cold: Here we go again.The abortion debate rages on & doesn't seem likely to end anytime soon.

Of course it won't end until the right to life is respected for every human being.

cold:
Although it's interesting to see the 'abortion should never be carried out under any circumstance' crew suddenly softening up and offering circumstances when it is permissible..hmm interesting.Here's some perspective for you folks

I believe you got that very wrong!

The "crew" from my perspective (at least the vocal ones) has always been:

1) Olaadegbu
2) Anony
3) Italo
4) Striktlymi

and I don't see any of us soft pedaling on our stance on abortion. It is WRONG in any case no matter how we try to rationalize it.

cold:
9. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.

Armed robbery is a very dangerous 'business'. One can get himself killed if he/she ventures into it. Do we now try to make it as safe as possible for the perpetrators because of the inherrent dangers?

I challenge you to mention ONE law that stopped the object (crime) for which it was put up? Laws are not just put up because they expect people to stop an act, though a good law tries to prevent any act of illegality.

Laws are enacted for a number of reasons, top on the list would be:

1) Helps to discourage people from carrying out some specific crimes, not STOP it. Stopping the act depends on people and not just the law.

2) It helps the wronged get justice.

3) Helps the guilty get the much needed 'rehabilitation' in order for them to better able to add value to society.

So if you are suggesting that the abortion laws be abolished just because it does not stop abortion then we should also abolish any law that fails to stop the object for which it was created. That may leave us without laws.

cold:
8. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work. These include comprehensive sex education and safe, affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, as illogical as it sounds, the people who are most against abortion are also often most against these preventative measures. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.

We deceive ourselves if we believe that the use of contraceptives will STOP abortion. If its use will stop abortion why don't you channel your efforts on making contraceptives better known? Contraceptives do not stop it hence your argument for abortion.

cold:
7. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to every citizen; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one’s daughter, rap3 someone, or keep a person as a slave—all things that are promoted in religious text.

You may be right in parts but in whole, I do not agree with your thoughts (if they are yours). Some Religion frown against murder and we have laws that are against murder. This does not mean that the law against murder is necessarily bad because it supports the views of some Religious organisations.

The law against abortion MUST be upheld not because of religion but because it deprives another of what we all hold dear: Life. If your life can be protected by law, then I see no reason why the lie of the unborn cannot be protected too by that same law.

cold:
6. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong—another mainly-religious philosophy—and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it (see #2)? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rap3? You never know.

Contraceptives is another topic. I touched on it before but I won't go any further.

cold:
5. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public—only much more deadly.

The above is quite hilarious. I will NEVER own a slave in my life but I do not support any law that promotes slavery. I will not murder anyone as long as I live but I do not support any law that supports murder. Do we need to have an experience of something before we can fight against it?

If indeed you are looking for a connection, one who fights against slavery may be fighting for the right of his children to be free...one who is against murder may be fighting against being killed unjustly by another...one who fights against abortion, wouldn't be able to do so if he/she was aborted and may probably fighting for the right of his kids or grand kids to have the same opportunity at life that he/she has.

A law need not apply to an individual for the individual to have a say in the matter. If this was so then the process for enacting laws would have been very terrible indeed.

cold:
4. Women who are rap3d or victims of inc3st should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth (see #2), should we allow this further risk to endured on top of what has already been done?

If someone kills any of my siblings with malicious intent, should the law permit me to take revenge because of some emotional truma I may be facing at the time? Killing in all intent and purpose is wrong, no matter what. As long as the intent to be malicious against another is there, the law is right to force anyone not to do so.

cold:
Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rap3 and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

Same argument as above but it also suggests that one should be given the right to kill another if that individual reminds him/her of a wrong done in the past. This is absurd, to put it mildly.

cold:
My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so much—the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children… perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much.

Those who spend time, energy, money etc on fighting against slavery and the likes should spend their time and money on ensuring that the slaves etc get good treatment...

Doesn't the above sound ridiculous??

cold:
3. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.

