italo: How do you support the killing of a human being 8 or 9 months before birth but oppose it one minute after birth?

one is a part if the mother, the other isnt. One is a potential human being, the other is a human being with a physical presecence.



I have a simple question.

Would it make sense for a baby to survive abortion only to die of starvation?

italo: How do you support the killing of the 10% but oppose it 1 minute after birth?

The baby's rights end where the mother's begin. If the baby can survive on its own, then nobody can touch it. But as long as its dependent on the mother for life support, what the woman says goes.

If she decides that she doesn't want to harbour what is essentially a parasite that's putting her life and well-being at risk as well as causing significant discomfort and inconvenience, then that is her prerogative. Everybody has the right over his/her own body. To deny this to women is to turn them into second class citizens.

And that seems be the ultimate aim of the the religious conservative, anti-abortion people. How else do do you explain the fact that most of them are also against publicly funded birth control, comprehensive sex education in schools and condom adverts on TV.

They fight to deny women and girls the information and tools needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they fight to stop those same women from having abortions when they get pregnant. But as soon as the children get born into poverty and neglect, they turn their backs on them.

Only someone who is senseless or has deliberately turned off his brain because of religion can think like this.

Evil Brain:

The baby's rights end where the mother's begin. If the baby can survive on its own, then nobody can touch it. But as long as its dependent on the mother for life support, what the woman says goes.

In other words, a newborn should be subject to whatever the mother or any guardian says because it cannot feed itself if left alone?

Wonderful logic!

striktlymi:

In other words, a newborn should be subject to whatever the mother or any guardian says because it cannot feed itself if left alone?

Wonderful logic!

My brother, anonymity is an excellent opportunity for people to express their inhumanity and incredible idiocy. A real pity.

Ihedinobi:

My brother, anonymity is an excellent opportunity for people to express their inhumanity and incredible idiocy. A real pity.

I agree!

striktlymi:


Great post Kay but this would mean cutting off every newborn child for starters since:

1) They are not aware of their identity

2) Even though some level of consciousness can be attributed to them, we definitely can't say they are capable of discretion....still this would rule out every man, woman and child who loses consciousness due to, say, accident.

3) A newborn's anticipated future is no better than that of a child in the womb.

4) Newborns know nothing about legal responsibilities.

5) Rights and powers are strange terms to newborns.


This can be extended to other humans too but I will stick to the above for now.

I didn't see this post earlier.

1. 2. I don't think Consciousness is something that grows, rather its a property right from birth, and all conscious beings are aware of their identities, however primitive or rudimentary it might be.

3. By anticipated future, I meant the aspirations and visions conscious ppl have abt the future which a baby (conscious) will have and is what protecting.

4. 5. Do you know your human rights and what it entails? Are you aware of our comprehensive traffic laws and it affects you? I stressed on capability not knowledge.

Kay 17:

I didn't see this post earlier.

Okay!

Kay 17:
1. 2. I don't think Consciousness is something that grows, rather its a property right from birth, and all conscious beings are aware of their identities, however primitive or rudimentary it might be.

The consciousness of a newborn is no better than that of the baby in the womb. Studies have shown that the child in the womb can remember melodies they heard while inside the womb. Another study points to an ability of the child in the womb to even experience pain.

@Bold: Newborns are not aware of their identity. If you have facts to back this up, please show us.

Kay 17:
3. By anticipated future, I meant the aspirations and visions conscious ppl have abt the future which a baby (conscious) will have and is what protecting.

The aspirations and visions of a newborn is no better than that of the child in the womb because their aspirations and visions are linked to the aspirations and visions the mother or guardian.

Kay 17:
4. 5. Do you know your human rights and what it entails? Are you aware of our comprehensive traffic laws and it affects you? I stressed on capability not knowledge.

I know the above but newborns do NOT!!! They are NOT legally responsible. The legal capability for the newborn is no different from that of the unborn...their legal capabilities is ZERO!!!

