Rather than ask if abortion should be legalised, I think we should ask 'would I be here if my mother had aborted me?'

You had no say in your coming to this world, yet your parents decided to have you, same chance should be given to every yet unborn child. If the child gets here and doesn't like it here, then he/she could decide to leave. Let it be the child's choice not yours.

But the foetus should have no say over his/hers!

yes because we somehow know what the foetus wants and the foetus is independent of it's carrier. Shouldn't a sperm have control over it's or her prospects?

But the foetus should have no say over his/hers!

that's really none of our business. That's their own wahala and not that of the government

, what argument would he come up with if it the choice of having the child or not lies on only the mother becomes law? (That is if it's not already law in the US?

it's the woman carrying the baby. her physical and mental health is the one at risk here. I can only plead with her to carry the baby but the DECISION is hers.

Rather than ask if abortion should be legalised, I think we should ask 'would I be here if my mother had aborted me?'

many kids would be here if not for condoms and BC pills.   so what are you getting at? 

Libruls are at work again.

you mad?

so far, no quality rebuttles! @Stillwater still leading on this one!

You definitely are one unbiased score keeper

You knew the consequences and you should be made to bear it

what about a woman who becomes pregnant through rape or BC pills that fail?  should she bear the consequences too?

what exactly is legalization of abortion expected to achieve?

The ability for planned parenthood programs to provide quality services without obstruction.

Mai Suya:


what exactly is abortion?

At what stage can the foetus be described as person, at birth or at conception?

what exactly is legalization of abortion expected to achieve?

Candid questions that will provide all the answers we will need to end this issue on abortion.
However, I dont see a candid answer coming soon.

GOD words is clear on abortion & i belief it should not be legalised otherwise everybody will be aborting without cogent reason. In circumstances were d unborn baby will give d mother problem, it can be aborted then. Ready ko to lo redi

bawomolo:

it's the woman carrying the baby. her physical and mental health is the one at risk here. I can only plead with her to carry the baby but the DECISION is hers.

You've said yours but a lot of men (Nigerian men especially ) won't agree with you. What am I even on about sef, go go go girl power!!!!

bawomolo:

many kids would be here if not for condoms and BC pills. so what are you getting at?

I don't think so. Besides, despite the popularity of condoms and contraceptives the world population is racing for a boom, bigger than when people had little knowledge of contraceptives.

@ Mai Suya

At what stage can the foetus be described as person, at birth or at conception?

If your argument is until a foetus attains personhood, then he should not be aborted, then I'll tell you that even non persons have a right to life. Dogs are not persons, but there are laws governing their rights to live today. You can't just kill or maltreat a dog without answering to the law here in the US.

@ topic,

i know a friend who is very sad till this day because of a statement her mum was made, "i should have aborted you while you were still in my womb". so if this friend does anything wrong, intentional or not, she hears this,

so back to the point, it is a mean thing to do, no matter what angle u try looking at it, i believe human being should have a choice

that's really none of our business. That's their own wahala and not that of the government

True that.

Nigeria News: “Legalise abortion now”- women groups

Posted: 22 Apr 2009 12:07 PM PDT

Nigeria NewsNigeria Association of Women Journalists (NAWOJ) has advocated for the legalization of abortion in the country, and enactment of laws to ensure stiffer penalties for those found guilty of rape.

http://assemblyonline.info/2009/04/nigeria-news-legalise-abortion-now-women-groups/

A foetus is not a child. People stop getting emotionally worked up over your lack of ability to distinguished as to what constitute as a child and what is a foetus.

From where I stand, abortion is not even an issue. A woman should have total control over her body, she should be able to decide what she wants inside it and what she doesn't. It is not up for discussion and should not even be an issue. Period.

Those of your against abortion, please answer what a woman should do in this scenario I'm about to paint - She was brutally raped by a child soldier, and she got pregnant as a result. Knowing that she not only do not want to have a pregnancy by a child soldier, she is forced to think of how she will be out-casted by the society and probably seen as promiscuous and the pregnancy if allowed to become a child, the child will be out-casted and constantly called a bastard etc.

Please explain to me as to what she is supposed to do?

Abortion should be legal, but the choice shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the mother.

biina:

Abortion should be legal, but the choice shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the mother.

Please educate me as to why a woman should not have a full say on what she wants on her body?

ElRazur:

Please educate me as to why a woman should not have a full say on what she wants on her body?

Simply because (at the least) she needed the consent of another to get it in there (unless you are making a case for virgin conception). The human race is not capable of asexual reproduction.

biina:

Simply because (at the least) she needed the consent of another to get it in there (unless you are making a case for virgin conception). The human race is not capable of asexual reproduction.