If that's the case, why not allow them kill their children in order to make these women rich? I don't even need to say much on your point above.

cold:
2. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

Okay, the logic here is that I can choose to kill someone else as long as it would further help my chances at life? The mothers have a right to choose life but the kids do not?

cold:
1. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

Government, not doctors should have the right to make laws that protect the right to life of everyone. Allowing doctors do whatever they like with human life is what is silly.

fredx4: Abortion is not a sin in extreme conditions. God is not totally against killing, the same God that said "thou shalt not kill" said if a child curses his parents he should be "stoned to death". It's better to abort a child than make him suffer, you will regret you gave birth to him and the child will also regret being alive(or do you think somebody that is handicapped from birth is happy with his/her existence?)

That is the gospel according to fred!

striktlymi:

Okay, cool!

Our development as humans starts from what you prefer to call a "cell".

Next question:

Does the body parts of a 'fully developed' human make him/her any more human than the less developed 'body parts' of an 'under-developed' human?

If "yes" kindly explain a bit so I understand your thoughts on this.

Another mistake you still consider a zygote as an underdeveloped human.

From what I have gathered from your arguments, you actually seem to believe that the early formative stages are indispensable for the fully functional being, hence be protected.

I believe the human is necessarily a conscious being, there cannot be an intelligble argument that obtains that essential ingredient. That's the beauty of being human (personhood: legal appreciation). Hence the foetus must reach a stage wherein it becomes conscious that terminating it would naturally invoke empathy and unjust.

So far in this thread, we are probing in the dark, making the most arbitrary and sentiment conjectures about biology, and misuse of language.

POPE II: are you doing this on purpose? I was talking about animals .

Babies are humans and thou shall not kill
BTW apply what to them? Where did I say what you put here? Please calm down and read before answering , I said the bible can't b applied to non human or animals . That's the bottom line

Ok am trying to make you see why not to bring religious sentiments into this because different religion different rules

OlaoChi:

Ok am trying to make you see why not to bring religious sentiments into this because different religion different rules

God created the world, God created humans and God inspired the Bible, therefore we are all under the Bible or his rule, thou shall not kill is one of his holy commandments. We are all Christians, some still don't know it yet

striktlymi:

Think about this scenario an give me your honest opinion. Try and answer directly. Not necessarily a "Yes" or "No". I will need you to explain your answer.


SCENARIO:

You have a child.

Both of you went sailing.

In the middle of the sea, you noticed a crack in the boat.

The trip back may only allow for one of you to go back safely.

If both of you attempt to go back in the cracked boat, death for you two is inevitable because the boat can't safely take both your weights. But there is no guaranty.

If you direct the boat well and any of you jump over board, you or the child may get to shore safely.

The sea is shark infested!


QUESTION:

What do you do if faced with that scenario?

Jamb's question muc? Well it will depends of my age and his age .

Anyway I think I see your point and understand your stance, your last comment to cold was is very on point. Abortion is wrong no matter what.

POPE II: God created the world, God created humans and God inspired the Bible, therefore we are all under the Bible or his rule, thou shall not kill is one of his holy commandments. We are all Christians, some still don't know it yet

Yh that's what your religion says. Again different religions different rules

OlaoChi:

That's it, you don't want to know anything concerning abortion it's just wrong because you are a Christian. If the Bible stated abortion you would be defending it right now
And I don't know anywhere it ever condemned abortion

The reason why men may say it is wrong is because they don't have to deal with the same hardships women deal with. I think most monotheistic people may think it is wrong, personally for me, I have a different opinion.

If a woman is wrongfully violated, then she has every right to do she wants with her own body. It wasn't her choice that a deviant violated her.

Fulaman198:

The reason why men may say it is wrong is because they don't have to deal with the same hardships women deal with. I think most monotheistic people may think it is wrong , personally for me, I have a different opinion.

If a woman is wrongfully violated, then she has every right to do she wants with her own body. It wasn't her choice that a deviant violated her.

GBAM!

You are truly enlgihtened Brother Fula. The most enlightened Fulani in all Africa.

The bolded applies especially if the molestor is from another ethnic group.

Half-breeds are against Tribal custom. Infact, molestation was a tool used by colonists in the South Americas to destroy the Native Tribes and thereby their beliefs and cultures.

