butterflyl1on:


Still your opinion. They believe in their suffering they still have hope. They believe in their suffering they still are better than the dead.

They believe that even though death comes to all eventually they would still live for a good while before that happens. A choice they are entitled to have and you know it.

Some choices are more logical than the others.

I think the moderator has to close this thread.... Nothing is learn here again.....apart from insult .....am dissapointed in you guys...

JackBizzle:



Mother rats eat the weak/deformed amongst their children. So your hen analogy that tries to make the altruist choice of dying for an unborn child natural is false.


We are talking about the unborn here and we know that you are lying.


As a husban, you would tell your wife to die for a feotus if there are complications? When there are other children she can give birtgh to or adopt?

Were the complications the fault of the fetus? If the fault is from the mother (in some cases) why take out the punishment on an innocent fetus and eventual child?

Why kill a fetus for something he or she did not do and isn't guilty of?

If you talk about rats which hold no protective instinct as humans do then how does that relate?

Would you take a bullet for your child?

JackBizzle:



Some choices are more logical than the others.

Life is more important and more precious than logic.

butterflyl1on:


The mothers life is not more precious. Often times the choice is made FOR the mother. However A TRUE MOTHER would love the product of her loins and would fight with her own life to protect her/him.

A true mother would lay down her own life for her child in order to give her child a fighting chance.

Are you a true mother or just a baby factory?

I don't get.
Are you saying it's better for a mother to die with her baby, even when it's clear that the baby can't be saved and her life would be at great risk if she insists on having the baby?

McSterling:


I don't get.
Are you saying it's better for a mother to die with her baby, even when it's clear that the baby can't be saved and her life would be at great risk if she insists on having the baby?

Nothing is clear in medicine all the time. Doctors have said that a baby would die within 3 months if they are born in their condition but these babies went ahead to lead full active lives to a good old age or even into their 30s.

Medicine took a gamble with that life when they said the baby would die in months but it defied the odds.

There is always a chance.

butterflyl1on:


Nothing is clear in medicine all the time. Doctors have said that a baby would die within 3 months if they are born in their condition but these babies went ahead to lead full active lives to a good old age or even into their 30s.

Medicine took a gamble with that life when they said the baby would die in months but it defied the odds.

There is always a chance.

There are things that are abundantly clear in medicine.

Pregnant woman has cancer and needs life saving chemotherapy or radiotherapy that will harm the fetus, you're saying she shouldn't abort?

CatfishBilly:

There are things that are abundantly clear in medicine.

Pregnant woman has cancer and needs life saving chemotherapy or radiotherapy that will harm the fetus, you're saying she shouldn't abort?

I used the term "nothing is clear in medicine all the time " and not "nothing is clear in medicine".

If a pregnant woman has cancer, cancer is always in stages and the assessment for treatment would be done according to the stage it is. If it's yet early, why not wait till after birth before treatment while monitoring the mother? Even if the baby needs to be born premature and artificially nursed while the mother is receiving treatment, that is an option. Everything does not have to be cut and join.

There is always a chance.

Babies can be born at 6 months and nursed artificially till they are fully grown can they not?

butterflyl1on:


I used the term "nothing is clear in medicine all the time " and not "nothing is clear in medicine".

If a pregnant woman has cancer, cancer is always in stages and the assessment for treatment would be done according to the stage it is. If it's yet early, why not wait till after birth before treatment while monitoring the mother? Even if the baby needs to be born premature and artificially nursed while the mother is receiving treatment, that is an option. Everything does not have to be cut and join.

There is always a chance.

Babies can be born at 6 months and nursed artificially till they are fully grown can they not?

Well, sorry to disappoint you, there are cases where treatment wasn't given to the mother cos she was pregnant and she ended up dying with the baby.
That's all shades of stupid if you ask me. The fetus that they were protecting ended up dying. With the mother that could have been saved.

