cococandy: First the wirter says the problem of female suppression doesn't exist in Nigeria.
That almost renders the whole write up invalid.
I'm sorry it's difficult to take some who says that seriously.
A country where we have to count the high profile women off the fingers of both hands and feet still has a long way to go in women's emancipation.
He wanted her to be specific about the part of Nigeria still in the dark?
I guess we should title the next topic 'emancipation of women in the North' or
'Emancipation of women in urhobo land'
Aren't we all Nigerians?


Second,one would have expected him/her to put their points accross without throwing insults and jabs at the person of chimamanda.
I don't know what this write up is all about,but it is glaring that at the heart of it is a deep dislike for adichie. And hate is one thing I don't do.if I quote all the sentences where she/he said nasty things about the writer, it'll be very obvious this topic is about chimamanda and nothing else.
And frankly I've a life so colorful I don't sit and discuss celebrities.

I think the author of this post should try get such a life too.

Kay17: That wasn't my question. This was the Q:

Kay17: So you believe whenever a pregnancy endangers a mother's life, the option is prioritise the foetus' life over the mother's, right?

TV01:



This is unthinking in so many ways;

1. If the mothers life is truly in danger, what chance will the child have of surviving without her? A no brainer of a question, but thats what happens when you are determined to justify wickedness by any means. Truth, morality and stuctured thinking go out the window.

2. If the mothers life was truly in danger, it would be about weighing the chances of one life vs. another, not a Right vs a Life. Keep on plucking rights from the ether and attributing them as you like. Like a right is some sort of deep spiritual law or invoilable rule.

3. If a woman is healthy/fit enough to carry a baby in the first instance and does not engage in any harmful behaviours during the pregnancy, instances of "endangered life, will be very few, if they do arise, we can treat them on a case by case basis.


Pregnancy is not a disease or an illness. So, no to abortion at any time and for any reason. No to abortion under the false guise of rights, control and autonomy! No to murder by method, in order to justify and facilitate unrerstrained, irresponsible mating. It's immoral & destructive.


TV

Kay17: wouldn't it be murder to kill the child in order to save the mother? Because people from your camp have drummed about the right to life of the child. So if the State can elect to terminate the child's life for a good reason, why can't it do same to yours?!

Kay17: My point is, your moral system is inconsistent and chaotic.

Kay17: The obvious truth is, a woman morally deserves to put her body and whatever within her to her purpose and benefit.

Kay17: If her mental or physical health is at risk, she by natural law (if there is anything like that) is obliged to protect herself.

TV01:
See as your arguements become increasingly muddled and your case unravels.
You are the one that is arguing for the "right to murder" - which is what "abortion on demand" is.
A child has the "right to life" and that should be uncontestable where the challenge is from a mothers "right to lifestyle".

It is "your camp" that are a bunch of ranting unconscionables. I acknowledge there may be some hard cases, but not some hard-coded right to exstiguish the life of a baby - "just because".

It's instructive that even in the case of rhape, 85% of mothers choose to keep their children. Mothers instinctively want to safegaurd and nurture the life within them. And most know that despite the trauma of molest, two wrongs do not make a right.


Not true, and at least I have a moral system !


Sounds like an arguement for any kind of behaviour. So when women lie with animals or prostitute themselves, it becomes "moral" as long as she determines the purpose?

And it's worth noting, that most women feel pressured to have abortions. Often by men .


Yes, I subscribe to notions of natural law. But there is nothing in natural law that suggests pregnancy is an illness. There is always a "risk" to pregnancy and childbirth. Are you championing eliminating that risk entirely? See yourself now?

And the mental trauma is often - as I noted earlier - due to the tremendous pressure brought to bear on her to have an abortion. In the West, abortion (for which read the culture of death) is ingrained into the healthcare system.

A pregnant woman has to see a Dr prior to seeing a midwife for pre-natal care. And the Dr always - I repeat always and to all - offers abortion as a perfectly normal consequence. Why is that? Especially when it is sold as a great, morally-neutral choice.


TV

^{The truth is "your camp" are purveyors of death. And not only are you not after "autonomy & control" for women, you actually hate them.}

Kay17:
Sorry for my late response.

Kay17:
So you want "murder when necessary" not "murder on demand", right?!

Kay17:
As I said earlier you are inconsistent. If the child truly has a right to life, no one even the State can elect to kill it. The essence of the assertive right to life is to guard and protect one's self from others. So if the child loses its life for its mother's life, then you can claim it has a right to life.

Kay17:
Searching deeper into your moral system, the denial of a woman abortion, is a form of punishment for socially unacceptable behaviour.

Kay17:
Truly you believe a "wayward" woman shouldn't have a right to abort. So you are making a moral argument and not a legal one.

