have different meanings for different people such that sometimes a single word can have a dozen varying meanings, and one meaning can have a dozen varying words to express it. Which is why we have definitions to  nail down meanings as firmly as we can to avoid as much as confusions as possible. However, due to the wisdom that we are of limited knowledge we grant ourselves some leeway in the defining of words so that we can change certain definitions if and when new knowledge arises that conflict or challenge our previous definitions of a concept.

For example the original definition of the word ape in 1828 http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/ape is drastically different from the modern definition because of the new information we now possess brought forth by study and research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape. This does not occur in the case of reproduction and procreation. No new knowledge ever arose that would suffice the differentiation of definition of the words reproduction and procreation. They still mean the same thing. What this FAQ is perpetrating is a complete invention that is not only wrong but completely malicious. In the way that they have twisted the definition of a term crucial to the discussion in order to forward their agenda by resorting to a fallacious and unnecessary appeal to emotion.

3) Why is contraception morally wrong? Contraception is any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception. In contraception, it is like the spouses telling each other, “I love you as long as we do not give birth.” In short, contraception makes the conjugal act a lie. It expresses not a total love, but rather a merely conditional or partial love. Contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. Since many contraceptives have also been shown by medical science to have various ill effects, their use could signify further contradictions and lies. It endangers then the physical well-being of the wife as well as the spiritual health of the marriage.

Speaking of partial and conditional love, isn’t it exactly the same as promising someone eternal paradise on the condition that they dedicate their lives in worshipping him and damn them to eternal hell fire with everyone else who won’t?  

4) Why are natural methods of birth control not contraception? The natural methods simply enable the wife to ascertain when she is fertile and when she is infertile. It is scientific information placed at the service of either a procreative decision or a non-procreative decision by the spouses. In this case couples do not do anything to prevent the normal consequences of the marital act from taking place. Rather, they make use of the wife’s God-given cycle in their decision whether to have another child or not for the time being.

This question tandems with #3. After reading the answer the question then remains unanswered. What makes the calendar method different from contraception? All the elements that the CBCP are rallying against in question number 3 are still present here in number 4. The conscious decision whether or not a couple wants to have a child suddenly doesn’t mean “I love you as long as we do not give birth”. This is what’s called a blatant double standard.

5) In defending family and life, do we Catholics not impose our beliefs on others and violate the principles of tolerance and dialogue? Many Protestants, believers of other religions, and even non-believers share our belief in the dignity and value of human life. Tolerance means respect for the right of other persons to profess a different opinion and belief. However, tolerance cannot be understood as believing that other peoples’ points of view are equally good as one’s own, since this would blur the lines between good and evil and renounce the judgment of a sound and well-informed conscience. In fact, publicly proclaiming one’s own beliefs is a service for dialogue, because through this way others can know exactly what and how one thinks. One offers one’s thoughts for reflection to others while respecting their beliefs, but without assuming that all beliefs are equally valid*. Attempts to enact legislation promoting anti-family programs receive huge financial assistance and provide alluring incentives to persuade our politicians to commit themselves to their advocacy. Foreign-funded lobby groups have been operating for more than a decade to openly advocate for the enactment of population control laws, as well as abortion-friendly laws in pursuit of the UN Cairo Conference objective of universal abortion rights. It makes one wonder why countries with below replacement fertility rates, desperate for babies and spending huge sums of money to encourage their own citizens to bear more children, contradict themselves by spending huge sums of money to suppress our population growth. All these are consistent with Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interest” which identified the increase in world population as inimical to the interest of West. This document has been coming out in recent public debates on reproductive health policies, and is available on the internet. Do not reproductive health advocates bow down to their impositions? Is it not more correct to say that they are the ones imposing their policies on our country?

It is true that while freedom of speech allows everyone to have ideas and the right to voice them out and be heard it is also true that there are certain opinions that have less value than others. For example the opinion that the Earth is flat has no validity against the opinion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (Ignoring the fact that a round earth is not an opinion. This example was chosen because there is a small section of people who still hold to a Flat Earth, as it is so ludicrous it is therefore the best contraction to demonstrate the point). I agree with the CBCP on this point however disagree on their assumption of what qualifies one opinion to be greater than another. The Catholic Church (as well as other religions) state quite clearly that not all opinions are valid ones and basically make the differentiation that whatever contradicts their opinion is the invalid one as it blurs the line between good and evil. How convenient then that they have tasked themselves to referee which is good and which is evil.