I see this most vocal opponents of abortion rights of women as misogynic, hypocritical, chauvinistic and egocentric religious bigots. They prefer to remain frozen in the 19th century, where women were not accorded any rights, where women do not have rights to their bodies and where women were not even accorded voting or inheritance rights.
These people see forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy she does not want as their God's punishment for sexual immorality ( according to their religious beliefs). The irony is that abortion nowadays is done more by married women than by single women according to information by a very close doctor friend on mine. He told me that safe abortion is now so exorbitant that single girls can't afford it. Married couples with 3 or 4 children already opt for abortion ( if family planning methods fails).
China had a one child family for over 30 years ( now it had been increased to two), guess how they were able to maintain the policy. Family planing including abortion. It got so bad that couples were aborting baby girls in early pregnancy because of the huge preference for baby boys.
Abortion is as complicated as prostitution, you can criminalize and immoralize it all you want, but you cannot stop it, a woman will always exercise control over her body, whether you legalize it or criminalize it.

wirinet:
I see this most vocal opponents of abortion rights of women as misogynic, hypocritical, chauvinistic and egocentric religious bigots. They prefer to remain frozen in the 19th century, where women were not accorded any rights, where women do not have rights to their bodies and where women were not even accorded voting or inheritance rights.
These people see forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy she does not want as their God's punishment for sexual immorality ( according to their religious beliefs). The irony is that abortion nowadays is done more by married women than by single women according to information by a very close doctor friend on mine. He told me that safe abortion is now so exorbitant that single girls can't afford it. Married couples with 3 or 4 children already opt for abortion ( if family planning methods fails).
China had a one child family for over 30 years ( now it had been increased to two), guess how they were able to maintain the policy. Family planing including abortion. It got so bad that couples were aborting baby girls in early pregnancy because of the huge preference for baby boys.
Abortion is as complicated as prostitution, you can criminalize and immoralize it all you want, but you cannot stop it, a woman will always exercise control over her body, whether you legalize it or criminalize it.

Exactly, One is even saying if a woman needs chemotherapy she should wait because of a fetus, as if he doesnt know the earlier the treatment is started the higher the chances for survival.

If he is the pregnant woman in this his hypothetical dilemma or her husband I wonder what he will choose because a choice has to be made with the patient's consent.

Well everybody is pro life until shiit gets real.

CatfishBilly:

Well, sorry to disappoint you, there are cases where treatment wasn't given to the mother cos she was pregnant and she ended up dying with the baby.
That's all shades of stupid if you ask me. The fetus that they were protecting ended up dying. With the mother that could have been saved.

Yes those cases do exist. But I am also sorry to disappoint you that doctors always would address their patients according to their level of experience. What one doctor cannot achieve another doctor would tell you he can and another can also tell you he can try his best.

Like I said there are levels to cancer and each is handled according to its severity. Decisions are made based on what is known and seen.

There is always a chance

wirinet:
I see this most vocal opponents of abortion rights of women as misogynic, hypocritical, chauvinistic and egocentric religious bigots. They prefer to remain frozen in the 19th century, where women were not accorded any rights, where women do not have rights to their bodies and where women were not even accorded voting or inheritance rights.
These people see forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy she does not want as their God's punishment for sexual immorality ( according to their religious beliefs). The irony is that abortion nowadays is done more by married women than by single women according to information by a very close doctor friend on mine. He told me that safe abortion is now so exorbitant that single girls can't afford it. Married couples with 3 or 4 children already opt for abortion ( if family planning methods fails).
China had a one child family for over 30 years ( now it had been increased to two), guess how they were able to maintain the policy. Family planing including abortion. It got so bad that couples were aborting baby girls in early pregnancy because of the huge preference for baby boys.
Abortion is as complicated as prostitution, you can criminalize and immoralize it all you want, but you cannot stop it, a woman will always exercise control over her body, whether you legalize it or criminalize it.

You are ever so wrong. Nobody sees a baby as a punishment on a woman. The baby is always the focus. Turning this to a religious argument when nobody here has mentioned anything remotely linked to religion (not even the religious) is stupid.

Johnydon who is an atheist has been very vocal about his position which is anti abortion is he religious?

Your opinion cannot dislodge those of others neither can it invalidate them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion same as you are to yours.

A woman aborting a baby is no different from a man strangling his own kid simply because he sees himself as an authority and that the child would not have even existed if not for him.

At what point do we even come to terms with the fact that it's ever so easy to loose our humanity if we make life look so trivial and flimsy?

Same China you mentioned have now become inhuman to the value of life that it's so sad. I watched a video of a little girl of about 3 or 5 years old in china who mistakenly crawled onto the road IN A BUSY SHOPPING DISTRICT. Not one not Two vehicles ran her over and nobody cared. Eventually one Chinese woman just dragged the body from the road and propped it up against some sacks by the road and walked away.

That is what humanity in China has been reduced to due to what you said in your comment. Life is seen as nothing but toilet paper which can be flushed down the toilet at will and this happens ever so often in China.

