₦airaland Forum

^^
We feel most vulnerable in that state. We are most sensitive to criticism.

And then to the next question, does Good stand independently from God's Commands, that a person without any knwoledge of God, can have a conviction of Good?

Wasnt Abraham immoral for obeying an evil Command?

D sage: That is another topic. Like a said in one of my previous posts,there must be a cause for everything including the universe.

Everything cannot have a cause

Also d'sage said:

Consciousness is spirit

God is spirit

Therefore Consciousness is God.

And I wonder, was it Consciousness that caused the Universe?!

Chibuebem: there is a God you dont know or comprehend, and we understand consciousness perfectly.

What is it made up of?

Emusan: But there's a spirit behind all actions, and your conscience is there to convince you either good or bad action.

If you want to feel any power of external spirit then you must follow the procedure of people who have experienced the same.


I didn't answer this question. God is omniscient because all natural laws broke out from Him. He knows the right chemicals He puts together that made up life under normal atmospheric condition and power to make them reproduce according to their kinds. He is the one that wrote DNA informations and created biometric molecules to compiled it. He also knows what dark energy is made up e.t.c

Emusan, earlier you said that the perception of spirits is not limited to the subjective experiences of the few, rather it is experienced generally. And I became the guinea pig, I do bad and good things, yet I see no spirits. Automatically, your conclusions failed. But you still insist on a procedure a few people follow?! Have you seen spirits?

Emusan: No! Not subjective to some people but everyone either a good spirit or a bad spirit. You can't tell me that everybody loves you. The spirit that makes some people to hate you is a bad spirit which sometimes you may possess as a person.



What beyond the relm of science has to do with supernatural which God has claimed. 'A supernatural Being'.

If man has limited knowledge;

*why man then seeking the most powerful, all-knowing God with their finite wisdom empirically?

*why man always place himself in the position of God Almighty?

Whenever I do something bad or good, I don't see spirits and neither do I lose selfcontrol.

That doesn't prove God is omniscient.

D sage: It's because, there must be a cause for our existance. Man cannot just exist without a cause.

If you say man evolved from apes, then from where did the apes evolved?

And remember, Evolution Theory is merely assumptions made by some people.

This has no bearing at all to my question. How do you know God is omniscient??

Emusan: Spirit is an unseen being that can talk, act like forces, possess physical body e.t.c but no blood and water. (human being has spirit)

Whenever someone will perceive
a higher spirit that greater than human's own it will look as if a hug of force descended on the person i.e in case of the Holyspirit nobody can withstand His force, He will surely pull you down. though we have some fake pastors laying there're hands on some people using fake power to make someone fall.
I believe if atheist can look beyond the lies(just try to be open minded) that God does not exist and search for the truth they will surely find God. "Matt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God".

Like I always say, I believe in science more than some atheist on NL but if not because I've received the baptism of the Holyspirit I might have turn atheist today. I'm not a pastor but I solely believed in the existence of God because I have had personal encountered with Him.

In other words, the best evidence for spirits is within the subjective experience of a few people?

Human beings are limited in their knowledge like in a case of Consciousness, DNA Information, Origin of Life, Dark energy, and Afterlife they all beyond any human comprehension.

Then truly ask yourself, what makes all these things so hard for human to comprehend despite all the advancement in Technology?

That doesn't at all prove the omniscience of God, rather proves man's limited knowledge. So I ask again, how do you know God is omniscient?

Emusan: Kay 17 I don't believe this! Anyway because it's an immaterials(spirit) you can't fully understand it.

What is a spirit? How is it perceived?

D sage: Ok sir, thanks for your contribution.

It's only God that fully understand everything,not even science.

How did you know that?

D sage: Atheism is said to be the belief that God does not exist, if these people(atheists) do not believe in superior being(God), as well as other gods and solely rely on their rationalities, why do they belief in such rationality?

Another question is, what is atheists perspective of awareness and consciousness?

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

Lastly, is wisdom a physical matter?

There is no God and we don't fully understand Consciousness.

FOLYKAZE: Didn't suit challenge culture too? What about the christianity and Islam as a whole?

That's another irony.

Simple, because it challenges culture.

Mr anony: Ah I see, I hope you know that by your argument, nobody was murdered during the holocaust because according to German law then, what they did to the Jews was not murder.
Also during the slave trade, slaves were not counted as human beings but as property. By your logic, those who hung their slaves or had dogs eat them up also did not commit murder?

When we say that murder is unlawful, we are not referring to some arbitrary laws that can be made up by anyone rather we are referring to an objective moral law that binds all of us.

