₦airaland Forum

Everybody should donate at least once. It's a noble thing tohelp someone in need. And if people like you refuse to donate, then there may be no blood for you whenever you or your relatives need it.

Even if you're not willing to donate yourself, don't discourage others from doing it. That's combining selfishness with stůpïdity.

trolling: We are instructed not to eat blood eg blood transfusion, kidney transplant and all that ish when you partake in this ungodly act, you take the nature and traits of the supplier of the blood, so what we have here is two souls or beings in one body, men that's scary just imagine if the supplier of the blood had psychotic tendencies Omo that one na yawa don burst o

Did you forget to take your antipsychotic tablets today?

^^^^ Yes, the bible has plenty of horrible quotes, arguably even more than the Koran and Hadiths. The difference is, while Christians have mostly stopped killing people on the basis of religion, the Muslims are still doing so in large quantities.

These days, the vast majority of religiously motivated violence is carried out by Muslims. There are mainstream Muslim leaders that openly advocate killing and discriminating against people of other faiths, Muslims belonging to other sects and even Muslims who they don't think are fanatical enough.

Muslims regularly try to impose their religious laws on others (e.g the Mohammed cartoon riots). Muslim countries routinely discriminate against those of other faiths, but Muslims living in non-muslim states never hesitate to instigate riots and worldwide chaos whenever they feel their own rights are being infringed (and often for no reason at all.)

Of course, most religions have their fanatics, but the dangerous ones are almost always Muslim.

Bedwetting in an adult is usually due to an organic problem. The commonest cause probably a urinary tract infection, but there are many others.

OP should go and see a doctor, preferably a Urologist. There's a good chance that the cause can be identified and treated. Plus there are drugs that can make it easier for people with bladder problems to stay dry.

And don't be embarrassed, it's more common than you think.

OP is completely wrong.

First of all, radiocarbon dating has never been used to determine the age of the earth. Because of its rate of decay, carbon 14 dating is only useful for objects that are less that 50,000 years old, and the earth is far, far, older than that. The age of the earth is was determined through dating of lead, argon, radium and other isotopes that don't suffer from the problems OP described.

Secondly, scientists are well aware that the ratio of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant. They also know about problems of contamination and possible errors arising from poor sample collection that can affect other elements used for dating. Luckily the science of radio isotope dating has advanced greatly since it was first introduced. We can now estimate the ratio of atmospheric carbon 14 in past through other means and use that information to calibrate the dating method to improve accuracy. For the other isotopes, the sample preparation methods are also much better now. Also the margin for error increases the older the sample is, and that is always taken into account when drawing conclusions.

Third, scientists always try to confirm their findings through more than one independent method. For instance, you discover the ruins of an ancient city, you can date it by carbon dating artefacts found there. But you can also identify the city and use historical methods to find out when it existed. If both dates agree, then you can say how old the city is with some confidence.

In dating the earth, scientists have combined the hundreds of different measurements by different teams worldwide using different isotopes, and virtually all of them have given the same date: slightly more than 4.5 billion years. This also agrees with the measured ages of moon rocks, and meteorite samples. The age of the sun, measured using helioseismology (a totally unrelated method) is slightly more, but still very much in line with what is expected.

Also you can use the rate of genetic mutations in living things to estimate when the common ancestor of all living things lived (the molecular clock method). This tell us that the last common ancestor lived around 3.6 billion years ago i.e. very soon after when the newly formed earth would have cooled down enough to support life.

OP is a good example of what happens when you post about things you know little about without bothering to study the subject matter. Ignorance is no excuse for posting nonsense. And the same goes for those of you agreeing with him.

That ship has sailed a long time ago. The imported religions are here and they aren't going anywhere. Traditionalism is going to be nothing more than a fringe religion for the foreseeable future. And that's only if we're lucky.

There's a good chance that they'll be wiped out entirely if the Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fanatics get their way. Traditionalists and atheists are about the only groups in Nigeria that it's socially acceptable to openly discriminate against. And the campaign of intolerance is working.

