Comments on: Remove The Anti-Poor Bans on Divorce And Abortion

By: Mirna Aguirre

Mirna Aguirre — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:28:18 +0000

im against abortion…why do women get abortion? if its because of the divorce well is it the babys fault? no its not, what if it was u in ther position wouldn’t u want to live? what kind of women needs there husband to survive with there baby…thats not the only choice theres also adoption think of that.

By: tinay palabay

tinay palabay — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:03:27 +0000

i am from gabriela women’s party and we refiled the pinoy style divorce bill through rep. liza maza and luz ilagan this 14th congress. the bill hopes to institutionalize divorce as an option for individuals or couples, especially those in abusive or violent relationships. right now, a network to support the bill is being organized. if you want to join and support the bill, please contact joy solomon at 9316268 or through pinoystyle_divorce@yahoo.com. Many thanks!

By: The Catholic Magisterium on Contraception | Filipino Voices

The Catholic Magisterium on Contraception | Filipino Voices — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:31:16 +0000

[...] of the Reproductive Health Bill in a series of posts by several contributors (1, 2, 3 , 4, 5) primarily from the legal, philosophical, political and scientific standpoints. However, [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:38:20 +0000

Let’s start first with the passage Divorce and the Reproductive bill. The constitution is very clear about the separation of Church and State, the state gives options and choices to its constituents while the church shepherds its “flock” in their houses of worship. The intervention of the Church is a modern day “frailocracy” that is happening in our country, such action is the height of hypocrisy of this “folk catholicism”. Giving a choice to the individual citizen should be protected by the state at all cost, it should not be influenced by these “peddlers” of morality. By the way, if they are so “concerned” in running a morally upright government, they should have an obligation that every working filipino has – pay taxes and run for election.

By: moe

moe — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:43:10 +0000

im pro divorce. to begin with i grew up from a broken family. and many filipino families are broken too. ratio is alarming.. and many women prefer to have children without a husband than getting married and have children. and yet they are bragging that the philippines is a predominantly catholic country?? in what moral sense? now in my adult life i understand. if only there s a divorce my parents could have been happy. my parents and others deserve a partner that best for them with out committing the act of concubinage, adultery, etc.

By: Dean Jorge Bocobo

Dean Jorge Bocobo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:44:21 +0000

Ordinary divorce is a lot better than Catholic annulment, which makes bastards of children by the mental contortion that there never was a marriage to begin with.

By: Jeg

Jeg — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:37:09 +0000

Edit that to ‘two or more consenting adults’.

By: Jeg

Jeg — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:36:25 +0000

The State really ought to treat a marriage for what it is: a contract between 2 consenting adults. It should get out of the business of defining marriage altogether and leave the sanctity or lack thereof to the religious beliefs or unbeliefs of the contract parties. The contract should define the marriage.

But terminating a contract isnt quite the same as terminating a life, and in the secular faith which we all share, in that a human life has intrinsic value, terminating a life is not taken lightly. In any case, preventing conception in the first place would take care of the abortion issue.

By: The Jester-in-Exile

The Jester-in-Exile — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:08:44 +0000

well, the woman who was pregnant for nine months stands to lose opportunities, even income, wouldn’t she?

i don’t know, really. this is something i’d like those who’ve really studied this issue to speak up on.

By: blackshama

blackshama — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:01:34 +0000

Start with divorce first. But I doubt this whether this would benefit the poor. The poor do get legally married but have few qualms about “dissolving’ their marriage. They have no properties or even alimonies to bother about. They are poor!

As for abortion, I haven’t met a woman from a poor community that is pro-abortion. Most of the pro-choicers I have met can afford coffee at Starbucks! The poor women would rather have the child for adoptions. And that is what they do.

Thus remove the anti-poor provisions on legal adoptions. While understandably the requirements were meant to curb child trafficking, the requirements make the poor just informally adopt. The state has now way whether adoptions were meant in good faith.