“Total war” on contraceptives in Manila

Definitions… So you will not be fooled by the Contraception / Family Planning / Abortion / De-population lobby. Your descendants are targeted for elimination.

Abortion Pills / Patches / Injectables / Rods = Abortifacients = Chemical and Hormonal Abortions

These items are sold by the Pharmaceutical companies as Contraceptves, this is FALSE ADVERTISING.

Contraception is the prevention of conception.
Where conception is defined as the union of sperm and egg.

Q: When does the Philippine Constitution Recognize LIFE?
A: At the point of conception.

Q: Why are pills / patches / injectables / rods abortive?
A: Because they cause the abortion / explusion of the now ALIVE / Conceived Human.

Q: I thought pills / patches / injectables / rods only prevented eggs from being released?
A: They can only suppress ovulation some for a given time. Eventually, eggs are released. The other actions of these chemical and hormonal abortion is to make the uterus environment LETHAL to the newly conceived human LIFE. As such, the fertilized egg cannot implant or implants and is eventually expelled / killed / aborted.

Ask your pharmaceutical company for complete documentation. This is the truth.

This is the reason why pills / patches / injectables / rods are ILLEGAL.

The other executive branches of government have a constitutional mandate to do the same as Mayor Atienza. To uphold and defend the Philippine constitution.

On the issue of what if all CONDOMS were eradicated?

Q: Would you go ahead and F*CK a prostitute without a CONDOM?
A: Most will answer no.

Q: What happens to prostitution?
A: Prostitution would be minimized.

Q: Is minimizing prostitution a good thing?
A: Absolutely Yes..

——————————————–
How come you never heard about these reasons?

Tell the media to give Pro-Life a fair 50% coverage.

http://www.prolife.org.ph

Obviously a victory for goodsamaritan.

For me, I do not have a problem with ballooning population, provided that this population is productive. Just like Japan, they were on to baby bloom because they needed manpower since there is “employment” in Japan. We need employment.

jojo said,
>> Q: Why are pills / patches / injectables / rods abortive?
>> A: Because they cause the abortion / explusion of the now ALIVE / Conceived
>> Human.
>
> resoved therefore that the earth is flat.

That’s probably about how intelligent and absurd the “overpopulation” doomsayers’ predictions have all been! They had all these dire predictions of woe about how overpopulation would swamp the earth’s resources. Well, HELLO! not a single one has come true!

And in case you have so far remained ignorant of abortifacients, let me point out that ALL of the popular oral and injectable contraceptives, and the IUD as well, are abortifacient. They have a secondary function to handle situations where they fail to stop ovulation (called breakthrough ovulation). They are designed to create a “hostile endometrium” which makes it very difficult or impossible for the fertilized egg (already a human being) from implanting, leading to its eventual destruction. This is an early chemical ABORTION.

By the way, if you have somehow fooled yourself into thinking that the fertlized egg is not a human being, perhaps you ought to read the Philippine Constitution. It explicitly recognizes that life beings at CONCEPTION (not implantation), and that such life should be protected. Therefore, all abortifacient contraceptives (the pill, IUD, depo-rpovera, etc.) violate the Constitution.

Maybe you ought to learn the facts before you start ridiculing statements of prolifers that are far more intelligent than yours.

maddog: i thought my sarcasm would be understood by your intelligence – but alas.

i am pro-choice. and yes, i believe no one has the right to impose their morals on somebody else.

and yes, i believe in planned and responsible parenthood.

and yes, amid your and “goodsamaritan’s” feudal rabble-rousing demagoguery which has raised neither sympathy or favorable opinion, i believe that a woman has the right to choose to determine what is best for her body, particularly on how to best be a reponsible parent.

no, i am not pro-abortion, despite your retarded drool-dribbling. I am pro-contraception and responsible reproduction education, particularly among the rural and urban poor.

by perpetually heuristically framing everything into an “abortion” bugaboo, you sound more like a forum-shopping nitwit who believes everyone should think the way he does.

your abortion frame attempts to manipulate choice alternatives in order to obtain consent through coercion, manipulating salient, directing readers to consider certain features and ignore others.

is a contraceptrive pill abortifacent? take two and call me in the morning.

jojo said:
>and yes, amid your and “goodsamaritan’s” feudal rabble-rousing demagoguery
>which has raised neither sympathy or favorable opinion, i believe that a woman
>has the right to choose to determine what is best for her body, particularly on
>how to best be a reponsible parent.