Joagbaje: It's not really their faults to a great extent , it's a demonic thing. The demons takes over their emotion . It has to be cast out

Sweet Jebus, you people are důmb. I mean ancient peoples had an excuse for thinking every unexplained thing was caused by spirits. But you guys have seen seen how earthquakes, eclipses, hurricanes, volcanoes, diseases and famines have all turned out to have logical, non magic causes. Yet you can't spot the trend and reason accordingly.

The ability to connect dots, to find patterns in data and to use logic to predict trends is what separates us from animals.

Anyone who is still invoking demons and goddidit to explain anything in this day and age is on the wrong side of that dividing line.

A while ago a 27 year old man was brought into the emergency where I used to work. He had been hit in the thigh by a stray bullet which had torn the main artery there just minutes before.

As they were bringing him in, he was already confused, struggling and fighting. We couldn't do more than slow down the bleeding since that artery was too deep inside his thigh and within 5 minutes, he had a cardiac arrest.

We'd immediately sent for blood as soon as he came and while we were waiting for it to arrive we'd been pumping in blood substitutes (almost worthless in emergencies) and doing CPR. By the time we got the blood, his heart had stopped for almost 30 minutes and we were about to certify the guy dead. But almost like magic, before the 2nd pint of blood had even gotten halfway, his heart picked up and he started shouting and struggling again. Unfortunately the bleeding also restarted and he soon bled out again and had another arrest before we could get more blood (blood is very scarce since Nigerians refuse to donate). He had four cardiac arrests and 8 pints of Blood before we could get him into the operating theatre.

The point of this long story is that even in a young, fit man with no health problems; severe bleeding is fatal. And the only way to treat severe, life threatening blood loss is to stop the bleeding and replace the blood.

If OP has his way, then doctors would have no choice but to sit back and do nothing once a patient loses too much blood or becomes too anaemic for any other reason. OP is also discouraging people from donating blood and indirectly causing more people to die by posting this type of nonsense.

He needs to keep quiet and read a book or something. Ignorance is no excuse.

D sage: I doubt if you actually study bible very well. Contrary to your view that nobody has ever used information in the bible to invented anything, the following bible verses could be of help to you;

for instance, Job 28:25 says air has weight. Science confirm that air is about 50 miles thick,exactly the right composition to support life.

Job 22:14 and Isaiah 40:22 gives/tell us the earth is not flat but round,which was later found to be true by Christopher Columbus.

Proverb 16:24 and 17:22 explain psychotherapy.

Psalm 139:13-16 poetically describe the value of DNA molecule in the formation of the unborn child.

Infact there are numerous other verses like that in the bible,just try to read and figure them out. The fact is that, every scientist is inspire at least by something which I believe bible is one of.

Those are all post-rationalizations. It's only after scientists had made all those discoveries using secular logic that Christians went looking for verses that vaguely fit so they could claim that science validates the bible.

Nobody ever thought those verses has anything to do with what you're claiming until secular scientists told us that those things exist. There is not a single example of anything that was first described in the bible and recognized by people before being confirmed by science.

There's a reason why religious people try and use science to give their beliefs some credibility, while scientists never do the same with religion.

And my original statement still stands: Nobody has ever used bible knowledge to invent anything. If you can use biblical principles to invent a new type of biro or something, then we'll talk.

D sage: What brought about consciousness in man, was it by innate spirit or by physical realm?

Human consciousness came about in the same eat consciousness arose in all other animals. Chimpanzees gorillas and bonobos are also self aware. So are dogs to a lesser extent. In fact, it impossible to draw a line between self aware animals those that aren't. What you find instead is a gradual progression as you from less complex to more complex animals. The difference between a human being and a dog is one of quantity, not of quality.

Humans have a larger, more complex neocortex, so we are smarter, more capable of abstract thought, and more self aware. And that's what we experience as consciousness.

Please note that this is just my opinion and not the general atheist view. There is no general atheist view.

Atheists believe in what we have evidence for. I don't believe in God because there's no credible empirical evidence that such a being has ever existed.

Atheists believe in rationality because it works. Like Richard Dawkins said: Planes fly, computers compute, drugs work. All the technological and medical advances humanity has ever made have only come about when people apply logic without regard to religion or superstition. Nobody has ever used the information in the bible or Koran to invent anything.

