Logicboy03:


So, you are actually saying that there is no correct decision concerning abortion?

Well, you highligted the dogmatic foolishness of Striklymi and his pro-lief extremism and hypocrisy.


You do know that God/nature is the most frequent aborter? Spontaneous abortions happen. Natural ones

I am simply stating that dogmatic positions without much thought and taking into consideration biblical context is useless. An example - one of the 10 commandments expressly forbids murder... YET Saul was rejected as king for failing to MURDER Agag. Why?

davidylan:

I am simply stating that dogmatic positions without much thought and taking into consideration biblical context is useless. An example - one of the 10 commandments expressly forbids murder... YET Saul was rejected as king for failing to MURDER Agag. Why?

You're on the way to atheism.....


My position is not dogmatic. A woman should hav the right to abort. Howevr, there should be free counselling so that she knows her options;

-adoption/foster care for the baby
-giving the baby to her parents/guardians/uncles to take care of
-abortion


People make better decisions with better information. This is why people in America generally abort witin the first 2 months of pregnancy. Compare that to Nigeria where you find 6-7 month babies in toilets.

davidylan:

Calm down and read your own posts. In the last one you expressly state - "Note that in the above case, there is still NO deliberate killing of the child..."

Some necessary abortions require the deliberate killing of the child. Sorry.

Lol!

You should calm down and read David's post...he stated that I ignored some situations which clearly is false.

And yes you are right, I did say that any deliberate killing of the unborn is WRONG!!!

As long as it is DELIBERATE then it is WRONG!

Logicboy03:


You're on the way to atheism.....


My position is not dogmatic. A woman should hav the right to abort. Howevr, there should be free counselling so that she knows her options;

-adoption/foster care for the baby
-giving the baby to her parents/guardians/uncles to take care of
-abortion


People make better decisions with better information. This is why people in America generally abort witin the first 2 months of pregnancy. Compare that to Nigeria where you find 6-7 month babies in toilets.

Unfortunately i am not on the road to joining you. Sorry.

A woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases where pregnancy has arisen out of forcible rape. Any other case outside of that is murder and against the scriptures.

If you believe the above then would you also claim that a mother has a right to shoot any of her children in the head just in case she gets bored of raising them?

davidylan:

Unfortunately i am not on the road to joining you. Sorry.

A woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases where pregnancy has arisen out of forcible rape. Any other case outside of that is murder and against the scriptures.

If you believe the above then would you also claim that a mother has a right to shoot any of her children in the head just in case she gets bored of raising them?

Fallacious in bold!


A baby in the womb is not a human but a potential human. The argument doesnt apply. A child in the womb is different from a child on the outside

Logicboy03:


Fallacious in bold!


A baby in the womb is not a human but a potential human. The argument doesnt apply. A child in the womb is different from a child on the outside

As long as the baby in the womb is not mistaken for a goat, we can consider it human too no?

davidylan:

As long as the baby in the womb is not mistaken for a goat, we can consider it human too no?

Sorry, what is your point?

striktlymi:

The viable option, like I mentioned before, would be to try and save the lady's life without necessarily causing harm to the child.

If in the process of saving the lady's life, the child is lost then this would be an unfortunate incident that CANNOT be categorized as abortion.

The goal of abortion is to kill the child but the procedure I talk about aims at saving the mother with hope of saving the child too if there is any chance.

Ultimately the lady decides whether to choose to fight for her life or the life of the child...this decision is tough but she would need to make it based on a number of factors...

If in the event that the child has no chance of survival whether the lady decides to fight for its life or not then the lady might have no choice but try and save her life.

Note that in the above case, there is still NO deliberate killing of the child...

Good morning,

You sidestepped the question despite my insistence that we assume the woman can't be saved except by abortion. I'll repeat. If your spouse faces death and can only be saved by abortion, will you take it or allow her die ? I await your reply.

Logicboy03:

Sorry, what is your point?

Babies are human. Please, stop blurring the line.

striktlymi:

Lol!

You should calm down and read David's post...he stated that I ignored some situations which clearly is false.

And yes you are right, I did say that any deliberate killing of the unborn is WRONG!!!

