Pro-life folk keep accusing pro-choice folk of neglect, apathy and inhumane worldviews but it struck me yesterday that pro-life folk may be guilty of the very same offences they accuse the pro-choice folk of!

If a Pro-lifer says a woman should not abort her child, then it will only make total sense if pro-lifers actively involved in supporting the financial and administrative management of orphanages, and they should be the most active adopters of those unwanted children.

Otherwise, pro-lifers are just empty barrels making awful noise.

What do you think?

What are the similarities?

Not everyone believes/agrees that they're their brothers' keepers, you know.

InesQor:

Pro-life folk keep accusing pro-choice folk of neglect, apathy and inhumane worldviews but it struck me yesterday that pro-life folk may be guilty of the very same offences they accuse the pro-choice folk of!

If a Pro-lifer says a woman should not abort her child, then it will only make total sense if pro-lifers actively involved in supporting the financial and administrative management of orphanages, and they should be the most active adopters of those unwanted children.

Otherwise, pro-lifers are just empty barrels making awful noise.

What do you think?

Am I the ONLY one that thinks this character is the same person as the disgraced mavenbox?

Is it a coincidence you registered around the time mavenbox was shamed?

Trust that pissy little b!tch to stick around.

InesQor:

Pro-life folk keep accusing pro-choice folk of neglect, apathy and inhumane worldviews but it struck me yesterday that pro-life folk may be guilty of the very same offences they accuse the pro-choice folk of!

If a Pro-lifer says a woman should not abort her child, then it will only make total sense if pro-lifers actively involved in supporting the financial and administrative management of orphanages, and they should be the most active adopters of those unwanted children.

Otherwise, pro-lifers are just empty barrels making awful noise.

What do you think?

Right on the money.If you are a "pro-life" person, then walk the talk.

Yes, that has always been my problem with pro-life advocates, a lot of them would spend their money and resources organizing protests and campaigns, they are ready to burn down abortion clinics and hire lobbyist pass anti-abortion laws.

But they would not even give a thought for abandoned children, they drive right past orphanages without as much as take a look at the entrance. They would brush aside any of the millions of filthy abandoned kids who touches their sparkling white clothes while begging for money to eat the next meal, or the abandoned mother with her baby who begs for money in traffic in order to buy drugs for her sick baby.

They are able to have sympathy for the unborn feotus but find no sympathy whatsoever for the borned abandoned child.

^^^ Spot on Wirinet: Its really just same ol human hypocrisy at work.

These are the same goons who will also insist that a woman must keep a pregnancy which was the result of a violent r.ape: even if such was perpetuated by her father or uncle.

Tudór:

Am I the ONLY one that thinks this character is the same person as the disgraced mavenbox?

Is it a coincidence you registered around the time mavenbox was shamed?

Trust that pissy little b!tch to stick around.

Jesus Christ. I just did a quick check and found that Inesqor's VERY FIRST POST on NL was made on February 22 2010.

Mavenbox's last post on NL was made on February 22 2010.

On that day, Mavenbox died and Ineqor was born.

Oh, no: not again. . .when will the deception stop?

@op

InesQor:

Pro-life folk keep accusing pro-choice folk of neglect, apathy and inhumane worldviews but it struck me yesterday that pro-life folk may be guilty of the very same offences they accuse the pro-choice folk of!

If a Pro-lifer says a woman should not abort her child, then it will only make total sense if pro-lifers actively involved in supporting the financial and administrative management of orphanages, and they should be the most active adopters of those unwanted children.

Otherwise, pro-lifers are just empty barrels making awful noise.

What do you think?

I am struggling to see any sense in the above. It is a moral duty on all of us to care for the downtrodden and that includes children born to poor mothers as much as Aids orphans and former child soldiers. I have no special obligation to a particular group.

Refusing to care for the downtrodden is bad. And yes, the experience of the oppressed is the most relevant experience and should, for that reason, form the basis for analysis. But that is not the issue here or in most abortion dabtes. Anyone who is capable of consciously engaging in s[i]e[/i]x without taking protective measures because they want full enjoyment should be able to handle the result - take care of the child. I know people who have involved themselves in abortion. It is not for the reasons people like to cite - ra.pe, incest, can't take care of the child, and all that. It is usually so that they can hop onto the next bed to continue their promiscuous ways.

