₦airaland Forum

Joshthefirst: last paragraph is wrong actually. A blatant lie.

The foetus IS a developing human, a conceived and developing one.

The egg or sperm is not.

The natural progression of a spermotazoa is definitely in the path of a full human.

TV01: I understand your side, but I also have a clear grasp of what the issues and principles are in this discussion. Your basic premise is; "a woman has the right to terminate the life of her unb0orn child at any time and for any reason". I disagree.

Thank you for the understanding, however you undermine your own position that the right to life of the foetus is inalienable by asserting the mother's life over it. As i said earlier that the point of the right to life.

TV01: Further, trying to base that on the rare instances where being pregnant may jeopardise the life of the mother is, in my opinion, disingenious

It is a dilemma for you to resolve, because my position already prioritises the mother over the foetus, so I don't suffer that dilemma. you on the other hand, say they are equal.

And I believe this sanctity of life and personhood is equally applicable to the unborn. And to deny them the same is to violate their "inalienable" rights.

You have to concede that the right to the foetus is not alienable, since in the special circumstances when the pregnancy endangers the mother, the foetus would be de-prioritised to the mother.

MrAnony1: No it isn't. It is merely an unfounded claim


Not necessarily

So why do you say the rights for both sexes were necessarily equal?

TV01: No you are not dwelling on the narrow cases. Your position is "Abortion on demand - at any time and for any reason, under the rubric of autonomous bodily control and equal rights for women"

What you are attempting to do is qualify the whole based on sneakily worded outliers or cunningly framed exceptions. What I have adequately and repeatedly demonstrated is the inherent moral relativism and lack of real basis for, or content in your rather poorly presented "special pleading" ) !

TV

@TV01 I'm not trying to be sneaky, rather trying to admit you to my side. Human rights are recognized for the sanctity of life and personhood, so such rights are inalienable especially for reasons like sacrifice. So if a foetus has a real right to life, it would be adverse to the mother's life also. So one must admit that women just have a natural right which they can easily enforce over the foetus.

Besides the foetus is as much potential as egg and sperm. Nonetheless please see my arguments as being without malice or deceit.

MrAnony1: How you can say that your argument is indisputably true without actually making an argument beats me.


Our culture does perceive genders differently and it is not necessarily unfair.


actually you have said nothing on that but if nothing how you define enough, then so be it.

1. But it is still an argument.

2. So wouldn't the rights be distributed differently?

3. . .

TV01: Please stop mis-ascribing things to me. I have not said abortion should be an option in any circumstance - although I have noted their will be some difficult choices, I repeat Killing is no the solution to the dillema of death.

I outlined clearly what I believed the course of action should be to afford the sanctity of life to both mother and child. Even if it meant a life was lost, it did not mean a life had to be taken.

You also note that these are "special cases". Why then do you insist on a blaket right to abortion on demand. Effectively making it no more than contraception?


TV


^{Do your "legally" derived morals and rights lead you to the intellectual conclusion that this is right? That this is not killing? Murder of the most vulnerable amongst us?}

TV, I'm dwelling on the narrow cases - the special circumstances cases - the doctor does kill/murder/abort the child to rescue the mother and out of necessity. But you can't say it is not wilful. That's donkey talk.

MrAnony1: In some communities, women are not legal persons. Do you therefore hold that their lives do not supersede that of the men and therefore; killing them is not murder? Or would you say that there is something wrong with such a community?

ditto for anti-semitic and racist communities such as was Nazi-Germany and 18th Century American Slavery.

The moment your best argument to justify killing another human being is that he/she is not "a legal person" there is definitely something wrong.


This part of your argument has already been sufficiently addressed.

So who is a person to you?

MrAnony1: Perhaps it is true that I don't understand marriages but then you have not demonstrated any understanding of marriage either judging by your inability to present your case. Since you refuse to make a robust case to back up your claims, I can't take you seriously.


No I don't.


This is just silly, you are now grabbing at things that don't follow. The constitution also hardly mentions men in particular or children does it mean it doesn't recognize them?

If the best argument you can present is how many times a women are mentioned in the constitution then I'm afraid you don't really have an argument.



Don't you think that the fact that you can't remember an instance of the top off your head suggests that it isn't the norm as you said?