As long as it is DELIBERATE then it is WRONG!

I believe my question is akin to Uyi's and you have clearly refused to answer that question even though i have also asked at least 2ce on the other thread. What happens when the DELIBERATE killing of the child is NECESSARY to save the mother?

Uyi Iredia:

Good morning,

You sidestepped the question despite my insistence that we assume the woman can't be saved except by abortion. I'll repeat. If your spouse faces death and can only be saved by abortion, will you take it or allow her die ? I await your reply.

I believe I answered you clearly when I said that the lady has every right to choose to save her life without being guilty, if and only if, the procedure is meant to save her life and not cause harm to the child.

I also followed up with a situation where the child MAY die in the process but this death should NOT be DELIBERATE.

The above answers your question.

In summary:

Abortion is deliberate just like the murder of one not in the womb....Murder has NO excuse!

The procedure to be chosen should not have the intent to kill the child even though the child may die in the process.

davidylan:

I believe my question is akin to Uyi's and you have clearly refused to answer that question even though i have also asked at least 2ce on the other thread. What happens when the DELIBERATE killing of the child is NECESSARY to save the mother?

I have answered this question more than one time already...I even answered it before Uyi asked his question.

Maybe this question would bring out the point I have made which by the feedback I am getting from you and Uyi is not so clear:

When is murder permissible?

#Anyone can chose to answer the question!

striktlymi:

I believe I answered you clearly when I said that the lady has every right to choose to save her life without being guilty, if and only if, the procedure is meant to save her life and not cause harm to the child.

I also followed up with a situation where the child MAY die in the process but this death should NOT be DELIBERATE.

The above answers your question.

In summary:

Abortion is deliberate just like the murder of one not in the womb....Murder has NO excuse!

The procedure to be chosen should not have the intent to kill the child even though the child may die in the process.

what you clearly did was completely ignore Uyi's question, set up your own question then proceed to answer it.

Let me restate the question again - If DELIBERATE killing of an otherwise healthy child was the only option to saving your wife's life (particularly when the foetus is too immature to survive outside the mother), what would you choose? Keep the child alive or keep the mother alive?

Note: In this case, the option that the procedure will not cause harm to the child is NOT AVAILABLE since the child MUST DIE to keep the woman alive.

davidylan:

what you clearly did was completely ignore Uyi's question, set up your own question then proceed to answer it.

I will appreciate it if you would quote the restated question you accuse me of.

davidylan:
Let me restate the question again - If DELIBERATE killing of an otherwise healthy child was the only option to saving your wife's life (particularly when the foetus is too immature to survive outside the mother), what would you choose? Keep the child alive or keep the mother alive?

To avoid the risk of getting accused of restating the question again, I will appreciate it if you can answer the following question:

When is murder permissible?

From there we can proceed...

davidylan:
Note: In this case, the option that the procedure will not cause harm to the child is NOT AVAILABLE since the child MUST DIE to keep the woman alive.

The bold clearly shows that my posts are either not understood or they are being ignored...

Again there is a possibility that the child will die in the process of saving the mother as I have stated a number of times but this won't be as a result of abortion.

If it is as a result of abortion then it is WRONG!!!

striktlymi:
To avoid the risk of getting accused of restating the question again, I will appreciate it if you can answer the following question:

When is murder permissible?

From there we can proceed...

I believe i have been very clear - for self defense.

striktlymi:
The bold clearly shows that my posts are either not understood or they are being ignored...

Again there is a possibility that the child will die in the process of saving the mother as I have stated a number of times but this won't be as a result of abortion.

If it is as a result of abortion then it is WRONG!!!

Sorry but in cases of ectopic pregnancy, the child has to go for the mother to have a chance at life. Period.

davidylan:

I believe i have been very clear - for self defense.

Self defence in not the same as murder. The question you answered is: 'when is killing permissible'...this is not the question I asked.

The question again is: When is murder permissible?

davidylan:
Sorry but in cases of ectopic pregnancy, the child has to go for the mother to have a chance at life. Period.

Ectopic pregnancies have two medical procedures:

1) Abortion

2) Correcting the ish with the pregnancy.