Typical of your kind to engage in ad hominem arguments. Too bad you don’t have any good reasoning or evidence to back up your false assertions.

A woman’s “right” to choose what is best for her body stops when she invades the body of another. The Philippine Constitution rwecognizes that the fertilized ovum is a HUMAN BEING. Thus, any woman’s “right to her body” ends when she violates the rights of that other human person.

But as is typical again of the culture of death, you hypocritically assert the rights of the storng and trample on the right of the weak.

Is the contraceptive pill abortifacient? Read the literature and find a brain.

Fact Sheet – Contraceptive Pills Abortifacient

(This information has been researched and compiled by Patrick McCrystal
MPSNI/MPSI Pharmacists For Life International)

One of the clearly stated mechanisms inherent in the overall mode of action of the pill is; “the rendering of the endometrium unreceptive to implantation”.[1] Put simply this means a newly created embryo is not allowed to implant in its mother’s womb. Since this action takes place after fertilization (conception), it is thus, by definition,
abortifacient.[2,3] Indeed, clinical researchers suggest that this mechanism does actually contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of oral contraceptives.[4] Every chemical contraceptive preparation including pills, injections, implants and intrauterine devices have this backup mechanism as an intrinsic part of their overall mode of action should conception occur.

The only way it could be stated with certainty that contraceptive drugs are not abortifacient is if they completely abolish ovulation in every woman during every cycle. This is clearly not the case. The evidence reported in the table below reveals a wide range of ovulation depending on the type of preparation used. This does not indicate a true “contraceptive” action. Whilst reported ovulation rates under strictly
controlled clinical trial conditions are sometimes very low, the clinical evidence indicates no pill or drug under typical in-use conditions can be claimed to cessate ovulation absolutely in every instance.

Table 1:
——————————————————————
Contraceptive Rate of Ovulation Reference Breakthrough
——————————————————————
Pregnancy
Combined Pill Up to 5% 5,6,7,8 0.1 ***

Progestogen-only
Pill 40-60% 9,10,11 0.3

Intra-uterine
Device (IUD) Up to 100% 12,13,14, 0.6

Norplant Implants 10-50% * 13,15 0.09

Depo-Provera
Injection 1% ** 16,17 % 0.3
——————————————————————
Notes:* Rising with each consecutive year of use.
** Derived from 0.3-0.7% breakthrough pregnancies/year.
*** Figures for 1st year of use, for perfect usage. See
Ref. [16]

That ovulation and fertilization do indeed occur bringing new human embryos into existence during use of contraceptive drugs is evidenced by the rate, albeit sometimes low, of unexpected breakthrough pregnancy.[7,16,17,18] Such breakthrough pregnancies appear to occur even during ‘perfect’ usage, i.e. even when women do not forget to take their next dose or do not become ill.[16,18] These failure rates are indicative only of the number of human embryos that reach the stage of a
verifiable implanted pregnancy; no indication is given of the scale of loss of human embryos that fail to implant at the endometrial level under the hormonal influence of these drugs. This occurrence essentially amounts to early chemical abortion.

One author estimates the frequency of such chemical abortion as one in 88 menstrual cycles for a woman continually on the combined pill.[19] This translates to 1.4 million pill-induced abortions in the U.S.A in 1989, based on an estimated 10 million users. Given the scale of these “silent” abortions, based on the millions of women worldwide using various drugs and devices, what we are considering here is truly a “Pharmaceutical Holocaust”.

Conclusion

There is a high degree of certainty that tiny human embryos die during contraceptive drug use. What is important however is not the actual figures involved but the fact that it happens at all. Given the dignity and preciousness of all human life at all stages of existence, the abortifacient nature of contraceptive drugs poses serious ethical and
moral problems for all doctors and pharmacists involved in their promotion.

