Tattoo - Jordin Sparks Music Code
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Shane C. Doliente
For me,Montalvan implied us, that we should prevent populatoin growth, as early as possible ,to make that possible ,those women who dont want to be pregnant or we can say, she is not ready f for being a mom ,Montalvan required them,they are free to use artificial contraception.As a youth concern,I can say that as years goes by,the population of the Phlilppines are increasing and the food are increasing also.Nowadays before you make a family you should undergo "Family planning"so that we can prevent family crisis.Malthus said "the less birth means less expenses in the family and less birth means less people for the next 20 years".In other words,Malthus didnt believe that Philippines are poor.In fact,he proved to us that theres no reason why our country is very poor,It depends upon the decision making of the legislators on how our future be stable.So that our government now are trying their best to control population growth.And we also youth,be aware of the situation of our fellowship now...!!!
Saturday, August 9, 2008
family planning+population explosion
Population explosion is one of the major problems in our country today.As the population increases the needs of every Filipino also increases,including the needs for food,shelter,clothings and job.So Family Planning is very important to discuss with and we should adapt this method because I believe it can able to help the problem with population.
Planning can help assure that resources are available. For couples before they establish a family they should think first how many number of children they want and if they can able to sustain all the needs and wants of the upcoming child.We should secure the significant resources in raising a child such as, time,social, financial and environmental.
Planning can help assure that resources are available. For couples before they establish a family they should think first how many number of children they want and if they can able to sustain all the needs and wants of the upcoming child.We should secure the significant resources in raising a child such as, time,social, financial and environmental.
Friday, August 8, 2008
dapat magkaroon ng FAMILY PLANNING..
para hindi dadami ang mga tao sa mundo..
at para din hindi mahirapan ang mga tao,,
kagaya ngaun na maraming mga teenagers
na bubuntis dapat dahil sa hindi wastong edukasyon..
at dapat din ang mga magulang bigyan ang kanilang
mga anak na edukasyon kahit sa murang paaralan nila
papasukin ang kanilang anak..
at dapat magtipid ngaun sa mga bilihin para hindi mahirapan..
para hindi dadami ang mga tao sa mundo..
at para din hindi mahirapan ang mga tao,,
kagaya ngaun na maraming mga teenagers
na bubuntis dapat dahil sa hindi wastong edukasyon..
at dapat din ang mga magulang bigyan ang kanilang
mga anak na edukasyon kahit sa murang paaralan nila
papasukin ang kanilang anak..
at dapat magtipid ngaun sa mga bilihin para hindi mahirapan..
Monday, August 4, 2008
para sa akin dapat magkaron ng sariling pamilya at dapat ang bawat pamilya ay may sariling plano at para ang kanilang mga anak ay hindi lalong maghirap lalo narin s a ibang pamilya dapat silang magkaroon na kanyakanyang pagsisikap para maiahon sila sa kahirapan dahil sa panahon ngayon meron sa atin ang maslalong naghihirap dahil ang iba ay walang trabaho dahil pag merong sikap at tyaga para rin mapagaral nila ang kanilang mga anak ng mabuti at makapag tapos lamang sa pag-aaral,dahil marami sa ating mga kabataan ang walang pagaaral dahil sa kahirapan sa buhay dahil dito lalong nag hihirap at ang iba ay walang kanya-kanyang plano sa buhay..........................
Sunday, August 3, 2008
too much population is bad!!!
Antonio J. Montalvan’s claims that capping the population is not the solution to poverty may seem convincing to those who are “uninformed” populace. First and foremost, we need to remember that our resources, be it economic or natural, is limited. Our government cannot sustain the estimated 88 million mouths in the Philippines given that we are still a developing country. Currently, this island has an estimated 2.36% growth rate or an estimated 6.1 million a year and it was expected to double by 2015.
Given a situation wherein two families are both earning Php 5000 per month, which do you think is better off if family A has 2 siblings while family B has 6 siblings? Another instance, if both families are given 1 apple each to divide for their kids, which you think has bigger share of the apple, family A who has 2 kids or family B who has 6 kids? The situation above only proves that families with less number of siblings have more purchasing power compare to families with more kids.
The author may be too engrossed with his emotion that’s why he was not able to “clearly” see the two sides of the coin. He was not able to identify some of the good effects brought about by curbing the Philippine population. He was so preoccupied with the issue of graft and corruption as the main reason of poverty but fails to recognize that in regulating our population we not only solving poverty but also some ills of our society such as decreasing crime rate, decreasing attrition or drop out rate in the academe and decreasing environmental problems such as garbage, thus alleviating the life of the Filipino people as a whole.
The author may be good in criticizing the initiatives of our legislators in curbing our population growth but did he make any actions as a citizen of the Philippines to address this problem regarding poverty? Sometimes, too much talk can be irritating.
Given a situation wherein two families are both earning Php 5000 per month, which do you think is better off if family A has 2 siblings while family B has 6 siblings? Another instance, if both families are given 1 apple each to divide for their kids, which you think has bigger share of the apple, family A who has 2 kids or family B who has 6 kids? The situation above only proves that families with less number of siblings have more purchasing power compare to families with more kids.
The author may be too engrossed with his emotion that’s why he was not able to “clearly” see the two sides of the coin. He was not able to identify some of the good effects brought about by curbing the Philippine population. He was so preoccupied with the issue of graft and corruption as the main reason of poverty but fails to recognize that in regulating our population we not only solving poverty but also some ills of our society such as decreasing crime rate, decreasing attrition or drop out rate in the academe and decreasing environmental problems such as garbage, thus alleviating the life of the Filipino people as a whole.
The author may be good in criticizing the initiatives of our legislators in curbing our population growth but did he make any actions as a citizen of the Philippines to address this problem regarding poverty? Sometimes, too much talk can be irritating.
As what i read and understand in the article i agree the program anti-life its because as what i observed now we are over populated because there are other couple don't know how to plan a proper way of living a family or family planning. Its because for now there are other family who cannot afford to feed their own children but they are still producing as what they like it.This over population is the big problem that our country was facing of.
Poverty as i can say is the root of all evil, simply because many poor people who have no food for their families will sort to making crimes that produce easy money to provide for their families.
If only our government will just focus his attention on his people on how to solved poverty and not just to think on how to steal the peoples money,then they can make a great change into our country.And this big problems may solve.
Poverty as i can say is the root of all evil, simply because many poor people who have no food for their families will sort to making crimes that produce easy money to provide for their families.
If only our government will just focus his attention on his people on how to solved poverty and not just to think on how to steal the peoples money,then they can make a great change into our country.And this big problems may solve.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Anti-Family or Anti-Life is not the solution for the population growth. the government should take action on this problem because if this problem wont solve the Philippine economy will drown in credits of the other country and the Filipinos will suffer poverty also we a normal citizen we should also help our government to control population growth government should make a program for the non working Filipinos so they will have income for their family government should not be co rapt so that the taxes will go to the people of the philippines
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)