As to our view on consciousness, there is no single atheist view. Consciousness is very difficult to define and we all have different ways of viewing it. Atheism is not a religion and we don't have any fixed dogma or shared world view. We all believe in different things, the only thing we have in common is our refusal to accept religious proclamations without evidence to back them up.

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.

striktlymi: We have demonstrated how flawed that argument is...

'The mother has sovereignty over her home. If she doesn't want her day old baby to be in it, then the baby has to go...if the day old baby is able to survive on the streets then fine. If not, tough luck...'

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.

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

If that landlord happens to be the mother of a two year old and she threw the poor lad out of the house...what do you think would be the fate of the landlord?

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.

striktlymi: I respect the above as your opinion on the matter and I quite agree that there are things that the state should not dabble into for respect of individual freedom.

But my ish with this individual freedom is that the right of the unborn to life should also be respected as their individual freedom.

If the state can intervene when we talk about murder and some other crimes then I don't see any reason why they can't intervene in this matter too.

The mother has sovereignty over her body. If she doesn't want the baby in it, then the baby has to go. If the baby is able to survive outside, then fine. If not, then tough. The baby cannot strip the mother of her fundamental rights. The baby can't force her to risk her life, or damage her body unless she does so willingly. The baby's rights end where the mother's begin.

In other words, If you live in someone else's house rent free, you play by his rules. If the landlord wants you out, you get out. It doesn't matter if you'll freeze to death outside. It doesn't matter if the landlord is being wicked. All that matters us that it's his house and he doesn't want you there. End of story.

Also, I noticed that you've backed away from the ectopic pregnancy argument. That was wise.

striktlymi: You are getting it all wrong...you want a real life scenario but you present a case that is not close to real life in terms of the choices one has.

I believe what Evil B, put up might help you see the difference between abortion and a procedure that is meant to save the life of the mother...




Apart from the Ad hominem in bold...the rest pretty much sums up what I have been trying to pass across for a while now. The case above is an example of a procedure that intends to save the life of the mother. The intention is not to kill the child.

Though the child died but no one can blame the mother for it. Do note that what the docs were after the root of the mother's problem which if solved, sadly will kill the child..again the intent here is not to kill the child.

If there was a chance of saving the child, an attempt would have been made but sadly there was none.

The bolded is wrong. The intention is exactly that, to kill the child. The problem with ectopic pregnancy is, if left alone, the baby will kill the mother. The choice is either to kill the baby, or do nothing and allow both of them to die. Any woman who decides to undergo surgery for an ectopic pregnancy has explicitly decided to kill her baby in order to save her own life. You can argue about whether such a woman is an evil witch or not, but don't try and sugercoat what is a very serious and painful decision for any woman to make.

Now here, this is a clear case of abortion. The intent in this example is meant to kill the child without considering the cause of the problem. It is not the child's fault that it was lodged in the mother's fallopian tube in the first place.

In slow leaking ectopics, the choices are as follows:
a. Kill the baby immediately using surgery or drugs while the mother is still in reasonably good condition.
b. Waste time scratching your ynash until the heavy bleeding starts and kill the baby then by subjecting the (now very ill) mother to major surgery which she has no guarantee of surviving.
c. Do nothing. Sit down and eat popcorn while watching the poor woman (with her doomed baby) die needlessly.
By your logic, option a is "clear cut abortion" which you've repeatedly claimed is murder. At this point I'd like to ask that you post your real name and photo so I can make sure you're not my sister's boyfriend.

I'm really fond of my sister.

Though the procedure that might be directed at the cause of this 'lodgement' might ultimately kill the child but this would leave the mother blameless.

Again I ask: What is this wonderful procedure you speak of? Teach us master! Show us your secret medical wisdom! The Nobel prize is within your grasp.

I am sure Evil B will not appreciate what I have done with his post but I hope you understand my point now...another good example would be found in the web page I directed David to.

That's one way of looking at it.The evil brain can't possibly appreciate the brilliant way you handled his post. He's just too stůpid to comprehend your genius. Only elite minds like you can understand.

