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

Well, this was a helluva debate, now, I proceed to my...Final Rebuttals:Constitutional IssueAbout that cited article in the constitution, CON must be confused, so I will define my point more accurately and refute yours. 1986 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 12: "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government." [1]This section is just a state policy, I am not wrestling and playing with semantics here, the one who's on the wrong side here is you, with all due respect. You say parents should teach sexual education, not the government, why? Does the government not consist of people, who are also parents? The teachers can be parents, are you saying you need to be a parent before you teach sex education?But let's get something straight, we are talking about the government teaching for the students, which is the schools. Saying sex education being taught by the government (via government-funded public schools and other educational insutions) is unconstitional and a violation of it is ludicrous and baseless. As I said again, this is only a policy on which the government supports and aids the parents on raising their children in a good manner. If the readers look carefully at the said section, the words, "sex education should only be taught by parents", etc. My opponent misused and misinterpreted "rearing the youthfor civic efficiency and the development of moral character" because he looks at the negative on sexual education and he is opposed to it because he is opposed to premarital sex.If you say parents should only teach their children, who teaches the parents on sexual education? Parents were once children too, and they had to learn it somehow. If sexual education would mean that children are properly, accurately being taught positive and precise sex education, safe sex, family planning, etc, then it does not contradict that policy. Why deprive the government on its duties to educate? Do you have something against the government? ‎What are the outcomes if the parents teach their children about sex education when they have no knowledge on them? Some children are more likely to get their sex education from pornography, as they were not confident enough to talk with their parents. Do you prefer them getting sex tips from porn or let them get their knowledge from professionals on accurate teaching.If the Parents are not able to fulfill that obligation, the government is required to intervene and must do something about it.Sexual Education IssueCON has looked at the negative on sexual education, I suggest you looking at the positive side. Now, to answer CON's question: "Do this “Sex Education” teach students about safe sex?"Is this question rhetorical? Because I've already said this numerous times in the past rounds, especially in my opening argument. I suggest CON read my arguments properly. To answer your question as to"why not teach Sex education in the subject HEALTH."... I've stated this in R2, read the source I've mentioned. It's also due to the fact that the Catholic authorities are opposed to it, this question also contradicts your statement that sex education should only be taught by parents. And because no policy has been made yet, and since the RH Bill is still up for debate and has been waiting to be passed for over a decade. Contraception/Condom IssueAs I stated in the previous round, contraceptives do not cause cancer.But the correlation between them really depends on the person. There are few Oral contraceptives that may have risks but it depends o the person. People can be allergic to condoms or not, really depends. Let's just note that all methods aren't suitable for all. That's why we have lots of different methods to choose from in the first place. If these things cause cancer, then Hotdogs, Processed Meats, Chips ,Crackers, Cookies, Biscuits, French Fries, etc. can also cause potential cancer [2]. Does that mean these foods should be probited? This is such a shallow argument.Condoms aren't that dangerous, CON is exagerrating, condoms has its benefits as I stated in the previous rounds. The World Health Organization considers these contraceptives, esp. the condom as one of the core of essential medicine. That's why we have sex education once the bill is passed, to make us aware of the risks and use them right and be more responsible or atleast have some discipline when engaging sex.Majority vs Minority IssueLaws should suit the majority, not the minority, this issue is just a minor core of the argument, that's why we have debates, eventually, when we look at reality, this bill will pass. Also, I see no evidence to suggest that those agencies you speak of oppose the bill.I didn't mention anything 'simple', but the record, lots of bills are passed through Congress and Senate, I do not see this as a difference to the others.Do you really want the Filipino people to pay taxes on foods that cause cancer? Because I don't, I love hotdogs.Other:"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."I'd like to remind my opponent that he is participating in an online debate, in the internet, and he sources are needed to support claims. If you can't find a source, then people can consider them baseless."..Premarital sex destroys the morality of the society,.." "To clarify the argument this is a matter of if it is against God or not..."I didn't make this an issue, CON, as I said in round 2 that I will refute arguments against RH Bill, and this is one of those arguments. Premarital sex is NEUTRAL to all, but it is morally wrong (religiously speaking). You're too emotional since you side with the morals. We can debate this anytime if you want. But, seriously, hat's why sexual education will be taught once this bill is passed. You assume that sex education will cause premarital sex, it does NOT. Premarital sex happens because no proper sex education is taught to the children engaging in them.As I stated from the very beginning, if this bill is against God or not? Speaking for the secular society of the Filipino people, it does not matter whether or not it's against God, but religiously speaking? That's another topic I'd like to debate some other time."Sources for my questions:[3][4]"These questions in that website needs a source, don't just ask a question with a source that asks the same question with no source. Again, I will consider them baseless.Conclusion Closing:*sigh* Too much SexEd mentioned in the debate, gonna wrap this up with a super short closing since I'm almost out of characters. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent makes a shallow argument on the risks of cancer, which is false. He makes another shallow argument on risks of premarital sex when sex ed is placed. My opponent looks at the moral side, which is not the case here, my opponent is to conservative and a bit ignorant since he refuse to look at the positive side of the bill. Thus, I thank him for the last time a huge good luck on his final rebuttal.I thank the voters on reading this arguments and urge them to vote Pro, because this bill will benefit the society of the people of the Philippines and please consider one of my arguments in the past rounds.Sources Used:[1] http://www.chanrobles.com...[2] http://www.naturalnews.com...[3] http://www.likhaan.org...