Humanistme:


Exactly, One is even saying if a woman needs chemotherapy she should wait because of a fetus, as if he doesnt know the earlier the treatment is started the higher the chances for survival.

If he is the pregnant woman in this his hypothetical dilemma or her husband I wonder what he will choose because a choice has to be made with the patient's consent.

Well everybody is pro life until shiit gets real.

The greatest irony of this whole anti abortion debate is that the whole blame is heaped on the woman, the man is absolved of all blame. It is as if the woman got pregnant by herself. Someone is here screaming " A TRUE MOTHER would love the product of her loins and would fight with her own life to protect her/him" but said nothing about a TRUE FATHER. It is as if the only job of a true father is to donate sperm in a 10mins of ecstasy.

You can watch one of the videos here and tell me how China got to this point

And this happened in full glare of everyone. At least 18 witnesses and by standers and nobody did nothing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqVYUzHc5L8

butterflyl1on:




A woman aborting a baby is no different from a man strangling his own kid simply because he sees himself as an authority and that the child would not have even existed if not for him.

This is very wrong premise and analogy. A woman aborting a baby would be committing "illegal abortion" in jurisdictions where abortion is illegal, while a man killing his own kid would be charged for murder in every jurisdiction in the world.
Even the very term "aborting a baby" means the process of becoming a baby was aborted.

wirinet:


This is very wrong premise and analogy. A woman aborting a baby would be committing "illegal abortion" in jurisdictions where abortion is illegal, while a man killing his own kid would be charged for murder in every jurisdiction in the world.
Even the very term "aborting a baby" means the process of becoming a baby was aborted.

Since you feel a woman has a right to her body does a man also not have a right to the produce of his body?

Have you watched the video to see the domino effect of pro abortion in China?

Nobody cared because it was a girl.

johnydon22:
I want to present my argument with a story, listen to me and try to read meanings to my words.

On a very good Christmas i spent at the village about a decade ago, i was quite small and enjoyed christmases a lot. On the 24th of december mama made a pot of Ogbono soup, as i relished mine i noticed we had chicken in it which was unusual in a typical kpako Nigerian home.

The chicken is always reserved for the special occasion which was supposed to be the next day 25th december, you know christmas and all, a lot of swag came with that.

I was happy at the same time suspicious of the whole thing " does this mean we won't get to eat chicken tomorrow?"

I had to ask papa what was going on, why did we have chicken in our soup because i was very certain we only came back to the village with one huge white broiler from the town.

Papa laughed and explained.

"yes we will still eat Chicken tomorrow, the chicken we just ate is from a hen that breaks and drinks it's own eggs"

This story always comes to my mind when i am involved in arguments about abortions as people always bring the "fetus is not human argument" as absurd as i find that notion i will still argue even if this is the case doesn't still make it okay to kill it.

Now we can take eggs from a hen and eat, the eggs may be eaten by a snake or other predators or breaks by accident - these are naturally okay.

But when the mother hen by herself breaks her own eggs and drinks them, this is not okay, it was a disgusting sight for a hen to do this, this was exactly the reason why that hen had to be killed.

An egg may not be entirely a chicken but an egg is still chicken kind.

let me know if you made anything out of this story

Please go and read why hens eat their own eggs, you don't use the intellect of chickens to that of humans.

Why do hens develop this bad habit? It is caused by many things like hunger, lack of space, lack of care, cracking of eggs, overcrowding, inexperience hen etc. These reasons are dependent on the chicken keeper, the chicken keeper needs to do everything for the hens not to develop the habit.

When it comes to humans and abortion, it is left for the people responsible for the pregnancy, if they find it uncomfortable bringing a child to the world, what's wrong aborting it? At least they have reasons they don't want the baby not like hens that develop the habit through lack of proper care from the keeper.


And lastly, a fetus can't survive independently on it own, whether alive or not alive, if the owner want it aborted it is their decision.

butterflyl1on:


Nothing is clear in medicine all the time. Doctors have said that a baby would die within 3 months if they are born in their condition but these babies went ahead to lead full active lives to a good old age or even into their 30s.

Medicine took a gamble with that life when they said the baby would die in months but it defied the odds.

Good you punctuated that sentence with "all the time". Sometimes, it gets very clear.

There is always a chance.