1. You didn't contradict me regardless of how sketchy my argument was. So what I have said remains uncontroverted.

2. There were two questions in that. Whether culture does perceive the sexes differently AND whether it is fair.

3. I have said enough on that.

TV01: It's been civil thus far, otherwise I wouldn't dignify this with a response. In response to your questions;

1. No. And not only did I not say that, I also stated exactly what shoul dbe done in such an instance.
2. Again no. Are you? Or where "the law" has been in view, have you spoken as a legal expert?


The sanctity of life is universal; and it is equally applicable to all.

For what reason does a "mother" have the right to life over her unborn child? And to the extent that she can willfully violate the sanctity of life of the foetus for just "any reason?" Do people that claim this really believe it?


But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.
There is absolutely no inconsitency here. It is your framing of the issue that is designed to present a dillema where none exists. I repeat, nobody is willfully killed, even if there is the unavoidable loss of life.

There is sanctity of life - it applies to all. And even if there are instances where a life may be in jeopardy, it does not thereby follow, that the right to extinguish the life of an unborn child should be granted on demand for any reason. That is neither moral nor intellectual.


TV

^{**in the UK, there are approximately 200'00 abortions a year. 30% of all pregnancies are aborted. 91% are carried out under 13 weeks and 78% under 10 weeks. Only 1% are due to potential serious handicap to the baby. It's hard to estimate those due to rape or incest or due to danger to the mothers life, what is clear is that abortion has become defacto contraception - especially when you consider the number of women having multiple abortions. Many in the same year**}

My position has always been that the foetus is not a legal person. So does not have a superceding right over its mother.

Yours however is it has an equal right. Now in a special circumstance where the pregnancy is the cause of the mortal danger to the mother, you appear to believe that the doctor can abort the pregnancy but what amazes me is how a doctor aborts with a foresight of protecting the mother by removing a foetus, and you think it is not wilful. That should be murder in your language.

MrAnony1: ....Or perhaps you can tell me exactly where to find it?


I gave those cases a quick glance on wikipedia, how exactly do they make your point?


The more reason why you should make a robust case citing numerous references so as to give a comprehensive understanding of what you are talking about. So far you have remained very vague. Do you want me to understand you or not?


Remember that it was you and not me who said this:


https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/21#25251862

That was why I had to ask you to point out which human rights were being violated.

I agree that IF a society gives a person more duties and responsibilities, it is only fair that it gives him more rights (with respect to his/her duties) but what I don't see is how it makes the people unequal in essence which is what you seem to be suggesting.

For instance; I believe it is only fair that the breadwinner of the family makes the decisions concerning the best use of the resources he/she is providing. In Nigeria it is often the man who plays this role, therefore it is only fair that his decisions carry more weight than the woman who isn't contributing as much as he is. In families where it is the woman who is the breadwinner, you find that she is likewise the one one who calls the shots.
The point is that there is no law in Nigeria that prevents women from choosing to be breadwinners if they want to. If most women don't want to bear the greater responsibility then it is a matter of choice and not oppression as you would like us to believe.

If you want to argue that there are laws that give women less rights than men, you will have to show them to me. So far you haven't.


I don't know which part of my post you are responding to here.



That's alright.


P/s: I didn't fail to notice that you didn't present any examples women in Nigeria punished because they used their nudity as a tool for political protest.

Do we take it therefore that what you said here is a lie?


https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/19#25184429

You have not shown any instances where this is true but I have shown instances that prove your assertion to be false.

1. The point I was trying to make with you about the Marriage Act is that it is a procedural statute on marriage. It does not have the flesh on marriages. Rather case law covers it. And to cover all that is the equivalent of a research paper I am not ready/eager to work on. Unfortunately you don't have a grasp of marriages, so you cannot volunteer much.

2. Do you agree that men have more rights than women because culture perceives such and it is fair?

3. The fact that the constitution hardly mentions women as whole, shows how much recognition it has for them.

4. I will find an example I can remember. But this is subsumed under no.2

MrAnony1: In other words, your position is that a woman has the right to kill her offspring whenever she deems fit. . . . . Just out of curiousity, do men have this right too?


This is a gross misunderstanding of our position. An equal right to life does not mean that it is evil to sacrifice one life for the other in special circumstances where it is either one dies or both will die.

For instance, if you and your child are drowning in the ocean and there is only one lifebouy which means that only one of you will make it, are you saying that giving the lifebouy to one of you means that the other person who drowns has less of a right to life than the one to whom the lifebouy was given?