^^^ So what about in the r.ape and in.cest cases? Should they be compelled to keep the child?

Also what if i use protection, and condom come burst? And me and my partner, we be both 14 years old na?

Make we still keep the pikin?

@Akebulan: I guess you're right. Not everyone here has humanistic tendencies or a devotion to human welfare.

@Tudor & Deep Sight: If thinking I am mavenbox makes you feel better, by all means please be my guest. But then, Tudor, you never answered the question in the OP.

@Jagunlabi & wirinet: Wirinet you know I have pro-life views, we met on the other abortion thread. I was just trying to show another perspective, and I'm glad you both get my view on this too. Thanks for your comments.

@MyJoe: Well I do not think your perspective covers all instances, and since there is no way to always tell the inaugural motives behind an abortion, I think you cannot afford to generalize.

^^^ Left to me, abortion would be legalised and made available. If you can prove r[i]a[/i]pe, especially child r[i]a[/i]pe, you go scot free. But where it is as it is with the vast majority of cases, you will be charged with murder and jailed for life.

A r[i]a[/i]pe victim clearly did not choose to engage in the act that brought about the pregnancy. Someone whose condom went burst clearly did. You either forgot to check expiry date or did not observe condom conventions, like you were impatient. The fault is yours. And so is the pikin.

InesQor:


@Tudor & Deep Sight: If thinking I am mavenbox makes you feel better, by all means please be my guest. But then, Tudor, you never answered the question in the OP.

Please be out with it before it becomes another fiasco.

Is the Feb. 22nd exit of Mavenbox and the Feb. 22nd entry of Inesqor a coincidence?

Also now that i think about it, your analogies of hot-air balloons and movie-characters are spot - on Mavenbox give-aways.

@MyJoe: And what happens when you can't prove rape, but it occurred?

@Deep Sight: I registered on nairaland on my birthday, Feb 22nd. So why not ask mavenbox why he exited on the same day? And what movie characters are you on about?

^^^

InesQor:

And what movie characters are you on about?

Example. . .

InesQor:

My opinion of this anonymous atheist's perspective is that he/she expects Christians to feel the weight of the pending damnation to the extent that they wild-eyed, mad with rage to protect a human life, should accost everyone they encounter and yell at them until they submit to the Lordship of Jesus, much the same way a truly compassionate human will do anything at the risk of appearing insane to stop people from driving to their death over a cliff.

This is like the same way Will Smith, in a ravingly mad conspiracy-inclined manner in I, Robot kept trying to tell people to stay clear of the evil NS-5 robot series, and he looked foolish, paranoid, and broke the law when it was necessary to do so, in order to protect the human race.

Mavenbox's favourite analogies were with movies and movie characters.

Besides is it really a coincidence that Mavenbox has NOT MADE A SINGLE POST since Inesqor registered? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

That is TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE.

Out with it jaaare!

InesQor:

@MyJoe: And what happens when you can't prove despoil, but it occurred?

@Deep Sight: I registered on nairaland on my birthday, Feb 22nd. So why not ask mavenbox why he exited on the same day? And what movie characters are you on about?

Na today?
Isn't the same lying aszhole mavenbox accused the NL male population of sexism against women then to excuse here stupidity claimed she was in a 'bad mood' due to the chavanistic attitude of her driver. . . Now she claimed to be a man. . .so?. . . .

No be today. . .birthday ko, igbeyawo ni. .*hiss*

@Deep Sight: Oh, I love Will Smith! I'm one of his really big fans. And I also think there is a spiritual message of a type in every one of his movies

@Tudor, I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. I don't believe in picking fights with ladies.

InesQor:

@MyJoe: Well I do not think your perspective covers all instances, and since there is no way to always tell the inaugural motives behind an abortion, I think you cannot afford to generalize.

