₦airaland Forum

Queenisha:
lust of the eyes.
May jehovah have mercy on you

Lust wetin? We are discussing weighty issues here, how to move Nigeria forward.

A democratically elected Government is under assault,and someone thinks that is a good model to follow?

davidylan:
Maybe the cleavage isnt that pronounced but its still there, decent size and good enough.

I don't think you can have one without the other,sizeable boobs without wholesome cleavage. Don't discount the wonderbra effect.

I disagree completely . . . karmamod's boobs are real, she's got a lovely cleavage to boot neither is she fat at all.

She is not fat but she is carrying a few extra pounds.

davidylan:
you made me go take a more detailed look at it. I think they are as big as they look.
She does seem to have a good cleavage not so?

but overall, best boobs on nairaland . . . Karmamod without a doubt!

After subjecting it to considerable scrutiny,I still stand by my initial position. I think what makes a good cleavage is the ''squashing'' effect,it's not a cleavage one can bury his head in.

As for KarmaMod, avoirdupois detracts from the boobs size.

Tope2000's boobs are highly overrated. At first sight,they are not particularly big and it's quite obvious there is a bit of a "wonderbra'' thingy going on. Take it from a keen lifetime observer of boobs.

Blaming Shell is akin to dealing with the symptoms of a disease without dealing with the root causes. The key problem is the lax domestic regulatory environment in which they are operating in.

Blaming Shell,for the groups that produce these campaign videos, has it's pecuniary benefits. More sympathy and public support is available when you take on the rich Western majors.

If an when Shell were to leave,try using this tactics on the likes of SINOPEC,Petronas or ONGC. That is why,currently,nobody is doing videos attacking NNPC. No money is made from raising awareness on the lax environmental practices of non-Western oil companies.

So why is Mrs Abiandu in custody when the Adewunmis & the Ajibolas are free?

What are the consequences of the war ?
The economy has taken a nosedive
Do you know how much I've lost in my 401k and investments?
Do you know how much I pay in food and gas?
Everything has increased but my salary.
Do you know how many Americans are out of work and suffering because of George Bush and John McBush ?
Anyone who has watched a booming economy go downhill will have to be nuts to vote for 4 years of a man who has been on the same side with George W 90% of the time.

The downturn in the US economy is not because of the war in Iraq. Compare the US to any Western nation,including those who were not part of the Iraq campaign,the US has outperformed the OECD average since 2003.

As for inflation,I would like to have what ever it is you are smoking. If you think Obama will stop inflation,especially food and energy prices inflation,you must be kidding. How would he stop the burgeoning demand by new economic powerhouses like India and China which drives such inflation?

Strangely enough,Obama wants to continue the destructive ethanol mandate program which has helped causes crisis in many parts of the world,especially Africa. Ask people back home how much the cost of a bag of rice has changed.

Is it by increasing taxes on the entrepreneurial class,small business owners,increasing capital gains tax,e.t.c that the economy will blossom?

As for watching a booming economy go down,the US was in a major economic downturn when Bush took office. The anomalous halcyon post-Cold war 90s economy is long gone. It started imploding months before Bush was inaugurated.

What the US needs is a "divided Government". One where one party controls the White House while the other controls Congress.

Nothing erodes the necessary checks and balances required as having "one-party" rule.

This thread should be buzzing with excitement,instead,it has withered away.

Queenisha:
we never start.
wait till that new story about Sarah palins lover surfaces well well
This thing just began o

Obama don reach 60% ?

Dem don run? Crazy people,depriving me of my sleep!

David, come take back your thread. Don't mind these nutcases always diverting topics.

I wonder what kind of joint Richy was smoking when he started this thread.

Bastage:
I can't give you that one.

Think about it. If a woman enters the clinic and says she is from Ireland it's likely that she's telling the truth, isn't it? Therefore the 7000 is not going to be an underestimate. Why say you're from Ireland when you're not? And how many English women do you know who can do an authentic Irish accent and keep it up for hours?