^^^

Strik you are aware of the judgement in Roe vs Wade?

Is a 2 week old foetus conscious and capable of remembering melodies?

If the foetus isn't conscious, then we can not assume a general assumption of an anticipated future present in all conscious beings.

If they can enjoy rights, at times certain duties are ironically attached to such rights.

Kay 17: ^^^

Strik you are aware of the judgement in Roe vs Wade?

Is a 2 week old foetus conscious and capable of remembering melodies?

If the foetus isn't conscious, then we can not assume a general assumption of an anticipated future present in all conscious beings.

If they can enjoy rights, at times certain duties are ironically attached to such rights.

What do the following have in common:


Striktlymi as a foetus

Striktlymi at 9 months in the womb

striktlymi as a newborn

striktlymi as a teenager


...the glaring answer would be life. Since that life does not change and is associated to a human being, it is not out of place to call it a human life.

If that life is squashed when it is a foetus there will never be a striktlymi, hence a human life would have been terminated.

Now, are you saying that before the enactment of the child right act, children were not human beings? Does the law or lack of one make an individual any less human?

I didn't fail to notice how you shifted the goal post to a two week old foetus...anyways so you know my stance, I am against any form of abortion...LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION!!!

So you only became a human being the moment you were born? 10 seconds before, you werent?

Yes, just like it made sense for you to avoid abortion even though you could well die in a homicide or any other unfortunate event. We protect life, not so that it can last forever, but because it is a sacred and good gift from God.

If you can kill an unborn baby just to save it from future starvation, you will kill your young child if you suddenly become broke and unable to feed him.

What would that make you?

Logicboy03:


one is a part if the mother, the other isnt. One is a potential human being, the other is a human being with a physical presecence.



I have a simple question.

Would it make sense for a baby to survive abortion only to die of starvation?

f

striktlymi:


What do the following have in common:


Striktlymi as a foetus

Striktlymi at 9 months in the womb

striktlymi as a newborn

striktlymi as a teenager


...the glaring answer would be life. Since that life does not change and is associated to a human being, it is not out of place to call it a human life.

If that life is squashed when it is a foetus there will never be a striktlymi, hence a human life would have been terminated.

Now, are you saying that before the enactment of the child right act, children were not human beings? Does the law or lack of one make an individual any less human?

I didn't fail to notice how you shifted the goal post to a two week old foetus...anyways so you know my stance, I am against any form of abortion...LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION!!!

It is absurd to say life begins at fertilization when both the sperm cells and ova are alive and not dead. So obviously life is present in these cells up to fertilization. What most prochoice advocates like me canvass for: is an actual protection of personhood, which a further step from mere life. Senitence I'd say.

If a foetus reaches a stage where it has gain consciousness (and can be deemed senitent) then it is worth protecting.

Of what use is protecting potential personhood, when the woman's rights are at stake. There has to be a good balance.

italo: So you only became a human being the moment you were born? 10 seconds before, you werent?

Yes, just like it made sense for you to avoid abortion even though you could well die in a homicide or any other unfortunate event. We protect life, not so that it can last forever, but because it is a sacred and good gift from God.

If you can kill an unborn baby just to save it from future starvation, you will kill your young child if you suddenly become broke and unable to feed him.

What would that make you?

f

I was only a potential human being in the womb. Simple fact you cant handle.



If you can kill an unborn baby just to save it from future starvation, you will kill your young child if you suddenly become broke and unable to feed him.


The above in bold is quite fallacious and a strawman.

1) A baby in the woman is not the same as a baby living on its own after birth, not to talk of a young child.

2) In the cases of two deaths, one could be less painful than one. A mother wanted to abort her 3 weeks baby but no, the catholic church didnt allow it. She gave birth to the baby boy. She struggled feeding him as she had no job, and yet catholic and chirtsian politicians were staunchly against welfare for the poor (no food for lazy man). Worse off, the woman never liked the boy as she never wanted a child. The baby died from starvation and pneumonia from the winter. The mother was jailed for child neglect.

