wirinet:

Forget congenital anomaly, a woman should not be forced to keep a baby she is unwilling or incapable of loving just because she had a few minutes of sexual pleasure. Some women are even willing to care of babies with congenital abnormalities. The decision should be that of the woman (or couple ) involved and not a doctor, priest or friends.

I see anti abortionists as vindictive against the "immoral" woman. The see the baby as a punishment for the woman for daring to have se.x outside their religious code. They might as well stone the woman. They fail to see that the unwanted children and the society suffers more in the long run.

If anti abortionists are so concerned about the welfare of unwanted children and the health of women that choose to abort, then they should invest their time and energy on better se.x education for teenage boys and girls and control and standardization of abortion clinics.

hhmmmmm

striktlymi:

Tell us the difference between a baby and a foetus. Your appeal to law is not satisfactory. Some countries have laws that contradicts you greatly. Tell us again how a baby is different from a foetus.

If you read my post that you quoted, you will see that I already differentiated a fetus from a baby. But if by chance you were blind to it, then I will simplify it for you. The difference between a fetus and a baby is being born.
That is why the term is aptly term "abortion ". the baby was aborted. in other words the process of the fetus becoming a baby was aborted.

Please tell us the country that equate a fetus to a child. Tell us the country that says you can murder an unborn baby instead of aborting it.

striktlymi:
I hope you do understand the meaning of "essentially"? If you don't, then I'd suggest you school yourself a bit before quoting me. I am not in the mood to school anyone today.

please explain how adding essentially equates abortion to murder or even manslaughter to murder. Murder is a legal term as opposed to just killing, so I wonder how you can define murder without it's legal meaning.

wirinet:
If you read my post that you quoted, you will see that I already differentiated a fetus from a baby.

I hate repititions! For the second time, you tagged "already differentiated" is not satisfactory!

wirinet:
But if by chance you were blind to it, then I will simplify it for you. The difference between a fetus and a baby is being born.

That's your difference? Does that even make any sense? How does that suggest that a foetus is not a human being?

Just like saying that since a man and a boy have some demonstrable differences then a boy is not a human being. Like I said: NOT SATISFACTORY!!!

wirinet:
That is why the term is aptly term "abortion ". the baby was aborted. in other words the process of the fetus becoming a baby was aborted.

The "baby was aborted"?? I thought you argue that the unborn is not a child? Why on Earth would you call them babies? Let me tell you what, it is because they are not just babies but humans.

wirinet:
Please tell us the country that equate a fetus to a child. Tell us the country that says you can murder an unborn baby instead of aborting it.

Go read up the American Convention on Human Rights treaty and you would find at least 20 Countries whose law protects foetal right to life because human life starts at conception.

wirinet:
please explain how adding essentially equates abortion to murder or even manslaughter to murder.

Go back to school!!!

wirinet:
Murder is a legal term as opposed to just killing,

I know!

wirinet:
so I wonder how you can define murder without it's legal meaning.

Go to school like I suggested then read up my OP again, may be then you would understand it.

wirinet:

Get a dictionary or better still use Google to learn what murder is.

Olodo Abeg make we no start....

Murder is to kill
To kill us to cause death
To cause death is to take life...

So ... What is murder wrt life?

Y'all should read about Peter Singer

wirinet:
How is abortion equivalent to murder? define murder and then define abortion and then explain how the two terms can be broadened to mean the same thing.

Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically including ending the life of another human being with malice aforethought, characterized by intent, deliberation or premeditation.

Deliberately killing a human being in the womb satisfies the above definition.

The right to keep or abort a baby should rest on the woman concern, a woman cannot and should not be forced to keep a baby she is not ready to keep and take care of. Except of course, those anti abortionists trying to force others to live by their religious codes volunteer to adopt abandoned and unwanted babies.

Ok....but now you must stay consistent with your statement.

