Uyi Iredia:

Okay. I disagree with the 2nd reply.

The use of embryos to harvest stem cells is going out of fashion. You can harvest stem cells from adult tissue.

davidylan:

The use of embryos to harvest stem cells is going out of fashion. You can harvest stem cells from adult tissue.

True. In fact, in so far as it is as effective, it's preferable to killing zygotes.

Morning EvilB

Lol!!!

This is becoming like a 'Déjà vu'...

Evil Brain:
I already addressed this argument long ago. If the mother doesn't want to take care of a full term baby, there are plenty of other options for that. Her parents, the father and his family, adoption, orphanages, the government, etc. She can even leave the baby in front of a hospital or orphanage. All she has to do is wrap the baby warmly and leave it somewhere reasonably safe where it can be discovered quickly. Doing that doesn't endanger her life or health, so she has no excuse. Dumping your baby in such a manner is not even illegal in many countries. And in those where it is, even mothers who throw their babies into pit latrines rarely get prosecuted. In many European countries, government hospitals have designated areas where people can safely and anonymously leave their unwanted babies so they can be taken care of by the state.

The above has been addressed here =====>>

https://www.nairaland.com/1329378/right-choose/2#16376638

PS: Mother's dumping their kids in a pit sits well with you? Anyways, if some do this deliberately then the mothers deserve to be behind bars.

Evil Brain:
This is not an option for aborted fetuses unfortunately, hence the problem.

This ish has been dealt with before too...you have demonstrated above that the mother has a responsibility to protect the child from harm and take it to a safe place where it can find solace, in the event that she is not ready to be a mother to the child...this same responsibility extends to the unborn...safety till it can be taken to someone else...which means NO abortion.

Do note that we are talking about the right of the mother to take the life of the child...it is wrong in any circumstance for the mother to do this...whether the child is a day old or a zygote or a foetus etc the mother has NO right to deliberately take the life of the child.

Evil Brain:
If taking care of the child endangers the mother's health or well-being, then nobody can compel her to do so. If you know of any cases where this has happened, please poInt us in their direction.

A mother's health or well-being is comprised by her two year old child? And the option she has is to throw this child out of her home and leave him on the streets?

Nah mehn...

Morning Uyi,

Lol!!!

Uyi Iredia:

Okay. I disagree with the 2nd reply.

Yes, you have every right to disagree...the beauty of the right to 'free speech'...

If zygotes are human life, I believe same applies to HUMAN eggs and sperm cells. So whoever carries the prolife argument to the extreme must likewise carry this.

@strik, I'd concede that a woman reproductive rights diminsh upon pregnancy and is superseded by the foetus'right to life.

However the foetus right to life does not supercede the mother's right to life (which includes good health). Hence the mother can abort at any time the foetus endangers her mental, physical and emotional health. The mother's life takes priority cos she is the host. And she has readily exercisable rights.

Kay 17: If zygotes are human life, I believe same applies to HUMAN eggs and sperm cells. So whoever carries the prolife argument to the extreme must likewise carry this.

@strik, I'd concede that a woman reproductive rights diminsh upon pregnancy and is superseded by the foetus'right to life.

However the foetus right to life does not supercede the mother's right to life (which includes good health). Hence the mother can abort at any time the foetus endangers her mental, physical and emotional health. The mother's life takes priority cos she is the host. And she has readily exercisable rights.

Gbam.

Morning Kay,

Kay 17: If zygotes are human life, I believe same applies to HUMAN eggs and sperm cells. So whoever carries the prolife argument to the extreme must likewise carry this.

Saying that zygotes possess human life is not taking the argument to the extreme because they do possess human life.

Now, can sperm cells in their state develop to become day old babies? If they can, then they possess human life too, but this is not the case....if it were then men and women would be able to get pregnant without needing each other.

On the contrary...zygotes in their state can develop to become day old babies and hence they have earned the right to be categorized as humans.

Kay 17:
@strik, I'd concede that a woman reproductive rights diminsh upon pregnancy and is superseded by the foetus'right to life.