With point number 2, we see a horrible slow death of a baby and the suffering of a mother if 2 things were done

a) Use protection- catholic hcurhc hates condom and in America fought against paying for womens ontraceptive birth pills.

b) Abortion- which the catholic church is against.



smh....some christians can be the most vile and heartless creatures at times

Morning Kay,

Kay 17:

It is absurd to say life begins at fertilization when both the sperm cells and ova are alive and not dead. So obviously life is present in these cells up to fertilization. What most prochoice advocates like me canvass for: is an actual protection of personhood, which a further step from mere life. Senitence I'd say.

I see that you have decided to play the 'I don't know what you mean' card...anyways, when I say LIFE I meant human life which is obvious in my post.

Let's perform an experiment, shall we?...Allow your 'sperm cells' and 'Ova' to develop separately and let me allow my foetus to develop...what do you think would be the result?

Exactly, your 'sperm cells' and 'Ova', acting alone do not contain human life while my foetus acting alone contains human life...hope you get what I mean now?

Now, your idea of personhood has been debunked so I am not going into that again.

Kay 17:
If a foetus reaches a stage where it has gain consciousness (and can be deemed senitent) then it is worth protecting.

Of what use is protecting potential personhood, when the woman's rights are at stake. There has to be a good balance.

Of what use is protecting a newborn when the woman's right is at stake? Because according to your definition of personhood, newborns are just 'potential persons'.

striktlymi: Morning Kay,



I see that you have decided to play the 'I don't know what you mean' card...anyways, when I say LIFE I meant human life which is obvious in my post.

Let's perform an experiment, shall we?...Allow your 'sperm cells' and 'Ova' to develop separately and let me allow my foetus to develop...what do you think would be the result?

Exactly, your 'sperm cells' and 'Ova', acting alone do not contain human life while my foetus acting alone contains human life...hope you get what I mean now?

Now, your idea of personhood has been debunked so I am not going into that again.



Of what use is protecting a newborn when the woman's right is at stake? Because according to your definition of personhood, newborns are just 'potential persons'.

you should read about cloning first before u start babbling about sperm and ovaries

Logicboy03:



you should read about cloning first before u start babbling about sperm and ovaries

Morning Logicboy,

I believe it is obvious from my post that I meant natural development, considering the fact that I used the phrase: "acting alone"...well if it is not obvious to you then I meant "allowing nature take it's cause".

I do hope this is clear enough...

So when did you become a human being?

Logicboy03:
I was only a potential human being in the womb. Simple fact you cant handle.

Whats the difference besides location and level of maturity? Why can you not kill your 3yr old to save him from starvation if you can kill the unborn for the same reason?

Logicboy03:

The above in bold is quite fallacious and a strawman.

1) A baby in the woman is not the same as a baby living on its own after birth, not to talk of a young child.

Logicboy03:

you should read about cloning first before u start babbling about sperm and ovaries

Cloning still requires opposite sex gametes before the procedure can be rendered feasible.

You are blaming the Catholic Church for saying to a mother "do not kill your child simply because you are broke. Do not hate your child because you feel he has come to complicate your life. A child is a blessing from God. Love him and do all you can to protect and sustain him, and if you cannot, bring him to us (there are many Catholic charities openly begging women in similar situations), we will take care of him and see if we can get people who are able to sustain and love him."

Why are you so opposed to LOVE and LIFE but fascinated by HATE and DEATH?

Logicboy03:
2) In the cases of two deaths, one could be less painful than one. A mother wanted to abort her 3 weeks baby but no, the catholic church didnt allow it. She gave birth to the baby boy. She struggled feeding him as she had no job, and yet catholic and chirtsian politicians were staunchly against welfare for the poor (no food for lazy man). Worse off, the woman never liked the boy as she never wanted a child. The baby died from starvation and pneumonia from the winter. The mother was jailed for child neglect.