Kay17:
1. On abortion, we can agree to disagree. My arhuments always remain the same.

2. On the issue of the legal state of marriage. It is beyond me and left to you to make your own research. The law resides in the statute books and case laws, it is a nuisance to expect me to reproduce them. Where else are law books to be found. Where else are statutes to be form. There are only 2 statutes on marriages in Nigeria and a myraid on matrimonial properties. I have made my assertions and anchor them on marriage statutes in Nigeria. That's sufficient. You on the other hand, are to assert the contrary.

3. But early marriage in Nigeria is legally permissible!

4. Although you went on like a documentary for a while over matters that were not in issue. The moral/cultural consideration is what's in focus here. Now, if culture has a different perception of a woman from the man wouldn't such consideration weigh on the human rights? If culture sees the man with more responsibilities and duties, and accordingly approves more rights to the man; wouldn't that weigh on the human rights?! So the moral and cultural considerations are the yardstick by which the prior rights are measured and weighed.
As I said earlier Law is mainly philology, ordinary ppl read the rights and exclaim about how sweet and equal these rights are, but they neglect the yardstick in 45.

The examples you are made, are isolated. That's not the general expectation of a woman in Nigeria, her nudity is an ultimate shame.

5. I will agree to disagree with you on that. Again your analogies are always off.

6. Yes to you, language can be trivial, but in the legal scene, even the meaning of "is" is hotly contested.

MrAnony1: [size=18pt]Death can never be the resolution to avoiding the dilemma of death.[/size] - TV01
Very well said. This ought to be framed and hung in the sitting room.

MrAnony1: Just to keep us on track, I must remind you that I asked you to name one right that men have that women don't. Now in that light, let us review your answers again


I must remind you that presenting the same argument over and over doesn't in any way transform it into a good argument.


Here is a link to the Nigerian Marriage Act. http://www.nigeria-law.org/Marriage%20Act.htm

Please quote the parts that prove that marriage dissolves the identity of a woman. You can copy and paste them here if it helps.


So...?


First of all, there is nothing wrong with seeing men and women differently (they are indeed different). It doesn't necessarily follow that acknowledging gender differences will affect their human rights.

Here is a link to the universal declaration of human rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please which one of those rights is being violated for women by Nigerian law (due to how it sees men) and in what specific way is it being violated?

It is also interesting that you believe that the society gives men more responsibilities and duties but you don't consider it to be gender discrimination against men seeing that one gender is required to do more of the work than the other because of their gender. I didn't fail to notice that you were more concerned about the "greater rights of men" than the "greater duties of men".
Finally, I don't think it is wrong in any way to give more rights to the person who has more duties.


Well all you now have to do is produce examples of women in Nigeria legally punished because they used their nudity as a tool for political protest. Surely you shouldn't have a problem with that since my examples would be outliers and yours would be the norm.


How exactly is my analogy off?


Unless you want to argue that the pronoun "he" as used in the law to represent a person somehow translates in practice to mean that such laws apply only to men specifically and neglect women, then you really have no case.

You haven't shown one right in Nigeria that men have that is denied to women based on gender.

We act from a position of the sanctity of life. Both lives must at all cost be preserved. They are equally valuable. We medically intervene to keep both alive/viable and we do not induce delivery until we are absolutely certain that to no tdo so would kill the mother. If the child consequently dies, we haven't purposefully killed or murdered the child. That is what abortion would do. And in blindly championing an immoral course of action, you lose sight of sound moral recourse

Kay17:

@TV01

Are you saying that there isn't any circumstance whereby a pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger?! And you are speaking as a medical expert?

MrAnony1:
Why do you insist on purposefully misrepresenting your opponent?

Are you saying that the mother have the right to terminate the life of the foetus or should killing a foetus only be restricted to special cases where the pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger such that one would have to sacrifice the life of the foetus to save the mother?

Please state what exactly your position is and stop shifting the goal posts
.

Kay17:
My position has always been that a woman has a natural right to life over the foetus either when her life is at risk or not.

But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.

Kay17:
1. Let's see how the type of statute (a procedural one) you produced. I just want to prove how non substantive the statute you brought. So ask yourself where you can find the definition that marriage is a union of man and woman. Or the legal benefits of marriage Or corporate status of marriage etc.

But if I were you, I'd rely on case law such as Hyde v. Hyde, cCorbett v. Corbett and thousands more. These give the flesh and grasp on the topic of marriage. So in effect, marriage is still a slightly modified variant of common law institution along with its medieval bias.

As I said earlier, in law, you hardly find a single sentence telling you what you want. It is scattered around and should not be considered with face value.