The way any normal person should weigh the validity of opinions is through evidence. Going back to the example on the opinions of flat-earth and spherical earth. Both are supported somewhat by evidence. Flat-earth is supported by perception evidence while Spherical-Earth is supported by astronomy, physics and engineering. Just as hard science out weighs observational perception so too should positions whose claims are supported by the best evidence hold greater value than the one that merely holds on to simple basal assertion of authority in governing right and wrong.

All of this ofcourse go off course at a lenghty discussion about foreign pressure to pass somethin like the RH Bill because doing so imposes on our political policies. Funny, since most if the policies adapted by the CBCP are fashioned after orders from the Vatican, but all this is beside the point and is irrelevant.

The only thing to remember is no, your not intolerant for voicing your opinion or belief regarding family or life (however, please refrain from doing so if the person you’re talking has made it clear that he doesn’t want to hear it) but, if you expect anyone else to respect or even adopt that view you need something more substantial than God said so to back it up.


Are homosexuals oppressed in Philippine society? And is the RH bill a front for their agenda?

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , on Nobyembre 25, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

A couple of days ago I came across an article linking the RH Bill with a quote “agenda to forward homosexuality”. Needless to say this made me raise an eyebrow because I read through the thing and even posted the latest version I could find somewhere on here in an earlier post and in nowhere in any of those pages did I find anything pertaining even remotely on homosexuality.

So I checked for the source and found the original (or the one closest to it as far as I can tell) in http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=5005. And after reading through it I can safely say its the most paranoid, unfounded pieces of narcotic induced dribble that ever found its way on the internet. The line of thinking that came into this speech can go on par with the 9/11 truthers who insist that the US government was behind the attacks on the Twin towers, or the people who believe a secret organization is working behind the scenes to bring about a New World Order.

In fact all the points made  were so delusionary that it reminds me of a guy that practically screamed the scrapping of the RH Bill because “it violates our constitutional rights” when every single one of the provisions he was against was already discarded many moths before he made his proclamation. https://sigarilyosadilim.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/rod-you-are-a-moron/

Okay a little background; the article was written based on a presentation by Dr. Ligaya Anacta Acosta regional director of Human Life International (HLI) Asia and Oceania. She worked for the DOH for 28 years, A Doctorate in Management, and Bachelor Degrees in Law and Social Work.

First she tackled the question of “are homosexuals really oppressed?”

“Are they really oppressed? We see many gays in the media… in fact, they lord it over [in the industry] so how can they say that they are being oppressed?”

Ok, I know there are a lot of gays in the media but lording over it is a bit of a stretch if we’re talking about statistics.

We need to stress that what Dr. Acosta probably means by media is entertainment, because I’m hard put to find any easily identifiable character who is openly homosexual on the grid of news or journalism. Which spans the regions of television, radio, and print. The only exception I can think off the top of my head would be Boy Abunda and even he would stretching it because he’s classified in entertainment as well.

Filipino entertainment thrives on three things: (1) romantic movies, soap operas and dramas (which, unless I’m very mistaken, is unsuitable for homosexual performers); (2) Noon time variety shows; and (3) Talk shows. Even in the last two categories homosexual personalities are scant and easily outnumbered by their straight peers. The only way gays have ever made it into the entertainment industry is through comedy and only through comedy (the only exceptions being Aiza Seguerra and Boy Abunda).

(Note: In this vein I’ve limited the discussion to tv personalities or persons easily recognizable. I have not included individuals who, though in the entertainment industry, work behind the scenes such as directors, cameramen, producers etc.)

Though all may agree that homosexuals are a colorful (and very loud) presence in entertainment (not media), the statement lording it over even there is a bit hard to swallow…statistically. However, the point stands, so what? There are gays in the media (entertainment). Does that automatically conclude for all arguments that no anti-gay sentiments exist in the Philippines? Of course not.

“But we have to understand that this is actually a Marxist mold to cast the homosexual revolution, which started as early as 1948,”

“A man named Harry Hay thought of the idea of a homosexual activist group, later formulating the principles that would give rise to the US-based group “Mattachine Society” as the first members would call it. The principles revolved around the concept “that homosexuals were a virtual minority oppressed by the dominant heterosexual majority, and that portraying them as oppressed is actually the key to selling the homosexual movement,”

(I really have no interest in Harry Hay since his ideologies and movements have little effect on societies half way around the globe years after his death and four decades after his society shut itself down). But here Acosta has a point, just because you’re the minority doesn’t mean you’re oppressed.