With point number 2, we see a horrible slow death of a baby and the suffering of a mother if 2 things were done

a) Use protection- catholic hcurhc hates condom and in America fought against paying for womens ontraceptive birth pills.

b) Abortion- which the catholic church is against.



smh....some christians can be the most vile and heartless creatures at times

Evil Brain:

The baby's rights end where the mother's begin. If the baby can survive on its own, then nobody can touch it. But as long as its dependent on the mother for life support, what the woman says goes.

This should be to a limited extent: if the child is to have a disability or if its birth presents a potential threat to the mother's. Anything else is, quite frankly, baseless. Or do you have ideas ?

Evil Brain:
If she decides that she doesn't want to harbour what is essentially a parasite that's putting her life and well-being at risk as well as causing significant discomfort and inconvenience, then that is her prerogative. Everybody has the right over his/her own body. To deny this to women is to turn them into second class citizens.

This parasitism is vital to keep the human race extant. The inconvenience she should endure - except for reasons stated above.

Evil Brain:
And that seems be the ultimate aim of the the religious conservative, anti-abortion people. How else do do you explain the fact that most of them are also against publicly funded birth control, comprehensive sex education in schools and condom adverts on TV.

Porn should be added to the list. It's nothing less than ironic for kids to learn about things that pleasures of sex and the need for safe sex (which can be ignored in the heat of the moment) and be taught that when consequences arise in the form of pregnancies arise they need not fear (there's free abortion waiting for 'em)

Evil Brain:
They fight to deny women and girls the information and tools needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they fight to stop those same women from having abortions when they get pregnant. But as soon as the children get born into poverty and neglect, they turn their backs on them

.

This is how they see it. Liberals like you innuend that sex is okay, subtly encouraging pre-marital sex, and when a baby results, you tell would-be teen mothers to kill 'em. What a way to encourage irresponsibility.

Evil Brain:
Only someone who is senseless or has deliberately turned off his brain because of religion can think like this.

There, could be atheists who dislike abortion. Not to mention there are religious liberals who support tax-funded BC, sex-ed and 'confidential reproductive health care services'. Your conclusion, is thus, quite inane.

@strik

I strongly doubt if human ova and sperm cells are alien or animals. One thing is sure: they are not dead. The fact that they cannot develop into a bouncing new baby individually does nt imply they are dead nor alien.

I never said a new born baby wasn't senitent and hence not entitled to personhood. On the contrary, Roe vs Wade reveals that at some later stage during a pregnancy, a foetus acquires senitence (consciousness, some level of identity etc) in the womb. Therefore has personhood. And the mother had had a reasonable opportunity to abort the foetus prior to reaching that stage.

Kay 17: @strik

I strongly doubt if human ova and sperm cells are alien or animals. One thing is sure: they are not dead. The fact that they cannot develop into a bouncing new baby individually does nt imply they are dead nor alien.

I never said a new born baby wasn't senitent and hence not entitled to personhood. On the contrary, Roe vs Wade reveals that at some later stage during a pregnancy, a foetus acquires senitence (consciousness, some level of identity etc) in the womb. Therefore has personhood. And the mother had had a reasonable opportunity to abort the foetus prior to reaching that stage.

...and what stage is this?

Kay 17: @strik

I strongly doubt if human ova and sperm cells are alien or animals. One thing is sure: they are not dead. The fact that they cannot develop into a bouncing new baby individually does nt imply they are dead nor alien.

Nah mehn...

I did not imply in my post that sperm cells or ova are dead...I only defined the life we are talking about...and that is human life.

Kay 17:
I never said a new born baby wasn't senitent and hence not entitled to personhood.

Well Kay, I do not recall attributing the comment above to you...however, I do recall saying the following:

striktlymi:
2) Even though some level of consciousness can be attributed to them, we definitely can't say they are capable of discretion....still this would rule out every man, woman and child who loses consciousness due to, say, accident.

striktlymi:

The consciousness of a newborn is no better than that of the baby in the womb. Studies have shown that the child in the womb can remember melodies they heard while inside the womb. Another study points to an ability of the child in the womb to even experience pain.