These two I have already addressed here so no need to go into this again.

Not every ectopic pregnancies lead to the death of mother and child...if this is your stance then it is FALSE!

striktlymi:

Self defence in not the same as murder. The question you answered is: 'when is killing permissible'...this is not the question I asked.

The question again is: When is murder permissible?

murder is wrong... i suppose i made that quite clear. The point of the question is puzzling to me except it is precisely to avoid answering the question put to you earlier.

striktlymi:
Ectopic pregnancies have two medical procedures:

1) Abortion

2) Correcting the ish with the pregnancy.


These two I have already addressed here so no need to go into this again.

Not every ectopic pregnancies lead to the death of mother and child...if this is your stance then it is FALSE!

So i went back and read the post where you claim to have "addressed" it... not clear what was addressed there really. The very first solution to ectopic pregnancies that you also agree with is ABORTION. The second option you advocate (correct the ish with the pregnancy) is meaningless considering you really cannot "correct" an ectopic pregnancy. If you note the very first quote in that post... BOTH SOLUTIONS advocate intentional killing of the child (which is the rational solution every Ob/gyn) will give) - either remove the baby and repair the tube (in case of rupture) or remove pregnancy by using abortion-inducing drugs.

Your second post is a subjective opinion of one patient for whom there is virtually NO proof that she even exists. Here is the position of webMD.com - What is an ectopic pregnancy?
In a normal pregnancy, a fertilized egg travels through a fallopian tube to the uterus. The egg attaches in the uterus and starts to grow. But in an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg attaches (or implants) someplace other than the uterus, most often in the fallopian tube. (This is why it is sometimes called a tubal pregnancy.) In rare cases, the egg implants in an ovary, the cervix, or the belly.

There is no way to save an ectopic pregnancy. It cannot turn into a normal pregnancy. If the egg keeps growing in the fallopian tube, it can damage or burst the tube and cause heavy bleeding that could be deadly. If you have an ectopic pregnancy, you will need quick treatment to end it before it causes dangerous problems.

My thought is that this issue is quite a serious matter and claims made here need to be properly vetted. It is unhelpful to completely ignore the boatload of medical advice on the web that state consistently that ectopic pregnancies are unviable and a clear danger to the health of the mother by depending on an unverifiable claim from a catholic chat forum posted in 2006 and copied almost verbatim on several other pro-life websites.

In that post, the "lady" advocates "waiting it out" because by the time the tube ruptures (and it will when the baby gets bigger) the baby will be dead anyway... this is most foolish to be honest for several reasons.

1. Depending on where the placenta attached (for example in the ovary), the woman is almost always in debilitating pain and does not have the choice to just sit around sipping juice while "waiting it out".

2. Rupture of the tube (if implantation was in the fallopian tube) always causes massive internal bleeding that is usually fatal if not promptly attended to. So much for "waiting it out".

3. Depending on where the implantation occurred, many women are unable to conceive again if they do not take immediate corrective action to terminate pregnancy.

As i said earlier, it appears this thread is subsumed by folks who speak from the vantage point of being men, many of whom have never and will never understand the intricacies of pregnancy. To many, this topic is no more than a religious baton to beat others over the head.

It is true that not every ectopic pregnancy leads to the death of the mother (thanks to medical expertise), but every ectopic pregnancy leads to the death of the foetus to save the mother's life. I'm sure many obgyn's would be more than happy to meet the "lady" in your quote... if at all she exists.

davidylan:

I quietly followed this thread from beginning and have re-read it from the first page today. The tenor of posts here has swung from one extreme to the other...

pro-life activists - thou shalt not terminate a child deliberately under no circumstances... completely ignoring situations where actually carrying a healthy thriving baby may be dangerous to the life of the mother.

pro-choice activists - thou shalt terminate a child whenever you want since it is not human anyway. Completely ignoring the moral implications of senseless murder.

Your post falls in line with the former.

One interesting thing that occurred to me when reading this was how dogmatic most of us truly are. Has anyone ever wondered if soldiers are all candidates of hell for fighting in wars where the ultimate goal is the DELIBERATE murder of fully grown men? Are pro-life activists also fighting to outlaw death penalties?