You are shifting goalposts, the topic was based on the extent of our Bill of Rights, you insisted foetus/zygote have a right to life, and their abortion was consequentially murder. Clearly you were arguing about legal rights of the foetus and the mother and the legal implications. And it was upon that subject we were all engaged.

When it became clearer to you that there is no such right, you fled under the rickety umbrella of objective morality.

However if that is your new stand, you must accept that foetus have no right to life!

^^
I wanted to stress that strklyml's view that life begins at fertilization is supported by 187 because even a 2 month old foetus cannot be murdered cos it can't pass the test of viability in R v W.

^^
Is a foetus a person in Nigeria?

Also note that 187 is subject to Roe vs Wade

Mr anony: yes it is

Our criminal code:

307.         A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel-string is severed or not.

This finishes the entire case.

For strikl:

308.         Except as hereinafter set forth, any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person.

Mr anony: Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another

I just googled the Criminal Code applicable to Nigeria and went through it.

Is abortion murder?

striktlymi: Nah Kay,

The above is not practical...it's just like saying every act of killing is murder.

The fact that someone else has a right to life does not mean that another cannot kill the individual out of self defence when threatened...

Hmm not practical, right! At least it is killing. So how do you claim self defence?

@anony

What is Murder?

striktlymi: He definitely is aware that would be the incidental loss. Again, this loss is only tolerated because we do not know how to save the foetus from that situation.

If this know how is available and the mother or doc decides to kill the foetus anyways, after solving the problem of the mother, then it would be abortion.

Yet I will repeat again it is unlawful for the doctor to take such a step, because a person with right to life cannot be regarded as incidental loss!

The doctor is to hands off the Baby's death and it is none of his business nor an excuse to claim the baby would die eventually.

Isn't the doctor aware that by removing the fallopian tube, he becomes the most proximate cause of the child's death?

@strikl

Is your method a form of Euthanasia? If so, it is murder in Nigeria, regardless of any fact that a rosary was hung round the neck of the doctor.

The simple law is: regardless the huge expectation of the non survival of a person (foetus in this case), no violence should be directed at such person that COULD cause death.

So if a man is most likely to die from cancer or hiv or from natural causes, it does not lie in your power to kill him. This is how untenable your position is.

striktlymi: I do not agree with the bold...

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

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

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

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




See the explanation above...

Let me summarize the points again:

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

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



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


1) It must pertain to a human.

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

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

The above is not exhaustive...

Note that you agreed with me earlier that the mother's right overrides the foetus, but since that wld be inconvenient to your position, I wld reply on this.

Also note that since you preserve both the rights of the mother and foetus to life, then there is no power known to law, in a doctor to save the mother or child, at the detriment of the other (child or mother). It would be criminal, and any claim that there is no intent to do so will be null.

For murder to be committed, direct intent isn't necesary and the outcome (even unexpected) of violence is irrebuttably presumed to be intended by the murderer.

Hence nature must take its course and both wld be left to die. Since they have the same rights.

And your definition for human life is so vague, it doesn't even cover zygotes.

Discretion.

That even in cases where the necessary is demanded, man can reject it.

@strik

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

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

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

Chibuebem: smh. Your gas cooker is good. Do you hide it from your 2 year old child? You warn him not to touch it. The bible said the tree was good. But if God told them not to touch it, it means they probably werent ready to eat it yet. God was not going to force them not to eat the fruit. They were supposed to trust him. Smh logic boy, smh.

1. Is the child entirely responsible for his own safety?

2. God PUNISHED Adam and Eve, not that they suffered from the natural consequences of eating the fruits from the tree.

^^^
Better, we are heading somewhere.

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

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

Theory: comprehensive explanation/analysis based on the interpretation of available data/evidence.

Germ theory

Big B.ang theory

Evolution

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

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

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

@strik

Women definitely must have control over their bodies and in practical situations debates like this are reduced to one issue:

Whether the State or a woman has the decision over abortion.

And I believe that by giving the State more power, we lose more and more reproductive rights. Very soon, the State will be regulating masturbation.

striktlymi: I believe I answered you clearly when I said that the lady has every right to choose to save her life without being guilty, if and only if, the procedure is meant to save her life and not cause harm to the child.

I also followed up with a situation where the child MAY die in the process but this death should NOT be DELIBERATE.

The above answers your question.

In summary:

Abortion is deliberate just like the murder of one not in the womb....Murder has NO excuse!

The procedure to be chosen should not have the intent to kill the child even though the child may die in the process.

In such circumstances, it is difficult to maintain there is no intent to kill the child, when it is clearly foreseeable. Intent is calculated cover the inescapable possibilities.