Since the current American president Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States has made strides in the advancement of anti-life, anti-family legislation, including recognition of same-sex unions and discrimination against people who refuse to recognize such unions. Being true to the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights monicker given to him, the president has established an LGBT Month (LGBT stands for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders), appointed homosexuals as key officials in government, and carried out other measures that have ended up bestowing illegitimate rights on homosexual members of society.

Illegitimate rights? What, are they allowed to murder people now? What is she talking about? Surely not marriage because that’s hardly illegitimate at all.

“Sasabihin siguro ng iba, sa US lang ‘yan,”

“Hindi lang po ‘yan sa US because the policies of the United States of America affect the whole world… It’s actually also part of population control. If they cannot force us to legalize abortion or massively use contraception, then [they] promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Start at kindergarten… and therefore we have to know what is the agenda.”

Really? Promoting homosexuality in kindergarten? I can’t speak for myself but there might be a lot of schools that would consider that slander.

“Not too many people know that the RH bill also encourages homosexuality,”

I definitely didn’t. But we’re finally getting to it. Let’s see how a bill written for health could possibly forward some sort of agenda for homosexuality.

“Section 2, the Declaration of Policy, states that “The State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of universal basic human rights to reproductive health by all persons.”

Don’t see a problem with that.

“And then it says, ‘There shall be no discrimination against any person on the grounds’ “among others” ‘…of sexual orientation.’ You have to understand the doublespeak here. And of course, it refers to homosexuality\,”

No discrimination? Sounds reasonable enough. Don’t see a problem here either.

“It also says here, ‘The State guarantee to eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on the person’s exercise of reproductive health rights.”

Eradicating discriminatory practices? That sounds good too. Don’t see a problem with this one either.

“Further, “gender equality” is defined in Section 4 (Definition of Terms) as “absence of discrimination, on the basis of a person’s sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Sounds about right. Aaaaand that’s about it. Apparently “don’t discriminate against homosexuals” means “everyone be gay”. Wow. A really powerful case they got here. How could I possibly defend such an incredible flaw. Really? This is the proof of a secret plot to forward homosexuality? How deluded  does anyone have to be to go from point A to point 431 in one go?

Oh wait, there’s more.

“Though media mileage may give the impression that a significant number of Filipinos exhibit homosexual behavior, it is actually the systematic implementation of an agenda by a small number of people that gives the illusion of huge numbers.

“I have to tell you that there is a huge homosexual network all over the world, and although constituting a minority only of less than 3% of the population, we have to know that the homosexual movement is highly organized and very well-financed,”

What? Wait a minute. A moment ago she was arguing that homosexuals were portraying themselves as an oppressed minority to forward an agenda and now she’s saying that the homosexuals are a minority but puts up the illusion of majority numbers to forward their movement? Which is it? Are they trying to make themselves look like a minority or a majority? You can’t even keep your own story straight.

“And it is international in scope, which is why they have international associations. They are also very anti-Catholic… and so with various organizations they have been influencing media, education and even religion. Here in the Philippines, there is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the work of which is to influence politics and legislation, to build a powerful political movement, and they are actually succeeding a little in that area,”

Woah, alot of loaded statements here. Anti-Catholic and influencing media, education, religion influence politics and legislation. This is the part of the discussion where I’ll be a little skeptical and ask for some backing to her claims and I’ll reserve comment until such appears.

“The Human Rights Campaign is their political action committee to help elect homosexual congressional candidates and those favorable to their agenda,”

Anyone, correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t that what every other political party wants? To have candidates favorable to their agenda elected.

I’ll add a couple of paragraphs from the article itself to wrap this whole thing up. Notice the choice of words here.

Amid tackling more issues regarding unfortunate consequences of homosexual activity and predisposing factors of leading to homosexuality, the pro-life advocate explained the need to spread the life-affirming message against the backdrop of the push for homosexual rights.

“Our goal in presenting to you the homosexual agenda is not really to incite hatred for those persons who suffer homosexual inclinations nor even against the gay activitists. It is to alert the public about the campaign to promote homosexual practice, and to call people — especially us in the Catholic Church — in all sectors to make a firm and appropriate response and address different approaches available to men and women of homosexual inclination who wish to leave… the life of active homosexuality.”

She reminded everyone that healing can be and has been found after living a homosexual lifestyle, and that “every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided,” quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Returning to the question “Are gays oppressed?” it is amusing to see a woman who at first sought to disprove this ended up demonstrating to the letter. People (or a certain group) are qualified to call themselves oppressed when certain rights are denied them. When the right to be free from discrimination is considered as a negative, that in itself is discrimination, that is oppression.