Here we are again with common misconception. A woman agreeing to sex, do not mean she wants to get pregnant, talk less of having a child. A woman do not need the to have a permission of another human to do what she wants to her body. Or do you come from the school of thought that sees the need for a woman to "seek permission or consent" before doing certain things?


What in my post suggest in anyway virgin conception, or asexual reproduction? Please let us stick to the debate at hand shall we? Thanks.

ElRazur:

Here we are again with common misconception. A woman agreeing to sex, do not mean she wants to get pregnant, talk less of having a child. A woman do not need the to have a permission of another human to do what she wants to her body. Or do you come from the school of thought that sees the need for a woman to "seek permission or consent" before doing certain things?

What in my post suggest in anyway virgin conception, or asexual reproduction? Please let us stick to the debate at hand shall we? Thanks.

The reference to virgin conception was just to state my intention to keep the discussion within bounds (before one of my fellow NLers quotes me as a bais for setting off down a part of a futile  philosophical exercise). It was not expressly directed at you. I apologize if you take exception to it.

Nobody ever said that sex equates to pregnancy, but she needs the man's sperm (not necessarily the man himself), and hence his cooperation, to get pregnant. If the man uses an effective contraceptive, there is no way the woman would get pregnant. Both of them are complicit (by commission or omission) in the making of the baby

The society sees both parents as being responsible for the born child, and thus the mother should not be able to jeopardize the interests of the father at simply her discretion. You cannot require his cooperation for the conception, suspend his rights for the duration of the pregnancy, and then reinstate his responsibility after birth - that is inequitable. If she has a right to withdraw her support for the pregnancy, then same should be extended to the father.

She is free to exercise are sole right to take precautions against getting pregnant, but the moment she is pregnant and carries the child of another, she can no longer claim autonomy on the matter.

biina:

The reference to virgin conception was just to state my intention to keep the discussion within bounds (before one of my fellow NLers quotes me as a bais for setting off down a part of a futile  philosophical exercise). It was not expressly directed at you. I apologize if you take exception to it.

No shaking. 

Nobody ever said that sex equates to pregnancy, but she needs the man's sperm (not necessarily the man himself), and hence his cooperation, to get pregnant. If the man uses an effective contraceptive, there is no way the woman would get pregnant. Both of them are complicit (by commission or omission) in the making of the baby

But your original post will suggest so, unless of course am wrong.
Oga, just because it takes do two to make a baby [pregnancy], do not mean she needs to seek the consent of the other party. In most part of the world, a woman is allowed the final say about keeping a pregnancy or not, Not the man or spam donor.
Oga as for effective contraception, you do not want to dwell in to this area jare. None of the methods are marketed as 100% effective/safe. Women have been recorded to get pregnant just from using all forms of contraception. From your under-arm injection, female condom, spermicide, injection down to contraceptive pills. Even IUD have resulted in pregnancy. You see nothing is 100%.

[b]The society sees both parents as being responsible for the born child, and thus the mother should not be able to jeopardize the interests of the father at simply her discretion. [/b]You cannot require his cooperation for the conception, suspend his rights for the duration of the pregnancy, and then reinstate his responsibility after birth - that is inequitable. If she has a right to withdraw her support for the pregnancy, then same should be extended to the father.

Again you have moved the debate. Allow me to point it out to you. This is a debate about "Abortion and whether it should be legalised". Now, an unborn foetus is NOT a child. Hence, your point above have nothing to do with the debate. What you are showing a classical signs of how a lot of people get things wrong by using the wrong term. Oga please tell me you do not work as a UN translation lol. Getting the translation wrong in certain situation can lead to world war three you see.

If you re-explain your points above, then I will make my reply.

She is free to exercise are sole right to take precautions against getting pregnant, but the moment she is pregnant and carries the child of another, she can no longer claim autonomy on the matter.

It is her body, she can do what she wants. The final "say" lies with her an no one else.

Please go back to my post where I illustrated a story of how a woman was raped, what will you have this woman do?

A foetus is not a child. People stop getting emotionally worked up over your lack of ability to distinguished as to what constitute as a child and what is a foetus.

Then what is the difference between a foetus and a child? To raise a tenuous distinction between the unique, genetically distinct entity that commences life soon after conception, and the resulting product about nine months after seems to me an attempt to utilize semantics as a basis for rendering abortion more palatable: describing a snake as 'a long thing' so that it can be eaten. Women dont say they are pregnant with a 'foetus' irrespective of how many weeks it is; they always say they are pregnant with a chilld.