Yet an Irish woman can easily enter a clinic and give a UK address and nobody will know the difference.
Therefore, logically, the figures are far, far more likely to be conservative.

Now I'm off to bed too!!!

You are presuming that the "7000" figure only includes those who say they are from Ireland. You don't seem to know the source of your 7000 figure and your extract refers to "estimates of 7000". We don't know who did the estimate and the basis of the estimate so we can't conclude on whether it's exaggerated or not given how clueless we are as to how the figures were obtained.

Ibime:
4 Play, go and sleep. Your claim that they are a net gain is completely unprovable. Infact, people have shown that they lead to a rise in crime. This is not measuring all the other factors such as human happiness which Republicans tend to overlook in their quantitative way of measuring everyone's worth.

You haven't even proven your initial assertion and you are introducing unverifiable elements like "human happiness".

Lets for the sake of argument presume that these unwanted people contribute to a rise in crime,does that prove that their total negative contributions outstrips their total positive contributions? Blacks in the West contribute to a rise in crime but unless you are Grand Wizard in the KKK,you can't claim that blacks are generally a burden to society.

As for my position being unprovable,we know that humans are a net gain to societies,like the US,with demographic challenges . Anybody who wants to claim that those unwanted by their mothers aren't part of this net-plus must show why or forever keep quiet.

Bastage:
No. To the contrary, it's actually an anti-abortion site. Which is why I would tend to think it's figures would be either accurate or conservative.

And yea, as you say,how do you keep tabs? This, again would seem to point out that the figures I've given are conservative.

Do you see what I mean now when I say that Ireland is a bad example to use?
Or are you going to carry on fighting me over this one? 

Heck dude. No reason why you can't argue for the Palin anti-abortion lobby. Just drop the freaking Irish angle.

Hang on a sec,if you agree that tabs are not kept,why presume that these figures are conservative? They could go either way;it can be an overestimate as well as an underestimate. 

You are using figures you cannot vouch for.

Ibime:
What a Herculean task! Abi this na PHD thesis? I have already shown you that crime has risen in Ireland which is what I claimed. I have also given you some statistics for you to form some mathematical assumptions from. I challenge you to prove that they have been a benefit to society. You cannot - yet you expect me to do likewise, knowing it will take a long time to do any indepth mathematical calculations. There are so many variables involved, no economist or political scientist has been able to prove a mathematical figure.

You have admitted that you made an unprovable claim.

I took the default position that humans in a nation like the US are a net gain;you claimed that some(those who aren't wanted by their mums) are effectively a net burden to society. The only way you can prove your claim is undertaking the "herculean task". Isolating those that lived and showing that what they take out of society is is more than what they give.

Until you can prove your original assertion,which sparked off the debate, all the conjecture from correlations(remember,correlation isn't the same thing as causation) doesn't prove they are a net burden to society.

@Bastage

If they are "not forced to give an Irish address",how the hell do you keep tabs on who is Irish and who isn't? I hope that site isn't an abortion lobby site.

You are too tired? I have been posting half asleep for the past couple of hours.  

Ibime:
Silly you! I wasn't talking about net gains from anti-abortion laws. I was talking about net gains from joining the EU and strong fiscal policy.  

You have been dodging many issues I have raised.

The task is clear: Isolate these unwanted people who have lived merely because of ROI's strict laws and show us that they are a net cost to society. It's that simple. All we have had from you is conjecture

Ibime:
I saw somewhere that 7,000 irish women travel to Uk for abortion each year so I would not dispute that.

It can't be too much to ask to link something. The total abortions in the UK versus the total abortions in the UK by ROI women.

Ibime:
Net costs are swallowed up by net gains. . . I have told you to drop this Ireland thing, it isn't fooling anyone. . . . we all know why Ireland is resurgent. . . firstly, Irelands case is completely different from USA. . . whether you are looking at the extended family unit, religion etc. . . . still, we all know that crime is rising in Ireland. . . .EU named Ireland as the most crime ridden country within it. . . . even US state department warned visitors about a rise in crime in Ireland. . . . all these are the costs we would see if not for their economic resurgence.