Kay 17:
On the contrary, Roe vs Wade reveals that at some later stage during a pregnancy, a foetus acquires senitence (consciousness, some level of identity etc) in the womb. Therefore has personhood. And the mother had had a reasonable opportunity to abort the foetus prior to reaching that stage.

Now, are you inferring that consciousness determines whether one is a person or not? If this is what you are saying then my dear Kay, you are very wrong.

Please consider the following and tell me if any of them fit into your definition of personhood or not and why:

1) A foetus that is less than two weeks old.

2) A foetus that is equal to or above two weeks old.

3) A few seconds old baby.

4) An adult that has lost consciousness due to an accident.

5) A dead human body.

striktlymi:

In other words, a newborn should be subject to whatever the mother or any guardian says because it cannot feed itself if left alone?

Wonderful logic!

Stop twisting my words.

Term babies and late term premies are perfectly capable of surviving without their mother's involvement. If the mother doesn't want to take care of the baby, then someone else can. Therefore killing such a child is murder, same as killing a year year-old or a helpless old person.

This doesn't apply to fetuses that are less than 22 weeks old. Therefore if a woman doesn't want the baby in her body for any reason, it is her right to kick it out. If a woman doesn't want to risk her lIfe going through labour or major surgery to deliver a baby, she shouldn't be forced to.

Having an abortion is analogous to when doctors stop parenterally feeding someone in a persistent vegetative state. Or when they disconnect the life support for someone with irreversible brain injury. If the person keeps breathing after you turn off the machine then putting a pillow over his head is murder.

But if a person can't carry out his own vital functions by himself, then you're under no obligation to do it for him. And you definitely shouldn't be forced to do so at the cost of your own life or well-being.

Evil Brain:
Stop twisting my words.

He isn't

Term babies and late term premies are perfectly capable of surviving without their mother's involvement. If the mother doesn't want to take care of the baby, then someone else can. Therefore killing such a child is murder, same as killing a three year year-old or an old person with no income.

What about abandoning the child in the gutter in the hope that someone else comes to take care of it. Is that also murder if the baby ends up being eaten by a dog?

This doesn't apply to fetuses that are less than 22 weeks old. Therefore if a woman doesn't want the baby in her body for any reason, it is her right to kick it out. If a woman doesn't want to risk her lIfe going through labour or major surgery to deliver a baby, she shouldn't be forced to.

I wonder how you can say this and yet have a problem with a woman who abandons her six month old baby in a dumpster so that it starves to death. After all she shouldn't be forced to risk her hard earned cash to feed this 6 month old parasite.

Having an abortion is analogous to when doctors stop parenterally feeding someone in a persistent vegetative state. Or when they disconnect the life support for someone with irreversible brain injury. If the person keeps breathing after you turn off the machine then putting a pillow over his head is murder.

Lol, by your definition, it wasn't murder when Stalin starved 20 million Russians to death. All he did was withold his food supply. If they can survive without food, then good for them.

But if a person can't carry out his own vital functions by himself, then you're under no obligation to do it for him. And you definitely shouldn't be forced to do so at the cost of your own life or well-being.

But a baby in the womb cannot carry out her own vital functions by herself any more than a new born can.

Evil Brain:

Stop twisting my words.

Term babies and late term premies are perfectly capable of surviving without their mother's involvement. If the mother doesn't want to take care of the baby, then someone else can. Therefore killing such a child is murder, same as killing a year year-old or a helpless old person.

This doesn't apply to fetuses that are less than 22 weeks old. Therefore if a woman doesn't want the baby in her body for any reason, it is her right to kick it out. If a woman doesn't want to risk her lIfe going through labour or major surgery to deliver a baby, she shouldn't be forced to.