Well, as much we'd love this to be true, there isn't always a chance in the pragmatic sense. Sometimes, it's either the mother gets saved at the baby's expense or the baby gets saved at the mother's expense or they both die. And if I'm not mistaken, you're saying a mother should be willing to die whichever way it goes. That's like also saying the husband should be willing to lose both wife and unborn child, even when he has to only lose the unborn child and can still have other kids with the wife. Pretty easy to say; uneasy to practice.

butterflyl1on:


Since you feel a woman has a right to her body does a man also not have a right to the produce of his body?

Have you watched the video to see the domino effect of pro abortion in China?

Nobody cared because it was a girl.

Exactly! I am certain that if all men insists on the rights of the produce of their body, most women would not even consider abortion, but you and I know that this is usually far from reality. Lots of men deny the rights to the product of their body and take off on hearing the phrase " I have not seen my period".

If men are forced by law to share some of the burden of pregnancy and eventual upkeep of the baby once it is born, then you anti abortionists might have a point, but to insist a woman must keep a pregnancy she is unable to care for, physically, financially or psychologically alone is cruel, both to the woman and the baby.

I saw the video and it is appalling, although I still cannot link it with abortion. Such scene happens in Nigeria also almost everyday.

McSterling:


Good you punctuated that sentence with "all the time". Sometimes, it gets very clear.


Well, as much we'd love this to be true, there isn't always a chance in the pragmatic sense. Sometimes, it's either the mother gets saved at the baby's expense or the baby gets saved at the mother's expense or they both die. And if I'm not mistaken, you're saying a mother should be willing to die whichever way it goes. That's like also saying the husband should be willing to lose both wife and unborn child, even when he has to only lose the unborn child and can still have other kids with the wife. Pretty easy to say; uneasy to practice.

I think you need to read this


https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/are-babies-left-to-die-when-they-survive-abortion

wirinet:


Exactly! I am certain that if all men insists on the rights of the produce of their body, most women would not even consider abortion, but you and I know that this is usually far from reality. Lots of men deny the rights to the product of their body and take off on hearing the phrase " I have not seen my period".

If men are forced by law to share some of the burden of pregnancy and eventual upkeep of the baby once it is born, then you anti abortionists might have a point, but to insist a woman must keep a pregnancy she is unable to care for, physically, financially or psychologically alone is cruel, both to the woman and the baby.

I saw the video and it is appalling, although I still cannot link it with abortion. Such scene happens in Nigeria also almost everyday.

I think you need to read this from actual abortion survivors.

Cc catfishbilly this is proof that some would rather suffer than be dead

http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm

butterflyl1on:


I think you need to read this


https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/are-babies-left-to-die-when-they-survive-abortion

Okay

butterflyl1on:


I think you need to read this


https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/are-babies-left-to-die-when-they-survive-abortion

This story validates what i have been saying all along, that;

Abortion is quite different from murder. It is considered abortions if it was terminated inside the mothers womb, but considered murder if it was terminated outside the mothers womb.
Abortion is a lesser evil than murder.If you criminalize abortion, then you would be exposing newly born babies to gruesome murders. A woman who does not want a baby cannot be forced to care for the baby. The only other solution is to allow the mother have the baby and the baby immediately taken away by the authorities.

wirinet:


This story validates what i have been saying all along, that;

Abortion is quite different from murder. It is considered abortions if it was terminated inside the mothers womb, but considered murder if it was terminated outside the mothers womb.
Abortion is a lesser evil than murder.If you criminalize abortion, then you would be exposing newly born babies to gruesome murders. A woman who does not want a baby cannot be forced to care for the baby. The only other solution is to allow the mother have the baby and the baby immediately taken away by the authorities.

You saw only what appeals to your worldview obviously.

I suggest you neutrally go through it again and as you do, combine it with this

http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm

butterflyl1on:


You saw only what appeals to your worldview obviously.

I suggest you neutrally go through it again and as you do, combine it with this

http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm

What about suffering and homeless children?



^^^Do they deserve this?

If life is comfortable for everyone, I don't think anyone will think of abortion.

tintingz:
What about suffering and homeless children?



^^^Do they deserve this?

If life is comfortable for everyone, I don't think anyone will think of abortion.

Suffering children yes but they are still alive

Homeless children yes but they are still alive.

A lot would say they are homeless but glad they are alive. Likewise those who are suffering as you put it.

So because they may end up suffering or homeless then we have the right to terminate their existence?

butterflyl1on:


Were the complications the fault of the fetus? If the fault is from the mother (in some cases) why take out the punishment on an innocent fetus and eventual child?