Precisely, the gains that these people bring(economic output/taxes) outstrips their costs(crime/welfare). You have in one sentence, ineloquently put,undermined your argument.

You want Ireland to be dropped because it undermines your claim that legalising abortion would have net costs to society. It is virtually impossible to do a like-for-like comparison though. The underlying thing is that you are seeking to prove the existence of a problem,the potential net costs of unwanted people, which you can't unless you can show that people who could have been aborted but weren't,because of legal constraints, cost more than they give back to society.

You still do not answer my assertion that those who could afford to travel to New York for abortions before Roe vs Wade did. Therefore Roe vs Wade only catered for the disadvantaged.

Same as above. There is no proof that the very disadvantaged are a generally a societal burden. No proof that society will be better off if they were dead.

OK. Let's do the math.

The abortion number in the UK is roughly 180,000. Of those, 8000 were from Ireland.
That means that roughly 4.5% of all abortions in the UK were to Irish women.

Before we start,I think it's good practice to link were you get your figures from.

@Ibime

Touche at the 48% claim . Though,it is a bit of a wide leap to go from saying that one study in '03 found that 51% of blacks in NYC have jobs to saying that 48% are unemployed. The "unemployed" figure will include blacks in education and I wonder whether it includes the self-employed.

The whole statement is misleading because it isn't relevant. We're not talking about black people, we're talking about single mothers. And although there may be black single parents, they have to be included in the same bracket as the white single parents. Not compared to other Africans or Caribbeans.
I seriously do not see how you can make that leap or what relevance it has. Please explain.

70% of African-Americans and Afro-Caribeans are born out of wedlock,so if the culture of single motherhood is in itself a net burden, it could be rightly said Caribeans and Blacks are generally burdens to the UK and the US.

I'D also disagree that children are a burden to society. If the parents can afford to have them, they pay. But statistics do show that the children of unmarried mothers are more likely to face poverty and require state handouts. And this is the section of society you will be hitting the hardest if you ban abortion

The mere fact that a parent has to pay for a child makes a child an economic burden until he can fend for himself. To the extent that a child doesn't contribute to the economic output of a nation,a child remains an economic burden until adulthood.

As for the answer to your Irish question. It would be churlish of me to state that every Irish woman who wants an abortion comes to the UK. But again, the fact remains that many do. I also restate my claim that Ireland is not of relevence.
If it were, I could state that until relatively recently it was a 3rd world country and that this was down to the fact that abortion is illegal but that because Ireland is in the EU it's whole reason for having a high standard of living is due to the subsidies and handouts that it receives.

You still miss the point,isn't there any statistical evidence you can point to illustrating the price Ireland is paying;crime,housing,poverty,e.t.c. If there was any evidence that prohibiting abortion is a burden to a nation,surely,Ireland must have something to illustrate this.

You admit that not all Irish women looking for abortion go to the UK but that many do. That is a tacit admission that some don't;that there are Irish people today who would have been aborted if the laws had been liberalised. Surely,you must have some evidence of the net costs these people are having on society.

bawomolo:
i believe the argument would be poorer biblebelt southern states like arkansas, mississippi who have little to fund welfare would be burdened by an increase in welfare babies or foster kids.  i don't see this as an important issue though. roe vs wade would still stand

Abortion is illegal in Arkansas and Mississippi?

@Ibime

If you base your arguments on lies,it falls apart. Take your assertion that 48% of black men in New York are unemployed,that is a bold faced lie.

The burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion. You have made an assertion and you are claiming that certain correlations,many of them lies, constitute proof of it.

The absurdity of your argument is that you are effectively casting huge swathes of society,the poorest of the poor,as net burdens. Using that argument,one can say that America will be better off getting rid of this poor demographic.

Bastage:
@Tayo-D.

You cannot stop teens from getting pregnant by cutting off their benefits. It's just not going to happen in a modern society. Maybe it should, but it won't. The State will always provide.

