Nope. I'm afraid that I have to disagree.

It gives the people the freedom to choose, away from the limits of conservative institutions, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.

By the way, I'd be glad to show you an article of mine from the previous issue of Ang Pahayagang Plaridel.

We delved into the issue intrinsically, so basically, I'm aware of its elements.

Sorry, but I just have to defend my stand.

no prob... i like discussing stuffs like these. lemme see that article

h1.ripway.com/narakun/RH... 07 - For placing.doc there ye go! ;D

oh wait, try this one instead. h1.ripway.com/narakun/RH...

read it point-by-point. I assure you.

yeah. it's discussed in quite a balanced manner anyway. we presented the two sides of the topic. or rather, the practicalities.

btw, I quoted that statement on a relatively recent blogpost by Francisco S. Tatad.

if you want to read it here it is h1.ripway.com/mjcv50/PRO...

It says that the bill must be rejected for the following specific reasons:

1. It does not have sufficient moral basis; 2. It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution;

3. It is unnecessary; 4. It is technically defective.

haha. which is why I reject the bill in the first premise alone. morality is meant to be subjective. yet the Church institutionalizes it.

unnecessary? go to Tondo, my friend. talk to the hundreds of single mothers there who harbors 10 kids.

deviating from the Constitution's spirit? But the bill is made to uphold the people's welfare. More choices for the people to choose.

not only does the Church try to institutionalize it, the Church teaches that morality is not subjective nor relative. They have good reasons

and the bill is not encouraging or making abortion mandatory. it, in fact, deems abortion taboo, in a sense.

1. Laws do not need sufficient moral basis. So long as it is NOT immoral, it can be legal

but talk to the parents who practice heroic abstinence and heroic parenthood 'joyfully'. They are better witnesses.

For example, it is perfectly legal to not pay debts; Although it does not have any moral basis (as the logically moral thing to do would be

to pay these debts). neither is it immoral

2. The spirit of the constitution specifically says to "protect the lives of the mother and the unborn child"

BUT it does not specify unconceived children; Therefore meaning it would be acceptable under the constitution to prevent someone from

gettingpregnant IN THE FIRST PLACE (though once she's pregant , you are not allowed to harm the baby o_O)

3. True, it is unnecessary, but it GREATLY improves living conditions by potentially reducing the amount of dependents in a household

4. Agreed. Despite these methods, there would still be a chance to pregnancy

miklos: Heroic abstinence? NOT ALL people practice that. Go to Tondo, my friend. Just a helpful advice.

Now, in the current status quo, we have two choices to decrease the population crisis

And I urge you to assess the realities that might befall you there.

1. Teach all these people "heroic abstinence" and attempt to convince them to follow it

2. The RH bill o_O

i don't consider myself a credible person in terms of the constitution but Tatad is. Read Part 2 of his article.

Of course, you could go with number 1... But that would take a very, very long time =p

most my knowledge of these premises are only based on that.

Haha. Then I urge you to widen your horizons before constructing your conclusion.

that's why i'm reading your article

pepe, there's a 3rd choice: do nothing

but there aren't many good news about the RH bill's counterparts in other countries

heroic abstinence is the best choice

when has "doing nothing" ever gotten us anywhere?

well, we can never do nothing bec by doing nothing we're doing something

But...but... You're the one who said the 3rd choice was "do nothing"?

haha I was joking, half meaning it. There is the existence of a third choice, right?

I... wouldn't really know

argh