para po sa akin,ay mahalaga talaga ang family planning,kasi kung hindi po tayo magpaplano sa ating pamilya ay dadami ang ating populasyon at mas marami ang makaranas ng malnourish.Lalo pa ngayon na mahirap na ang buhay,at hirap pang makahanap ng trabaho at ang mamahal na nang maga bilihin ngayon,lalo na ang bigas..
kaya yan lang po ang masasabi ko
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Mahalaga ang pag palaganap ng "Family Planning" sa isang bansa, masasagot nito ang isue ng pag lolobo ng malnutrisyon sa isang bansa. Makakatulong din ito para ma fucos ang mga magulang na di maraming anak na matustusan ang pangangailangan ng kanilang anak at mabibigay nila ang atensyon nila dito.
Makakatulong din ang pagpapalaganap at ang pag papaalam sa lahat kung ano ang mabuting benepesyo ng "Sex Education" sa pamamagitan nito malulutas ang kaso ng aborsyon sa ating bansa.
Ngunit ang Two Child Policy ay hindi sagot sa problema ng aborsyon at malnutrisyon sa bansa, dapat nating isipin kung ano ang magiging binipesyo nito sa ating bansa, dahil halimbawa kung lilimitahan natin ang pag luwal ng anak ng isang pamilya dadating ang panahon na makukulang ang "LABOR FORCE" sa ating bansa , at kung gagawin natin tong 3 o higit pang anak bawat pamilya, dadating ang panahon na ang LABOR FORCE sa ating bansa ay hindi magiging problema, Hindi natin alam baka maging negosyante yung dapat na ikatlong anak niya halimbawa maka close ng malaking investment deal,malaking makukuntribute nya na Tax sa ating bansa. Kasi sa aking palagay hindi lahat ng magiging profesional ay mag tatrabaho dito sa ating bansa ang iba ay lalabas sa ating bansa upang magtatrabaho og mag OFW, halimbawa kalahati ng mga anak na naging LABOR FORCE na galing sa TWO CHILD POLICY ang nag OFW makukulang ang WORKERS sa ating bansa.
Ngunit nasa pamilya parin ang desesyon kung ilang anak ang iluluwal nila.
Makakatulong din ang pagpapalaganap at ang pag papaalam sa lahat kung ano ang mabuting benepesyo ng "Sex Education" sa pamamagitan nito malulutas ang kaso ng aborsyon sa ating bansa.
Ngunit ang Two Child Policy ay hindi sagot sa problema ng aborsyon at malnutrisyon sa bansa, dapat nating isipin kung ano ang magiging binipesyo nito sa ating bansa, dahil halimbawa kung lilimitahan natin ang pag luwal ng anak ng isang pamilya dadating ang panahon na makukulang ang "LABOR FORCE" sa ating bansa , at kung gagawin natin tong 3 o higit pang anak bawat pamilya, dadating ang panahon na ang LABOR FORCE sa ating bansa ay hindi magiging problema, Hindi natin alam baka maging negosyante yung dapat na ikatlong anak niya halimbawa maka close ng malaking investment deal,malaking makukuntribute nya na Tax sa ating bansa. Kasi sa aking palagay hindi lahat ng magiging profesional ay mag tatrabaho dito sa ating bansa ang iba ay lalabas sa ating bansa upang magtatrabaho og mag OFW, halimbawa kalahati ng mga anak na naging LABOR FORCE na galing sa TWO CHILD POLICY ang nag OFW makukulang ang WORKERS sa ating bansa.