I see your point, Bro David, and I wholeheartedly agree that wisdom is required. War as a principle is actually not evil, or shall I say, is not a sin per se, rather it is an expression or attitude that can be abused. God Himself is called a "man of war" in the Scriptures and there is such a thing as the Captain of the Lord's Hosts Who leads out God's armies to war. I agree that killing is the same.

All human life is sacred, regardless whose it is, but ultimately God can take one and preserve another because they're all His and He is able to restore it. As such, I believe that if abortion is absolutely necessary to preserve the life of the mother, it would not be out of place. If, for instance, the pregnancy is such that the mother may die and the baby itself may not survive the mother's death, there is little reason to stand against an abortion.

However, "I'm too poor (or whatever) to raise a child so I should abort it" or "I just don't want a baby" are not very valid reasons as far as I know. And I do know the inside story here. There are other possibilities than abortion in such cases. Also, if anyone sets their heart to honor God against their own convenience, He does make provision to witness to their faithfulness. Of this there is no real doubt.

Ihedinobi:

I see your point, Bro David, and I wholeheartedly agree that wisdom is required. War as a principle is actually not evil, or shall I say, is not a sin per se, rather it is an expression or attitude that can be abused. God Himself is called a "man of war" in the Scriptures and there is such a thing as the Captain of the Lord's Hosts Who leads out God's armies to war. I agree that killing is the same.

All human life is sacred, regardless whose it is, but ultimately God can take one and preserve another because they're all His and He is able to restore it. As such, I believe that if abortion is absolutely necessary to preserve the life of the mother, it would not be out of place. If, for instance, the pregnancy is such that the mother may die and the baby itself may not survive the mother's death, there is little reason to stand against an abortion.

However, "I'm too poor (or whatever) to raise a child so I should abort it" or "I just don't want a baby" are not very valid reasons as far as I know. And I do know the inside story here. There are other possibilities than abortion in such cases. Also, if anyone sets their heart to honor God against their own convenience, He does make provision to witness to their faithfulness. Of this there is no real doubt.

My brother, you and i are on the same page. Wisdom indeed is profitable to discern the scriptures. I agree with all the positions you enumerate whole-heartedly.

davidylan:

murder is wrong...

I take it that the above means there is no excuse for murder....abortion is murder.

davidylan:
i suppose i made that quite clear.

If you mean by using murder and self defence interchangeably then you did not.

davidylan:
The point of the question is puzzling to me except it is precisely to avoid answering the question put to you earlier.

Why would the point be puzzling when my position is glaring: Abortion is MURDER!!! If there is no excuse for murder, there is no excuse for abortion because they are one and the same.

davidylan:
So i went back and read the post where you claim to have "addressed" it... not clear what was addressed there really. The very first solution to ectopic pregnancies that you also agree with is ABORTION. If you note the very first quote in that post... BOTH SOLUTIONS advocate intentional killing of the child (which is the rational solution every Ob/gyn) will give) - either remove the baby and repair the tube (in case of rupture) or remove pregnancy by using abortion-inducing drugs.

If you say that both advocates intentional killing of the child then you do not understand the post.

davidylan:
Your second post is a subjective opinion of one patient for whom there is virtually NO proof that she even exists.

Yes, you are right about the above. The post is quite subjective and there is no way of showing that the case was real but the example I present below is a real case that can be independently verified by anyone.

davidylan:
Here is the position of webMD.com - What is an ectopic pregnancy? In a normal pregnancy, a fertilized egg travels through a fallopian tube to the uterus. The egg attaches in the uterus and starts to grow. But in an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg attaches (or implants) someplace other than the uterus, most often in the fallopian tube. (This is why it is sometimes called a tubal pregnancy.) In rare cases, the egg implants in an ovary, the cervix, or the belly.

