hmmm

Ive been corrected by some people that the RH bill does not promote abortifacients. I was honestly disappointed by my parish because they gave away papers that listed the provisions of the bill and the first that was listed was  the liberal use of abortifacients - which I know  now is not entirely correct. It was a hasty generalization.


But Dra. Franco and Dr. Franco (yes my mom and kuya haha) have explained to me that certain contraceptives may act as abortifacients. Contraceptives such as the IUD or Intra uterine device. Its a device placed inside the uterus which releases hormones such as progesterone and copper which then kills sperm or makes them immobile. But should fertilization occur, it prevents implantation in the uterus.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/iud.html

Now if you believe that life starts the moment of conception -  the moment the egg is fertilized, wouldn't you say IUD also acts as an abortifacient since it prevents the fertilized ova from implantation?



This is the reason why I am against the RH bill, apart from the fact that harmful effects contraceptives may incur on Filipino women.

But one of main reasons why I am against it is I do not find it necessary for the state to spend millions and millions of our money on contraception. Millions will be spent so that the poor can enjoy safe sex (and they can have them all they want!)- but they will still remain poor and jobless - and will continue to have sex since they have nothing else better to do. This bill will not directly solve poverty. It would be wiser to use the millions for the livelihood of our people. More jobs, more opportunities for good education, less poverty, and perhaps less population. As said in a position paper I recently read, population is not an obstacle to development.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/upiansonrhbill/


http://iopposetherhbill.weebly.com/