@gabriela: regardless of what you're doing on the outside (woman eats right, no sudden impact on the stomach area, etc.), miscarriage is going to happen and you can't really do much about that. It's all by chance if the egg and the sperm are without mutations and will combine correctly. Should the resulting embryo have severe problems due to trisomy or other defects: it will be aborted naturally.

here's some stats on Miscarriage

oops...^^ eh...let me edit my post...

The reason why most Filipinos don't like the Reproductive Health Bill is that we do not want to become a Constrictive Country.

Conservative- # of Older people > # of Younger people.

Example of a country like this is Japan?

EDIT: The CBCP has finally seen the point. That point of which I speak is about the quality of life.

They just dont like the use of contraseptics and putting the reproductive health bill as a part of the curriculum in education.

Heimdall: I have changed much of my post. TY

You mean Conservative? Constrictive is something a python/boa would do to its prey.

@heimdall: that makes no sense at all.
conservative usually refers to ideology/politics, not people. In any given (developed) country you're going to have a constantly growing population of old people due to better nutrition/meds/etc. and a growing population of young people. What does it matter? You can have liberal old people and conservative young people.

And I don't get what you mean by 'filipinos don't buy into bill'. From what I'm getting, if you don't 'buy into'/support the bill you ARE conservative. Liberal people tend to be more 'yes on sex ed'

Oo?

@KTC: I just edited the post. I am stressing the point that if we have more old people than young people, then more younger people will depend on those who are older thus the need for health care and public service will rise. Also, the country's working strength number is low. However, if there are more younger people, the number of people who are working will not be enough, plus the need for education, health care and food will rise.

Thats why I want to see some revisions in that bill.

Um, usually it's the other way around. Older people depend on younger people. Like here in the US, the Older generations depend on the younger generations to work to put money into Social Security program. The more younger people there are, the more jobs there won't be available so the work force will be quite big.

Hello there. Mind if I give my two cents on the topic?

I'm a Filipino too, and I'm also one whose side is against the bill.

Regarding the issue on overpopulation, I don't believe there will be overpopulation. I've seen on the net a map of the Philippines regarding population, and I've seen that there are places in the Philippines that are more populated than the rest, and most of the country is actually less populated than we think.

Secondly, there is what we call the law of Check and Balance. What is in excess will be repressed. That's why we have predation in the natural world, and there is only an imbalance due to the rigorous killing of these predators in the wild. There is only imbalance when there is an abuse. Same with people, however, with the predation being replaced with natural calamities and disease.

Thirdly, there has also been a study (Nat Geo featured it, I think) that there will be no overpopulation because of the allocation of resources. As stated in my previous statement, there is only an imbalance if there is an abuse, specifically with the environment. The abuse of these resources culminates into the scarcity of it, which is why the process has become more difficult.

Also, if I recall correctly, this issue has been standing ever since 2001. I've read some forums on the internet that they had expected the population to explode by 2005. Well, it's 2011 right now, and I see no population explosion. O_O

And (just for the sake of ranting) we're not even in the Top Ten for the most populous countries. O_O

Regarding religion, IMHO I believe that these religious sectors are somewhat a type of non-government organization. Regarding Mopiece's argument on religion getting in the way of politics, I can still see the separation of the Church and State in this setting. The Church is like an activist group in that sense, where it fights for what it believes it is right. Those who go to church, however, still have the freedom of choice to believe in its same ideals or not. The choice is still the government's.

But I can see the point of how religion can be directly or indirectly "shoved" into the face of other people. Regarding KTC's argument on baptism, yes, the child can be baptized and can be taught a certain religion's ideals, but they can choose to accept or reject it as they grow up. Children aren't blank slates, you know. They have a certain intuition regarding things. They are free to choose.

Bad seeds are inevitable, though. Every organization has it. There are the fanatics and the close-minded people who can sour out an organization's mission and make it look bad when it actually isn't. But those are just bad seeds.
Regarding my argument on a person's choice whether to accept the teachings of a certain religion, I've personally met some wonderful people from religious sects who are quite understanding regarding matters like these. They will most certainly teach their ideals to others, but when they know that a person has chosen to do something else regardless for a good cause, they'll listen and they'll let the person choose. The Church, I believe, has a very good purpose; it's only the bad seeds that get in the way.

Finally, regarding why I am against the aforementioned bill: well, I've already spoke on my stance regarding overpopulation, so I'll move on to another factor. In regards to Gabriela's statement on the number of unemployed people, IMHO (this is the third time I used that abbreviation, ASDFGHJKLthere's a way to get by that.

There's one thing that keeps bugging me is that there's been a lot of talk about jobs but none about financial literacy. In Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", if you focus just on jobs, you'll be caught in a rat race. This is a reality I've been observing in the poor areas of the Philippines where I've been. I've interviewed a family once and learned that they didn't even have a bank account although there was a nearby bank, because they didn't know how to work it. It's good to have an influx of jobs, but (IMHO) better to have a crash course in multiplying (legally) the money you get from those jobs. You know, teaching others to fish rather than just giving them fishes.

Also, regarding what Stardale had said: in Korea and Japan, if I'm not mistaken, there is now an ongoing campaign promoting childbirth, when years before it had campaigned otherwise. Which is another reason why I don't quite support the bill. Why campaign for something to only be counter-campaigned years later?

And (in regards to my aforementioned statement) because of the previous campaigning, there has been a prevailing feel that children are "burdens", and therefore choose to not have them at all. (From a Korean student's account while living in the Philippines)Regarding the question as to why the Church would stand against it is perhaps not so much the bill than the possible consequences that the bill may have. (And, in correlation to what Stardale said, which is why Japan has also an aging population because the younger generation chooses to not marry.)