If you are unaware that there are many people,lots of them teens,who get pregnant precisely to get benefits,you are being naive. Many people on benefits live a better life than many working people. The benefits system is an incentive for more out of wedlock babies.

As for the fathers? Yes, they go after them. But statistics show that mostly to be a waste of time. For the paltry £8 million that the Chiild Support Agency pursued through the legal system, it actually cost the UK taxpayer £12 million!!! Yet more to add to the economic burden.

Lets take those figures as a given. Does the £8m include the amount paid by people who would not have paid but were deterred by the legal consequences? No! It calculates those who paid after legal proceedings were initiated against them but doesn't factor in those who paid because they were aware that legal proceedings could commence

bawomolo:
i do think 4 play has to provide studies to show how ireland's economic group directly correlates to its pro-life stance.  i thought ireland's admittance to the EU had a bigger impact. i may be wrong
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6646629.stm

People are claiming that "unwanted" babies(defined as people who would be aborted if the law permits) would be a burden to the public purse. If that is the case,using Ireland as an example of a Western nation that generally prohibits abortion,can someone point out how this claim has manifested itself in Ireland?

Bastage:
Factually. The majority of abortions are to unmarried teens.
Factually. If they are forced to have children, somebody has to pay to raise those children. Who? Does the single mother pay? If you honestly believe that most single mothers pay for the raising of their children without financial help from the state then I have to call you a liar for claiming that you live in the UK.
The benefit system here actively encourages teenagers to have children out of wedlock. They know they'll get a house and a state income. To pretend otherwise is just an utter joke.

And you keep spouting on about Ireland. As I've already told you - Irish woman who want abortions come to the UK. Literally thousands upon thousands travel to the UK each year. To use Ireland as an example is totally and utterly irrelevent.

You are making a giant leap. If we are to assume that the consequence of having children raised by single mothers is that they are net economic burden to society,we have to conclude that African-Americans and Caribeans are a net burden to the US & UK respectively.A conclusion which will gladden the likes of the KKK and BNP but which is far from the truth.

Children are by necessity,burdens to society,wanted or unwanted. They don't work,don't pay taxes and have no purchasing power.

Those children however,including the "unwanted" ones,will grow up to be adults and a majority of them will find work and pay taxes. By that very fact,they are already a "net benefit" to society. This is where you and Ibime miss the point. Unless you can still say,when they grow up into adults,that they(net total of them) are better off ''dead'',you can never claim that unwanted babies are burdens.

And you keep spouting on about Ireland. As I've already told you - Irish woman who want abortions come to the UK. Literally thousands upon thousands travel to the UK each year. To use Ireland as an example is totally and utterly irrelevent.

My friend,unless you want to argue that every woman who wants an abortion simply goes to the UK and procures one,which will be a lie,you can't deny that on balance,Ireland is crawling with "unwanted" people who,but for the abortion laws,would not be alive again.

The question then becomes,how are those people affecting society? Are they a burden in general?

No. Ireland is the completely wrong test case for this assertion because other overwhelming factors contributed to Ireland's resurgence.

It is up to you to prove that keeping unwanted babies stimulates the economy, especially in a country with Social Welfare. Studies have shown that abortion lowers crime (which comes with its own cost). You have no scientific way of proving your assertions. Its just a theory.

The question is not whether there are other factors which contributed to Ireland's success,that is stating the obvious. The question is whether you can show that Ireland is paying some economic price for its abortion laws. This you have woefully failed to do.

You seem to want to discard the burden of proving an assertion you made, the drain on public spending that prohibiting abortion brings. Here is the problem you have,unless you can show that on balance,the costs of having those babies outweigh the benefits they bring to society,your point is flawed.

Let's arguendo assume that 40% of unwanted babies will develop into career criminals,that will leave 60% who are generally law abiding citizens. You may have some increase in crime but you haven't shown that the costs outweigh the benefits.