Remember when TV01 said that "death can never be the solution to the dilemma of death". I think this is exactly what he meant.

What you are effectively saying is that whether the two people are drowning or not, one person (namely you) has the right to actively drown the other person (your child) even if there are two lifebouys and they could both have been saved.

This shows an utter disregard for human life.

1. Hope you know that the mode of sacrifice is an abortion. And who decides who is to be sacrificed? Your understanding of "rights" is in doubt. The right to life is designed to protect ppl from arbitrary loss of life, just like this. So that nobody gets to decide your fate by flipping a coin. And claim you made a sacrifice.

2. Your analogy is not apt enough. When a woman is in mortal danger by virtue of her pregnancy, the pregnancy is the cause of danger and a removal of it is by abortion. So a better analogy is one where two people are on a rickety boat which can contain only an individual. One person has to be pushed off to death. Wouldn't that be murder in your own eyes? Would the murder be different from any other murder?!

MrAnony1: Why do you insist on purposefully misrepresenting your opponent?

Are you saying that the mother have the right to terminate the life of the foetus or should killing a foetus only be restricted to special cases where the pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger such that one would have to sacrifice the life of the foetus to save the mother?

Please state what exactly your position is and stop shifting the goal posts
.

My position has always been that a woman has a natural right to life over the foetus either when her life is at risk or not.

But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.

We act from a position of the sanctity of life. Both lives must at all cost be preserved. They are equally valuable. We medically intervene to keep both alive/viable and we do not induce delivery until we are absolutely certain that to no tdo so would kill the mother. If the child consequently dies, we haven't purposefully killed or murdered the child. That is what abortion would do. And in blindly championing an immoral course of action, you lose sight of sound moral recourse

@TV01

Are you saying that there isn't any circumstance whereby a pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger?! And you are speaking as a medical expert?

MrAnony1: Just to keep us on track, I must remind you that I asked you to name one right that men have that women don't. Now in that light, let us review your answers again


I must remind you that presenting the same argument over and over doesn't in any way transform it into a good argument.


Here is a link to the Nigerian Marriage Act. http://www.nigeria-law.org/Marriage%20Act.htm

Please quote the parts that prove that marriage dissolves the identity of a woman. You can copy and paste them here if it helps.


So...?


First of all, there is nothing wrong with seeing men and women differently (they are indeed different). It doesn't necessarily follow that acknowledging gender differences will affect their human rights.

Here is a link to the universal declaration of human rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please which one of those rights is being violated for women by Nigerian law (due to how it sees men) and in what specific way is it being violated?

It is also interesting that you believe that the society gives men more responsibilities and duties but you don't consider it to be gender discrimination against men seeing that one gender is required to do more of the work than the other because of their gender. I didn't fail to notice that you were more concerned about the "greater rights of men" than the "greater duties of men".
Finally, I don't think it is wrong in any way to give more rights to the person who has more duties.


Well all you now have to do is produce examples of women in Nigeria legally punished because they used their n[color=#000000]udit[/color]y as a tool for political protest. Surely you shouldn't have a problem with that since my examples would be outliers and yours would be the norm.


How exactly is my analogy off?


Unless you want to argue that the pronoun "he" as used in the law to represent a person somehow translates in practice to mean that such laws apply only to men specifically and neglect women, then you really have no case.

You haven't shown one right in Nigeria that men have that is denied to women based on gender.

1. Let's see how the type of statute (a procedural one) you produced. I just want to prove how non substantive the statute you brought. So ask yourself where you can find the definition that marriage is a union of man and woman. Or the legal benefits of marriage Or corporate status of marriage etc.

But if I were you, I'd rely on case law such as Hyde v. Hyde, cCorbett v. Corbett and thousands more. These give the flesh and grasp on the topic of marriage. So in effect, marriage is still a slightly modified variant of common law institution along with its medieval bias.

As I said earlier, in law, you hardly find a single sentence telling you what you want. It is scattered around and should not be considered with face value.

2. You are dragging us back. We were in accord that rights are not to be read at the surface or in isolation (as bible verses) but collectively and you found the limitations in sec. 45 indispensable. So quoting Declaration of HRs is not to that end. The cultural factor translates the gender differences into the substantive rights.

So if society sees the man as one with the more responsibilities and duties, it automatically grants more substantive rights to him, a circumstance you wilfully agree to.

3. Because women are barely recognised, it is no issue for you to find it tolerable if there is hardly any expression directed at them in the Constitution.