Yes, perhaps if the RH Bill is granted in the Philippines, it MIGHT be more efficient (more emphasis on the MIGHT), however in my opinion the morality of the outcome is very much debatable. That's my two cents.

"
But I can see the point of how religion can be directly or indirectly "shoved" into the face of other people. Regarding KTC's argument on baptism, yes, the child can be baptized and can be taught a certain religion's ideals, but they can choose to accept or reject it as they grow up. Children aren't blank slates, you know. They have a certain intuition regarding things. They are free to choose."

^ only if the person is in an environment where they can question their beliefs. If you're in a place that discourages any type of meaningful dialogue, than its no good. Highly conservative environments will tend to generate highly conservative people. I point to southern states of US. They're called the bible belt states for a reason.

Essentially, you're gonna be brainwash/taught under whatever ideology your family, community, thrusts upon you. Whether you can actually confront said ideology will depend on how open your environment is to such confrontations.

@ KTC: Yes, indeed. Some, but not all.

@winter- Being in the top 10 most populous country has little relation to birth rate. It depends on how high your birth rate was long ago and how many people you currently have. Look at China, they are the most populous country despite the one child act. Philippines is a small country in terms of area and can not support a relatively large populations since there is no space to expand. Ask Japan. Expansion is expensive and costs money. Not to mention reclaiming land leads to higher flood risks on the reclaimed land. Plus, Philippines is poor so the government can''t afford tall buildings or reclaiming land.

Besides, the bill is not forcing you to not have kids. All it does is teach you about birth control. If you're religious, don't stop others. Just don't do it yourself


@KTC- Who forces kids to read the Holy Books? I wasn't thrust the books and my mom actually let me go on the net and see any religion I wanted and if I didn't want any, it was my choice. Who forces kids into religion? My little brother, 5, isn't forced to the mosque. he'll decide himself when he's around 12

@theone: Errr...I think our country can support a big population. It's just that everybody is squeezed like sardines in a can here in Metro Manila. The government concentrates more on the Metro than on the outer areas of the country (I'm not saying neglecting, it's just that there's unequal attention given to the regions).

I mean, the traffic explains it all! XD


Btw: http://www.popcom.gov.ph/RH%20BILL/HB ... bsti%20bill%20on%20RH.pdf

You've never seen traffic here XD It's worse. If you're being squeezed, the quality of life is not high. Birth control and reducing population would stop the squeezing. Think this way, the boy and girl occupying two seats could be replaced by the 5-10 kids they produced.

Also, you mentioned 24 kids a few pages ago. How is that possible since after the age of 40, you have kids with high down syndrome and the legal marriage age is 18? Or are people married at around 15 like it's done here?

@theone: if your parents actually allow you to do that than that's awesome they are open to that. However, I again point to small minded communities where asking questions is discouraged or even punished for. Under such an environment, you're going to be forced under an ideology since you are born and that's not going to change if you're not allowed to even attempt to change it.

You mean like North Waziristan and other areas? Or the bible belt in the US?

I don't know anything bout Waziristan, but bible belt? yeah.

Yes I'm going with a stereotype bout bible belt, but after that poll where most people thought interracial marriage was wrong, I don't see how it would be any different with religion.

Waziristan? The North of Pakistan... Caves... you get the idea. I can't believe I could have been 25 million dollars richer if I were a bit more investigative last year

@ theone: In accordance to what Stardale had said, yes, there is more concentration in Metro Manila while in fact there's lots of free space to expand in other parts of the Philippines. In regards to my first post, I've already mentioned a map which shows population density. There are even some places that are barely populated. BTW, the Philippines is not poor, the funds are just mismanaged. (As local news proves over and over. XP) If I'm not mistaken, when the Philippines tried to file a bankruptcy (I don't think this is the right term though. GAH WHY IS MY MEMORY SO BAD.) case to the World Bank in order to wipe out its debt, it wasn't accepted because they believed that the Philippines will be able to pay its debt in the future.

Also, I didn't say that the bill was forcing the citizens to not have children. (In fact, there have been new stipulations in the bill which Mr. Edsel Lagman kindly put in.) Okay, perhaps it was slightly implemented in my statement, so I apologize. I merely stated my concern (in short, my opinion) over the ideology (I finally found the term at last!) that the bill might implement.

Also, regarding the "squeezing" in Manila: I've noticed so many abandoned buildings in the vicinity. LIKE SERIOUSLY. And there's nobody taking action about it. Which is another reason I am against the bill, since I believe in eliminating more direct factors before touching the population, since population touches on the Filipino citizen as a human person. Also, because I don't really think that it's the population that's the problem; there are bigger factors.

Also, regarding the Down syndrome babies: I don't think that'll happen, though. I haven't heard of a situation like that wherein there are 10 children with Down syndrome, or any other disease correlated to such. (I've only heard of one child at most, but that's just me. In any case I'm pretty sure it's not above three.) People, even those who are less fortunate, know when enough is enough even without birth control.

Ah! And just a fact: the legal age of marriage here is 21 years.

@winter- That explains it.
Down Syndrome occurs after the age of 40. One kid is born an year. That would make the woman 40+ when the last 5 kids happen. So down syndrome thing

@ theone: Yeah, I've heard about it. But so far, I haven't heard about a woman having 5 children after the age of 40 (only one kid at most), so I guess there's no cause for concern.