Why kill a fetus for something he or she did not do and isn't guilty of?

If you talk about rats which hold no protective instinct as humans do then how does that relate?

Would you take a bullet for your child?

See how you dodge issues and twist?

We are talking about fetuses and pregnant women dying for the unborn. You are now twisting it by asking "would you take a bullet for your child". Sir, we are talking about fetuses not children.

Secondly, you dodged. Please answer the direct question- would yoi tell your wife to die for the fetus if there are complocations in the pregnancy?


Do you even considser that she could have other children or live another day to adopt?

butterflyl1on:


Suffering children yes but they are still alive

Homeless children yes but they are still alive.

A lot would say they are homeless but glad they are alive. Likewise those who are suffering as you put it.

So because they may end up suffering or homeless then we have the right to terminate their existence?

Please think of the consequences of the things you say.

There are things worse than death. Have we not seen many cases here on nairaland or in real life wher mothers kill or mutilate their children?

Many of the mental cases you see in young chikdren come from those children who were abused from a young age. Do you see those children hawking and living on the streets? They are abused and molested. How many child hawkers have you seen giving testimony in church as sucessful adults? Many are dead before they reach 18 and the rest either become mentally instable or criminals.

Most people chose death in the face of torture. There are things worse than death.


Does your church have an orphanage? No. But you can preaxh against abortion all day long because you dont face the consequences

butterflyl1on:


I think you need to read this


https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/are-babies-left-to-die-when-they-survive-abortion

Well, this scenerio doesn't quite fit with what I had in mind. Any sane woman wouldn't be looking to abort her baby at such a late stage.

I was talking about a scenerio where a woman is placed in a dilemma and has to choose between herself and her baby or risk dying along with her baby. I'm sure, she'd be mighty glad if the baby still survives in this case.

Killing a 23 weeks old baby or an already born baby deliberately should be a no no for everybody.

McSterling:

Well, this scenerio doesn't quite fit with what I had in mind. Any sane woman wouldn't be looking to abort her baby at such a late stage.

I was talking about a scenerio where a woman is placed in a dilemma and has to choose between herself and her baby or risk dying along with her baby. I'm sure, she'd be mighty glad if the baby still survives in this case.

Killing a 23 weeks old baby or an already born baby deliberately should be a no no for everybody.

That was what I have been trying to explain to the guy, that the examples in the report is not valid for what we are talking about. Most pro choice supporters do not support aborting a 23 weeks pregnancy. That is almost 5 months for god sake. The process of aborting a 5 months pregnancy is no different from carrying the pregnancy to term and then murdering the baby. The ethical and moral dilemma is the same, you kill a fully formed baby, you put it in a nylon bag and dump in a bush, refuse dump or the lagoon.

What I have been talking about is aborting the pregnancy within 6 weeks of conception, here the embryo is just a mass of cells attempting to implant itself into the uterus. Aborting it a process of simply preventing it from implanting itself. There are drugs that can be used to achieve such or simple vacuum pumps that can be inserted into the vagina and the whole mass is pumped out. This is not much different from taking family planning pills or injections, the pill does not prevent fertilization, it only prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, it is also abortion. I hope you guys are not against the taking of pills also.

wirinet:


That was what I have been trying to explain to the guy, that the examples in the report is not valid for what we are talking about. Most pro choice supporters do not support aborting a 23 weeks pregnancy. That is almost 5 months for god sake. The process of aborting a 5 months pregnancy is no different from carrying the pregnancy to term and then murdering the baby. The ethical and moral dilemma is the same, you kill a fully formed baby, you put it in a nylon bag and dump in a bush, refuse dump or the lagoon.

What I have been talking about is aborting the pregnancy within 6 weeks of conception, here the embryo is just a mass of cells just attempting to implant itself into the uterus. Aborting it a simply process of simply preventing it from implanting itself. There are drugs that can be used to achieve such or simple vacuum pumps that can be inserted into the vagina and the whole mass is pumped out. This is not much different from taking family planning pills or injections, the pill does not prevent fertilization, it only prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, it is also abortion. I hope you guys are not against the taking of pills also.

I hope you are seeing the dubious side of butterflyl1on.

Far back, I had already mentioned that abortions mostly happen within the first 12 weeks. He ignored it and now, he is putying forward abortions that are close to birth.