Sorry about my late replies.

phabulous88: for those of you in support of abortion, I'm sure you must have heard of babies born prematurely (say 20 weeks) who lived. I'm also sure you must have heard of pregnant ladies attest to the fact that their babies kick in their womb, voluntarily. This shows that though they ain't born yet, they still have life and do things on their own: they eat, breath, move, grow (in size & height) and excrete just like you do. What other proof do you need to believe they the exhibit characteristics like you do? And don't forget MR NIGER D from elementary school.
Now imagine an unborn baby living his life jejely in his mother's womb and all of a sudden feels some sharp surgical equipment tearing, cutting and pulling at his body. Imagine the excruciating, grave and intense pains they feel when these instruments are used in tearing their delicate bodies, and they are helpless. Can you really live with that?
Abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and at the risk of sounding religiously biased, it is a sin. Every living being, insofar as they breathe and move, shouldn't be denied the right to life.

A zygote, spermcell, ovum and other body cells are life too. Recognizably human too.

That is what Life truly is.

The Dark and the Light. But your God is only one side to Life.

TV01: See as your arguements become increasingly muddled and your case unravels.
You are the one that is arguing for the "right to murder" - which is what "abortion on demand" is.
A child has the "right to life" and that should be uncontestable where the challenge is from a mothers "right to lifestyle".

It is "your camp" that are a bunch of ranting unconscionables. I acknowledge there may be some hard cases, but not some hard-coded right to exstiguish the life of a baby - "just because".

It's instructive that even in the case of rhape, 85% of mothers choose to keep their children. Mothers instinctively want to safegaurd and nurture the life within them. And most know that despite the trauma of molest, two wrongs do not make a right.


Not true, and at least I have a moral system !


Sounds like an arguement for any kind of behaviour. So when women lie with animals or prostitute themselves, it becomes "moral" as long as she determines the purpose?

And it's worth noting, that most women feel pressured to have abortions. Often by men .


Yes, I subscribe to notions of natural law. But there is nothing in natural law that suggests pregnancy is an illness. There is always a "risk" to pregnancy and childbirth. Are you championing eliminating that risk entirely? See yourself now?

And the mental trauma is often - as I noted earlier - due to the tremendous pressure brought to bear on her to have an abortion. In the West, abortion (for which read the culture of death) is ingrained into the healthcare system.

A pregnant woman has to see a Dr prior to seeing a midwife for pre-natal care. And the Dr always - I repeat always and to all - offers abortion as a perfectly normal consequence. Why is that? Especially when it is sold as a great, morally-neutral choice.


TV

^{The truth is "your camp" are purveyors of death. And not only are you not after "autonomy & control" for women, you actually hate them.}

Sorry for my late response.

So you want "murder when necessary" not "murder on demand", right?! As I said earlier you are inconsistent. If the child truly has a right to life, no one even the State can elect to kill it. The essence of the assertive right to life is to guard and protect one's self from others. So if the child loses its life for its mother's life, then you can claim it has a right to life.

Searching deeper into your moral system, the denial of a woman abortion, is a form of punishment for socially unacceptable behaviour. Truly you believe a "wayward" woman shouldn't have a right to abort. So you are making a moral argument and not a legal one.

TV01: This is unthinking in so many ways;

1. If the mothers life is truly in danger, what chance will the child have of surviving without her? A no brainer of a question, but thats what happens when you are determined to justify wickedness by any means. Truth, morality and stuctured thinking go out the window.

2. If the mothers life was truly in danger, it would be about weighing the chances of one life vs. another, not a Right vs a Life. Keep on plucking rights from the ether and attributing them as you like. Like a right is some sort of deep spiritual law or invoilable rule.

3. If a woman is healthy/fit enough to carry a baby in the first instance and does not engage in any harmful behaviours during the pregnancy, instances of "endangered life, will be very few, if they do arise, we can treat them on a case by case basis.


Pregnancy is not a disease or an illness. So, no to abortion at any time and for any reason. No to abortion under the false guise of rights, control and autonomy! No to murder by method, in order to justify and facilitate unrerstrained, irresponsible mating. It's immoral & destructive.


TV

wouldn't it be murder to kill the child in order to save the mother? Because people from your camp have drummed about the right to life of the child. So if the State can elect to terminate the child's life for a good reason, why can't it do same to yours?!