2. You are dragging us back. We were in accord that rights are not to be read at the surface or in isolation (as bible verses) but collectively and you found the limitations in sec. 45 indispensable. So quoting Declaration of HRs is not to that end. The cultural factor translates the gender differences into the substantive rights.

So if society sees the man as one with the more responsibilities and duties, it automatically grants more substantive rights to him, a circumstance you wilfully agree to.

4. Although you went on like a documentary for a while over matters that were not in issue. The moral/cultural consideration is what's in focus here. Now, if culture has a different perception of a woman from the man wouldn't such consideration weigh on the human rights? If culture sees the man with more responsibilities and duties, and accordingly approves more rights to the man; wouldn't that weigh on the human rights?! So the moral and cultural considerations are the yardstick by which the prior rights are measured and weighed.

3. Because women are barely recognised, it is no issue for you to find it tolerable if there is hardly any expression directed at them in the Constitution.

Sorry about my late replies.

5. Am I supposed to help your imagination too?! I pick the FEMEN tactic of Unclothedness. If a woman tries that in Nigeria, she can be locked up. While a man who uses his Unclothedness as a political or social statement, will be let free.

Kay17: @TV01

Are you saying that there isn't any circumstance whereby a pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger?! And you are speaking as a medical expert?

Kay17:
My position has always been that a woman has a natural right to life over the foetus either when her life is at risk or not.

Kay17:
But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.

MrAnony1:
In other words, your position is that a woman has the right to kill her offspring whenever she deems fit. . . . . Just out of curiousity, do men have this right too?


This is a gross misunderstanding of our position. An equal right to life does not mean that it is evil to sacrifice one life for the other in special circumstances where it is either one dies or both will die.

For instance, if you and your child are drowning in the ocean and there is only one lifebouy which means that only one of you will make it, are you saying that giving the lifebouy to one of you means that the other person who drowns has less of a right to life than the one to whom the lifebouy was given?

Remember when TV01 said that "death can never be the solution to the dilemma of death". I think this is exactly what he meant.

What you are effectively saying is that whether the two people are drowning or not, one person (namely you) has the right to actively drown the other person (your child) even if there are two lifebouys and they could both have been saved.

This shows an utter disregard for human life.

MrAnony1:
....Or perhaps you can tell me exactly where to find it?


I gave those cases a quick glance on wikipedia, how exactly do they make your point?


The more reason why you should make a robust case citing numerous references so as to give a comprehensive understanding of what you are talking about. So far you have remained very vague. Do you want me to understand you or not?


Remember that it was you and not me who said this:


https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/21#25251862

That was why I had to ask you to point out which human rights were being violated.

I agree that IF a society gives a person more duties and responsibilities, it is only fair that it gives him more rights (with respect to his/her duties) but what I don't see is how it makes the people unequal in essence which is what you seem to be suggesting.

For instance; I believe it is only fair that the breadwinner of the family makes the decisions concerning the best use of the resources he/she is providing. In Nigeria it is often the man who plays this role, therefore it is only fair that his decisions carry more weight than the woman who isn't contributing as much as he is. In families where it is the woman who is the breadwinner, you find that she is likewise the one one who calls the shots.
The point is that there is no law in Nigeria that prevents women from choosing to be breadwinners if they want to. If most women don't want to bear the greater responsibility then it is a matter of choice and not oppression as you would like us to believe.

If you want to argue that there are laws that give women less rights than men, you will have to show them to me. So far you haven't.


I don't know which part of my post you are responding to here.



That's alright.


P/s: I didn't fail to notice that you didn't present any examples women in Nigeria punished because they used their nudity as a tool for political protest.

Do we take it therefore that what you said here is a lie?


https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/19#25184429

You have not shown any instances where this is true but I have shown instances that prove your assertion to be false.

TV01:
It's been civil thus far, otherwise I wouldn't dignify this with a response. In response to your questions;

1. No. And not only did I not say that, I also stated exactly what shoul dbe done in such an instance.
2. Again no. Are you? Or where "the law" has been in view, have you spoken as a legal expert?


The sanctity of life is universal; and it is equally applicable to all.

For what reason does a "mother" have the right to life over her unborn child? And to the extent that she can willfully violate the sanctity of life of the foetus for just "any reason?" Do people that claim this really believe it?


But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.
There is absolutely no inconsitency here. It is your framing of the issue that is designed to present a dillema where none exists. I repeat, nobody is willfully killed, even if there is the unavoidable loss of life.

There is sanctity of life - it applies to all. And even if there are instances where a life may be in jeopardy, it does not thereby follow, that the right to extinguish the life of an unborn child should be granted on demand for any reason. That is neither moral nor intellectual.