Okay, cool!

Kay 17:
However the foetus right to life does not supercede the mother's right to life (which includes good health). Hence the mother can abort at any time the foetus endangers her mental, physical and emotional health. The mother's life takes priority cos she is the host. And she has readily exercisable rights.

Hmmmm...I agree that the foetus' right to life does not supercede the mother's right to life...as I have maintained in my arguments, the mother has every right to save her life when faced with a life threatening situation but the way she goes about saving her life should be devoid of any malicious intent...

The medical procedure adopted should be one that aims at correcting whatever went wrong without aiming at killing the child. Like I have mentioned before...the procedure may unavoidably lead to the death of the child but despite this, the mum will be free from every blame because if there was a chance of saving her child she would have taken it, despite the procedure.

^^^
Better, we are heading somewhere.

I have to talk about your definition of human life, which is whatever develops to a day old baby?! Then a middle -aged man isn't human in that case!

Now to the woman's safety, if you accept that the mother's right to life supercedes the foetus', then there is no right left in the foetus to talk about, in cases where the mother's health is at risk. So whether we use chemical solutions or knives to stab the foetus is entirely immaterial.

striktlymi:

Musky don't let me get on your case.

still an olodo I see...

Kay 17: ^^^
Better, we are heading somewhere.

I believe we are!

Kay 17:
I have to talk about your definition of human life, which is whatever develops to a day old baby?! Then a middle -aged man isn't human in that case!

Not exactly! Human life does not change irrespective of our development...the only change that occurs is with our human form...from conception, to the zygote, to blastocyst, right down to when we are given birth to and we grow old...the human form changes but human life does not change.

My argument is: the human life of a zygote is no different from that of a child, a teenager or that of an adult...since the 'life' is consant till when it is lost to death at old age, other factors remaining constant, the only thing therefore that is relevant in defining a person is human life which the zygote possesses.

Kay 17:
Now to the woman's safety, if you accept that the mother's right to life supercedes the foetus', then there is no right left in the foetus to talk about, in cases where the mother's health is at risk. So whether we use chemical solutions or knives to stab the foetus is entirely immaterial.

The above argument is in order if I put on the 'looking glass' of the materialist but from my very own 'looking glass' I do not quite agree with the 'method' you just described.

Every life is precious and must be respected...if we can accord respect to a serial killer on death row, feed him, cloth him, even go to the extent of getting him medical aid when he needs it, how much more do we owe the most vulnerable of all human forms?

A chemical solution in my view is not acceptable because the intent is to attack the foetus as if it is the problem and that in itself is malicious and unfair to the child...We have already established that as the foetus has a right to life, so too does the mother and being the host, she has the right to try and save her life.

The ish we are having now is how she goes about it. For me, the only viable option the mother has is to strike at the 'heart of the problem' without necessarily aiming at killing the child...I know there are cases where striking at the problem is the same as striking at the child but the difference would be that this was the unavoidable consequence as against directing our attack on the child.

@strik

This is getting funny. If the mother's right (to life) supercedes and overrides the foetus' right, wlouldnt that imply the foetus' right is presently void?! And therefore can not be an object of murder!

And I still don't get your method of killing the foetus with 'intent' when such act and the child's death is well anticipated! Also the doctors cannot claim in a church or a court that the child's death is accidental!!

Strik, also define human life. It has become necessary to do so.

striktlymi:

My argument is: the human life of a zygote is no different from that of a child, a teenager or that of an adult...since the 'life' is consant till when it is lost to death at old age, other factors remaining constant, the only thing therefore that is relevant in defining a person is human life which the zygote possesses.

Agreed.

striktlymi:
Every life is precious and must be respected...if we can accord respect to a serial killer on death row, feed him, cloth him, even go to the extent of getting him medical aid when he needs it, how much more do we owe the most vulnerable of all human forms?