My point is, your moral system is inconsistent and chaotic. The obvious truth is, a woman morally deserves to put her body and whatever within her to her purpose and benefit. If her mental or physical health is at risk, she by natural law (if there is anything like that) is obliged to protect herself.

coogar: that's a different matter altogether - this is why it's called critical abortion. if the mother's life is in danger then the mother gets prioritised. who's going to take care of the child if the mother isn't prioritised?

that case is different to a woman doing it just for the fun of it.

Do you agree with Anony1 that abortion is murder? And if so, wouldn't it be murder to abort a foetus endangering its mother's life? At least State sanctioned murder?

TV01: The feminist aim is not "abortion when the mothers life is in danger" - which can be discussed - it's "abortion at any time for any reason", rather different don't you think? Plus, you have argued it as a womans right to "control" and retain "autonomy". SO please desist using sleight of hand.

So for example in 1 year, there were circa 198'000 abortions in the UK. Only 7 of those were due to cases of rape. Please don't use outliers like rape, or rare instances of the mothers life being in danger, to push the case for abortion. That is not why feminists are fighting for it - as I've already noted.


TV

That wasn't my question. This was the Q:

Kay17: So you believe whenever a pregnancy endangers a mother's life, the option is prioritise the foetus' life over the mother's, right?

TV01: I'm sure MrAnony1 will be back to do justice to this whole post, but I will comment in part before I retire.


As much as I detest your position, I know you are way too intelligent to believe this is anything but half-cocked.

Self-control - giving the right of life and death over another human being.
Autonomy - when her actions willfully led to the creation of another human being.

She could easily retain control over her own body and affirm her autonomy by not having sex, or not conceiving. Only one of those options requires technology - which is currently available.

And the "control" of abortion is for any reason, and at any time. Feminists and "ethicists" have now broached the question of termination post-partum, if the mother wants it.

http://www.eutimes.net/2012/03/australian-paper-says-euthanizing-babies-should-be-allowed-as-abortion/
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.short/reply

Just as murderous is the practice of partial-birth abortion, where a viable baby is induced and butchered before full delivery. From conception human life is present, a human being - in the most vulnerable state - is being denied control and autonomy, rights and choices.


Another lie. For the woman to have full control and autonomy, the man must be denied the same. Whilst the man has a say in the procreative act, he does not in the outcome. He loses control over the end of his genetic material. Given the woman full control and autonomy means his is compromised.


Not if the extremists have their way - as already noted. And not in fact. The child should have the right to be raised by his birth parents. This is not just common sense but enshrined in the UN child rights charter.

The mother is able to give the child up for adoption and/or prevent the father from taking an active role in the childs life, whilst forcing the father to take fianacial responsibility (not sure what obtains in Nigeria exactly, but that is the feminist end-goal)


More sleight of hand. Pregnancy is not an illness, it's not primarily a healthcare issue. Not an illness of the body or mind, but a "mother" only has too plead distress (for which read inconvenience or runs-hindering nuisance) to be allowed a termination.

It's basically the mother over the father and child. Equal what? And why? So she can enjoy uninhibited, consequence free sex and secure funding if she does decide she wants a child.

Feminism and matriarchical values will hurt society.


TV

So you believe whenever a pregnancy endangers a mother's life, the option is prioritise the foetus' life over the mother's, right?

MrAnony1: Please quote my username properly next time so that it can appear on my mentions


On Abortion

In other words, "I don't care how inhumane it actually sounds I'll just find some convoluted way to justify the murder of the unborn"


No it isn't. The rights of a person end where the rights of another start. Murder is NOT a means of self-control


You are wrong here. Reproductive rights do not extend to pregnancy. Once a woman becomes pregnant, a third person is now involved.

You might as well say that "The biological difference between the sexes has to be accounted for. The man equally has full control over his reproductive capabilities albeit does not involve childbirth but same concept. So when the right to privacy spills over to the woman, it manifests as infanticide."

You can't eat your cake and have it, you can't both have the right to perform an action and also control it's consequences especially when controlling it's consequences will result in the violation of another person's rights. Both sexes have the right to reproduce, what they don't have is the right to kill the resulting person.


Very interesting but again you are wrong. The child is legally considered a person while in the womb (it is regarded as a double double homicide should a mother and an unborn child be killed). It is simply hypocritical to suddenly deny the child it's rights when it is the mother who wants to kill it. It is only an unjust law that makes the person-hood of a murder victim to be dependent on the identity of the murderer.