Endnotes:
1. ABPI Data Sheet Compendium. Datapharm Publications Ltd. 1996-1997 (Femodene) p 1007.
2. Stedmans Medical Dictionary 26th ed. William and Wilkins, London 1995.
3. Blakistons Gould Medical Dictionary 4th ed. New York 1979.
4. Somkuti, S.G., Fritz, M. et al. The effect of oral contraceptive pills on markers of endometrical receptivity. Fertility and Sterility, 65(3) Mar 1996, pp 484-488.
5. Van der Vange, N. Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives. Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Editor: Chamberlain, G., Butterworths, London, 1988, pp319-326.
6. Grimes, D., Godwin, A., et al. Ovulation and follicular development associated with three low dose oral contraceptives: A randomised controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 83,(1) 1994, pp29-34.
7. Westcombe . R., Ellis, R. and Fotherby, K. Suppression of ovulation in women using a triphasic oral contraceptive. British Journal of Family Planning, 13, 1987, pp 127-132.
8. Ehmann, R., Abortifacient contraception — the pharmaceutical holocaust. Human Life International, Ontario, 1993, pp 7-16.
9. Langren, B.M. and Diczfalusy, E., Hormonal effects of the 300ug norethisteone (NET) minipill. Contraception, 21, 1980, pp87-99.
10.Neal,, M.J., Medical Pharmacology at a glance. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, 1991, 11. Belfield, T., Contraceptive Handbook, 3rd ed. Family Planning Association, London, 1992, p 37.
12. Zatuchi, G. and Goldsmith, A., Long term Clinical experience with levo-norgestrel-releasing IUD. Intra-uterine Contraception. Harper and Row, Philadelphia, 1987, pp 232-237.
13. Croxatto , H.B Diaz, S. et al. Plasma progesterone levels during long term treatment with levo-norgestrel and Copper IUD comparative trail. Contraception 49, 1994, pp 56-72.
14. Andersson et al ., L-norgestrel and Copper IUD comparative trial. Contraception ,49, 1994,pp 56-72.
15. Shaoban, M.M. et al., Sonographic assessment of ovarian and endometrial changes during long-term Norplant use and their correlation with hormone levels. Fertility and Sterility, 59(5), 1993, pp 998-1002.
16. Hatcher, R.A., Trussell, J .et al. Contraceptive Technology 16th ed. Irvington Publishers, New York, 1994, pp 637-687.
17. Pardthaisong, T., Grey. R., In utero exposure to steroid contraceptives and outcome of pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 134,(8), 15 Oct.1991 pp 795-803. p 67.
18. Duncan, G., Harper, C. et al., Termination of pregnancy; lessons for prevention. British Journal of Family Planning, 15, 1990, pp 112-117.
19. Kippley, J., The pill and early abortion. All About Issues, 8, Aug-Sept 1989, p22-23.

>typical of your kind to engage in faulty generalization.

Except that it is YOU who are doing such. Thus far you have proviided ZERO evidence to back up your abusrd claims. At least goodsamaritan and I have been able to cite sources. All you have done is try to make some infantile complaints about “rabble-rousing”. That won’t substitute for a rational argument… somnehting you haven’t been able to provide. thus far.

>You correlate a mother and child like what a parasite
>is to a host. False analogy.

YOUR false analogy, it seems.

>Did you take two?

Did you THINK? Or is that beyond you?

Well? It seems all you can do is dish out sarcasm, but any idiot can do that. What’s more important is that you have to find fault with the EVIDENCE presented. You haven’t even tried. Probably because you CAN’T.

The bottom line is that the Pill is ABORTIFACIENT. Even the companies that make the different formulations have stated that they DO cause a hostile endometrium. Maybe you try reading. Or is that beyond you too?

a quick question – Atty. Carolina Ruiz-Austria, director of Womenlead and one of the legal counsels of the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN), says “the constitution guarantees the right of spouses to family planning and this is part of health care…”

Which specific provision, anyone?

And oh, one more thing, the unemployment rate of the Philippines last year (as of April 2004) was 13.7 per cent or about 5.0 million people, according to the census. Maybe we should really fix this up, as everybody says, before we go on a reproduction spree. Good idea, or a bad one? What do you think?