TV

^{**in the UK, there are approximately 200'00 abortions a year. 30% of all pregnancies are aborted. 91% are carried out under 13 weeks and 78% under 10 weeks. Only 1% are due to potential serious handicap to the baby. It's hard to estimate those due to rape or incest or due to danger to the mothers life, what is clear is that abortion has become defacto contraception - especially when you consider the number of women having multiple abortions. Many in the same year**}

Kay17:

1. The point I was trying to make with you about the Marriage Act is that it is a procedural statute on marriage. It does not have the flesh on marriages. Rather case law covers it. And to cover all that is the equivalent of a research paper I am not ready/eager to work on. Unfortunately you don't have a grasp of marriages, so you cannot volunteer much.

2. Do you agree that men have more rights than women because culture perceives such and it is fair?

3. The fact that the constitution hardly mentions women as whole, shows how much recognition it has for them.

4. I will find an example I can remember. But this is subsumed under no.2

Kay17:

My position has always been that the foetus is not a legal person. So does not have a superceding right over its mother.

Yours however is it has an equal right. Now in a special circumstance where the pregnancy is the cause of the mortal danger to the mother, you appear to believe that the doctor can abort the pregnancy but what amazes me is how a doctor aborts with a foresight of protecting the mother by removing a foetus, and you think it is not wilful. That should be murder in your language.

Kay17: My position has always been that the foetus is not a legal person. So does not have a superceding right over its mother.

Kay17:
Yours however is it has an equal right. Now in a special circumstance where the pregnancy is the cause of the mortal danger to the mother, you appear to believe that the doctor can abort the pregnancy but what amazes me is how a doctor aborts with a foresight of protecting the mother by removing a foetus, and you think it is not wilful. That should be murder in your language.

MrAnony1:
Perhaps it is true that I don't understand marriages but then you have not demonstrated any understanding of marriage either judging by your inability to present your case. Since you refuse to make a robust case to back up your claims, I can't take you seriously.


No I don't.


This is just silly, you are now grabbing at things that don't follow. The constitution also hardly mentions men in particular or children does it mean it doesn't recognize them?

If the best argument you can present is how many times a women are mentioned in the constitution then I'm afraid you don't really have an argument.



Don't you think that the fact that you can't remember an instance of the top off your head suggests that it isn't the norm as you said?

MrAnony1:
In some communities, women are not legal persons. Do you therefore hold that their lives do not supersede that of the men and therefore; killing them is not murder? Or would you say that there is something wrong with such a community?

ditto for anti-semitic and racist communities such as was Nazi-Germany and 18th Century American Slavery.

The moment your best argument to justify killing another human being is that he/she is not "a legal person" there is definitely something wrong.


This part of your argument has already been sufficiently addressed.

TV01:

Please stop mis-ascribing things to me. I have not said abortion should be an option in any circumstance - although I have noted their will be some difficult choices, I repeat Killing is no the solution to the dillema of death.

I outlined clearly what I believed the course of action should be to afford the sanctity of life to both mother and child. Even if it meant a life was lost, it did not mean a life had to be taken.

You also note that these are "special cases". Why then do you insist on a blaket right to abortion on demand. Effectively making it no more than contraception?


TV


^{Do your "legally" derived morals and rights lead you to the intellectual conclusion that this is right? That this is not killing? Murder of the most vulnerable amongst us?}

Kay17: So who is a person to you?

Kay17:
1. You didn't contradict me regardless of how sketchy my argument was. So what I have said remains uncontroverted.

2. There were two questions in that. Whether culture does perceive the sexes differently AND whether it is fair.

3. I have said enough on that.

MrAnony1:
How you can say that your argument is indisputably true without actually making an argument beats me.


Our culture does perceive genders differently and it is not necessarily unfair.


actually you have said nothing on that but if nothing how you define enough, then so be it.

Kay17: TV, I'm dwelling on the narrow cases - the special circumstances cases - the doctor does kill/murder/abort the child to rescue the mother and out of necessity. But you can't say it is not wilful. That's donkey talk.

Kay17: 1. You didn't contradict me regardless of how sketchy my argument was. So what I have said remains uncontroverted.

MrAnony1: How you can say that your argument is indisputably true without actually making an argument beats me.

TV01:

No you are not dwelling on the narrow cases. Your position is "Abortion on demand - at any time and for any reason, under the rubric of autonomous bodily control and equal rights for women"

What you are attempting to do is qualify the whole based on sneakily worded outliers or cunningly framed exceptions. What I have adequately and repeatedly demonstrated is the inherent moral relativism and lack of real basis for, or content in your rather poorly presented "special pleading" ) !

TV