Today most brazilians, carribeans, etc., are of mixed r.ape descent.

PAGAN 9JA:



GBAM!

You are truly enlgihtened Brother Fula. The most enlightened Fulani in all Africa.

The bolded applies especially if the molestor is from another ethnic group.

Half-breeds are against Tribal custom. Infact, molestation was a tool used by colonists in the South Americas to destroy the Native Tribes and thereby their beliefs and cultures.

Today most brazilians, carribeans, etc., are of mixed r.ape descent.

wow. Thank God their ancestors valued human life. Otherwise they'd all be dead. I'd be dead too you know. I have inter-ethnic parents. Igbo-Yoruba.

Fulaman198:
The reason why men may say it is wrong is because they don't have to deal with the same hardships women deal with. I think most monotheistic people may think it is wrong, personally for me, I have a different opinion.
If a woman is wrongfully violated, then she has every right to do she wants with her own body. It wasn't her choice that a deviant violated her.

its nice to know you'll encourage the killing a child for the crimes of its father. And for the selfish interests of its mother, because it has no voice within the safe haven of the womb.

PAGAN 9JA:



GBAM!

You are truly enlgihtened Brother Fula. The most enlightened Fulani in all Africa.

The bolded applies especially if the molestor is from another ethnic group.

Half-breeds are against Tribal custom. Infact, molestation was a tool used by colonists in the South Americas to destroy the Native Tribes and thereby their beliefs and cultures.

Today most brazilians, carribeans, etc., are of mixed r.ape descent.

So they should have aborted those babies right?

Image123:

hehehhehehe, that post looks like how legion might have reacted when he first saw Jesus.
Olaa you're doing a great job, well done sir.

You captured it right bro. The guy needs deliverance.

Joshthefirst: wow. Thank God their ancestors valued human life. Otherwise they'd all be dead. I'd be dead too you know. I have inter-ethnic parents. Igbo-Yoruba.

its nice to know you'll encourage the killing a child for the crimes of its father. And for the selfish interests of its mother, because it has no voice within the safe haven of the womb.

Its not that you'll be dead exactly. Your soul will be born in another body.

You see, we are not advocating the killing of developed/grown-up individuals who are handicapped/r.ape-born,etc. We are talking about the infant/pre-infant stage.

@your second point, what do you mean by selfish interests of the mother

It is not the mothers fault that she was r.aped.

Neither is it her fault that she doesn't want to die.

It all depends on the circumstance!

POPE II:

So they should have aborted those babies right?

ofcourse!

Apologies for the late response. I am actually at a remote location where the internet facility is quite epileptic. My Visa modem is not as effective while my MTN network leaves much to be desired.

Kay 17:

Another mistake you still consider a zygote as an underdeveloped human.

In the event that you haven't noticed, stating that our development as humans starts from a "cell" is actually agreeing to the position you call a "mistake" up there. Unless you want to change your opinion about when our development starts.

Kay 17:
From what I have gathered from your arguments, you actually seem to believe that the early formative stages are indispensable for the fully functional being, hence be protected.

Not exactly! Whether we become fully functional or not, the early stages of development are indispensable. We cannot become adults without going through 'childhood'...we cannot become toddlers without becoming zygotes first.

The various stages of our development is not what makes us humans but the life inherent in those stages. Without the life in us we cannot lay claim to our humanity. Hence, the series of questions I have been asking you, leads to one inevitable conclusion: The life we have determins whether we are humans or not, and not the development of our body parts.

Kay 17:
I believe the human is necessarily a conscious being, there cannot be an intelligble argument that obtains that essential ingredient.

I respect the above as your view on the matter but that view is not correct! Your argument again:

Striktlymi is an adult human...
Striktlymi is unconcious...
Striktlymi is still alive...
Striktlymi is not human.

We need not think too far to see the contradiction inherent in that line of thought. Conciousness does not define our humanity. But on the other hand, the life we have, effectively defines our existence as humans and is practically the single defining factor for our humanity.

Kay 17:
That's the beauty of being human (personhood: legal appreciation).