No it seems Dr. Acosta is seeing fangs in flowers on this one. The agenda she claims to exist and the evidence she puts forward are completely non-existent. And the fact that anyone actually listened to this (much less take it seriously) is utterly laughable. Maybe she should try going into entertainment.

Rods rebuttal

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Mayo 20, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

In the previous post I blasted a Yahoo News commentor name Rod, and he didn’t seem to like me calling him a moron so he said this:

“@Blue Dela Kanluran At… tignan nga natin kung may isa man lang kumagat sa website na ipinost mo UNGAS! E simple lang naman mag-isip ang mga tao at saka ang talagang argumento naman tungkol sa RH Bil e yung paggamit ng mga artificial contraceptives na kinokontra rin ng Simbahan at sa mga ibang grupo pang may nalalaman din sa mga posibleng idudulot na hindi maganda ng mga aangkating kung anu-anong gamit at mga gamot e na abortifacients ang iba nga rito kung kaya nagkakagulo ang society natin pero ikaw kung sino ka mang nagmamagaling HUNGHANG e wala ka rin naman sa hulog na gagawa ng blog na gustong magpasikat pero ewan ko lang kung hindi ka rin namang TANGA pagdating sa usapin talaga ng tungkol sa talagang nakapaloob na sa Bill na yan na hindi alam ng karamihan sa mga Filipino. Sa ipinost mong mong website KKUPAL ka e mas nakakatulong pa ako sa mga kababayan natin dahil kahit papaano mga post ko may saysay samantalang ikaw e isang website lang na hindi nga malaman kung may kakagat na makipagtalo sa iyo roon TANGA!”

To which I replied:

“Actually, you started this fire fight when you made the RH Bill, in your earlier comment, a threat to the Democracy of the Philippines (in capital letters no less). And now your claiming the real issues are the use of contraceptives.

Fyi, thanks to my post the site has gained a fair amount of traffic so yes, (in your words) may kumagat.

Hmm. you declare that you are the one that has claims that actually help the Filipino because you’re the one whose statements have the most sense. When I systematically proved that you are grossly out of touch with current reality and issues by making the RH Bill about a threat to democracy.”

Then he issued me challenge:

“@Blue Dela Kanluran Now…Brod come back here and read all my posts about those artificial contraceptives which to be use in the RH Bill if becomes a law. Explain to the people of the Philippines about these devices or pills and not posting a website which I don’t know who owns that. It maybe you. @#$% i n g M O R O N! You are a Bloody B a s t a r d B i t c h! GAGO ka!”

(He like hitting that Caps Lock doesn’t he). So I said ok let’s see these posts that prove the evils of contraceptives that only the Church and its followers seem to see.

Rod: “Side effects of IUD

Vaginal Cramps

This is usually seen in the first few hours to a few days after the implantation of the IUD inside the vagina. Because it is a foreign body, the structures of the vagina have to get acclimatized first with the presence of the IUD.

The muscles around the vagina usually contract in an attempt to remove the IUD, but because it is firmly situated in its place, the contracting only results to vaginal cramps.

Fever

Again, this is caused by the mere presence of the IUD as a foreign body. Just like any foreign body, one of the body’s way to attempt o remove something is by changing the over-all temperature.”

Me: “An intrauterine device (IUD) is a small, plastic device that is put into the uterus (womb) to stop a woman from getting pregnant.

Some women who use the IUD have more bleeding during and between
their periods. The copper IUD also can cause cramps. Cramps can be
helped by an OVER-THE-COUNTER PAIN MEDICINE like ibuprofen or naproxen.
The cramps can go away after the first few months as the uterus gets used
to the IUD. Some women who use the hormone IUD notice that after a while their
period get short and light, and some women may have their period stop completely.

Myths about IUD’s
1. IUD’s and dangerous and cause serious infection.
2. IUD’s cause pregnancies outside the uterus.
3. IUD’s can make you sterile.
4. An IUD works by causing an abortion.