Another explanation is that you're talking complete nonsense and you don't have a clue about the subject matter.

striktlymi: I actually read what you put up and NOTHING there contradicts what I have been saying thus far. If there is, do demonstrate it...when I say demonstrate it, I don't mean you should make claims...



I NEVER made the claim above...if I did, feel free to embarrass me with a quote from one of my posts....

The claim I did make is that, even with ectopic pregnancies, there is an option that does not include abortion...I already defined my usage of the term 'abortion'.

Again I ask, how would you manage a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy without aborting the pregnancy?

And please try and answer without resorting to semantic bullshït.

striktlymi: Instead of the Ad hominem and the lectures I am already aware of, why not start by telling us what is incorrect in what I have been saying?

I like the way you cleverly edited out the part where I pointed out exactly what was incorrect about what you've been saying.

Maybe you could enlighten us on how you would treat a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy (the most common type) without terminating the pregnancy.

If your technique works, you could revolutionize the field of gynecology! You'd be a shoo in for the Nobel prize!

striktlymi: Lol!!!


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

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

The most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy is as an emergency when the woman suddenly starts bleeding to death. The only effective treatment is immediate surgery and the removal of whatever place the baby has abnormally implanted in (usually the fallopian tube, sometimes the whole womb). In these cases, the baby has zero chance of survival. and if you waste even a few hours looking for a "biblical way" to deal with the situation, the mother WILL die.

The second most common presentation is the subacute type where the mother bleeds slowly first before the torrential bleeding that will kill her starts. If you catch the disease at this stage, you have the option of killing the baby with cytotoxic drugs and thus preserving the woman's fallopian tube. Again, the baby has zero chance of survivial.

The only type of ectopic pregnancy where the baby has any chance is the extremely rare case where it implants completely outside the reproductive tract like on the abdominal wall or liver. Even then, the mother is more likely to die than survive.

You religious types thrive on ignorance. It allows you to maintain your deluded dogmatic world view completely oblivious to what happens in real life. If you weren't all trying to screw things up for everybodybelse, I would have felt bad for you.

Mr anony: Is this a fair representation of what you are saying?

No.

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

Mr anony: This is why we draw the line between immoral and illegal. Do you think the actions of a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to let their kids receive lifesaving blood transfusions have done something morally right?

No sane person thinks that denying yourself or your child a lifesaving treatment because of some religious delusions is a good thing. The only reason why society allows it is because the alternative of taking away people's autonomy over their bodies is far worse.

Imagine if the government or some other third party could force you to have a surgery you didn't want. Imagine if they could allocate one of your kidneys to someone else who needed it without your consent. Imagine if someone could graft a foetus into your body and force you to suffer the nausea, the back and joint pain, having to urinate every 30 minutes, constant tiredness, hypertension, the risk of liver, kidney, and brain damage; not to talk of the bloody, painful and dangerous climax at the end all against your will, would you be happy?

Your body is your property, and yout should have the final say over what happens to it. If you're not capable of making decisions due todullness, insanity or immaturity, then your parent or spouse should decide for you (hence the poor Jehovah Witness children). This is the most basic of human rights. Potential human Not coming to be is a sad consequence, but it's better than turning half of humanity into biological slaves.


Unlike you, I recognise that the decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or have an abortion is not an easy one. But the only person with the right to decide is the woman herself, not the government, and certainly not some religious fanatics determined to tell others how to live their lives. The woman is the one who will make all the sacrifices to bring the child to term and she should get to decide if she wants to.

I'm not going to demonize the women who are unfortunate enough to end up in that situation. People like you who do so usually have no clue what it means to have that kind of reresponsibility on your neck.

Mr anony: Lol, you keep making this bad argument while conveniently ignoring the fact that likewise a newborn cannot survive without depending on the mother and messing up her finances. I really find it hard to believe that you will justify killing another human being because you want to have a flat belly. That has to be the height of narcissism.

I don't know how to say it again so that you can understand. A term baby can be cared for by others if the mother chooses to withdraw her services, but a preterm baby (less than 22 weeks) can't. Nobody should be forced to compromise his or her own bodily integrity for another person's sake. Even if your own child needed one of your kidneys, you can't be forced to donate it against your will. In fact, even if another kidney is available, you can't be forced to give consent for surgery if you don't want to.