The above is a fair representation of what an ectopic pregnancy is but you forgot to include one tiny detail from the website you quoted:

"This information is not intended to replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise disclaims any liability for the decisions you make based on this information."
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ectopic-pregnancy

I want to assume that was a honest omission...

davidylan:

There is no way to save an ectopic pregnancy. It cannot turn into a normal pregnancy. If the egg keeps growing in the fallopian tube, it can damage or burst the tube and cause heavy bleeding that could be deadly. If you have an ectopic pregnancy, you will need quick treatment to end it before it causes dangerous problems.

I don't know where you got the above from but consider this case and get back to me.

Note that that is a clear case of a lady who had an ectopic pregnancy and both mother and child survived.

Here is an example of a lady who lost the baby but still did not have to perform an abortion.

davidylan:
My thought is that this issue is quite a serious matter and claims made here need to be properly vetted. It is unhelpful to completely ignore the boatload of medical advice on the web that state consistently that ectopic pregnancies are unviable and a clear danger to the health of the mother by depending on an unverifiable claim from a catholic chat forum posted in 2006 and copied almost verbatim on several other pro-life websites.

The above is another Ad hominem. You really need to stop this...if there is anything wrong with what I quoted, just mention it just like I did for yours and move on.

Anyways, I have demonstrated that what I have been saying before are correct!

davidylan:

Unfortunately i am not on the road to joining you. Sorry.

A woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases where pregnancy has arisen out of forcible rape. Any other case outside of that is murder and against the scriptures.

If you believe the above then would you also claim that a mother has a right to shoot any of her children in the head just in case she gets bored of raising them?

Agreed. But I am reserved about abortion of a child conceived through rape. However I think that I can understand the psychological havoc that rape can wreak on a woman and the utter repulsion that she may be apt to feel realizing that she's carrying the child of the demon that ravaged her. So even though I would refrain from advising her one way or another, I would applaud the great courage that she displays in carrying such a child to term and mourn with her the cost of the cleansing that she desires desperately after being so badly used.

striktlymi:

I take it that the above means there is no excuse for murder....abortion is murder.

Just the same way war is murder... verbal gymnastics aside.

striktlymi:
If you mean by using murder and self defence interchangeably then you did not.

this arose from the claim that soldiers kill in self defense... when actually they simply murder the enemy.

striktlymi:
Why would the point be puzzling when my position is glaring: Abortion is MURDER!!! If there is no excuse for murder, there is no excuse for abortion because they are one and the same.

To each his own.

striktlymi:
If you say that both advocates intentional killing of the child then you do not understand the post.

Point 1 - Physically remove the foetus

Point 2 - use methotrexate to remove the foetus

Both advocate intentional killing of the child. Your point was?

striktlymi:
Yes, you are right about the above. The post is quite subjective and there is no way of showing that the case was real but the example I present below is a real case that can be independently verified by anyone.

To be addressed later.

striktlymi:
The above is a fair representation of what an ectopic pregnancy is but you forgot to include one tiny detail from the website you quoted:

"This information is not intended to replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise disclaims any liability for the decisions you make based on this information."
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ectopic-pregnancy

I want to assume that was a honest omission...

I also want to assume that you are aware that in the US, the above is standard fine-print language for absolutely any form of "advice" primarily as a way to deflect a potential lawsuit and does not in any way represent a prevarication on the advice being given.

striktlymi:
I don't know where you got the above from but consider this case and get back to me.

Note that that is a clear case of a lady who had an ectopic pregnancy and both mother and child survived.

Note also the use of the term "RARE" to describe the full-term ectopic pregnancy. Clearly there are cases where ectopic pregnancies are carried to full term, but these are VERY RARE. Even the hospital put the chances of survival at 1 in 100000. There are also rare cases where brain tumors are benign, that does not mean we should ignore gliobastomas.

striktlymi:
Here is an example of a lady who lost the baby but still did not have to perform an abortion.

Actually you forgot to read this portion of the post - I was explained about a procedure called a laparoscopy and I was taken to theatre. When I woke up I felt a bit sore. I asked the nurse "is my baby safe?" and she said, "have a rest and the doctor will speak to you." I knew for certain then that I had lost my third child. An hour later a doctor came into see me and said, "I'm so sorry, but it was an ectopic pregnancy and unfortunately we could not save your fallopian tube."