Agreed.

striktlymi:
The ish we are having now is how she goes about it. For me, the only viable option the mother has is to strike at the 'heart of the problem' without necessarily aiming at killing the child...I know there are cases where striking at the problem is the same as striking at the child but the difference would be that this was the unavoidable consequence as against directing our attack on the child.

Now you're dipping your head in the sand. If killing_or striking as you say_the child is the solution to the problem, then (hello !). You aborted the baby to save the mother's life. This is the unaviodable consequence I harped on. The unaviodable consequence I posed to you as a 'false dichotomy' question which you didn't reply. I'm glad I got my answer. You'll abort the baby.

Kay 17: @strik

This is getting funny. If the mother's right (to life) supercedes and overrides the foetus' right, wlouldnt that imply the foetus' right is presently void?! And therefore can not be an object of murder!

I do not agree with the bold...

The foetus and the mum have equal rights to life. No one supersedes the other. The case we find ourselves is one in which the mum has a chance of surviving while the foetus does not...this is the constraint we need to work with. Given this constraint, the lady reserves the right to choose to live as against dying with her child.

Now, there is a difference between a foetus dying in the process of trying to treat the mother of her ailment and just killing the foetus....if medical science has advanced to a stage where the 'procedure' can save both mother and child, it would have been her choice.

Taken medications that gets rid of the foetus leaves no room for the survival of the child, even when there is a chance in saving the child...and this is assuming there is an advancement in medical science in this regard.

In summary, one method is outright abortion while the other method results in the death of the child because for now we lack the know how to save both mother and child.

Kay 17:
And I still don't get your method of killing the foetus with 'intent' when such act and the child's death is well anticipated! Also the doctors cannot claim in a church or a court that the child's death is accidental!!

See the explanation above...

Let me summarize the points again:

Methods directed at killing the foetus demonstrates malicious intent...this method though will save the mother but it is not directed at resolving the ish with the mother but killing the child.

Methods directed at correcting the ailment the mother suffers from demonstrates no malicious intent...this is about saving the mother...child only dies as a result of the procedure.

Kay 17:
Strik, also define human life. It has become necessary to do so.

With respect to our lives here on Earth, I see human life as a state of existence which should have the following characteristics:


1) It must pertain to a human.

2) Have the ability to sap in energy from it's environment and transform it to growth.

3) Ability to pass through the stages of development without changing.

The above is not exhaustive...

Uyi Iredia:

Agreed.




Agreed.



Now you're dipping your head in the sand. If killing_or striking as you say_the child is the solution to the problem, then (hello !). You aborted the baby to save the mother's life. This is the unaviodable consequence I harped on. The unaviodable consequence I posed to you as a 'false dichotomy' question which you didn't reply. I'm glad I got my answer. You'll abort the baby.

No!

Not every procedure that leads to the death of the child is abortion just like not every killing of a human being outside the womb is murder.

Mr anony:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY

I think at the heart of the pro-life movement is the idea that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights starting with life. - Mike Huckabee

I can understand why atheists after watching this videoclip and not see the morals of murdering babies but I fail to see why anyone who calls his or herself a Christian as some do here would want to rationalise their reasons for supporting such an dastardly act. How much sense does this make?

davidylan:

The problem with Mike Huckabee and other "conservative" republicans is the disgusting hypocrisy.

Its funny that they are so quick to defend life yet unborn yet care nothing for that life once it is born. Yep Mike Huckabee claims to believe that "all people are created equal" but ONLY when they are still in the womb. The same Huckabee supports a party platform that:

1. Is presently debating cutting food assistance to the poor while gifting farmers and big companies tax subsidies.
2. Has recently cut funds to the head start program that is meant to assist children from low income families
3. Has voted 37 times to defund, repeal and kill a healthcare program geared towards providing affordable healthcare to the poor.
4. Voted to cut government funds to planned parenthood - the only place poor or minority women get affordable access to reproductive healthcare.
5. Opposed allowing health insurance pay for birth control pills so women dont end up pregnant when they can least afford it.