Truth:
1. Today IUD’s are safe and do not cause infection. Sexually transmitted disease or bacteria entering the womb during insertion of the IUD are usually the cause of the infection (if you already have it). The risk of infection is slightly increased only during the first three weeks after getting an IUD and this risk is still very low.
2. Overall, copper IUD’s protect the user against having an ectopic (outside the uterus) pregnancy. IUD user are less than half as likely to have an ectopic pregnancy as women who use no contraception.
3. IUD usually does not affect your ability to have children. Most women who stop using IUD’s in order to become pregnant are able to conceive quickly.
4. The latest evidence suggests that IUD’s work mainly by preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg. The IUD does not work by causing an abortion.

You should not use the IUD if you:
are pregnant
are allergic to copper (for copper IUD only)
have a uterus that is shorter or smaller than the IUD
have an artificial heart valve
are at risk for getting a sexually transmitted disease
have a recent history of pelvic inflammatory disease or STDs
have cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer that needs treatment

http://www.familyplanning.org/pdf/Facts_About_IUDs.pdf

So the seriousness of the side effect you’re describing here has the same gravity as the headaches in the John Lloyd commercials. This is the kind of thing that they’ll be teaching when the RH Bill is passed.

Rod: “Vasectomy Side Effects

As mentioned above, side effects of vasectomy are very rare, but, complications may arise in some cases. The immediate vasectomy side effects include inflammation of the area, bruising of the scrotum, bleeding inside the scrotum (hematoma), blood in the semen, etc. Discomfort in the area is one of the most common and immediate vasectomy side effects. Pain is also experienced by those who have undergone this surgery. However, all these side effects subside within a week or so. The following are some of the vasectomy side effects, which are little bit severe, as compared to the previous ones.

* Infection can develop at the site of surgery and as a result the area gets red and inflamed. The person may also experience fever and intense pain. The infection can spread to the epididymis too. Some people develop abscesses, which are very rare as vasectomy side effect. Itching may occur as the hair in the area grows back, but will subside as the hair grows fully.
* Vasectomy side effects include sperm granuloma, wherein the sperms escape through the cut portion of the vas deferens and collect in the nearby tissues resulting in the development of a painful mass in the scrotum. It can happen within some weeks or months from the date of vasectomy. Most cases can be treated with anti-inflammatory medicines, but, bigger ones have to removed surgically.
* Some people experience erectile dysfunction or decreased sexual drive after vasectomy. They may face impotence, painful intercourse or premature ejaculation. However, studies show that such side effects are not caused by the surgical procedure, but, are psychological in nature.
* Long term vasectomy side effects include immune reaction of the body towards its own sperms. The body produces antibodies in the testes, that act against the sperms. This reaction can lead to other problems, like, atherosclerosis, cancer, etc.

Some people may experience a fullness in the testes, which if persists, needs medical attention. If a sexual partner conceives after vasectomy, it can also be considered as a complication, as it points towards a failed surgical procedure. The worst side effect is that this process is not easily reversible. Vasectomy reversal is more complicated and risky too. Read more on vasectomy complications and side effects.”

Me: “Vasectomy is one of the more serious methods of contraception and when the RH Bill is passed doctors and health workers will inform men who are seeking this treatment of its gravity. Men who opt for this procedure usually plan on not having children at all.
I’ll just use your own words here.

Infection can develop at the site of surgery and as a result the area gets red and inflamed. The person may also experience fever and intense pain. The infection can spread to the epididymis too. Some people develop abscesses, which are VERY RARE as vasectomy side effect. Itching may occur as the hair in the area grows back, but WILL SUBSIDE as the hair grows fully.

(Just an additional point. The condition your describing above is called Epididymitis and according to http://menshealth.about.com/cs/surgery/a/vasectomy.htm this condition subsides in about a week.)

Vasectomy side effects include sperm granuloma, wherein the sperms escape through the cut portion of the vas deferens and collect in the nearby tissues resulting in the development of a painful mass in the scrotum. It can happen within some weeks or months from the date of vasectomy. Most cases can be TREATED WITH ANTI-INFLAMMATORY MEDICINES, but, bigger ones have to removed surgically.

(And removing it surgically won’t be a problem if the RH Bill is passed because it states that all costs incurred by reproductive medical nuances such as this will be covered by PhilHealth)

Some people experience erectile dysfunction or decreased sexual drive after vasectomy. They may face impotence, painful intercourse or premature ejaculation. HOWEVER, STUDIES SHOW THAT SUCH SIDE EFFECTS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, BUT, ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL IN NATURE.

(The next one is actually new to me so I did a little research and came up with this)

Atherosclerosis develops from LOW-DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN MOLECULES (LDL) becoming oxidized (ldl-ox) by free radicals[citation needed], particularly reactive oxygen species (ROS). When oxidized LDL comes in contact with an artery wall, a series of reactions occur to repair the damage to the artery wall caused by oxidized LDL.

