Home PEx Family and Society Family, Friends and Society

Help stop HB3773 Bill Mandating Only Two Children, May Force Abortion

Here's the info
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1960.html

Sign the petition here:
http://filipinofamilyfund.org/pages/5/index.htm

Thanks and kindly share this to your friends!
«1

Comments

  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    what's wrong with having only two kids?
  • st.angerst.anger PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    the pro-lifer's nightmare may come true.
  • I like to have more than two kids.

    The fact that this law would not allow me to is what's wrong.
  • ArchimedesArchimedes PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    I like to have more than two kids.

    The fact that this law would not allow me to is what's wrong.


    That's it, more than that what if your first kids are girls? You would never have a chance to have a boy the rest of your life, not unless if you abort your daughters just like the 10 million missing girls in India. This would only lead to infanticide of girl fetuses!
  • MilliardoMilliardo PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    what's wrong with having only two kids?

    There's nothing wrong per se; there is already something fundamentally wrong when the State steps in and mandates it, taking away one's freedom to have as much as one wants. It is also quite interesting to note that the Bible shows God blessing those that have many children, and sees children as a blessing.
  • albert_sy2albert_sy2 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    I support it. There should be such a policy. There are already too many people and too scarce resources.

    What is WRONG is that the church says children are a "blessing", yet makes no mention of the following PREREQUISITES for having children:

    MONEY
    EDUCATION
    FOOD
    SHELTER
    CLOTHING

    Pinoys cannot see beyond their noses in that they leave the future "to God" and let their dozen babies starve: malnourished, unclothed, unfed, uneducated, unsheltered, exposed to crime and drugs and whatnot.

    Don't tell me that the church (or God) "will give them these things", or "charity".
  • can't the law simply state that you could have as many kids as you could support?

    like a family that earns 200k a year should only have one kid. and a family with 400k could have 2. and so on and so forth?

    i mean, even a family in the squatters area could have only one kid (though i highly doubt it) and yet they would still be unable to decently provide for this kid's growth and education.
  • albert_sy2albert_sy2 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ^Right. The poor should be sterilized.
  • I like Ayane's idea. Would that be possible? :D

    albert_sy2,

    Yeah. I somehow agree. But what about those who do not only meet the prerequisites, but do so a thousand times over?
  • A more effective birth-control education program for great justice, dammit!

    But will they listen to me? Nooooooooo!!!!
  • albert_sy2albert_sy2 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ^^whistling hyde>>You mean those poor who are not only financially poor, but stupid too? They should be put out of their misery.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Milliardo wrote:
    There's nothing wrong per se; there is already something fundamentally wrong when the State steps in and mandates it, taking away one's freedom to have as much as one wants. It is also quite interesting to note that the Bible shows God blessing those that have many children, and sees children as a blessing.

    well, here's the thing: we can only exercise our rights and freedoms though the laws of the state. this means that if the state wants to curtail our freedoms, then it has every right to do so, as long as we are under it. an alternative to this would isolating oneself from the state; however this would also mean that we would not enjoy any of the benefits that the state affords its members. perhaps this principle would be easier to understand if we substitute the term "the state" with "god" or "religion."
  • I totally agree to the limit of only two children per household. The population is already ridiculously bloated that the country's mismanaged resources can no longer sustain it. The quality of life of the average Filipino is already sub-human and the booming population is not helping in making the country competitive. If the poor keep spawning their illiterate beggars, snatchers and scumbag children by the dozens, everyone will suffer. I say that after two children, make it mandatory that the woman is sterilized and the man castrated. Also, all unemployed bums and hopeless street-children should be made useful or exterminated.
  • albert_sy2albert_sy2 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ^I totally agree with you 100%. The poor are useless and in fact simply add to the burden on society in terms of crime and other so-called services that are of better use elsewhere.
  • ManyakitsManyakits PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    not only are majority of the poor stupid, they are also lazy...maybe Pari Damaso and his ilk are right all along...
    for every guy from the slums working his *** off as a messenger for P200 a day there are ten *ssholes in his neighborhood playing cara y cruz, drinking gin and doing drugs, "hanging out" along the eskinitas waiting for the next sucker literally or figuratively...
    jeez they have 24hrs per day on their hands to do whatever they fancy...imagine what you or any working guy could do with a day off from work...now multiply that by 365 :lol: no wonder poor people have so many children...

    I'd have to agree and support that bill. The madness has got to stop...somehow. Curtailment of freedom? Nah, the average Pinoy has 24hrs of 'free' time and look where it got us.
  • einhandereinhander PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    i agree with having children based on your capability, if your as reach as dolphy and can send all your childrens to schools and even able to give them ona house each, eh ok lang.

    pero sa concern about womens health with this mandated bill, pero di ba mas risky or unhealthy yung inang nanganak na ng 10 beses? o yung mga inang nanganganak yearly? o yung inang may inaalagaang 10 anak sa bahay?
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    im sadden by the lack of individualism in most people's view. The consequence of having strict control on matters that involve the household, means one has to surrender the last private sanctuary one has. However, actions such as petition is unecessary, because that proposal will never be law. The constitution will not allow it.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ^ it's not necessarily a lack of individualism, freakster2k1. there are times when the state necessarily has to take control of a person even in his private domain, especially when what a person is doing can be potentially damaging to the state. in this case, having excessive children places an unnecessary burden on the state to provide welfare, education, and recognition to them. this not only diverts needed resources away from the people who need them most, but also diminishes the quality of service which a state can provide its citizens. prioritizing individualism over the common good would be like permitting an individual to construct homemade bombs as long as he is in the vicinity of his private domain. it might be true that some matters start in the privacy of individual homes, but their implications can and usually does go into the area of public interest.
  • pardon please, just linking to the responses over at the other forum. it appears there is no mention of a mandate in this bill.

    now that the "forcing us to have just two kids" issue is out of the way, why don't we just go back to debating exactly what "abortion" is, just like the good old days? :D

    PS: freakster2k1 i'm curious, what part of the constitution won't allow it?
  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    two things you can do: really enforce 1-2 kids per family or, let a family live as stupidly as the members want.

    tax collections from the first family will redound to better services to them.

    the second family will hardly be taxed. but they will get absolutely nothing from the government.
Sign In or Register to comment.