Sorry if i do not for one second believe anything Mike Huckabee says. True christians are not just those who whine about abortion...

True Christians do not support Planned Parenthood whose founder set out to murder "minors."

Logicboy03:


What is this? Davidylan?

How is it possible that I am nodding and agreeing with what you have just posted?

There must be a god


Great work, David

Unless you are referring to an idol. I don't see how anyone who claims to believe in God would simultaneously believe in murdering babies through abortion. Evangelical atheists are also winning souls.

Evil Brain:

Epic post!

I never imagined I could ever agree completely with anything Davidylan said. The world must be coming to an end.

You are right about the fact that the world is coming to an end when you see these things happening.

striktlymi:

No!

Not every procedure that leads to the death of the child is abortion just like not every killing of a human being outside the womb is murder.

Choi ! See side-stepping ! You SAID in some procedures saving the mothers involve striking the child, what else is this if not abortion ?

Uyi Iredia:

Choi ! See side-stepping ! You SAID in some procedures saving the mothers involve striking the child, what else is this if not abortion ?

Never mind!

striktlymi:

Never mind!

I thought as much.

Evil Brain:

No.

If you want a fair representation of what I'm saying then read my post again.

That's what I got from reading your post. Reading it again hasn't told me different. You are always welcome to elucidate further.

thehomer:
Notice that you've just made a statement not an argument. In fact, one can create a slope between alive and dead using the same sort of reasoning you've been using.

I'd very much like to see you try.

You do realize that this insertion of "natural potential" makes your entire enterprise suspect. It would make your skin cells human or deny that test tube babies aren't human and everything else between.
Then you also smuggle in the word "essence". What exactly is it supposed to refer to? Some spirit?
To show you the absurdity of this position, would you prefer to save 1000 cryopreserved zygotes to one 30 year old person in an emergency? Would you prefer to save 1000 thirty year olds to one thirty year old person in another emergency?

I don't see how my preference makes the zygotes or 30 year old any more or less human Furthermore, when saving a person in an emergency, it is not necessarily his humanness that determines whether or not he ought to be saved first. Note that the is is a totally different case when it comes to actually murdering a person. The fact that he or she is a human being makes murdering him/her evil.

For instance, If President GEJ was in a meeting with 1000 people and there was a fire, saving GEJ first does not make any of the other people any less human same would apply if the 1000 people were saved before the president. Yet murdering another human being is evil.

Apply the same to an emergency scenario where the women and children are prioritized for safety before the men. Does this make the men less human? Absolutely not! and still yet, murdering another human being is evil.

I'm afraid your contention is a non sequitor and has really shown nothing.

I'm sure this creator and the rest of us humans would agree that killing a human being isn't simply evil.

If I recall correctly, I said: "to murder a human being is simply evil". Do you think otherwise?

My argument is simply that a woman has complete rights to her body. Since she has this right, then she is perfectly permitted to deny its use to anyone else.

As you can see, it doesn't appeal to whatever you think about when the life of a human being starts.

Interesting. It seems to me that you are proposing rights without responsibilities. Since you have made your argument clear, it would follow that:-

1. She has the right to her finances and her time and thus is perfectly permitted to neglect her 2 year old toddler regardless of whether it starves to death

2. She doesn't have the right to decapitate the limbs of the baby or stop it's heartbeat while it is in the womb. She must deliver it alive and then let it survive by itself. (She does not have the right to actively kill the person who needs her body to survive she only has the right to deny such a person the use of her body)

Mr anony: Interesting. It seems to me that you are proposing rights without responsibilities. Since you have made your argument clear, it would follow that:-

1. She has the right to her finances and her time and thus is perfectly permitted to neglect her 2 year old toddler regardless of whether it starves to death

Strawman!

A mother has responsibilities toward her child. However, those responsibilities end as soon as they start endangering her life or health. Taking care of a baby would hardly endanger someone's life, 2 year old children are not parasites and they don't cause eclampsia or vag!na| bleeding or tear their way out of your body after 9 months. Even if the child was endangering the mother, there are plenty of options available to meet the child's needs without the mother's involvement. This is not an option if the child is a fetus before the age of viability.