Still not correct! Legal appreciation still does not define our existence as humans. Your argument seems to suggest that laws existed before humans. That is, before the advent of laws, there was no human being. This is far from correct.

Again, when we talk of legal appreciation, would you change your view about the 'personhood' of the zygote if the law defines it to be human tomorrow? Or do you honestly believe that creating a law that acknowledges the humanity of the zygote, necessarily makes the zygote human?

Laws, in whole or in parts, is not what makes us humans. Laws only stand to protect that which we already have as humans. If a law is created tomorrow in favour of the zygote, that law would not give humanity to the zygote because it had it already, but goes to protect that which the zygote has already.

Kay 17:
Hence the foetus must reach a stage wherein it becomes conscious that terminating it would naturally invoke empathy and unjust.

I already demonstrated the error in that line of thought.

Kay 17:
So far in this thread, we are probing in the dark, making the most arbitrary and sentiment conjectures about biology, and misuse of language.

Nah!!!

I disagree with your assessment above. That is rather dogmatic and anti-change and improvement. Discussions like this looks at the facts which may not necessarily agree with what we have in the books already. If we do not question and challenge the status quo based on reason and logic, then we are inadvertently saying that knowledge is finite and we have already reached its limit.

Joshthefirst: wow. Thank God their ancestors valued human life. Otherwise they'd all be dead. I'd be dead too you know. I have inter-ethnic parents. Igbo-Yoruba.

its nice to know you'll encourage the killing a child for the crimes of its father. And for the selfish interests of its mother, because it has no voice within the safe haven of the womb.

I am not a woman, I can't speak for them, nor should you.

PAGAN 9JA:



GBAM!

You are truly enlgihtened Brother Fula. The most enlightened Fulani in all Africa.

The bolded applies especially if the molestor is from another ethnic group.

Half-breeds are against Tribal custom. Infact, molestation was a tool used by colonists in the South Americas to destroy the Native Tribes and thereby their beliefs and cultures.

Today most brazilians, carribeans, etc., are of mixed r.ape descent.

I am just 1 of 25 million Fulani people, I am sure there are others out there with a similar belief system.

It truly sadly is a male dominated world. So because a woman is wronged, she should pay for a mans sins? Does that make sense? A man should be the one paying for his own sins. I reiterate my statement, if a woman is improperly violated, she has every right to do what she wants with her body. It is not the deception l decision of selfish lustful men to carry out.

Fulaman198: It truly sadly is a male dominated world. So because a woman is wronged, she should pay for a mans sins? Does that make sense? A man should be the one paying for his own sins. I reiterate my statement, if a woman is improperly violated, she has every right to do what she wants with her body. It is not the deception l decision of selfish lustful men to carry out.

EXACTLY BRO!

1 MILLION LIKES!

PAGAN 9JA:


Its not that you'll be dead exactly. Your soul will be born in another body.

You see, we are not advocating the killing of developed/grown-up individuals who are handicapped/r.ape-born,etc. We are talking about the infant/pre-infant stage.

@your second point, what do you mean by selfish interests of the mother

It is not the mothers fault that she was r.aped.

Neither is it her fault that she doesn't want to die.

It all depends on the circumstance!

does the infant/ pre-birth stage make anyone less human?

It is not the childs fault that he came into being. Yet he will pay the price of things that happened without his hand with his willing death? Because he cannot yet cry out in pain?

What circumstance justifies the unlawful killing of a baby in the womb?

Fulaman198: It truly sadly is a male dominated world. So because a woman is wronged, she should pay for a mans sins? Does that make sense? A man should be the one paying for his own sins. I reiterate my statement, if a woman is improperly violated, she has every right to do what she wants with her body. It is not the deception l decision of selfish lustful men to carry out.

and a child should pay for the sins of its father because of the simple inconvenience of its mother? It is truly a selfish world. Where we take a childs life for happenings it knows nothing about. Where it is the decision of a selfish mother to take the life of the unborn.

Joshthefirst: does the infant/ pre-birth stage make anyone less human?

