Thread: Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country

Manny Pacquiao, a congressman in the Philippines, is part of the opposition to a bill that would mandate government support for contraceptives and family planning advice.

The boxing champion is joining with the Catholic Church in the fight to bring down the legislation.

"God said, 'Go out and multiply.' He did not say, just have two or three kids," Pacquiao said.

Edcel Lagman, the minority leader of the house, jokingly told Pacquiao that he was "ready to rumble."

The 32-year-old Pacquiao was elected in 2010 and has mixed politics with winning fights. Just recently he defended his reputation against Shane Mosley.

He has found his political footing a little trickier but he has also come out swinging in his second profession.

"It's sinful to use condoms and commit abortion," he said and when questioned about overpopulation said "my parents were poor... they had four children, it was very difficult but we persevered."

Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in Philippines - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

Pacquiao supports "pulling out" method just like in the 1st negotiations with Floyd (oh no I didn't!)

Manny's a devoted Catholic isn't he?

Of course being a lousy one myself? You know what you call people who practice the rhythm method?

Parents.

And BTW, oh yes you did!

Pac is determined to keep his country 3rd world. He wants the streets filled with kids sleeping on it. Using there one shoe as a pillow. And last nights newspapers for covers.

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Pac is determined to keep his country 3rd world. He wants the streets filled with kids sleeping on it. Using there one shoe as a pillow. And last nights newspapers for covers.

To be fair when in history has a smaller population ever been a key to a country's prosperity?

What about masturbation? As it's a sin apparently to spill your seed should a condom be worn for wanking so that nothing escapes?

Maybe you have to swallow it again afterwards and its ok as it's back inside you?

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Manny's a devoted Catholic isn't he?

Of course being a lousy one myself? You know what you call people who practice the rhythm method?

Parents.

And BTW, oh yes you did!

Yes devoted catholic


So does this mean he gives the raw dawg to his mistresses?

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Originally Posted by miles

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by miles

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Originally Posted by miles

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by miles

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.

This site is so much for the Pac nut huggers....

If I would have posted this thread it would be moved to the "Other" section


But I guess the mods feel like this is real "Boxing Talk"

Originally Posted by No Contest

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.

Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by miles

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by miles

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.

So tell me how one income can provide for 10 children when such an amount leaves most families living pay check to pay check with only 2.

If every family in the Philipines had 10 children, I have little doubt that it would make a poor country even poorer. More food needed, more clothes to buy and no jobs for those children when they get older. And then those children go and have 10 children each. It is hopeless and pointless.

But if you believe that this is a positive thing and actually makes society a better place, I am curious to know how.

I don't usually agree with Miles, hell it's a rarity, but the guy is right on about poverty and large families.

If a family's income is like say 20k per year and they have 5 kids to feed and raise compared to say having no kids at all on the same income, what is the better situation? I mean it's just common sense.