Even when Jehovah's Witnesses deny their kids even free, lifesaving blood transfusions because of their beliefs, the law recognizes their autonomy. Yet you want to deny that same autonomy to a woman whose life health and future are at stake.

Also, I find your attempt to trivialize the issue by claiming women want abortions for flat stomachs misogynistic and very offensive. You sound just like a US republican religious nut. I wonder if you have any sisters, or a mother.

https://i.imgur.com/5rH55.jpeg

https://25.media.tumblr.com/c7b867a8f6b1d92f14a59869f5737ed4/tumblr_mjtqdhHOCF1rlzfo2o1_500.png

https://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28208758.jpg

https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzzemtuBDN1qdgpkgo1_400.jpg

https://www.intoon.com/toons/2010/KeefeM20100415A.jpg

https://i49.servimg.com/u/f49/14/79/86/50/il_pap12.jpg

[img]http://3.bp..com/-FaZkJi1tcBI/UT5oJv2bIGI/AAAAAAAAAnM/6qYmdzTdDgk/s1600/catholic-clergy-pedophile-mafia.jpg[/img]

[img]http://3.bp..com/_z1JyBxIESm8/S3Kh_QvRikI/AAAAAAAAJnk/4QxBD1BUENs/s400/hypocrisy-hypocrisy-church-pope-pedophilia-birth-control-bli-demotivational-poster-1242636987.jpg[/img]

https://aintnogod.com/ipb/uploads/gallery/album_17/gallery_298_17_13708.jpg

https://www.poetryring.com/ra/184881_169901103058699_143421729039970_350738_7811322_n.jpg

[img]http://3.bp..com/_MA1Ddr4LDmk/SvyaB0CNORI/AAAAAAAAFwE/tUwjd1YuVdA/s400/pedophile-priests1.png[/img]

[img]http://t.qkme.me/3674l2.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i.qkme.me/3pgryd.jpg[/img]

https://onlyhdwallpapers.com/wallpaper/quotes_epicurus_religion_atheism_desktop_1595x895_hd-wallpaper-3172.jpg

https://stage.i2net.com/joe/kr/images/TS-QUOTES-clooney.jpg

https://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TS-QUOTES-einstein2.jpg

https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb5jqiNBQr1qbofuso1_500.jpg

https://imgur.com/OpOEf.png

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8506114107_0b01556a53_b.jpg

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8iepp0R9b1raw1oio1_400.png

[img]http://2.bp..com/_p1jRtVSzunA/TSO2sMJyrGI/AAAAAAAAAP8/i7ruu1O6nqs/s1600/bertrand-russell-quote-1.png[/img]

[img]http://godisnotheredotcom.files./2012/02/175921929163639041_rbezy1jx_c.jpg[/img]

https://truth-saves.com/images/TS-QUOTES-ingersoll.jpg

https://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/atheist-quotes-8.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/601722_574268615927129_269180997_n.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/QKMGu.png

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8229/8506114099_65eb2fd5b4_b.jpg

https://wallpapersuzie.com/thumbnails/detail/20130102/humor%20quotes%20atheism%20richard%20pryor%201920x1200%20wallpaper_www.wallpaperhi.com_60.jpg

https://imgdonkey.com/big/NVFuT1NSdQ/i-got-asked-this-question-today.gif

https://quotes-lover.com/wp-content/uploads/All-religion-my-friend-is-simply-evolved-out-of-fraud-fear-greed-imagination-and-poetry.Edgar-Allan-Poe-quotes-250x150.jpg

[img]http://1.bp..com/-Gug2SFtVAsI/UBAHPc55-9I/AAAAAAAACcE/IK4mL0FgH2g/s1600/hellscompany.jpg[/img]

https://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/27500000/Morality-and-Religion-atheism-27554447-720-540.png

[img]http://www.thinkatheist.com/photo/rise-of-atheism/next?context=user[/img]

https://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31000000/Ridiculous-Church-Signs-atheism-31033979-600-557.jpg

Kay 17: @uyi iredia

The law is: the right to life is absolute simple! It leaves no space for what you are saying.

