Resolved: The Reproductive Health Bills should be passed into law in the Philippines.

My rebuttals: "under the cited constitutional guarantee. .. " In his rebuttal here my opponent here misses the point of what the constitution says. And his own rebuttal destroys his own argument. He says "That amendment states that the gov't supports the right of the parents to teach for themselves, they do not strictly enforce them on doing it. ", his statement doesn't even refute my proposition that I am defending instead he wrestles the words in the given Article and tries to make it his own proof text. Again for the sake of clarification I will repeat, the sex education in which this bill imposes to be a curriculum is under condemnation of Article II, Section 12. The point of this article is: parents should be the one who is teaching sex ed NOT the government, the government is only the supporting role. And if this bill is passed it would completely contradict Article II, Section 12 of the Philippine constitution. And to avoid a supposed contradiction with his statement he tries to justify his argument saying ". .. as you said, sex education is mandatory, if the parents don't want their children to participate, it's their right to reject it. ” Do you not think mandatory means mandatory! He says that this "sex ed" is mandatory, but then why is there rejecting in there. I think simple logic will solve that. I have only one question for my opponent. Do this “Sex Education” teach students about safe sex? "And for further clarification condoms aren't really working. ." And for further clarification condoms are dangerous. All of the materials used to make condoms cause allergic reactions in all men and women. Some people experience only roughening, deadening and loss of sensation, of the skin of the reproductive organs, lasting only a few hours. , and since condoms aren't the core argument in this debate I will leave the further investigation to my argument [1] "And sex ed is taught in the subject MAPEH or music, arts P. E. and health. " I just want to raise the question to my opponent: why not teach Sex education in the subject HEALTH. “. . But i am not in favor of these contraceptives. Why should we spend billions for these contraceptives that cause cancer, breast cancer. .. ” Oh yes, i am not in favor of these contraceptives. But why wouldn't my opponent answer my argument about breast cancer. Is he afraid? Over the last 15 years, various studies examining the use of OCs as a risk factor for breast cancer. In June 1995 investigators at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reported an increased risk of developing breast cancer among women under age 35 who had used birth control pills for at least 6 months, compared with those who had never used them. They also saw a slightly lower, but still elevated risk among women ages 35 to 44. In addition, their research showed a higher risk among long-term OC users, especially those who had started to take the pill before age 18. A later comprehensive analytical report, which included the 1995 study, found that although there was a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer in women who were current or recent users of birth control pills, the risk of developing breast cancer returned to a normal level 10 years or more after discontinuation of OCs. These study results are considered to be consistent with those of the 1995 study. The comprehensive report analyzed the results of 54 studies conducted in 25 countries that involved 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer. The reduction in risk after 10 years or more of being off OCs was consistent regardless of family history of breast cancer, reproductive history, geographic area of residence, ethnic background, differences in study designs, dose and type of hormone, and duration of use. This risk reduction also generally held true for age at first use; however, for reasons that are not yet understood, there was a continued elevated risk among women who had started to use OCs before age 20. [2] ". .. I am wondering why these RH people including most likely [my opponent] says that it prevents ovarian cancer, prevents HIV/AIDS. Huh? What. You will still be dead. What is the need for prevention of this ovarian cancer and HIV/AIDS when you have breast cancer? " "What about those who disagree. ." Many people disagree with the RH Bill especially important ones who works in the senate, in the executive office oh and the ones who makes and proposes the budget of the Philippines. You think it's that simple that the tax paid by the Filipino people be spent in this bill that causes breast cancer. You think it's that simple to spend millions in such a controversial bill! “I don’t know about my opponent but. .. ” Glad to know that you know that there are programs. Oh and everything is not always found in the internet. Programs that promote health (women's health) are visible here in the Philippines. And laws like Magna Carta for Women provide health programs. ". .Premarital sex destroys the morality of the society,. ." true, this is not a debate about morality or your religious views. But why do you make further statements about it. If you want to, we could debate about that. It is true that even though the bill is not yet passed many people are doing it. I don't know if you're a pro-"premarital sex" guy but I believe it doesn't have positive effects. It only causes problems like unwanted pregnancy, abortion and divorce etc. "To clarify the argument this is a matter of if it is against God or not. .. " [See argument rebuttal on premarital sex above] I don’t believe that God wants people to engage in premarital sex even though there is proper education and health care Sources for my questions:[3][4] *********************************************************************************************** Overall sources: [1] . http://www.scribd.com... [2] . http://womenshealth.about.com... [3] . http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com...