Ngunit nasa pamilya parin ang desesyon kung ilang anak ang iluluwal nila.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Reaksyon tungkol sa "Montalvan"
Para sa akin, maganda nga kung may mahigpit na pagbabawal ng papapalaglag ng bata sa sinapupunan ng ina dahil hindi maganda ang maidudulot nito sa ina dahil yung iba ay umiinom lang nang "pills" para malaglag ang bata sa kanilang tiyan, pero hindi nila alam baka yung gamot na ininom nila ay meron pala yung "side effects" na hindi maganda ang maidudulot nito. Dapat kung hindi pa nila kayang mag dadalang tao, mas mabuti sana na hindi sila nagpabuntis dahil hindi pa naman nila kaya. Mag - isip - isip na muna sila bago nila gawin iyang bagay na yan. Dapat may tamang ring "family planning" nang sa ganun hindi sila mahihirapan sa pagpapalaki nang kanilang mga anak. Para may wastong mga pagkain ang mga bata at nasa wastong nutrition sila. Maiiwasan natin ang malnutrition kapag sapat lang yung mga anak sa pamilya para hindi nila paghati-hatian ang mga pagkain, may sapat at tamang pagkain sa mga anak dahil hindi masyadong marami ang mga pinapakain. Eto lang ang masasabi ko tungkol sa artikulo na aking nabasa.
reaksyo sa artikulo sa pamilya
para sa akin, mahalaga ang may magulang sa pamilya dahil sila ang nag- papalaki at nag-aalaga, kaya huwag nating pabayaan dahil sila ang pag-asa sa ating buhay at sila ang nag-tuturo kong paano natin maabot ang ating mga pangarap.
At pamilya ang tinaguriang pinakamaliit na sangay ng lipunan. Sa loob ng isang pamilya, maari ring mabalangkas ang isang pamahalaan o gobyerno. Ang mga magulang ang pamahalaan at ang mga anak ang mga mamamayan.At ang pamilya din ay lipon ng dalawa o higit pa sa dalawang tao na magkaugnay sa dugo, sa bisa ng sakramento ng kasal o sa pamamagitan ng pag-aampon o paninirahan sa isang tirahan. Mahalaga ang pananatili ng pamilya dahil ito ang tumutugon sa maraming pangangailangan tulad ng pangangalaga sa mga batang kasapi nito. Ito ay binubuo ng ama, ina at mga anak.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
para sa akin, ang masasabi ko sa artikolo ay masmaganda kung maslalong higpitan pa ang pagpapalaganap ng anti-family growth,at naniniwala rin akong malaki ang maiitutulong nito sa population issues natin ngayon na lalong lumalaki.
Nakakatulong din ito sa problema na hinaharap natin ngayon, ang tumataas na rating ng aborsyon,annulment,lalong lalo na sa pagkakakulang ng budget ng goberno para sa mamayanan.
at naniniwala ako kung magkakaintindihan at magkakaisa ang lahat at maniniwala sa magandang kinalabasan ng artikolo na sinasabi ay mawawala na ang kinatatakotan ng lahat at nasisiguro kung maganda talaga........talagang talaga.
Nakakatulong din ito sa problema na hinaharap natin ngayon, ang tumataas na rating ng aborsyon,annulment,lalong lalo na sa pagkakakulang ng budget ng goberno para sa mamayanan.
at naniniwala ako kung magkakaintindihan at magkakaisa ang lahat at maniniwala sa magandang kinalabasan ng artikolo na sinasabi ay mawawala na ang kinatatakotan ng lahat at nasisiguro kung maganda talaga........talagang talaga.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
About Montalvan
KRIS-CROSSING MINDANAOThey’re at Malthus again
By Antonio J. Montalvan IILast updated 01:19am (Mla time) 07/10/2006
Published on page A15 of the July 10, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
I AM REFERRING TO THE ANTI-LIFE AND ANTI-family advocates who seem not to run out of clever ways to insert their Western-based agenda into every conceivable legislation they can think of. Now they would have 21 bills of various concerns consolidated into an omnibus law covering reproductive health, population policy, two-child policy and sex education for the youth. Of the bills, at least three promote the use of artificial contraception in the guise of promoting “women’s health.”
These advocates have turned a valid societal concern into a euphemism for their real agenda-population control. If they really want to address women’s health, why is there no attempt to include Senate Bill 319? The bill seeks to ban abortive drugs and devices. The bills exclusion gives away outright the sinister intentions of the advocates.
The basis of their arguments of course, is the erroneous belief that a decline in population means economic growth and development. Thomas Robert Malthus was an English demographer from 1766-1834. It was he who introduce the rather pessimistic principle that foresaw the world’s population out running food supply, leading to decrease food per person.