Having an abortion is analogous to when doctors stop parenterally feeding someone in a persistent vegetative state. Or when they disconnect the life support for someone with irreversible brain injury. If the person keeps breathing after you turn off the machine then putting a pillow over his head is murder.

But if a person can't carry out his own vital functions by himself, then you're under no obligation to do it for him. And you definitely shouldn't be forced to do so at the cost of your own life or well-being.

Hello Evil B,

@Bold: Sorry if you feel I tweaked your words or fail to get your meaning but c'mon man the item in red shows that I got your meaning spot on.

Anyways, I read through Anony's response and totally agree with it...if 'dependence for sustenance' is the determining factor in deciding who lives or dies then a newborn has exactly the same chance of survival as a foetus, no matter the stage of development.

Like I mentioned earlier, by your thought process, a mother or guardian should have the right to kill their newborns whenever they want to...afterall if a foetus can constitute a nuisance in the womb, how much more a newborn that shyts all over the place?

Mr anony:
He isn't


What about abandoning the child in the gutter in the hope that someone else comes to take care of it. Is that also murder if the baby ends up being eaten by a dog?

I wonder how you can say this and yet have a problem with a woman who abandons her six month old baby in a dumpster so that it starves to death. After all she shouldn't be forced to risk her hard earned cash to feed this 6 month old parasite.

Dumping a baby in a gutter or a dumpster is tantamount to killing it since it is all but certain that it will die there. If you want to abandon your baby you're obliged to at least make sure it has a reasonable chance of surviving long enough to be found and taken care of, That means wrapping it up warmly and leaving it in front of a hospital, orphanage or police station. Doing this doesn't endanger your life or put your health at risk so its unreasonable to refuse. This is not an option for most featuses because any baby expelled before 22 weeks will die no matter what you do. If your landlord wants you out of his house that you've been living in rent free, its not his fault if you can't find somewhere else to stay.

Edit: What's funny is that in most countries, women who dump their babies in worse places (eg pit latrines) almost never get prosecuted. In Nigeria, the punishment for a woman having an abortion is harsher than the one for a mother killing her new born baby.

Lol, by your definition, it wasn't murder when Stalin starved 20 million Russians to death. All he did was withold his food supply. If they can survive without food, then good for them.

That is a false analogy and you know it. Stop with the cheap strawman tactics.

But a baby in the womb cannot carry out her own vital functions by herself any more than a new born can.

A term baby can breathe by itself. It can digest its own food. If can control its own body temperature well enough to survive without others having to take edtraordinary measures. It can fight off infections to a reasonable degree. A baby born at 26 weeks gestation needs millions of naira worth of treatment, tens of millions worth of medical equipment and a team of a dozen or more specialist doctors and nurses working round the clock for it to have a decent chance of surviving.

For a baby born at 20 weeks to survive is considered a miracle even if it was in the best hospital in the world with unlimited resources. And even then, it is guaranteed to leave the hospital blind and with severe brain damage at best.

Meanwhile, a term baby only needs food, warmth, nappy changes and the occasional cuddle to survive and thrive

There is a huge difference between a term baby that can carry out its own basic biological functions and a premature one that can't. I strongly suggest that you abandon this line of argument. You will find no success with it.

Evil Brain:
Dumping a baby in a gutter or a dumpster is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die there. If you want to abandon your baby you're obliged to at least make sure it has a reasonable chance of surviving long enough to be found and taken care of, That means wrapping it up warmly and leaving it in front of a hospital, orphanage or police station. Doing this doesn't endanger your life or put your health at risk so its unreasonable to refuse. This is not an option for most feat uses because any baby expelled before 22 weeks will die no matter what you do. If your landlord wants you out of his house that you've been living in rent free, its not his fault if you can't find somewhere else to stay.

Lol, this is becoming quite funny.

Please tell me the difference between the part of your comment I highlighted and this:

Expelling an 18 week old baby from the womb is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die

That is a false analogy and you know it. Stop with the cheap strawman tactics.