Allowing a mother to terminate pregnancy that is causing her physical or psychological distress does not give carte blanche for people to start killing or mistreating children. This is a false analogy. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you understand.

She doesn't have the right to decapitate the limbs of the baby or stop it's heartbeat while it is in the womb. She must deliver it alive and then let it survive by itself. (She does not have the right to actively kill the person who needs her body to survive she only has the right to deny such a person the use of her body)

You conveniently forget that a baby is a perfect parasite that will take whatever it needs from the mother with no regard for her own needs. Even when the mother is starving, the baby will still be born with chubby cheeks and little or no sign of malnutrition.

Take pre-eclampsia for instance. The baby's placenta doesn't invade the mothers womb well enough to get the nutrients it needs, so it compensates by pushing up the woman's blood pressure. In some cases, it just gets high enough to damage her kidneys a little. Less lucky women end up having strokes or convulsions all because the baby is trying to take care of itself. The baby will happily injure or kill the mother if that is what it needs to survive, It happens all the time. Yet I don't see anybody starting threads about the thousands of Nigerian women who are killed every year by selfish eclampsia babies, or wicked ectopic fetuses.

Just because a woman is pregnant doesn't mean we should strip her of her ability to preserve her life and well-being. Just because you don't like the thought of it doesn't mean you can curtail someone else's autonomy over her own flesh. That you feel your religion is against it is not the woman's problem. Your feelings and religion are your problem and yours alone.

I truly was enjoying this thread until Olaadegbu came in. I mean what did he just do?
Branded everybody Christian who disagreed with his view a 'fake' christian and then insinuated that atheists lack morals because they didn't subscribe totally to pro-life forgetting that in fact not all non-christians are in support of abortion.
A programmed christian robot, he. just like the atheist logicboy except that logicboy is marginally more intelligent.

Mr Troll:

I truly was enjoying this thread until Olaadegbu came in. I mean what did he just do?
Branded everybody Christian who disagreed with his view a 'fake' christian and then insinuated that atheists lack morals because they didn't subscribe totally to pro-life forgetting that in fact not all non-christians are in support of abortion.
A programmed christian robot, he. just like the atheist logicboy except that logicboy is marginally more intelligent.

Atheists in most cases are more sincere than theists even though they are sincerely wrong. But if they are to be consistent with their ideologies none of them will subscribe to pro-life, as it is inconsistent with their worldview.

Many theists on the other hand claim to believe in God but act as if God doesn't exist. For any theist to insist that there are justifiable reasons to murder babies means they are not being consistent with their faith.

OLAADEGBU:

Atheists in most cases are more sincere than theists even though they are sincerely wrong. But if they are to be consistent with their ideologies none of them will subscribe to pro-life, as it is inconsistent with their worldview.

Many theists on the other hand claim to believe in God but act as if God doesn't exist. For any theist to insist that there are justifiable reasons to murder babies means they are not being consistent with their faith.

1) Your picttures are unnecessary
2) Can you correctly state what the atheist worldview is?
3)That a christian doesn't agree with your view donot make them any lesss of a christian than you are. I'm sure you didn't read through the thread to see if their arguments make any sense.

As usual you just closed your eyes and stereotyped everybody.

Whoever agrees with you is a genuine christian

Whoever disagrees is a fake christian who's not practicing their faith correctly.

All athiests are supposed to be pro-choice in conformity with their worldview.

How re'tarded can it get?

Mr Troll:

1) Your picttures are unnecessary

Why do you get angry seeing pictures of aborted babies?

Mr Troll:

2) Can you correctly state what the atheist worldview is?

The atheist, evolutionary worldview sees people as just animals, murdering a baby to them is not different than a lion killing an antelope. But where their inconsistency lies is that while they may get angry if they see a violent murderer on the 10'clock news and expect him to be punished, they would not expect lions to be punished for killing an antelope. Just as they do not expect abortionists to be punished for murdering babies.