The body’s immune system responds to the damage to the artery wall caused by oxidized LDL by sending specialized white blood cells (macrophages and T-lymphocytes) to absorb the oxidized-LDL forming specialized foam cells. These white blood cells are not able to process the oxidized-LDL, and ultimately grow then rupture, depositing a greater amount of oxidized cholesterol into the artery wall. This triggers more white blood cells, continuing the cycle.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis#Causes)

Low density lipoproteins, also referred to as LDL, is known as the “bad cholesterol”. LDLs are PRODUCED BY THE LIVER and carry cholesterol and other lipids (fats) from the liver to different areas of the body, like muscles, tissues, organs, and the heart.

(http://cholesterol.about.com/cs/cholesteroltypes/a/lipotypes.htm)
(I’ve cited my sources. If you have a problem with it take it up with them.)

Some people may experience a fullness in the testes, which if persists, needs medical attention. If a sexual partner conceives after vasectomy, it can also be considered as a complication, as it points towards a failed surgical procedure.

(Failures can occur as often as 0.2%-5% of the time. A probabilty rate of 11 out of 1,000. And that is if the men do not conduct follow-up tests for semen analysis after the procedure as required.)

The worst side effect is that this process is not easily reversible.

(Yes, that is why http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23219 defines vasectomy as: surgical procedure designed to make a man STERILE by cutting or blocking both the right and left vas deferens, the tubes through which sperm pass into the ejaculate.)

Vasectomy reversal is more complicated and risky too. Read more on vasectomy complications and side effects.”

Rod: “Negative Side Effects of Condoms

Latex Aller—-

Many condoms are made from rubber latex, which comes from the fluid in rubber trees. The American Academy of Aller—-, Asthma & Immunolo—- notes that some people experience an allergic response to the protein in the rubber. Symptoms can vary in presentation and severity, ranging from sneezing, runny nose, hives, itching or flushing to more severe signs and symptoms, such as wheezing, swelling, dizziness, and lightheadedness. In certain instances, latex allergies can invoke anaphylaxis, a life-threatening condition. According to Planned Parenthood, only one or two people out of every 100 has latex aller—-. The AAAAI notes that those who have latex allergies should use synthetic rubber condoms as a second choice.
Not Effective Against All STDs

Planned Parenthood notes that condoms are proven highly effective against HIV and reduce the risk of other diseases, such as syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV. However, they do not afford protection against sexually transmitted diseases that can affect the outer layers of the skin, such as scabies infections and molluscum contagiosum. The American Social Health Association notes that although condoms can reduce the risk of genital herpes, they don’t protect every part of the skin in which the herpes virus can asymptomatically shed and be transmitted to an infected sexual partner. Additionally, not all condoms are created equal: natural skin condoms (lambskin) are an effective measure of birth control but are porous enough to allow HIV and other STDs to be transmitted to a sexual partner.

Partner Resistance

Perhaps the most notable negative side effect of condoms is a sexual partner’s resistance to using them. Some men claim they experience a loss in sensation when using condoms, find them unromantic or take offense at being asked to wear them. Planned Parenthood notes that many men can overcome their resistance to using condoms and suggests trying out different styles and sizes to find the brand that’s most comfortable to both partners.”

Me: “”According to Planned Parenthood, only one or two people out of every 100 people has latex allergies. The AAAAI notes that those who have latex allergies should use synthetic rubber condoms as a second choice.”

(Thanks for providing the remedy to your own side effect)

Scabies infections are common skin infestation that causes small itchy bumps and blisters due to tiny mites called Sarcoptes scabiei. It is contagious, and is usually transmitted by prolonged skin-to-skin contact. (even children can get it.)

Molluscum contagiosum (MC) is a viral infection of the skin or occasionally of the mucous membranes. It is caused by a DNA poxvirus called the molluscum contagiosum virus (MCV). The virus commonly spreads through skin-to-skin contact. This includes sexual contact or touching or scratching the bumps and then touching the skin.

(Needless to say that sex demands prolonged skin-to-skin contact.)
(These viruses are both transmitted through physical contact and not specifically through sex like HIV and HPV. Therefore the responsibility to prevent them can hardly be laid squarely on the shoulders of condoms.)

http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/skin/scabies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molluscum_contagiosum

Yes genital herpes is a nasty piece of work and the use of condoms can only reduce the chances of being infected by about 50% if your partner is infected with it. However, I argue that condoms are still the best and most easily available method to preventing genital herpes and thus cannot be considered as a negative side effect.