In the same vein, you must therefore agree that the right to care or not to care for a baby must equally rest on the woman concerned, i.e. the Nobody can or should be forced to feed, clothe, shelter, educate or care for a child in any way. It is therefore unjust to hold anyone accountable for the care of children whether they are the parents or not.

temigracie: to some pple,abortion is equivalent to murder..whil to some oda pple its just a normal thing....okay,i ll like to direct dis questn to dos wu feel or wu blive its a modern way of murder....in school,we learnt dat dere r several types of congenital anomaly a baby or fetus can have....sometimes it might b life threatening to both d mother and d fetus as well....in a case where,d scan revealed some really really negative thing abt d baby ...for example, a baby with one eye,mental impairment etc....bringing d baby to world, u deprive d baby of its social right,u lock him or her indoor...dont u think dats a sin already....y not do d needful

Will it be fair to kill you if you have one eye or are mentally impaired?

Apatheist: Y'all should read about Peter Singer

I have and I think he is twisted.

MrAnony1:
Will it be fair to kill you if you have one eye or are mentally impaired?

..honestly,i dont understand ur questn...

temigracie: ..honestly,i dont understand ur questn...

You just argued that it may be sinful to give birth to a disabled child and it may be better to kill the child before birth. So I asked if it is ok to kill you for your disabilities so as not to deprive you of your "social rights"

MrAnony1:
You just argued that it may be sinful to give birth to a disabled child and it may be better to kill the child before birth. So I asked if it is ok to kill you for your disabilities so as not to deprive you of your "social rights"

.....hmmmm,question for the gods ooo.....well,tank God am whole....if u r in d medical line u ll understand waht we r tryn to buttress here......

temigracie: .....hmmmm,question for the gods ooo.....well,tank God am whole....if u r in d medical line u ll understand waht we r tryn to buttress here......

You have failed to answer my question

MrAnony1:
You have failed to answer my question

....adonno oooo..dats y i say tank God dat am whole.....

temigracie: ....adonno oooo..dats y i say tank God whole.....

Ok

MrAnony1:
I have and I think he is twisted.

I disagree.

Apatheist:
I disagree.

So you agree with him that there is no such thing as the sanctity of human life?

My view of Abortion depend on the consequence that resulted in the pregnancy in the first place.

Let me put it simple and straight, if the pregnancy is as a result of rape, then I support abortion .

However, if the pregnancy is as a result of the enjoyment she had with her bf, sugar daddy or who so ever, then Abortion is a sin for her because she enjoyed and consented to the action that brought about the pregnancy in the first place...

My opinion

MrAnony1:
Abortion - in the broad sense of the word - is equivalent to murder

In which legal jurisdictions is it murder?

Kay17: In which legal jurisdictions is it murder?

The question of whether abortion is murder is a question of definition and not one of jurisdiction. I have shown why abortion satisfies the conditions to classify it as murder here: https://www.nairaland.com/1807927/view-abortion/1#24876951.

If you disagree with what I have shown, then please specifically point out exactly what you disagree with and give your reasons for doing so.

^^
Which is viciously misleading.

AderibigbeAAA: My view of Abortion depend on the consequence that resulted in the pregnancy in the first place.

Let me put it simple and straight, if the pregnancy is as a result of rape, then I support abortion .

However, if the pregnancy is as a result of the enjoyment she had with her bf, sugar daddy or who so ever, then Abortion is a sin for her because she enjoyed and consented to the action that brought about the pregnancy in the first place...

My opinion

I kinda like your opinion, because you respect the woman's autonomy over her body. Ra.pe infringes on her body while consensual sex goes along with her wishes. However, the woman's intent in consensual sex can be only for the purpose of pleasure and relief and not for procreation. Hence the use of contraceptives. It is not a ridiculous idea to have sex only for fun, but the unexpected does happen. Given her autonomy, she can do as she desires.

Kay17: ^^
Which is viciously misleading.

You are welcome to explain how.

Ethical issues relating to abortion revolve round the status and personhood of the foetus. The mother/woman is understandable human - a person - and her life is always deemed worthy of preservation. In cases where the mother's life is at risk, the foetus is easily forgone.

I believe abortion is always a question of personhood, when does the foetus become a person. Whenever the foetus can be considered a person, a Rubicon emerges.

MrAnony1:
You are welcome to explain how.