To check population growth, Mathus advocated, among other solutions, what we called “moral restraint and vice.” This population control strategy called for the late marriage and sexual abstinence; but is also advocated infanticides, murder, contraception and homosexuality. But there’s the catch in the Malthus proposal: these solutions would apply only to the poor and working classes. In the Mathusian argument, only the lower social classes would assume social responsibility for societal ills.
Since then many have misinterpreted Malthus, even overlooking other aspects of his argument. For example, there are those who ignore for the fact that Malthus himself, even as he pressed for population control, stated that we cannot denigrate man’s capacity (he called it power) to increase food supply.
Those who do cling to Malthus’ theory up to this day misinterpret not just for his thought. In there vain desire to adopt the western culture of licentious behavior in the name of freedom and self-determination, they have put up their own smokescreen to keep them from seeing a succession of various scholars and students that have effectively debunked Malthus since 1960’s. At least one such study, published in 1966, was not only a pioneering initiative at that time; it gaves its proponent a Nobel prize honor. Since then, up until 1990’s and the present, a progression of other studies has only pointed to the emerging reality: there just is no population bomb.
Not only that, countries that have been lured by the Malthusian myth into running a “successful” population program now have to address the grim reality of diminishing human resources. Japan, Germany and Italy are now in the throes of the so called “ demographic winter.” The governments of Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Bulgaria are now offering incentives to encourage childbearing in the attempt to curb population decline.
Yet here in the Philippines, anti-life advocates-usually pikon when criticize despite the fact that they have access to the legislative powers-that-be-cling to an out-of-touch, outdated and archaic thinking that even their Western gods have failed to prove in their respective countries. The advocates seem not to hear the alarm bells ringing in countries where the demographic winter has set in, countries that are now repentant at having toyed with Malthus theory.
Why the recalcitrance on the part of our anti-life advocates? There clearly a colonial agenda here that is tied to Western purse strings. These agenda-makers may not be obtrusive with their presence. It is even possible that some advocates are aware of them or have not yet notice them. But I won’t be surprise if there lurks in the shadows such anti-life giant octopuses as Planned Parenthood, whose tentacles may have spread far and wide to influence Philippine legislative efforts.
Population control is simply not the solution to poverty. The Philippine population control program, in place since the 1970’s and funded by billions of pesos of public money, has brought down the population from 3.08 percent during the period of 1960-1970 to 2.36 percent during the period 1995-2000. Despite the population decline, however, poverty incidence has not been reduce significantly. Clearly then, there are other factors that are not being address. Try curbing graft and corruption, as we expects legislators to do.
The proposed bills are premised on the belief that we are poor because we are too many. Fewer births may (or may not) mean less expense for a family, depending on its priorities. What is certain however, is that less births means less people for the labor force in the next 20 years. Higher population densities do not necessarily translate into lower personal income. We have certainly seen this in thickly populated areas that exhibit higher incomes and greater economic activity (the National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog, Cebu, Davao, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea; as opposed to Bolivia, Kenya, Ethiopia, which have lower density but also lower personal income)
Finally, when must we put a stop to the use of the term “reproductive health” which, in international forums, is simply a catch-all jargon that includes abortion; but which local advocates have repeatedly denied? The attempt to redefine a term that has become part of an all-encompassing political definition is a lame method of deceit and dishonesty.
* * *
Comments to monta@cu-cdo.edu.ph
What to do:
Make your reaction to the article. (50 pts.)
The deadline for the submission of your reaction will be on August 3, 2008 (Sunday) @ 5:00 p.m.
Submit your reaction through this blog
By Antonio J. Montalvan IILast updated 01:19am (Mla time) 07/10/2006
Published on page A15 of the July 10, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
I AM REFERRING TO THE ANTI-LIFE AND ANTI-family advocates who seem not to run out of clever ways to insert their Western-based agenda into every conceivable legislation they can think of. Now they would have 21 bills of various concerns consolidated into an omnibus law covering reproductive health, population policy, two-child policy and sex education for the youth. Of the bills, at least three promote the use of artificial contraception in the guise of promoting “women’s health.”