Last I checked lambskin condoms became near extinct after 1839 when Charles Goodyear (yes the tires) discovered a way of processing natural rubber. Which proved advantages in the manufacture of condoms.

If the most notable side effect to using condoms is a partners resistance then its nothing to be worried about at all. The RH Bil does provide information on other family planning methods and the couple can CHOOSE which method is best suited for them. Which is the beauty of the Bill really, the ability of choice.

Looking back the only “side effect” you’ve presented here would be the first one that is relatively rare and easily remedied. The other maladies were not caused by condoms and therefore cannot be labeled as “side-effects.”

Rod: “Side Effects of Birth Control Pills

A few common side effects of birth control pills include nausea, spotting between periods, and headache. Several factors play a role in determining which side effects are likely (or unlikely) to occur, including the strength of the estrogen, the type of progestin, and the dose of progestin. Certain birth control pill side effects are more serious and require immediate medical attention, such as depression, pain in the calf, and migraines.Based on information available, some of the common birth control pill side effects include but are not limited to:

Based on information available, some of the common birth control pill side effects includes:

* Acne, although birth control pills can also improve acne (see Birth Control Pills and Acne)
* Breast tenderness and enlargement
* Breakthrough bleeding and spotting between periods
* Nausea and vomiting
* Changes in your eyes that make it more difficult to wear contact lenses
* Bloating
* Headaches
* Changes in sex drive (typically a decrease).”

Me: “A bit squiffy on the first one since it can either worsen or improve acne, not much of an argument.

*Breast enlargement…this is a bad thing how?

*The most common cause of breakthrough bleeding is the patient’s failure to accurately follow the instructions for the medication. The directions should be read thoroughly and any questions should be discussed with the patient’s gynecologist before use.

*For nausea and vommitting here are a few tips to remedy it:

1. Take a birth control pill with or after a meal. This will help coat the pill while it goes into the stomach and it won’t be quite as rough on a full stomach. If you absolutely cannot take the pill during a meal, take it with milk or something with substance rather than coffee or water. This will hopefully have the same effect. Also, according to Planned Parenthood, you may also be able to help reduce nausea by taking the birth control pill in the evening instead of in the morning.

2.Go see your gynecologist if you are still having problems. Many times the doctor will ask you to continue the same pill for a couple more days if you are just starting on it, just to see if the side effects wear down. If not, then he will likely recommend that you go off of that certain (brand) birth control pill.

3.Get a different prescription if you want to continue with the birth control pill. Sometimes a doctor will be hesitant to do this depending on the symptoms and side effects that you are having, but different people will respond differently to the different types of birth control pills. Allow an adjustment period for taking these new pills. Also, make sure that you take the pill for several days, possibly even weeks, before deciding that it isn’t working.

4.Choose a different birth control option, such as condoms. Many times nausea caused by birth control pills will happen no matter what pill you are on. When it gets to that point that your only two options are to simply put up with the nausea or to get off of “the pill,” there are several other options out there that you could try that could have weaker or no side effects and be just as effective.

*With studies of recent low dose oral contraceptives, the whole premise as to whether there is any change in weight at all with beginning oral contraceptives is in question (1). This and other studies indicate that, on the average, women do not gain weight because of the pills. Remember this means that if 5-10% of women report weight gain when starting oral contraceptives, there is an identical 5-10% of women who gain weight even though they did not get active birth control pills. In other words the weight gain with pills was coincidental but not a cause and effect.

*Headaches are a common symptom of premenstrual syndrome, and many women with migraines report headaches before or during menstruation (menstruation not because of the pill).

http://www.ehow.com

http://www.wdxcyber.com/ncontr11.htm

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/headaches/HE00003

In your last post you cited studies (for once) that say IUD’s and birth control pills are abortificients. I will do you one better and cite three studies that say otherwise.

http://www.pregna.com/html/writeup_ideals.pdf

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/Sivin.pdf

If you’ve already noticed most of the side effects he’s touted as caused by contraceptives are not serious enough to cause concern and could even be caused by circumstances other than contraceptives. Any serious side effects are rare and remedies are already available.

There you go, I’ve explained and countered everything you said Rod. Be honest, you didn’t think I’d do it did you. Anyway, this has been a great exercise for me (debunking your views on the evils of the Bill). Come back when you develop a real skill for argumentation.