Not sure where you got "generalize" from in my post since I mentioned the exceptions and used the word "usually" in my last sentence. I told you what I have personally observed. A single lawyer girl. An undergraduate. A banker. A bread hawker putting up with her aunty. A teacher. A shop assistant. I insist this applies to most cases. You, too, will if we get down to hard facts and not semantics. The "inaugural motive" you seem particularly interested in here, going by your op, is poverty. That is not a valid reason to go for abortion. Which reminds me of Lee Quan Yew's discredited policy at one time of sterilising poor women while giving incentives to rich women to do so "to improve the quality of Singaporeans". Very very poor women have been successfully raising kids since forever. Jesus Christ was born to a poor carpenter's wife. Mohammed was born to a poor mother. And so, I bet, are some of the participants in this thread.

InesQor:

@MyJoe: And what happens when you can't prove despoil, but it occurred?

Are we talking legally or morally in this thread?
Legally, I assume you have attended court trials. This is what courts exist for. You don't make legislations of the basis of "what if this can't be proved?" Morally, you know you have been r[i]a[/i]ped if you have been r[i]a[/i]ped, don't you?

@MyJoe:
Points well taken, MyJoe. But I do not agree with your viewpoint that the inaugural motive is always poverty. It might be one of a horde of other reasons, ranging from societal considerations on morality to independence to religious or psychological and emotional factors. I was not indicating poverty (for the mother) in the OP, what I was describing is the fact that orphanages cannot survive simply based on the loud campaigns against abortion.

@ MyJoe. If you leave your front/back/side door/window open in the winter and a homeless person, or anybody else for that matter, walks/climbs into your home, does the fact that his survival rests on him having a place to stay mean that you are obligated to have him/her live in your house; since you knew the risk of leaving your door open, shouldn't you, going by your "condom broke" example, and general position on this issue, be obligated to house this individual?

pro-life people generaly support birth control and education to prevent these unwanted children from being concieved in the first place.

@Agathamari: True that. But birth control and education can't change the fate of those who are already/currently in the mix of unwanted pregnancies, and neither will anti-abortion campaigns without support for orphanages and unwanted children!

Krayola:

@ MyJoe. If you leave your front/back/side door/window open in the winter and a homeless person, or anybody else for that matter, walks/climbs into your home, does the fact that his survival rests on him having a place to stay mean that you are obligated to have him/her live in your house; since you knew the risk of leaving your door open, shouldn't you, going by your "condom broke" example, and general position on this issue, be obligated to house this individual?

Your analogy is way off. But to answer your question first, Nope.

“If you no fit hold body, use a condom,” goes the common advert. Now if I move into a new town and everyone tells me not to leave my windows open at night as homeless people in that town are fund sneaking in I will be well served to listen. If I don’t and they sneak in the first thing people will say is, “But you were warned.” That does not give the intruder a right to live in my house.

The intruder came uninvited – my inadvertence in leaving my window open not having served as an invitation. The foetus, on the other hand, came in wielding a gold-plated IV. Sex is an intention to have a child – yeah, that’s how babies are made. In the case of a breaking condom the onus was on the parties to ensure that did not happen. Terminating that pregnancy would be like turning out my invited guest in the middle of the night at winter on the excuse that I wasn’t really thinking when I sent out the IVs.

MyJoe:

intimacy is an intention to have a child – yeah, that’s how babies are made.

intimacy isn't always intended to make kids. That kids could result from intimacy does not mean that is the intent of all sexual intercourse.

People are killed by gunshots. Is shooting a gun at someone necessarily an intent to commit murder? 

In the case of a breaking condom the onus was on the parties to ensure that did not happen. Terminating that pregnancy would be like turning out my invited guest in the middle of the night at winter on the excuse that I wasn’t really thinking  when I sent out the IVs.

if u lock your doors and soMeone  breaks into your house,  Are u liable because u did not get heavy duty metal doors?

Btw u are free to kick Invited guests out of your home if u wish. It may be rude, but u have every right to do so IMO.

MyJoe:

Your analogy is way off. But to answer your question first, Nope.

“If you no fit hold body, use a condom,” goes the common advert. Now if I move into a new town and everyone tells me not to leave my windows open at night as homeless people in that town are fund sneaking in I will be well served to listen. If I don’t and they sneak in the first thing people will say is, “But you were warned.” That does not give the intruder a right to live in my house.