1. A laparoscopy is a surgical procedure UNLESS it is used and expressly stated as diagnostic in nature.

2. Note the use of the words "unfortunately we could not save your fallopian tube"... this confirms a surgical procedure was done on her (note she was taken to a theater and put to sleep) to remove the fetus and potentially try to salvage her fallopian tube. Quite clearly her ectopic pregnancy was aborted.

Again the idea that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should just sit and "wait it out" while hoping to "lose the pregnancy" is frankly criminal. the woman above was "lucky", she only lost the ability to concieve naturally... many others are not so lucky. they simply sit there bleeding to death.

striktlymi:
The above is another Ad hominem. You really need to stop this...if there is anything wrong with what I quoted, just mention it just like I did for yours and move on.

your posts are chock-full of snide remarks. Your complaints are quite rich. To request that people properly READ and validate their claims before posting isnt an ad hominem...

striktlymi:
Anyways, I have demonstrated that what I have been saying before are correct!

you've been wrong on most counts. Unfortunately you are too wedded to a particular point of view to see the forest for the trees.

davidylan:

Just the same way war is murder... verbal gymnastics aside.



this arose from the claim that soldiers kill in self defense... when actually they simply murder the enemy.



To each his own.



Point 1 - Physically remove the foetus

Point 2 - use methotrexate to remove the foetus

Both advocate intentional killing of the child. Your point was?



To be addressed later.



I also want to assume that you are aware that in the US, the above is standard fine-print language for absolutely any form of "advice" primarily as a way to deflect a potential lawsuit and does not in any way represent a prevarication on the advice being given.



Note also the use of the term "RARE" to describe the full-term ectopic pregnancy. Clearly there are cases where ectopic pregnancies are carried to full term, but these are VERY RARE. There are also rare cases where brain tumors are benign, that does not mean we should ignore gliobastomas.



Actually you forgot to read this portion of the post - I was explained about a procedure called a laparoscopy and I was taken to theatre. When I woke up I felt a bit sore. I asked the nurse "is my baby safe?" and she said, "have a rest and the doctor will speak to you." I knew for certain then that I had lost my third child. An hour later a doctor came into see me and said, "I'm so sorry, but it was an ectopic pregnancy and unfortunately we could not save your fallopian tube."

1. A laparoscopy is a surgical procedure UNLESS it is used and expressly stated as diagnostic in nature.

2. Note the use of the words "unfortunately we could not save your fallopian tube"... this confirms a surgical procedure was done on her (note she was taken to a theater and put to sleep) to remove the fetus and potentially try to salvage her fallopian tube. Quite clearly her ectopic pregnancy was aborted.

Again the idea that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should just sit and "wait it out" while hoping to "lose the pregnancy" is frankly criminal.



your posts are chock-full of snide remarks. Your complaints are quite rich. To request that people properly READ and validate their claims before posting isnt an ad hominem...



you've been wrong on most counts. Unfortunately you are too wedded to a particular point of view to see the forest for the trees.

Never mind!

I think people need to be careful with the use of the word "murder". "Murder" is primarily a legal concept/construct.

Nevertheless, in general, we can say that murder is "unjustified" or even simply "unlawful" premeditated killing.

But once we have used the qualifiers "unjustified" or "unlawful", that means that premeditated abortion may not be murder; just like premeditated killing may not be murder e.g. in war or lawful executions for criminal offences etc

Overall, my position on the abortion debate aligns with Ihedinobi and davidylan.

Wilful or "lifestyle" abortions are simply indefensible generally. Medically (or perhaps even psychologically) necessary abortions may be justified. This does not even necessarily mean that abortion must follow a pregnancy that arises from r.ape. I gave an example previously of a 'pregnanted' r.ape victim who chose to keep the baby happily. https://www.nairaland.com/1292227/abortion/5#15784581

This last point raises the distinction between objective considerations and subjective perspectives. In this respect, we who are not in the situation are lacking in some of the things (including mental state or even 'spiritual inspiration') that a concerned party may be exposed to.