Magna Carta ≠ RH

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , on Mayo 20, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

 

With talks and debates about the RH Bill becoming so heated, there are more and more parties coming out declaring their stances but recently an anti-RH liegislator declared that the RH Bill is redundant because its provisions were already covered under the Magna Carta for women Sections 17 and 19. Well, in a short while you’ll find that this is not so.

Zambales Rep. Maria Milagros Magsaysay said that if lawmakers who have been pushing for the passage of the bill aim to providing women access to contraceptives, it is already included in the Magna Carta for Women.

“May existing law na protect health of women. If they want to have women to access to pre-natal and post-natal care, it is already in the Magna carta, it is an existing law we passed during the 14th Congress,”

———————————————————————————-

I’ve posted both those parts here.

(a) Comprehensive Health Services. – The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, culture-sensitive, and gender-responsive health services and programs covering all stages of a woman’s life cycle and which addresses the major causes of women’s mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision for comprehensive health services, due respect shall be accorded to women’s religious convictions, the rights of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, and the demands of responsible parenthood, and the right of women to protection from hazardous drugs, devices, interventions, and substances. Access to the following services shall be ensured:

(1) Maternal care to include pre- and post-natal services to address pregnancy and infant health and nutrition;

(2) Promotion of breastfeeding;

(3) Responsible, ethical, legal, safe, and effective methods of family planning;

(4) Family and State collaboration in youth sexuality education and health services without prejudice to the primary right and duty of parents to educate their children;

(5) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS;

(6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract cancers like breast and cervical cancers, and other gynecological conditions and disorders;

(7) Prevention of abortion and management of pregnancy-related complications;

(8) In cases of violence against women and children, women and children victims and survivors shall be provided with comprehensive health services that include psychosocial, therapeutic, medical, and legal interventions and assistance towards healing, recovery, and empowerment;

(9) Prevention and management of infertility and sexual dysfunction pursuant to ethical norms and medical standards;

(10) Care of the elderly women beyond their child-bearing years; and

(11) Management, treatment, and intervention of mental health problems of women and girls.

In addition, healthy lifestyle activities are encouraged and promoted through programs and projects as strategies in the prevention of diseases.

(b) Comprehensive Health Information and Education. – The State shall provide women in all sectors with appropriate, timely, complete, and accurate information and education on all the above-stated aspects of women’s health in government education and training programs, with due regard to the following:

(1) The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth and the development of moral character and the right of children to be brought up in an atmosphere of morality and rectitude for the enrichment and strengthening of character;

(2) The formation of a person’s sexuality that affirms human dignity; and

(3) Ethical, legal, safe, and effective family planning methods including fertility awareness.

Sec. 19 is actually a section on marriage and has one line on the subject of Reproductive Health that says:

(c) the joint decision on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;

—————————————————————————————————–

All of the highlighted above are indeed included in the RH Bill (which I’ve also posted yesterday in full). And if you would look at both it is clearly seen that Sections 17 and 19(c) offer no specific methodolgy or guidelines for doctors or healthworkers to follow.

These are a few points on which the Magna Carta failed to cover.

(a) Sec. 5 outlines the hiring or employ of midwives to assist in the delivery of babies

(b) Sec. 6 mandates that all hospitals be upgraded with personnel and equipment in order to provide the best neo-natal and emergency obstetric care.

(c) Sec. 7 does the Magna Carta one better. not only does it provide for a full range of family planning methods (like in Magna Carta Sec. 17 (3)) it also states that these measures will covered and paid for by PhilHealth.

(d) Sec. 8 ensures evacuation centers/refugee samps equipped to respons to gender-based violence.

(e) Sec. 9 provides a review of all deaths during delivery (not covered in the Magna Carta)

————————————————————————–

I could go on and on but this post is already getting way too long. Saying that the RH Bill is a redundant copy of the Magna Carta is completely false. If anything, it is an expansion of the Magna Carta. An apt (in my opinion) analogy would be: The Magna Carta would tell you that a car could go relatively fast; while the RH Bill will tell you its maximum speed, the times it takes to reach that speed, and how the engine can produce that much power.

Not to defame Rep. Magsaysay but to a lawmaker this should be relatively simple to notice. True there are still a lot more points that the RH Bill can affors to be more specific on but it sure beats the over-generality of the Magna by a mile, which may help the problem of implementation as she earlier offered as the main problem.

Specifics, its nitty-gritty and a bitch to read but they make all the difference.