The intruder came uninvited – my inadvertence in leaving my window open not having served as an invitation. The foetus, on the other hand, came in wielding a gold-plated IV. intimacy is an intention to have a child – yeah, that’s how babies are made. In the case of a breaking condom the onus was on the parties to ensure that did not happen. Terminating that pregnancy would be like turning out my invited guest in the middle of the night at winter on the excuse that I wasn’t really thinking  when I sent out the IVs.

Although i am not in total agreement with krayola's analogy, yours is also way off. Nobody invites an unwanted foetus, in fact it came in uninvited. You are very wrong to claim that s.ex (aka intimacy according to Seun) is an invitation for a baby. Nothing can be more absurd. People have sex in order to satisfy physical and psychological needs  most of the time and only do it to "invite" a baby, very few times in a life time. Unless you are telling me that anytime a couple have s.ex, they must want to have a baby. Then most people would need to have s.ex less than ten times in their life time.

What we should be looking is measures a couple (married or unmarried) can take in order to have s.ex without the fear of having an uninvited guest, and only invite the guest when they really want to. This should include better s.ex education, better prevention mechanisms and techniques,  and if the need be better clinics and qualified doctors to carry out abortion without endangering the woman or her womb, and better legislation to regulate when it is safe and morally acceptable to carry out abortions.

Anything short of these would just be like stop the stop the sun from shining by simply closing your eyes

@wirinet,  wetin do my analogy? I go blow u o 

I do not accept the argument that  a week old foetus, being a living thing must be allowed to develop into a baby, even if the mother categorically does not want it. It should be noted that an average woman shreds an egg every month for about 30 odd years, giving us a total of 360 eggs. So if we have improved abortion methods whereby a woman' womb is unaffected, a woman can invariably get pregnant every month. The major problem is that most back street abortion procedures damage the womb each time a woman undergoes abortion and so the womb is easily damages after a few of such abortions. Which would then become a problem in the future when the woman needs to have a baby.

What i am saying is that we need to tacking Abortion and its related problems comprehensively and realistically, instead of our present approach of sticking our heads in the sand and wishing the problems away, meanwhile the  continues to compound.

Krayola:

intimacy isn't always intended to make kids. That kids could result from intimacy does not mean that is the intent of all sexual intercourse.

People are killed by gunshots. Is shooting a gun at someone necessarily an intent to commit murder? 

A mentally healthy adult woman who goes into s[i]e[/i]x at her “unsafe” period can be safely assumed to be saying a prayer asking for a child or children. But you are allowed to say, “no, I don’t want the children.” There are certain measures to make this possible. Take them.

Krayola:
if u lock your doors and soMeone  breaks into your house,  Are u liable because u did not get heavy duty metal doors?

Btw u are free to kick Invited guests out of your home if u wish. It may be rude, but u have every right to do so IMO.

Yeah. but it would be a different matter if you were turning him into, say, a wintry night of  -12 deg C with flimsy clothes on. You see, aluminum is not gold. These comparisons are not adequate.

All these talks of r[i]a[/i]pe, incest and breaking condoms are purely academic. If we legalized abortion in all these cases only, the vast majority of abortions will still be illegal. I repeat, most women who opt for abortion are not doing to because a condom broke. Not one of the abortion victims I know have given me this reason, yet. They do so to be free to continue whoring or to deceive the mug who will marry them.

The analogies are very adequate IMHO. A fetus is life, a homeless person is life. TheY both need a place to stay at someone else's expense. If your position is pro- life Is it all life, or do u discriminate against certain kinds of life?

Pardon my punctuation and capitalizations and orisirishi, I'm using my phone and posting is pure drama sometimes

Krayola:

@wirinet,  wetin do my analogy? I go blow u o 

I beg no blow me, as i no get power o!

The problem with your analogy is that the homeless person did not stray into your house as a result of your unlocked doors.  na you go drag am in because you wan enjoy watin he get for hand. Now after you enjoy am, you come tell am to leave, but him no gree. Him say na for your house him go die put.  So now you would need to use drastic measures to get him out, especially if you are not ready to share your house and take care of the guest.