It could mean anything:

a)That Igbos are more conceited;you have to admit it takes some level of hubris to identify yourself as "young & fly" or "sexy". Alternatively,it could be argued the Yorubas are less so.

b) That young Igbos ,in contrast to young Yorubas,are more likely to identify with their ethnic background.

c) Lastly, the most likely, that this is just statistical noise. Some anomaly,which given the lack of any general study of the issue,might as well be unique and might not be replicated in other places.

Ibime:
4Play, do you agree with death penalty for abortion?

If not, how many years (or months) sentence would you give to a woman who aborts her baby?
I am still waiting o! You must answer this one today.

The same penalties that apply in Ireland.

Ibime:
It doesn't change the fact that it is a ridiculous comparison. You could have drawn any country out of the hat. I wonder why you didn't pick Nigeria as an example.   . Everybody knows the reason for Ireland's resurgence. You don't have to kid us with your propaganda. You took it too far this time man. . .  

You maybe a little slow but let me repeat myself again. There is no evidence that prohibiting abortion hinders a nation's economy and comparing Ireland with it's next door neighbor illustrates the point. Nothing,not even it's crime figures, gives the impression that Ireland's army of ''unwanted babies'' is hindering it's growth.

As for Nigeria,unless you can adduce evidence that Nigeria will be wealthier if abortion was legal,I don't see your point. Why compare a Western nation to an African nation when you have another Western nation which you can use to contrast.

Yes, I figured out that it was a backdoor move to pass it into law for reasons of family planning. . . . still, as long as a woman can claim that it interferes with her individual rights, that makes it legal right?. . . . as a lawyer, you should know that British government passes all sorts of bills through the backdoor. . . .

What you "figured" is wrong. Abortion is illegal in Anambra state irrespective of what your "legal expert" from AllAfrica.com told you.

Abortion can't even be legalised by the state legislature because of the provisions of the CC.

Bastage:
LOL. And you claim to be living in the UK. A country where single mothers are a dozen a dime. And where they cost the state a fortune. And you're telling me there's no evidence!!! If single mothers here weren't granted abortions the system would be totally bankrupt within a year. And get this: America is no different!!!

LMAO. I'm in the UK too, dude. Don't try to tell me that a problem doesn't exist when I see it every day!!!!

Where is the evidence that unwanted babies are a net economic burden? Don't use beer parlor analysis for me.

Let me help you out,there is no evidence for what you assert.If making abortion difficult for women was a net economic burden,the stricter a state's abortion laws are,the worse the state's economic situation will be.

Funny that you attribute most of Ireland's successes to the 'unwanted' babies blossoming. . . . that is the most ridiculous political correlation anyone has ever drawn. . . . the reason for Ireland's success is simply joining the EU and the inevitable economic kick that comes with that; cutting corporate tax; and immigration of high skilled workers, including returning Irish. . . .  not to mention goodwill from America. . . . you will find that a lot of microchip companies are based there now. . . . quite a few native Irish are still low educated and poor. . . .I suspect that is the demographic from which a lot of these abortions come from. . .

The problem with you is that you love using the straw man. You asked how Republicans are supposed to cope with unwanted babies given that they are supposed to increase public expenditure. What I have done is shown you that having strict laws on abortion,as Ireland does,doesn't lead to what you have said.

Please take it up with allafrica.com if you disagree.

In Anambra State , for instance, abortion has been legalized, in fragrant violation of the Criminal Code, under the deceptive euphemistic expression: 'Women's Reproductive Right". This is one bitter pill many Anambra citizens cannot swallow. But it is true: abortion is now legal in Anambra State . The law came into force on 17th March, 2005 when Professor Brian Adinma was the commissioner for Health, Anambra State . Section 6 (a) of the law states that "the view of the woman shall be taken into consideration for decisions: on the number, timing and spacing of the children " Prima facie, this phrase may sound laudable. But section 6 (a) is substantially similar to article 16(e) of the controversial Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

This is another problem you have. Copying and pasting without figuring out for yourself. If the writer's opinion is that Sec 6(a) is tantamount to a legalisation of abortion in my home state, it will amount to sheer idiocy to proclaim it to the public as a fact.