@Pinoyindy, to summarize, your position is: contraceptives are medicines but must not be used on pregnancy because of religious reasons.

@Pinoyindy: When Archbishop Villegas disputed the classification of contraceptives as drugs (are you conceding he did so?), he asked things that can be answered by science and laws. “What sickness is it curing? Is pregnancy a sickness?” The article above was focused on that, not on intent and mindsets that you are arguing now.

Your paraphrase about what the bishops mean, which I don't buy, doesn't make sense either. You said “Why use drugs on a condition which is not a disease?” Replace the words drugs and condition with what we are talking about and you get this: “Why use drugs developed and licensed to prevent pregnancy on pregnancy which is not a disease.” Quick replies if this is what the bishops mean. One, contraceptives are used before, not on pregnancy. Two, why on earth not?

Some thoughts on your mindsets points. From what you said, the RCC teaches that NFP users may have acceptable intent/mindset (“open to the possibility of life”), or unacceptable ones (“contraceptive mentality”). RCC acceptability is not inherent to the method.

Like NFP, all contraceptives have failure rates--pregnancy and life develops despite perfect use. Standard good medical practice requires educating all FP users--natural or artificial--about this possibility. What the user will do next, being “open to life” or not, depends on the mindset of the user, not on the method of FP being used. The generalization you make about contraceptive users is insulting, even if you did not intend it to be so. The term “contraceptive mentality” is in itself insulting and a double standard, because it implies that all contraceptive users have some sort of a negative mindset, while NFP users may or may not have that mindset.

The RCC's arguments on “contraceptive mentality” are in the realm of morality and religious beliefs which many other faiths and people do not subscribe to. Intent and mindsets are often difficult to handle with laws. We can't read minds. Knives are legal. Stabbing someone with it is not. Using it for cooking is. I suspect that Archbishop Villegas shifted to the medical argument to develop secular-sounding points against the RH bill.

(Minor points: I did say “WHO recommends” and never meant mandatory. Re abstinence, I thought you purposely dropped the qualifier “periodic” since you were referring to high risk women, akin to Pope Pius XII's guidelines to use “continence” in Allocution to Midwives. I do know what NFP means; the two of us are just used to different terminologies.)

//Pinoyindy: It seems we are going in circles.//
Maybe. But rational discourse is fine and the possibility of something good coming out is always there.

//1. Pregnacy is not a disease. ... If not then we should all be treating all pregnant women.//
Yes, pregnancy is not a disease. But you missed considering the health benefits of pregnancy spacing for all mothers and future infants. WHO recommends at least 2 years from the last birth before getting pregnant again. Full breastfeeding or LAM is effective at birth spacing for up to 6 months only. So after every birth, at least 1.5 years exist where a family planning method--natural or artificial--is medically indicated for ALL women.

//If truly pregnancy is discouraged because it is considered high risk for an individual then why engage in an act that could result in pregnancy and therefore morbidity. Pregnancy is not the problem but the couples' reluctance to practice abstinence.//
You're focusing too much on the "high risk." Based on my previous answer, the alternative you suggest means abstinence for at least 1.5 years for ALL couples with a previous child. Fine for those who can, but surely those who can't must be given other options.

//2. Contraceptives are drugs. No one disputes this.//
Archbishop Villegas, from the article above: “A contraceptive pill is to be considered an essential medicine. If it is a medicine, what sickness is it curing? Is pregnancy a sickness?” Note that he is not contesting the "essentialness" of the pill (that is another debate). He is clearly disputing the pill being classed as a medicine.

//And if contraception fails, no problem terminate the pregnancy.//
If this is an automatic response from women using measures to avoid a pregnancy, then the same can be said for those using natural family planning (NFP), which also fails. And since NFP methods (other than full abstinence) have higher failure rates, then your assertion implies that the more NFP users we have, the more abortions will occur. If you say that those on NFP have different values than those on other methods, you are foisting another double standard, and implying that NFP cannot be successful as a widespread program.

I'll stop here so our exchanges do not get too long and unwieldy.

@Pinoyindy:

Can you address Innermind's query? It's the short version of my point re RCC bishops double standard.

Re: definition of medicines, you avoided my point that our law considers mitigation or prevention or even just affecting the structure or any function of the body as enough basis to classify a substance as a medicine. Your narrow definition will have this strange consequence: Viagra for erectile dysfunction is a medicine, while contraceptive pills to avoid maternal deaths is not.

Thanks innerminds. Clear about the premises, as always. :)

Contraceptives "affect the ... function of the body" thereby helping in the "mitigation" or "prevention of disease." All phrases from our laws that define drugs/medicines. Your definition narrowly focuses on treatment/cure.

I focused my double-standards criticism not on the RCC's moral distinction between natural & artificial methods, but on this point: RCC bishops question the motives of those using contraceptives ("Is pregnancy a disease?") while accepting medical reasons as a valid motive for those using NFP. Care to comment on it? (BTW, I'm the author of the above article--sorry, haven't changed my commenting handle yet.)

"Medicines are given to treat/cure a disorder."
This is simply your personal definition. It is not supported by our laws, which has a much broader definition than yours. Contraception is recognized as a therapeutic category/indication. If you succeed in removing contraceptives from our medicines list, then what do you propose doing with them? Ban them? Let them in the market without any testing/certification by health authorities? Let the DTI handle them?
"I, personally, don't take any medicines unless I'm sick."
A personal choice, based probably on your personal definition of what a medicine is. Others may or may not follow suit.
"FYI this is the stand of the Church re: Artificial contraception"
Many other churches and people do not in good conscience accept this moral teaching of the RCC. Surely you don't expect this to be legislated.
"I don't see any double standard."
RCC bishops question the motives of those using contraceptives ("Is pregnancy a disease?") while accepting medical reasons as a valid motive for those using NFP. If there's no double standard, NFP users should also be asked: Is pregnancy a disease? Why prevent it?

X may lead to Z. X is a natural process. Z is a disorder. Examples of X include blood coagulation, a functioning immune system, pregnancy. Examples of Z include strokes, organ transplant rejection, pregnancy disorders.

Using NFP to regulate births (X), to avoid pregnancy disorders (Z) is ok to the Vatican. Why then are CBCP bishops asking "Is pregnancy a disease" when debating RH? This is the double standard these bishops are doing now. Why don't they simply say that preventing pregnancy for medical reasons is acceptable, but the Vatican allows only certain methods.

I held back from touching on the reasonableness of Vatican's birth control method distinctions. There is already an excellent article on this site, if you want to debate that point. Here: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th...

I said progestin-only OCPs (oral contraceptive pills), not progestins in general or in combination with an estrogen (which is the topic of the article you cited).
See my reply here: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/08/15/sottos...

Replying to this: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/08/15/sottos...
I said progestin-only OCPs (oral contraceptive pills), not progestins in general or in combination with an estrogen (which is the topic of the article you cited). Look it up in your local MIMS: lynestrenol, desogestrel. Indication: Contraception, nothing else. I'm not talking about off-label use. The point is why the medicine was registered in the first place--the therapeutic value/category, required by our registration regulations.

Your claim is clearly false: "OCP's are classified as medicines because they have medical uses in controlling hormonal imbalance disorders...." OCPs are classified as medicines because contraception is considered as a therapeutic category by our local regulations and by the WHO.

In essence, you are claiming that contraception is not therapeutic. Cite just one medicines classification/registration authority or country to back-up your claim. Your personal definition of what is therapeutic is simply that, a personal definition, which you can of course live by.