Despite condoms not being an abortifacient (i.e. they do not kill) they prevent life coming into being so in essence both result in artifical birth control and deny being open to life.First of all, I’m against contraception. But I have a question, though. How can a condom be an abortifacient when, simply stated, there is no fertilized egg to abort?
What are your thoughts on this?
Condoms are not abortifacient. What gave you the idea that they are or that anyone considers them to be so?First of all, I’m against contraception. But I have a question, though. How can a condom be an abortifacient when, simply stated, there is no fertilized egg to abort?
What are your thoughts on this?
Because of the argument that contraceptives are abortifacients. It was presented on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill debate in the Philippine Congress the past days.Condoms are not abortifacient. What gave you the idea that they are or that anyone considers them to be so?
**Some **methods certainly are abortifacient. But, not **all **are.Because of the argument that contraceptives are abortifacients. It was presented on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill debate in the Philippine Congress the past days.
Of course it does.Anti-RH advocates argue passionately that life begins at the moment of fertilization (and not much later, as their opponents say, at the moment of implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus).
I don’t know who this person is, but he is incorrect medically and also theologically. The Church has no such teaching.And then Rep. Amado Bagatsing now says that anything that prevents fertilization is abortion.
it’s a tough place for a devout Catholic politician to be and I give them more credit than some of the politicians in my own country. I can only say that I will mention the ongoing debate about contraception in your country during the prayers of intentions tomorrow at Mass here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA.Thanks Tim. I see your point. Another argument presented: RH goes against the beliefs of the Catholic majority and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Rep. Pablo Garcia says that the RH bill discriminates against the Catholic Church because it goes against the grain of Catholic teaching and the law must respect the religion of majority of Filipinos.
On one hand, he states that the state must be neutral to religion. In the next breath, he reminds us that our Constitution’s preamble begins with the clause where we “implor[e] the aid of Almighty God” and that refers only to “the Catholic God” according to Pro-RH bill. Seems that they are trying to emphasize that either we are a secular state or we are a theocracy.
Thank you, Tim.I will mention the ongoing debate about contraception in your country during the prayers of intentions tomorrow at Mass here in Kennesaw, Georgia, USA.
May God’s will be done.
-Tim-
Like what?**Some **methods certainly are abortifacient.
Birth control pills, IUDs, Norplant, to name a few.Like what?
Reps Bagatsing and Garcia are well-meaning, but their arguments are technically incorrect. There might be some metaphor that they did intend to convey, but it was not apparent. It is true that the RH bill discriminates against the Catholic Church, but not in the way that Rep Garcia was perceived to have conveyed. Among these: the bill enforces Mandatory secular sex education to Catholic schools; the provision for forced referrals; the provision for employers to pay for contraceptives; the restriction of free speech; the violation of the state principle for the protection of the unborn “from conception”. It is disengenious for the pro-RH bill crowd to latch onto isolated arguments as if they characterize the opposition of the Catholic Church and other anti-Rh bill groups. Truth is on the side of those opposing the RH bill.Thanks Tim. I see your point. Another argument presented: RH goes against the beliefs of the Catholic majority and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Rep. Pablo Garcia says that the RH bill discriminates against the Catholic Church because it goes against the grain of Catholic teaching and the law must respect the religion of majority of Filipinos.
On one hand, he states that the state must be neutral to religion. In the next breath, he reminds us that our Constitution’s preamble begins with the clause where we “implor[e] the aid of Almighty God” and that refers only to “the Catholic God” according to Pro-RH bill. Seems that they are trying to emphasize that either we are a secular state or we are a theocracy.
Kabayan (fellow citizen)Reps Bagatsing and Garcia are well-meaning, but their arguments are technically incorrect. There might be some metaphor that they did intend to convey, but it was not apparent. It is true that the RH bill discriminates against the Catholic Church, but not in the way that Rep Garcia was perceived to have conveyed. Among these: the bill enforces Mandatory secular sex education to Catholic schools; the provision for forced referrals; the provision for employers to pay for contraceptives; the restriction of free speech; the violation of the state principle for the protection of the unborn “from conception”. It is disengenious for the pro-RH bill crowd to latch onto isolated arguments as if they characterize the opposition of the Catholic Church and other anti-Rh bill groups. Truth is on the side of those opposing the RH bill.
We don’t want to dwell too much on external influences as a form of arguing against the RH bill. That does not mean I am disregarding your statements to the effect, but if we just examine the provisions of the bill by themselves, they make a clear case for rejection of the bill. Purely secular arguments alone, with legal references, are enough.Kabayan (fellow citizen)
I have heared that this bill is patterned to the UN formula and is being pushed in all 3rd world country. The people at the UN and Who are focused on reducing the sub-human population of the 3rd world that are consuming the world resources. this has been going on since the 70’s. the help that they profess to give is part of their economics. they will give help on the basis that the country do population control. so that in the long run what they shell out remains the same since the population do not increase. hence, tipid na sila, and all the so called elite race remain to wallow sa world resources. One former cia told us that the us feels that the world resources are for their (1st and 2nd world) consumption only. they manipulate africa to control the diamond supply, they are bullying the middle east to get control over the oil and the world market. in the philippines, there are major industries that are own by the americans and american governemnt. the mining, the explorations, etc.
the us govt do care if our governemnt is corrupt nor after our own good. they just want control economically, militarily,etc. what we argue about on issues are minor compared to what is the greater picture. we are being spared because the us needs us right now…
we can argue all our lives but the author of all this- the UN and who- don’t give a crapamerican people are already warning us about this rh bill as the 1st step to control. We should listen.
in america, the target for abortion are the blacks. the un wants to get rid of that race because they breed like rats. (according to them ) there are 6millions babies killed every year and the un is not satisfied. they want to go into euthanasia. in canda, if you are old and sick , don’t go into a hospital alone, the doctors have a right to perform euthanasia if they can justifiy it. it is legal there…
What’s your thought on this?
It appears that separation of church and state is invoked only where it concerns the Catholic Church’s opinions against the proposed anti-life and anti-family legislation, ChoPilo. No one amongst the supporters of the president invokes the same against the National Council of Churches in the Philippines which includes: “the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, the Apostolic Catholic Church, the Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, among others.”.Thanks Tim. I see your point. Another argument presented: RH goes against the beliefs of the Catholic majority and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Rep. Pablo Garcia says that the RH bill discriminates against the Catholic Church because it goes against the grain of Catholic teaching and the law must respect the religion of majority of Filipinos.
On one hand, he states that the state must be neutral to religion. In the next breath, he reminds us that our Constitution’s preamble begins with the clause where we “implor[e] the aid of Almighty God” and that refers only to “the Catholic God” according to Pro-RH bill. Seems that they are trying to emphasize that either we are a secular state or we are a theocracy.
Not today, thank you.erm…what about masturbation ?
How right you are. For the pro-Rh bill advocates, it is alright for religious groups to meddle in state affairs - as long as they agree with the bill. However, there are certain Christian and even Muslim groups who have expressed opposition to the bill. The ire of the pro-Rh group seems to be concentrated on faithful Catholics alone.It appears that separation of church and state is invoked only where it concerns the Catholic Church’s opinions against the proposed anti-life and anti-family legislation, ChoPilo. No one amongst the supporters of the president invokes the same against the National Council of Churches in the Philippines which includes: “the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, the Apostolic Catholic Church, the Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, among others.”.
newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101205-307208/Protestant-Christian-churches-back-RH-bill