So, Jojo, I’m still waiting for even a halfway decent argument from you Jojo. It seems not only CAN’T you dispute the solid evidence presented (that contraceptive pills are abortifacient), you can’t even come up with rational arguments of your own.

Jojo said:
>take two pills, it’ll do you good –
>unless you miss the humor still

The humor was overwhelmed by the stupidity.

maddog: I am asking for the constitutional provision cited by Atty. Carolina Ruiz-Austria as regards the right of spouses to family planning, retard.

A rational argument? Talking to you is akin to arguing with an autistic.

One of the most common pro-life claims is that “life begins at conception.” Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not “When does human life begin?” but “When does personhood begin?”

Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems — at first — to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the counter-examples.

There are many entities which are genetically complete, which contain all 46 human chromosomes, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood.

The pro-lifer would then object — entirely correctly — that none of the above examples have the potential to grow into a person. Left alone, the zygote will naturally become a person. Please note that this is a switch of argument: the pro-life advocate is no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of personhood, but that the potential to become a person is a sign of personhood.

The zygote, of course, has a long way to go before becoming a functional person; it has none of the limbs, none of the organs, none of the central nervous system, none of the circulatory or respiratory systems; it is a single cell that contains the genetic blueprint of a future person.

The pro-choice argument continues that a potential person is not an actual person. In other words, if A has the potential to become B, then it follows that A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree. You cannot climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground.

If pro-choice advocates reject conception as the first moment of personhood, then the question becomes: when do pro-choice advocates believe that personhood begins? One of the best tests of personhood is viability, upon which the 1973 US Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade was based. Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that “a person is as a person does.” In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own. A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy — coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system. The extra womb time appears to be a biological courtesy.

Critics charge that a baby cannot survive outside the womb for long without a mother’s feeding, care and protection. Certainly the child is a person by now, so how can viability be a test for personhood? This common objection is based upon a confusion of the terms viability and dependency. They are not at all the same thing, although both are needed for human survival. Viability is defined as an individual’s ability to survive as a person. Dependency is defined as one’s reliance upon society to survive as a person. Remember our broader definition that “a person is as a person does.” The newborn baby breathes, circulates, perspires, digests, immunizes and sustains bodily and cellular functions just like a normal person. But it is also normal for people to depend on each other for food, shelter and survival, from the day they are conceived until the day they die.

An example might illustrate this point more clearly. When your car was on the factory assembly line, it was dependent upon the care and attention of the factory workers. But it was not yet a car, because it was only half-built and could not even go. Fresh from the assembly line, it could now be considered a full-fledged, fully operational automobile — yet it would still require the care and attention of its owner, from filling the gas tank to conducting maintenance. Dependency and viability are both necessary for personal survival, yet in the end they are separate characteristics.

An element of gradualism must be accepted in determining viability, for there is no clear line over which a nonviable fetus suddenly becomes a viable baby. No premature fetus has survived delivery before the 7th month (at least without technology). The 8th month is a gray area, and bioethicists advocate erring well on the side of caution by defining these babies as persons. After the 8th month, they are clearly viable, and are full-fledged persons.

Critics point out that our advancing technology is saving premature babies at ever earlier ages, and therefore the age of viability is being pushed back. Indeed, one day it may be able to fertilize an egg in the laboratory and raise it to term completely outside the womb of the mother. All this technology, however, simply amounts to a surrogate womb. Viability is still defined as the ability to live outside the womb, whether that womb be real or artificial.

Critics may then charge that a person hooked up to a breathing machine is nonviable, and could be allowed to die as a nonperson. But our gradualism principle prevents this. If people are viable in every aspect of life except one or two, then a moral society should grant them the full rights of personhood.

Another criticism is the example of the accident victim who needs massive life support just to survive. They may fully recover in six months, but at the moment none of their systems are working, and without massive intervention they would die. Like the fetus, they are guaranteed to wake up eventually, and letting them die seems certainly wrong. In the case of the accident victim, it is wrong, because there is a tangible victim involved: say, the 30-year old Susan, who had a lifetime of experiences and all the characteristics of personhood. But the fetus had none of these traits to begin with, and, absent a person, there can be no victim. It is the difference between repairing a vase of great sentimental value and deciding not to make one from scratch on the pottery wheel. No harm is done to a future vase by removing the clay from the wheel.