It is not the childs fault that he came into being. Yet he will pay the price of things that happened without his hand with his willing death? Because he cannot yet cry out in pain?

What circumstance justifies the unlawful killing of a baby in the womb?

and a child should pay for the sins of its father because of the simple inconvenience of its mother? It is truly a selfish world. Where we take a childs life for happenings it knows nothing about. Where it is the decision of a selfish mother to take the life of the unborn.

I hate how my smartphone outputs so many typos. As a man, what makes you think you have the right to say what women do with their body? Do women tell you what to do with your body?

Yes, it is a selfish world, but your statement is equally selfish. You are implying that only your way is the correct way that women should be doing things. Didn't God give people the free will to choose?

Fulaman198:

I hate how my smartphone outputs so many typos. As a man, what makes you think you have the right to say what women do with their body? Do women tell you what to do with your body?

Yes, it is a selfish world, but your statement is equally selfish. You are implying that only your way is the correct way that women should be doing things. Didn't God give people the free will to choose?

there are many ways, but none should involve killing. Our freewill should not be used to commit evil. THOU SHALT NOT KILL

mazaje:

How has the light of christ helped in developing Nigeria and made it a better place? What is this foooool saying?. . .

Your own is a case of leaving one degree of darkness to another. A case from frying pan to fire to be precise.

Joshthefirst: there are many ways, but none should involve killing. Our freewill should not be used to commit evil. THOU SHALT NOT KILL

And yet there are several killings every day, there were killings in our holy books... the Qur'an and Bible, and if you are Jewish the Torah as well.

You do realise the implications of a woman being violated right? If a woman was a virgin, she would no longer be a virgin. Women should not be penalised for the crime a man commits.

Kay 17:

I don't especially agree with you that the sperm cells and eggs aren't human, you seem to believe without justification that from conception human life springs out while the eggs and sperm are alien!

Since the eggs and sperm are of human biology they are therefore human.

Human life starts at conception, if you know what that means.

Image123:

Oh a whole lot of other like minds are in here. Salute to you all

They are birds of the same feather. What do you expect.

Joshthefirst: there are many ways, but none should involve killing. Our freewill should not be used to commit evil. THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Whoever drafted the 10 commandments, did not go to law school.

OLAADEGBU:

Human life starts at conception, if you know what that means.

How do you justify that claim??!!!??!!

Fulaman198:

And yet there are several killings every day, there were killings in our holy books... the Qur'an and Bible, and if you are Jewish the Torah as well.

so? The law is given to discourage killing and to provide justice for the guilty. Does the fact that say people steal everyday give you license to steal?

Fulaman198:
You do realise the implications of a woman being violated right? If a woman was a virgin, she would no longer be a virgin. Women should not be penalised for the crime a man commits.

my brother, neither should the child be killed for the crime the man commits. Not so?

Kay 17:
Whoever drafted the 10 commandments, did not go to law school.

too bad its written in our consciences, and the natural order of the universe correlates with it. When we begin to move the boundaries of absolute law, we only end up hurting ourselves, damaging our brains with pornography and lust, breaking hearts with adultery and immorality, murdering children in the womb, rebelling against natural order, chaos. We need a reconciliation.


Happy new year.

And are you male or female?

PAGAN 9JA:


ofcourse!

JEEZ, you are disgusting

Joshthefirst: so? The law is given to discourage killing and to provide justice for the guilty. Does the fact that say people steal everyday give you license to steal?

my brother, neither should the child be killed for the crime the man commits. Not so?

too bad its written in our consciences, and the natural order of the universe correlates with it. When we begin to move the boundaries of absolute law, we only end up hurting ourselves, damaging our brains with pornography and lust, breaking hearts with adultery and immorality, murdering children in the womb, rebelling against natural order, chaos. We need a reconciliation.


Happy new year.

And are you male or female?

Happy New Year, I don't believe in murder, but as aforementioned, until we have walked kilometres in a womans' shoes who has been through such a hardship, I don't believe we have room to comment or make comments.

Kay 17:

How do you justify that claim??!!!??!!

From when do you start counting to nine months? Happy New Year!