However, I'm not among few ardent antiabortionists stridently opposed to the practise under any circumstance. The few instances where I feel it may be justifiable and therefore warranting an enabling law should be limited to cases of rape,incest and and situations where the child poses a serious risk to the life of the moher. In the case of the latter, I certainly don't believe the right to life of the unborn child should take precedence over that of the mother.

Nonetheless this:

ElRazur:


It is her body, she can do what she wants. The final "say" lies with her an no one else.

. . .gives the impression that we are talking about a piece of jewelery, which she if free is discard at will should its specification fail to meet her desire. That will not only be most unfair to the child, but such action would be sending a dangerous signal regarding the sanctity of human life.  We are talking a unique entity, the product of two human beings, and the future of three (the child, the father and her); it would therefore be unfair to say the final say rests with her.

ElRazur:

But your original post will suggest so, unless of course am wrong.
Oga, just because it takes do two to make a baby [pregnancy], do not mean she needs to seek the consent of the other party. In most part of the world, a woman is allowed the final say about keeping a pregnancy or not, Not the man or spam donor.

If you feel my initial post suggests sex equals to pregnancy then I have been misunderstood.
A question for you is who owns the pregnancy - the woman, the man or the couple? as your position seems to assign full ownership to the woman.

Oga as for effective contraception, you do not want to dwell in to this area jare. None of the methods are marketed as 100% effective/safe. Women have been recorded to get pregnant just from using all forms of contraception. From your under-arm injection, female condom, spermicide, injection down to contraceptive pills. Even IUD have resulted in pregnancy. You see nothing is 100%.

Hence my use of the word effective. If you feel contraceptives are not enough (as I feel you are just nit picking), I hope you would agree that a woman can't be impregnated by a man that has undergone vasectomy?
The point I was making is simply that the man has to be in a position to contribute the sperm, a situation he can limit (or bar ) by taking certain step on his own. Hence is cooperation is needed for the woman to get pregnant.

Again you have moved the debate. Allow me to point it out to you. This is a debate about "Abortion and whether it should be legalised". Now, an unborn foetus is NOT a child. Hence, your point above have nothing to do with the debate. What you are showing a classical signs of how a lot of people get things wrong by using the wrong term. Oga please tell me you do not work as a UN translation lol. Getting the translation wrong in certain situation can lead to world war three you see.

If you re-explain your points above, then I will make my reply.

I have not moved the debate. My initial statement  was that 'Abortion should be legal, but the choice shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the mother' and I explained that the man should also have a say in the matter, to which you disagreed. I did not say the foetus was a child (even though that is simply semantics as some would call it an unborn child).

To buttress my point, I made reference to the three relevant stages in the introduction of a child to the society: copulation, pregnancy, and post birth. I was supporting my position by stating that while the man is a co-party in the first and the last stages, your position seeks to suspend him in the middle stage. If a man has no say in if a pregnancy should be carried to term, why should he be held responsible for the child when it is born? Let the mother who had the sole choice, take the sole responsibility.  You should not expect a man to be responsible for the sole choice of the woman.

It is her body, she can do what she wants. The final "say" lies with her an no one else.

I am all for your position, if the woman is willing to bear full responsibility for her choices. She should not expect any form of support: financial, emotional or other, from the man. Authority should never been in a vacuum, and should always bear a commensurate responsibility.

Please go back to my post where I illustrated a story of how a woman was raped, what will you have this woman do?

The woman is free to seek abortion, as the fact that the pregnancy was the consequence of a criminal act denies the father any rights he might have in the matter.
This is still well within the confines of my position, as the rights of either or both party can be suspended or superseded if the situation warrants.

biina:

If you feel my initial post suggests sex equals to pregnancy then I have been misunderstood.
A question for you is who owns the pregnancy - the woman, the man or the couple? as your position seems to assign full ownership to the woman.

Hence my use of the word effective. If you feel contraceptives are not enough (as I feel you are just nit picking), I hope you would agree that a woman can't be impregnated by a man that has undergone vasectomy?
The point I was making is simply that the man has to be in a position to contribute the sperm, a situation he can limit (or bar ) by taking certain step on his own. Hence is cooperation is needed for the woman to get pregnant.
I have not moved the debate. My initial statement was that 'Abortion should be legal, but the choice shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the mother' and I explained that the man should also have a say in the matter, to which you disagreed. I did not say the foetus was a child (even though that is simply semantics as some would call it an unborn child).