Mr Troll:

3)That a christian doesn't agree with your view donot make them any lesss of a christian than you are. I'm sure you didn't read through the thread to see if their arguments make any sense.

As usual you just closed your eyes and stereotyped everybody.

Whoever agrees with you is a genuine christian

Whoever disagrees is a fake christian who's not practicing their faith correctly.

All athiests are supposed to be pro-choice in conformity with their worldview.

How re'tarded can it get?

The Christians' worldview stems from God's Word and His sovereign nature, they reflect the way God thinks. The Christian is supposed to know some of God's thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of the Scripture and the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

OLAADEGBU:

Why do you get angry seeing pictures of aborted babies?

Are you alright?
I'm talking about all your pictures here and in other threads where they're not relevant. And who says I'm angry? Do you even think your hare-brained emoticons impress me?

The atheist, evolutionary worldview sees people as just animals, murdering a baby to them is not different than a lion killing an antelope.

you be confirmed robot! Sheeple.

But where their inconsistency lies is that while they may get angry if they see a violent murderer on the 10'clock news and expect him to be punished, they would not expect lions to be punished for killing an antelope. Just as they do not expect abortionists to be punished for murdering babies.

would you expect a lion to be punished for killing an antelope? What is this?
If there are laws against abortion in any country I would expect the atheists and theists alike to obey it and surely they'd expect anybody that flaunts it to be punished. But then with your mindset you already think an atheist society will be a lawless one...

The Christians' worldview stems from God's Word and His sovereign nature, they reflect the way God thinks. The Christian is supposed to know some of God's thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of the Scripture and the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

the scriptures being the bible which you all can't agree on who's got the best interpretation of it. Lol

I wonder what your omniscient god thinks about spontaneous abortions...

Mr Troll:

Are you alright?
I'm talking about all your pictures here and in other threads where they're not relevant. And who says I'm angry? Do you even think your hare-brained emoticons impress me?

They may not be relevant to you because you see through the lenses of a different worldview.

Mr Troll:

you be confirmed robot! Sheeple. would you expect a lion to be punished for killing an antelope? What is this?
If there are laws against abortion in any country I would expect the atheists and theists alike to obey it and surely they'd expect anybody that flaunts it to be punished. But then with your mindset you already think an atheist society will be a lawless one...

If you are consistent with your worldview you should be angry and that's if your worldview makes any sense at all. There is an absolute moral law for all humans as opposed to the worldview that sees humans as just accidents of nature.

Mr Troll:

the scriptures being the bible which you all can't agree on who's got the best interpretation of it. Lol

The Scriptures interpretes itself and has no need for human interpretation. God's moral Law is written on the hearts of all Christians, and this should make us speak with one voice.

Mr Troll:

I wonder what your omniscient god thinks about spontaneous abortions...

You are truly measuring up to your name, Mr Troller:

Uyi Iredia:

True. In fact, in so far as it is as effective, it's preferable to killing zygotes.

It is far less effective. It is preferred for ethical reasons only.

OLAADEGBU:

Atheists in most cases are more sincere than theists even though they are sincerely wrong. But if they are to be consistent with their ideologies none of them will subscribe to pro-life, as it is inconsistent with their worldview.

Many theists on the other hand claim to believe in God but act as if God doesn't exist. For any theist to insist that there are justifiable reasons to murder babies means they are not being consistent with their faith.

I suppose you believe we should allow every woman with ectopic pregnancies to die rather than "murder" the baby?

Pharisees were just as "sincere" in their faith... sincerely wrong and deluded that is. People like olaadegbu would have condemned Christ for daring to sit at meat with publicans...

I have clarified times without number here... that while abortion is horrible, there are times when it is REQUIRED to preserve the life of the mother (cases of ectopic pregnancies or women who develop severe life-threatening hyperemesis). Unfortunately the zealous leaders of the law are more interested in malicious slander.