However from the prochoice view, sentience is the prerequisite for being a person and which much is more practicable.

There is no such thing as an absolute right, everything is relative. Your rights end where the next person's begin. The fact that I'm dying of renal failure doesn't give me the right to kidnap you and harvest one of your kidneys. You can't endanger someone else to preserve your own life unless you have their explicit consent.

The same applies to unborn babies and their mothers.

You don't need any religious book to tell you how to live your life. Just follow the silver rule: Anything you don't want people to do to you, don't do to others.

If when you get married, you wouldn't mind other girls sleêping with your husband, breaking up your happy home and diverting resources away from your kids then go ahead and screw other women's husbands.

Otherwise, stick to single men.

Besides, a guy who screws around on his wife is likely to also screw around on you. With all the HIV and STIs floating around these days, should try and pick your partners more carefully.

Mr anony: Lol, this is becoming quite funny.

Please tell me the difference between the part of your comment I highlighted and this:

Expelling an 18 week old baby from the womb is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that pregnant women also have rights? Why should the baby's right to life nullify the woman's right to protect her own life and wellbeing??

It isn't a strawman. It is exactly the same as the analogy of cutting off a man's life support and saying "if he breathes so be it"

The fact that a patient is on lIfe suport means that doctors have gone to extraordinary lengths to save his/her life. You are comparing a doctor who makes the difficult decision to stop spending valuable resources on a hopeless case (usually so they can put someone else on the scarce life support machine; and always with the family's consent) to Joseph Stalin. If you insist on this foolish line of arargument, then I'm not going to waste any more time debating with you. Godwin's law applies to Stalin as well.

Yeah but this is no different from how an adult human can also do these better than a baby. The same way a 16 year old is more developed than a baby so is a baby more developed than a fetus. Still all are human beings that deserve to live

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Very premature fetuses cannot survive without living inside the mother, messing up her body and endangering her life. Neither term babies nor adults have this problem. This is not a difficult concept.

but the baby in the womb had these basic needs catered for before it was maliciously yanked out by murderous doctors

The mother is the one taking care of those basic needs at considerable cost to herself. If she wants to do so, then that's fine, but you shouldn't force a woman to sacrifice her life or health against her will.

Also, it's interesting that you're demonizing doctors when its the pregnant women who ask for the abortions. A doctor's duty is to his patient. If the mother wants an abortion, and the doctor believes that continuing the pregnancy is likely to endanger her physically or even psychologically, then why shouldn't he offer one?

There is also a huge difference between an person that can carry out basic biological functions and a disabled person that can't. It still doesn't give anyone the right to kill the disabled person. Same applies to the term baby and the premature one.

No it doesn't, you are conflating two very different scenarios. If someone needs a new liver or a kidney to survive, you can donate yours if you like But you can't be forced to when you don't want. In fact, you can't even be forced to pay for the surgery. But refusing to donate your kidney to someone who can't live without one is very different from killing someone.

Mr anony: He isn't


What about abandoning the child in the gutter in the hope that someone else comes to take care of it. Is that also murder if the baby ends up being eaten by a dog?

I wonder how you can say this and yet have a problem with a woman who abandons her six month old baby in a dumpster so that it starves to death. After all she shouldn't be forced to risk her hard earned cash to feed this 6 month old parasite.

Dumping a baby in a gutter or a dumpster is tantamount to killing it since it is all but certain that it will die there. If you want to abandon your baby you're obliged to at least make sure it has a reasonable chance of surviving long enough to be found and taken care of, That means wrapping it up warmly and leaving it in front of a hospital, orphanage or police station. Doing this doesn't endanger your life or put your health at risk so its unreasonable to refuse. This is not an option for most featuses because any baby expelled before 22 weeks will die no matter what you do. If your landlord wants you out of his house that you've been living in rent free, its not his fault if you can't find somewhere else to stay.

Edit: What's funny is that in most countries, women who dump their babies in worse places (eg pit latrines) almost never get prosecuted. In Nigeria, the punishment for a woman having an abortion is harsher than the one for a mother killing her new born baby.