There have been women who were given strong medical advice to abort for the sake of their own health, e.g. necessity for chemotherapy for cancer, who refused; fortunately for some of them it worked out right for both them and their baby. Did they just get "lucky" or did they "know" or "feel" something that others simply could not? I grant that of course the ordinarily better course is to follow expert medical advice.

Now let us take other, yes hypothetical, examples as analogy:

1. A scientist has contracted a syndrome/virus because of contamination from material he is working on; this is highly contagious and, unless he is killed, contagion is likely to spread leading to an epidemic or pandemic. To quarantine him is not enough.

Subjectively, he could choose to die/commit suicide to save the rest of the population. If he does not choose that option, what is the rest of the population to do?

2. Terrorists have released a deadly and highly contagious substance on an aircraft and if the aircraft reaches mainland the general population is going to be affected leading to epidemic/pandemic.

The pilot, crew and passengers could all of course subjectively choose that the aeroplane should be ditched in a remote place somewhere and save the rest of the population.

If they don't so choose or if at least one person refuses, what are the other people on the aircraft to do? Or, even, what is the rest of the population to do about the aircraft?

Yes, on such important matters as abortion it is correct to have a default position e.g. that abortion is wrong/undesirable/not to be encouraged etc. At the same time, one should not be oblivious to realities and the various possible permutations of circumstances.

striktlymi:

I believe I answered you clearly when I said that the lady has every right to choose to save her life without being guilty, if and only if, the procedure is meant to save her life and not cause harm to the child.

I also followed up with a situation where the child MAY die in the process but this death should NOT be DELIBERATE.

The above answers your question.

In summary:

Abortion is deliberate just like the murder of one not in the womb....Murder has NO excuse!

The procedure to be chosen should not have the intent to kill the child even though the child may die in the process.

Good afternoon,

You did answer clearly. Unfortunately, your answer does (and still does) sidestep the issue of intently killing the fetus to save the mother's life. You answer that the mother may save her life in so far as abortion isn't delibrate. That sidesteps the question. I'll repeat it again: If you have to abort a baby to save your wife's life (NO OPTIONS !) would you leave the baby or allow your wife die ?
Note I'm proposing a scenario in which you have to abort the baby to save the mother. Please don't import non-abortion procedures that avoid the alternatives I present. Thanks.

Enigma: I think people need to be careful with the use of the word "murder". "Murder" is primarily a legal concept/construct.

Nevertheless, in general, we can say that murder is "unjustified" or even simply "unlawful" premeditated killing.

But once we have used the qualifiers "unjustified" or "unlawful", that means that premeditated abortion may not be murder; just like premeditated killing may not be murder e.g. in war or lawful executions for criminal offences etc

Overall, my position on the abortion debate aligns with Ihedinobi and davidylan.

Wilful or "lifestyle" abortions are simply indefensible generally. Medically (or perhaps even psychologically) necessary abortions may be justified. This does not even necessarily mean that abortion must follow a pregnancy that arises from r.ape. I gave an example previously of a 'pregnanted' r.ape victim who chose to keep the baby happily. https://www.nairaland.com/1292227/abortion/5#15784581

This last point raises the distinction between objective considerations and subjective perspectives. In this respect, we who are not in the situation are lacking in some of the things (including mental state or even 'spiritual inspiration') that a concerned party may be exposed to.

There have been women who were given strong medical advice to abort for the sake of their own health, e.g. necessity for chemotherapy for cancer, who refused; fortunately for some of them it worked out right for both them and their baby. Did they just get "lucky" or did they "know" or "feel" something that others simply could not? I grant that of course the ordinarily better course is to follow expert medical advice.

Now let us take other, yes hypothetical, examples as analogy:

1. A scientist has contracted a syndrome/virus because of contamination from material he is working on; this is highly contagious and, unless he is killed, contagion is likely to spread leading to an epidemic or pandemic. To quarantine him is not enough.

Subjectively, he could choose to die/commit suicide to save the rest of the population. If he does not choose that option, what is the rest of the population to do?

2. Terrorists have released a deadly and highly contagious substance on an aircraft and if the aircraft reaches mainland the general population is going to be affected leading to epidemic/pandemic.