This is only the beginning of the debate on personhood, and, if history is a reliable guide, the debate should continue to evolve.

Jojo said:
>A rational argument? Talking to you is akin
>to arguing with an autistic.

Well, perhaps if you learned how to think rationally, you would be able to see the greater intelligence of others.

Jojo said:
>One of the best tests of personhood is viability,
>upon which the 1973 US Supreme Court decision
>Roe vs. Wade was based.

Quite erroneously too. Your above analysis stabds refuted by the folliwnhg quadrillema: (From: HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGINS AT CONCEPTION by Professor Peter Kreeft)

Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities: (1) that it is not a person and we know that, (2) that it is a person and we know that, (3) that it is a person but we do not know that, and (4) that it is not a person and we do not know that. Now what is abortion in each of these four cases?

In case (1), abortion is perfectly permissible. We do no wrong if we kill what is not a person and we know it is not a person — e.g., if we fry a fish. But no one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it.

In case (2), where the fetus is a person and we know that, abortion is
murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3), abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder. It is like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street, which may be a drunk or may only be an old coat. It is like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be your hunting companion or may be only a pheasant. It is like fumigating an apartment building with a highly toxic chemical not knowing whether everyone is safely evacuated. If the victim is a person, you have committed manslaughter. And if not?

Even in case (4), even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, we have criminal negligence, as in the above three cases if there happened to be no one in the coat, the bush, or the building, but the driver, the hunter, or the fumigator did not know that, and nevertheless drove, shot or fumigated. Such negligence is instinctively and universally condemned by all reasonable individuals and societies as personally immoral and socially criminal; and cases (2) and (3), murder and manslaughter, are of course condemned even more strongly. We do not argue politely over whether such behavior is right or wrong. We wholeheartedly condemn it, even when we do not know whether there is a person there, because the killer did not know that a person was not there. Why do we not do the same with abortion?

The answer to that question is not an easy one to admit. It is this: If we do not see the awfulness of abortion, that is not because the facts and arguments are unclear but because our own consciences are unclear. Mother Teresa says, “Abortion kills twice. It kills the body of the baby and it kills the conscience of the mother.” Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three quarters of its victims are women: half the babies and all the mothers. If Mother Teresa is right, the second killing that abortion does is even worse than the first, if souls are more important than bodies. If abortion kills consciences, it kills souls. To the extent that conscience is killed, repentance is killed, and without repentance and faith we simply cannot be saved — unless Jesus was a liar or a fool when he told us that.

If we do not have case (1) we have either (2) or (3) or (4). What is abortion in each of these cases? It is either murder, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence.

Jojo said:
>And that is that human life began only once:
>at the dawn of humanity,

This is a clear example of the logical error of equivocation. You are twisting tghe meaning of the term to suit your needs. When prolifers talk of the beginning of human life, they are talking about the beginning of INDIVIDUAL lives. You aren’t.

Jojo writes:

>Viability is defined as an individual’s
>ability to survive as a person. Dependency
>is defined as one’s reliance upon society
>to survive as a person. Remember our
>broader definition that person is as a
>person does.”

Jojo’s analysis is already faulty. By separating dependency from viability, he destroys hisown argument. What exactly is the “ability to survive as a PERSON?” What is a person in this context? A zygote can already be seen as a surviving person, because since dependency is not part of viability, there is no reason to exclude the zygote from the class of persons.

Jojo then uses the example of an unfinished car to illustrate his point. But that too is faulty. If a car is only a car when completely built, then what if it suffers some damage such that it temporarily cannot go? Does it cease being a car? Of course not.

Then he clearly EQUIVOCATES when he discounts the ability of technology to allow ever younger unborn children to live outside the womb. He states “Viability is still defined as the ability to live outside the womb, whether that womb be real or artificial.” So then, all of a sudden, viability has the tinge of “dependency”! So which definition are you using, Jojo?

Jojo, your viability argument is thus faulty from the very beginning. Nice words simply can’t hide bad reasoning.