Lol, by your definition, it wasn't murder when Stalin starved 20 million Russians to death. All he did was withold his food supply. If they can survive without food, then good for them.

That is a false analogy and you know it. Stop with the cheap strawman tactics.

But a baby in the womb cannot carry out her own vital functions by herself any more than a new born can.

A term baby can breathe by itself. It can digest its own food. If can control its own body temperature well enough to survive without others having to take edtraordinary measures. It can fight off infections to a reasonable degree. A baby born at 26 weeks gestation needs millions of naira worth of treatment, tens of millions worth of medical equipment and a team of a dozen or more specialist doctors and nurses working round the clock for it to have a decent chance of surviving.

For a baby born at 20 weeks to survive is considered a miracle even if it was in the best hospital in the world with unlimited resources. And even then, it is guaranteed to leave the hospital blind and with severe brain damage at best.

Meanwhile, a term baby only needs food, warmth, nappy changes and the occasional cuddle to survive and thrive

There is a huge difference between a term baby that can carry out its own basic biological functions and a premature one that can't. I strongly suggest that you abandon this line of argument. You will find no success with it.

striktlymi: In other words, a newborn should be subject to whatever the mother or any guardian says because it cannot feed itself if left alone?

Wonderful logic!

Stop twisting my words.

Term babies and late term premies are perfectly capable of surviving without their mother's involvement. If the mother doesn't want to take care of the baby, then someone else can. Therefore killing such a child is murder, same as killing a year year-old or a helpless old person.

This doesn't apply to fetuses that are less than 22 weeks old. Therefore if a woman doesn't want the baby in her body for any reason, it is her right to kick it out. If a woman doesn't want to risk her lIfe going through labour or major surgery to deliver a baby, she shouldn't be forced to.

Having an abortion is analogous to when doctors stop parenterally feeding someone in a persistent vegetative state. Or when they disconnect the life support for someone with irreversible brain injury. If the person keeps breathing after you turn off the machine then putting a pillow over his head is murder.

But if a person can't carry out his own vital functions by himself, then you're under no obligation to do it for him. And you definitely shouldn't be forced to do so at the cost of your own life or well-being.

italo: How do you support the killing of the 10% but oppose it 1 minute after birth?

The baby's rights end where the mother's begin. If the baby can survive on its own, then nobody can touch it. But as long as its dependent on the mother for life support, what the woman says goes.

If she decides that she doesn't want to harbour what is essentially a parasite that's putting her life and well-being at risk as well as causing significant discomfort and inconvenience, then that is her prerogative. Everybody has the right over his/her own body. To deny this to women is to turn them into second class citizens.

And that seems be the ultimate aim of the the religious conservative, anti-abortion people. How else do do you explain the fact that most of them are also against publicly funded birth control, comprehensive sex education in schools and condom adverts on TV.

They fight to deny women and girls the information and tools needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they fight to stop those same women from having abortions when they get pregnant. But as soon as the children get born into poverty and neglect, they turn their backs on them.

Only someone who is senseless or has deliberately turned off his brain because of religion can think like this.

OLAADEGBU: "Abraham and Jephthah" didn't sacrifice their children to Molek or any other god. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Sorry to burst yours, but Jephthah most definitely did sacrifice his daughter to the God of Israel. He burnt the poor young girl to death on an altar, and the book of judges doesn't say a word against it. Read your bible.

And Abraham dragged his son Isaac up a mountain,made him help build the pile or rocks he was to be killed on, tied the poor boy up, pulled out a knife and was already swinging it when the voices in his head told him to stop. If the bible is to be believed, the it was God himself that told him to murder his son. The whole point of the Abraham and Isaac story is to celebrate Abraham's willingness to perform a human sacrifice.

You can claim that God was only trolling, but that doesn't excuse Abraham, or the millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians who've been promoting this horrible story as an example for small children to follow.

Anyone who claims that he chose to be straight is essentially admitting that he is attracted to members of the same sěx I.e that he is gay himself.

I never had to choose anything, when I was 10, or so I just somehow became interested in girl's böøbs and ynashes automatically.

If you consciously have to choose between staring at a girl's ynash or a guy's crotch, then you are a homosexual. Or at the very least, bisexual.