The pilot, crew and passengers could all of course subjectively choose that the aeroplane should be ditched in a remote place somewhere and save the rest of the population.

If they don't so choose or if at least one person refuses, what are the other people on the aircraft to do? Or, even, what is the rest of the population to do about the aircraft?

Yes, on such important matters as abortion it is correct to have a default position e.g. that abortion is wrong/undesirable/not to be encouraged etc. At the same time, one should not be oblivious to realities and the various possible permutations of circumstances.

A fair representation of my thoughts. The bolded is what striktlymi is ignoring because he insists it is wrong. Take a step back, striktlymi said murder is wrong but killing in self-defence isn't murder. It is actually but the need for survival supersedes the moral obligation not to murder. striktlymi ignores that need (to save a lady's life) in the case of pregnancy issues like ectopic pregnancies.

Uyi Iredia:

Good afternoon,

You did answer clearly. Unfortunately, your answer does (and still does) sidestep the issue of intently killing the fetus to save the mother's life. You answer that the mother may save her life in so far as abortion isn't delibrate. That sidesteps the question. I'll repeat it again: If you have to abort a baby to save your wife's life (NO OPTIONS !) would you leave the baby or allow your wife die ?
Note I'm proposing a scenario in which you have to abort the baby to save the mother. Please don't import non-abortion procedures that avoid the alternatives I present. Thanks.

Hello Uyi,

The scenario you present is NOT a real situation...it's similar to saying that the only viable option for someone is to commit murder.

And Uyi, gagging me to commit myself to just two options when there is at least one more option makes you befriend the fallacy of false dichotomy.

Uyi Iredia:

A fair representation of my thoughts. The bolded is what striktlymi is ignoring because he insists it is wrong. Take a step back, striktlymi said murder is wrong but killing in self-defence isn't murder. It is actually but the need for survival supersedes the moral obligation not to murder. striktlymi ignores that need (to save a lady's life) in the case of pregnancy issues like ectopic pregnancies.

C'mon Uyi, you honestly believe that killing out of self defence is murder?

Nah mehn, this like I said is over stretching it...In Ectopic pregnancies, abortion is NOT the only option.

striktlymi:

Hello Uyi,

The scenario you present is NOT a real situation...it's similar to saying that the only viable option for someone is to commit murder.

And Uyi, gagging me to commit myself to just two options when there is at least one more option makes you befriend the fallacy of false dichotomy.

I'm assuming this 'false dichotomy' for the sake of argument. I need to gag you so I'll know whether you'll prioritize not aborting a baby to allowing a spouse die. I await your answer.

striktlymi:

C'mon Uyi, you honestly believe that killing out of self defence is murder?

Technically it isn't since it isn't premeditated. I like the word in bold. Killing in self-defense involves killing. Intentional killing.

striktlymi:
Nah mehn, this like I said is over stretching it...In Ectopic pregnancies, abortion is NOT the only option.

Check Wikipedia, in most cases (even in an instance when I first came across it reading The Punch) it is.

Uyi Iredia:

I'm assuming this 'false dichotomy' for the sake of argument. I need to gag you so I'll know whether you'll prioritize not aborting a baby to allowing a spouse die. I await your answer.

You want me to give an answer to a question that is based on fallacy? Do you consider this fair game?

Uyi Iredia:

Technically it isn't since it isn't premeditated. I like the word in bold. Killing in self-defense involves killing. Intentional killing.



Check Wikipedia, in most cases (even in an instance when I first came across it reading The Punch) it is.

Lol!!!


Guy I know about Ectopic pregnancies and I KNOW for sure that abortion is NOT the only option.

I believe what is happening here is mistaking abortion for something else. Just like every killing cannot be categorized as murder, every procedure that ends with the death of the baby cannot be considered as abortion.

Before a killing would be considered to be murder the following must be present:

1) Premeditation.
2) Unlawful (Wrong).
3) Malicious intent.
4) Death must result.

Similarly, for abortion (the one I am talking about) to take place, the following must be present:

1) Deliberate.
2) Malicious Intent.
3) Wrong.
4) Death.

If these are not present in a procedure that the mother undertakes then we cannot conclude that she had an abortion.