You declàred that abortion is murder without directing your audience's mind to the entirely different context you interpreted it. Ordinarily, any one that comes across your misleading post, would have thought that indeed, in law, abortion was murder whereas it is not. Next time it is befitting you inform others of the exceptional circumstances in which you make such declarations.

Kay17: Ethical issues relating to abortion revolve round the status and personhood of the foetus. The mother/woman is understandable human - a person - and her life is always deemed worthy of preservation. In cases where the mother's life is at risk, the foetus is easily forgone.
I believe abortion is always a question of personhood, when does the foetus become a person. Whenever the foetus can be considered a person, a Rubicon emerges.

So do you hold that there is never a time when the foetus can be classified as a person?

What follows is another example of a bad circular argument.

Kay17: You declàred that abortion is murder without directing your audience's mind to the entirely different context you interpreted it.

Please what contexts are you referring to?

Ordinarily, any one that comes across your misleading post.....

please how is it misleading?

....would have thought that indeed, in law, abortion was murder whereas it is not

I have explained how it is murder, please explain how it is not: In law, murder has a clear definition. You can either show that I got the definition of murder wrong or that abortion does not meet the criteria for murder as it is defined

Next time it is befitting you inform others of the exceptional circumstances in which you make such declarations.

Again what are these exceptional circumstances that you speak of?

You came here accusing me of misleading people yet when I asked you to explain what exactly this misleading is and how this misleading occurs, your answer is basically "It is misleading because it is misleading".

@mranony1

Is abortion murder in Nigeria?

No, why because the two offences are separated and punished differently. The law in Nigeria does not consider a foetus a person in the legalistic definition of murder. Most countries which prohibit abortion follow the same path.

You on the other hand, have a completely different idea of how abortion apparently converges with murder, and have decided to believe that idea to be the true state of the law, whereas it is not!

So that's where you mislead the Nairaland audience that comes across your post.

A foetus is deemed a person at the stage it acquires the invaluable qualities of personhood such as consciousness, memory, capability to suffer etc.

Kay17: @mranony1

Is abortion murder in Nigeria?

No, why because the two offences are separated and punished differently. The law in Nigeria does not consider a foetus a person in the legalistic definition of murder. Most countries which prohibit abortion follow the same path.

I see, so what exactly are those who commit the offence of abortion punished for if not for the premeditated killing of another human being?

You on the other hand, have a completely different idea of how abortion apparently converges with murder, and have decided to believe that idea to be the true state of the law, whereas it is not!

The part in bold is a strawman since I have made it clear that abortion is murder because it matches what murder is by definition and not because some nation's law says it is or isn't.

So that's where you mislead the Nairaland audience that comes across your post.

I did not mislead anyone, my position was clear from the onset. It was you who chose to interprete it in the way you chose even after I pointed out to you that your interpretation wasn't the case.

A foetus is deemed a person at the stage it acquires the invaluable qualities of personhood such as consciousness, memory, capability to suffer etc.

Interesting. Now you must stay consistent.

if the invaluable qualities of personhood are consciousness, memory and capability to suffer then you must hold that if you are ever in a coma, you immediately cease to be a person and therefore, it will not be murder to kill you as you would lack the qualities - which according to you - make you a person. Do you hold this position?

P/s: I reject the view that a foetus becomes a person. I hold that personhood (by which I precisely mean human being in this case) is not the sort of thing one can become. One is either a human being or one is not there is no step by step process to becoming human i.e. there is no such thing as a half-human being or a two-third human being or a one-quarter human being e.t.c.

Anony. Been a while.
A few questions.

1. Do you regard it as sinful to abort a pregnancy that arose from a father raping his daughter?

2. Or an armed robber or serial killer raping a strange woman?

3. Do you think that the length of the pregnancy - that is - the extent of development is relevant? In other words if conception has taken place and what exists is still a developing cell - just within a few days of conception, do you see abortion of such as the same as aborting a fully developed fetus in the third trimester?

4. Do you acknowledge that there are pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother? If so, if a choice PER FORCE must be made, do you think an abortion of the pregnancy in such a situation is immoral?