It isn't a strawman. It is exactly the same as the analogy of cutting off a man's life support and saying "if he breathes so be it"

A term baby can breathe by itself. It can digest its own food. If can control its own body temperature well enough to survive without others having to take edtraordinary measures. It can fight off infections to a reasonable degree.

Yeah but this is no different from how an adult human can also do these better than a baby. The same way a 16 year old is more developed than a baby so is a baby more developed than a fetus. Still all are human beings that deserve to live

A baby born at 26 weeks gestation needs millions of naira worth of treatment, tens of millions worth of medical equipment and a team of a dozen or more specialist doctors and nurses working round the clock for it to have a decent chance of surviving.

So what?

For a baby born at 20 weeks to survive is considered a miracle even if it was in the best hospital in the world with unlimited resources. And even then, it is guaranteed to leave the hospital blind and with severe brain damage at best.

The more reason why it is best for it to stay in the womb.

Meanwhile, a term baby only needs food, warmth, nappy changes and the occasional cuddle to survive and thrive

but the baby in the womb had these basic needs catered for before it was maliciously yanked out by murderous doctors

There is a huge difference between a term baby that can carry out its own basic biological functions and a premature one that can't. I strongly suggest that you abandon this line of argument. You will find no success with it.

There is also a huge difference between an person that can carry out basic biological functions and a disabled person that can't. It still doesn't give anyone the right to kill the disabled person. Same applies to the term baby and the premature one.

Uyi Iredia:

This should be to a limited extent: if the child is to have a disability or if its birth presents a potential threat to the mother's. Anything else is, quite frankly, baseless. Or do you have ideas ?



This parasitism is vital to keep the human race extant. The inconvenience she should endure - except for reasons stated above.



Porn should be added to the list. It's nothing less than ironic for kids to learn about things that pleasures of sex and the need for safe sex (which can be ignored in the heat of the moment) and be taught that when consequences arise in the form of pregnancies arise they need not fear (there's free abortion waiting for 'em)

.

This is how they see it. Liberals like you innuend that sex is okay, subtly encouraging pre-marital sex, and when a baby results, you tell would-be teen mothers to kill 'em. What a way to encourage irresponsibility.



There, could be atheists who dislike abortion. Not to mention there are religious liberals who support tax-funded BC, sex-ed and 'confidential reproductive health care services'. Your conclusion, is thus, quite inane.

The right to life is absolute with the clearly stated exception. Isn't it contradictory to claim the supposed right to life is subject to the mother's right to life?

Evil Brain:

Dumping a baby in a gutter or a dumpster is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die there.

You just described one way someone can kill a baby...there are numerous other ways e.g D&C is one method of achieving the same result i.e the death of the baby...Now, how is dumping a baby in a dumpster wrong while using another method to kill it right?

Evil Brain:
If you want to abandon your baby you're obliged to at least make sure it has a reasonable chance of surviving long enough to be found and taken care of, That means wrapping it up warmly and leaving it in front of a hospital, orphanage or police station.

The bold is beautifully gorgeous...that is the bottom line here. We are always obliged to do stuff for our children irrespective of the level of development of that child.

Everyone has a responsibility to take care of his/her child and guaranty it's safety to a reasonable extent...you showed us one way of doing it.

Another way would be to ensure that anything that can harm the foetus be avoided and when the child comes to term, the protection should not stop until it is given up for adoption to good parents.

Evil Brain:
Doing this doesn't endanger your life or put your health at risk so its unreasonable to refuse.

I agree with you on this man...other things that can safeguard the life and health of both mother and child while the child is still in the womb would be to avoid Raw meat, fish with mercury etc...

Evil Brain:
This is not an option for most feat uses because any baby expelled before 22 weeks will die no matter what you do. If your landlord wants you out of his house that you've been living in rent free, its not his fault if you can't find somewhere else to stay.

If that landlord happens to be the mum and the young man happens to be 2 years old....now tell me again why this landlord does not deserve to be behind bars?