To buttress my point, I made reference to the three relevant stages in the introduction of a child to the society: copulation, pregnancy, and post birth. I was supporting my position by stating that while the man is a co-party in the first and the last stages, your position seeks to suspend him in the middle stage. If a man has no say in if a pregnancy should be carried to term, why should he be held responsible for the child when it is born? Let the mother who had the sole choice, take the sole responsibility. You should not expect a man to be responsible for the sole choice of the woman.
I am all for your position, if the woman is willing to bear full responsibility for her choices. She should not expect any form of support: financial, emotional or other, from the man. Authority should never been in a vacuum, and should always bear a commensurate responsibility.
The woman is free to seek abortion, as the fact that the pregnancy was the consequence of a criminal act denies the father any rights he might have in the matter.
This is still well within the confines of my position, as the rights of either or both party can be suspended or superseded if the situation warrants.

VOICE OF REASON NOT FORGETTING YOU TOO STILLWATER, YOU ROCKS






@ tOPIC

How common is it in hospitals to see a woman give birth prematurely at say 24 weeks and the child is placed in ICU ^{OR WHATCHUMACALLIT} with the mum willing and praying to God to make sure her child survives, and yet a few room away you have a woman who have been booked in to kill what is deemed a foetus, THE IRONY

It is already legal in Great Britain, but I cannot wait for it the law to change to implement the new rule which is: the woman would be given a pill to swallow by a Nurse, which will probably induce a contraction and eventually kill the unborn child, then go home, and return later to push out the dead foetus yet again with only a nurse present

Hopefully this will make people who because it is their body, have as much as 8 abortions, realise that the procedure is not a walk in the park and, fingers crossed would catch on worldwide

Busy_body:

It is already legal in Great Britain, but I cannot wait for it the law to change to implement the new rule which is: the woman would be given a pill to swallow by a Nurse, which will probably induce a contraction and eventually kill the unborn child, then go home, and return later to push out the dead foetus yet again with only a nurse present

Hopefully this will make people who because it is their body, have as much as 8 abortions, realise that the procedure is not a walk in the park and, fingers crossed would catch on worldwide

Does this include rape victims though or cases where the woman's life is at risk?

nooooooo

bawomolo:

Does this include rape victims though or cases where the woman's life is at risk?

RHETORIC QUESTION; Is the number of women that this happen to negligible?

Busy_body:


RHETORIC QUESTION; Is the number of women that this happen to negligible?

who knows, maybe you could survey the women looking for an abortion. Your idea can work in a theocracy but civilized nations have moved beyond that.

If they want an abortion, go ahead. It doesn't affect you and I

Busy_body:


RHETORIC QUESTION; Is the number of women that this happen to negligible?

Actually, here in America. The % of rape victims needing abortions is less than 0.01% of total abortions each year. The case is still considered rare.

Yes i suspected it should be little

Kobojunkie:

Actually, here in America. The % of rape victims needing abortions is less than 0.01% of total abortions each year. The case is still considered rare.

God bless you for this input and for your insight.

bawomolo:

Does this include rape victims though or cases where the woman's life is at risk?

As you can see from Kobojunkie's input above, the number of those who have to do it for these reasons, is very very very very negligible My problem only lies with the high number of women who choose the abortion route as a means of contraception.

bawomolo:

who knows, maybe you could survey the women looking for an abortion. Your idea can work in a theocracy but civilized nations have moved beyond that.

If they want an abortion, go ahead. It doesn't affect you and I

No need for the hair on the back of your head to rise, you asked a question which I politely responded to, thats all And what idea of mine are you talking about if I may ask, politely again, of course, because I don't recall ever mentioning that the Bill being passed in the House of Lords, to make this legal, was mine

My problem only lies with the high number of women who choose the abortion route as a means of contraception.

And why is their mode of contraception your business? Is it a big deal if they used condoms, BC pills or abortion? It's their body and not ours.

By Idea, I mean you requiring them to go through contractions.

bawomolo:

And why is their mode of contraception your business? Is it a big deal if they used condoms, BC pills or abortion? It's their body and not ours.

Egbami, and why is my opinion your business Or what are you doing in this particular thread if not to give your own input too

bawomolo:

By Idea, I mean you requiring them to go through contractions.

Oh I get it now, I own the drugs company that manufactures the contraction inducing abortion pills

bawomolo:

And why is their mode of contraception your business? Is it a big deal if they used condoms, BC pills or abortion? It's their body and not ours.

By Idea, I mean you requiring them to go through contractions.

Sup uncle hope we are still cool sha