Many thanks.

DeepSight: Anony. Been a while.
A few questions.

Yes bro, been a while. How you dey?

1. Do you regard it as sinful to abort a pregnancy that arose from a father raping his daughter?

2. Or an armed robber or serial killer raping a strange woman?

While I sympathize with the unfortunate circumstances by which the baby came about, I don't think that it makes the foetus any less human and hence it is immoral to kill it.

To put it in perspective, here's a question for you. Does a child conceived via incest or rape have less right to life than one conceived legitimately?

3. Do you think that the length of the pregnancy - that is - the extent of development is relevant? In other words if conception has taken place and what exists is still a developing cell - just within a few days of conception, do you see abortion of such as the same as aborting a fully developed fetus in the third trimester?

Yes I think that the length of the pregnancy is relevant but not in any sense that makes the foetus any less or more human and this is what I mean: I hold that life starts at conception and hence if a woman finds out that she is with child, it is immoral to intentionally kill it regardless of it's stage of development however I must point out that it is true that I don't feel as much sympathy for a 1 week old as I do for a 7 month old but this is not because one is more or less human rather it is more like how I may feel more sympathy over the death of a 4 year old girl than the death of a 90 year old man.

4. Do you acknowledge that there are pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother? If so, if a choice PER FORCE must be made, do you think an abortion of the pregnancy in such a situation is immoral?

I do and in such a situation I would try as much as possible to save both but if I must choose, I would opt to save the mother and lose the baby. Bear in mind that this does not make either any more or less human. It is the same to me as how in a desperate situation, choosing save women and children and sacrificing the men does not make the men any less human

P/s: Did you get my facebook message about my submission on our trinity discourse posted on philoversity

@mranony1

You can't play with legal terms and throw out their actual meaning in place for yours. There is hardly any sense in arguing abortion is murder when the law is very clear that is not. Same as asserting manslaughter and self defense and even putative self defence is murder whereas in law, they are not!

The idea behind protecting personhood is percisely to preserve those cherished qualities which are eventually responsible for human greatness, civilisation, etc. Now, an individual in a permanent coma can be deemed to have lost personhood. And steps taken to terminate the necessary medical support are not deemed murder.

Kay17: @mranony1
You can't play with legal terms and throw out their actual meaning in place for yours.

Except that I have done no such thing. I have neither changed the meaning of murder nor have I changed the meaning of abortion.

There is hardly any sense in arguing abortion is murder when the law is very clear that is not.

Except that this is a strawman that has nothing to do with what I have actually said.

Same as asserting manslaughter and self defense and even putative self defence is murder whereas in law, they are not!

Except that I clearly defined what murder is and showed how abortion matched the criteria. manslaughter and self-defence do not match those criteria. Please refute my position properly and stop grasping for straws. What is the fundamental difference between murder and premeditated abortion by definition?

What I have said is similar to how one would say that Advanced fee fraud is essentially robbery. If the best counter-argument you have is that the terms "robbery" and advanced fee fraud" are addressed separately in the law books of Nigeria, and not actually how they differ by definition, then I am afraid that you really have nothing.

The idea behind protecting personhood is percisely to preserve those cherished qualities which are eventually responsible for human greatness, civilisation, etc. Now, an individual in a permanent coma can be deemed to have lost personhood. And steps taken to terminate the necessary medical support are not deemed murder.

The fundamental difference being that in the case of a "permanent" coma, killing such a person will only be permissible if it is believed that he/she will never be conscious while abortion on the other hand is purposefully killing someone who is fully expected to eventually become conscious.

Mind you, I have not in any way granted your so-called qualities of personhood. I am only showing you the problems with your position even if it were to be granted. This is because what you are arguing essentially is that people slip in and out of humanness as they slip in and out of consciousness through the duration of their lives.

1. But in the case of self defence, the killing is premeditated and consciously executed but for a legitimate purpose. Isn't it therefore the same with murder. A worse case is putative self defence. Same with voluntary manslaughter.

2. Amongst all the qualities, you picked only consciousness and forgot the remainder.