Evil Brain:
A term baby can breathe by itself. It can digest its own food. If can control its own body temperature well enough to survive without others having to take edtraordinary measures. It can fight off infections to a reasonable degree.

Hmmm...the bold is very interesting. Are you sure you have been around newborns? I know only too well that extraordinary measures are taken to ensure that it survives....there is always a fuss about everything...how to hold it's head, the kind of clothes it needs, the level of warmth of its bathwater etc...

Evil Brain:
A baby born at 26 weeks gestation needs millions of naira worth of treatment, tens of millions worth of medical equipment and a team of a dozen or more specialist doctors and nurses working round the clock for it to have a decent chance of surviving.

For a baby born at 20 weeks to survive is considered a miracle even if it was in the best hospital in the world with unlimited resources. And even then, it is guaranteed to leave the hospital blind and with severe brain damage at best.

Meanwhile, a term baby only needs food, warmth, nappy changes and the occasional cuddle to survive and thrive

Okay, I see your point...now, let us perform a simple experiment...bring your one day old baby and I will yank a fetus off its mother's womb...let us allow both to be on their own without help and see who between the two can fend for itself and survive.

Evil Brain:
There is a huge difference between a term baby that can carry out its own basic biological functions and a premature one that can't. I strongly suggest that you abandon this line of argument.

A huge difference??...are you sure about that?....Okay, if the life of a day old baby is taken away and the life of a fetus is snuffed out...what exactly would be the difference between the two?

Yes of course, the so called difference wouldn't matter now because both are dead and what is left will end up six feet under.

The only thing that matters between a fetus and any other human outside the womb, irrespective of the stage of development, is life...this shows that the similarity between a fetus and any other human outside the womb far outweighs any difference.

Mr anony: Lol, this is becoming quite funny.

Please tell me the difference between the part of your comment I highlighted and this:

Expelling an 18 week old baby from the womb is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that pregnant women also have rights? Why should the baby's right to life nullify the woman's right to protect her own life and wellbeing??

It isn't a strawman. It is exactly the same as the analogy of cutting off a man's life support and saying "if he breathes so be it"

The fact that a patient is on lIfe suport means that doctors have gone to extraordinary lengths to save his/her life. You are comparing a doctor who makes the difficult decision to stop spending valuable resources on a hopeless case (usually so they can put someone else on the scarce life support machine; and always with the family's consent) to Joseph Stalin. If you insist on this foolish line of arargument, then I'm not going to waste any more time debating with you. Godwin's law applies to Stalin as well.

Yeah but this is no different from how an adult human can also do these better than a baby. The same way a 16 year old is more developed than a baby so is a baby more developed than a fetus. Still all are human beings that deserve to live

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Very premature fetuses cannot survive without living inside the mother, messing up her body and endangering her life. Neither term babies nor adults have this problem. This is not a difficult concept.

but the baby in the womb had these basic needs catered for before it was maliciously yanked out by murderous doctors

The mother is the one taking care of those basic needs at considerable cost to herself. If she wants to do so, then that's fine, but you shouldn't force a woman to sacrifice her life or health against her will.

Also, it's interesting that you're demonizing doctors when its the pregnant women who ask for the abortions. A doctor's duty is to his patient. If the mother wants an abortion, and the doctor believes that continuing the pregnancy is likely to endanger her physically or even psychologically, then why shouldn't he offer one?

There is also a huge difference between an person that can carry out basic biological functions and a disabled person that can't. It still doesn't give anyone the right to kill the disabled person. Same applies to the term baby and the premature one.

No it doesn't, you are conflating two very different scenarios. If someone needs a new liver or a kidney to survive, you can donate yours if you like But you can't be forced to when you don't want. In fact, you can't even be forced to pay for the surgery. But refusing to donate your kidney to someone who can't live without one is very different from killing someone.

Kay 17:

The right to life is absolute with the clearly stated exception. Isn't it contradictory to claim the supposed right to life is subject to the mother's right to life?

Why do you think it's contradictory ?