These advocates have turned a valid societal concern into a euphemism for their real agenda-population control. If they really want to address women’s health, why is there no attempt to include Senate Bill 319? The bill seeks to ban abortive drugs and devices. The bills exclusion gives away outright the sinister intentions of the advocates.
The basis of their arguments of course, is the erroneous belief that a decline in population means economic growth and development. Thomas Robert Malthus was an English demographer from 1766-1834. It was he who introduce the rather pessimistic principle that foresaw the world’s population out running food supply, leading to decrease food per person.
To check population growth, Mathus advocated, among other solutions, what we called “moral restraint and vice.” This population control strategy called for the late marriage and sexual abstinence; but is also advocated infanticides, murder, contraception and homosexuality. But there’s the catch in the Malthus proposal: these solutions would apply only to the poor and working classes. In the Mathusian argument, only the lower social classes would assume social responsibility for societal ills.
Since then many have misinterpreted Malthus, even overlooking other aspects of his argument. For example, there are those who ignore for the fact that Malthus himself, even as he pressed for population control, stated that we cannot denigrate man’s capacity (he called it power) to increase food supply.
Those who do cling to Malthus’ theory up to this day misinterpret not just for his thought. In there vain desire to adopt the western culture of licentious behavior in the name of freedom and self-determination, they have put up their own smokescreen to keep them from seeing a succession of various scholars and students that have effectively debunked Malthus since 1960’s. At least one such study, published in 1966, was not only a pioneering initiative at that time; it gaves its proponent a Nobel prize honor. Since then, up until 1990’s and the present, a progression of other studies has only pointed to the emerging reality: there just is no population bomb.
Not only that, countries that have been lured by the Malthusian myth into running a “successful” population program now have to address the grim reality of diminishing human resources. Japan, Germany and Italy are now in the throes of the so called “ demographic winter.” The governments of Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Bulgaria are now offering incentives to encourage childbearing in the attempt to curb population decline.
Yet here in the Philippines, anti-life advocates-usually pikon when criticize despite the fact that they have access to the legislative powers-that-be-cling to an out-of-touch, outdated and archaic thinking that even their Western gods have failed to prove in their respective countries. The advocates seem not to hear the alarm bells ringing in countries where the demographic winter has set in, countries that are now repentant at having toyed with Malthus theory.
Why the recalcitrance on the part of our anti-life advocates? There clearly a colonial agenda here that is tied to Western purse strings. These agenda-makers may not be obtrusive with their presence. It is even possible that some advocates are aware of them or have not yet notice them. But I won’t be surprise if there lurks in the shadows such anti-life giant octopuses as Planned Parenthood, whose tentacles may have spread far and wide to influence Philippine legislative efforts.
Population control is simply not the solution to poverty. The Philippine population control program, in place since the 1970’s and funded by billions of pesos of public money, has brought down the population from 3.08 percent during the period of 1960-1970 to 2.36 percent during the period 1995-2000. Despite the population decline, however, poverty incidence has not been reduce significantly. Clearly then, there are other factors that are not being address. Try curbing graft and corruption, as we expects legislators to do.
The proposed bills are premised on the belief that we are poor because we are too many. Fewer births may (or may not) mean less expense for a family, depending on its priorities. What is certain however, is that less births means less people for the labor force in the next 20 years. Higher population densities do not necessarily translate into lower personal income. We have certainly seen this in thickly populated areas that exhibit higher incomes and greater economic activity (the National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog, Cebu, Davao, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea; as opposed to Bolivia, Kenya, Ethiopia, which have lower density but also lower personal income)
Finally, when must we put a stop to the use of the term “reproductive health” which, in international forums, is simply a catch-all jargon that includes abortion; but which local advocates have repeatedly denied? The attempt to redefine a term that has become part of an all-encompassing political definition is a lame method of deceit and dishonesty.
* * *
Comments to monta@cu-cdo.edu.ph
What to do:
Make your reaction to the article. (50 pts.)
The deadline for the submission of your reaction will be on August 3, 2008 (Sunday) @ 5:00 p.m.
Submit your reaction through this blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)