If you are arguing that it is permissible to kill a foetus, if it's life endangers the life of the mother, then I must point out to you that you are not arguing for a right but rather you are arguing that a concession be made in desperate circumstances.
But if on the other hand you are arguing that the woman have the right to kill the unborn child if the pregnancy makes her unwell in a non-life-threatening way, then you might as well argue that the woman has a right to kill her newborn child if it caring for it makes her unwell in a non-life-threatening way. I see no reason why the rights of a person should change solely based on his/her location with respect to a uterus.

P/s: You still haven't shown a right here that men have that women don't have.

The Woman and Marriage

Thanks but I will still need those references before we can have any meaningful discussion. You don't have to post them, just tell me specific sections of the text to look at and I will go read them myself.

Woman Education


I realize that and I stick to what I said. There is no implicit right to education therein. The aims and intentions of the government for it's people does not necessarily translate to rights but that's neither here nor there. I also realize that what you were meant to show is that Nigeria deprives women of education it gives to men. You failed to show this.

Section 45; 1999 Constitution
I think this is the point where you jump off the edge and start reading all sorts of stuff into the text solely based on your feminist bias. Here is the section I believe you are referring to.



Now let us critically analyze what you read into it.


Within reason.


I didn't fail to notice all the emotionally charged language used here. The first thing you may need to learn about the concept of rights and obligations as well as any legal system is that they cannot exist outside a moral context. There is nothing wrong with Nigeria saying that in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom or other persons certain rights will have to be limited.

There is no sensible nation that gives people such hyper-unfettered rights without any regard to the welfare of other citizens and the nation as a whole. Granting such rights crosses the line from freedom to anarchy and chaos resulting in a loss of freedom.


That's why polygamy and pedophilia are not considered human rights in the United States as opposed to Arab nations because their society is generally against it. As I said earlier, the concept of rights cannot exist outside a moral context


Ah the "repressed woman" even more loaded language. I do not believe that a quiet and obedient woman is necessarily repressed. The point still is that women have the right to be noisy and disobedient.


Except that women have been known to protest n[color=#000000]ud[/color]e in Nigeria - on multiple occassions - and they weren't punished for it. See here:
http://www.aitonline.tv/post-half_naked_women_protest_against_shell_in_bayelsa
http://news2.onlinenigeria.com/headline/231059-ogun-women-go-unclad-to-protest-against-hoodlums-look.html

There are also cultural dances where women dance to[color=#000000]ple[/color]ss. In fact I was treated to one such dance by the young virgins of Oghara town in Delta state a few years back. I don't know of such a dance being illegal.

You have not shown how Nigeria limits the right of self-expression to men and denies women of it.



So what? And in the South, young boys are sent off as house boys or to learn a trade often without formal education. What you need to show is how the "fact" you have just proposed proves that boys have a right to education that is denied to girls.

Citizenship


Lol, I think you see the world via a heavily feminist-tinted lens. Let me put if or you like this:

Imagine if there a company X who wanted to have majority male top level employees so they come up with an arbitrary criteria to promote those men who are husbands to women who work in the company and not the wives of the men who work there. This would mean that the men will get more promotions than the women.

1. I don't think you would argue that the female employee has no right ordinarily to a promotion and hence is not discriminated against.
2. I am quite sure you will argue that women are being discriminated against and passed up for promotion based on their gender, you may even blame the "patriarchy" for it.
3. You'll probably forget that the woman has a privilege of "conferring" promotion upon her husband
4. I can also bet that you'll forget that in all these you would be advocating for the direct opposite of the position you hold here now.

Gender Sensitive Language of the Constitution


This could possibly be true but let us also not neglect the possibility of a reader such as yourself to interpret the law via your own prejudices as well.


I don't think that the pronouns matter as much if in practice the law equally applies to the two genders. As for the marriage laws you keep talking about, I'll really need those references in order for us to have a fair discussion.

1. On abortion, we can agree to disagree. My arhuments always remain the same.

2. On the issue of the legal state of marriage. It is beyond me and left to you to make your own research. The law resides in the statute books and case laws, it is a nuisance to expect me to reproduce them. Where else are law books to be found. Where else are statutes to be form. There are only 2 statutes on marriages in Nigeria and a myraid on matrimonial properties. I have made my assertions and anchor them on marriage statutes in Nigeria. That's sufficient. You on the other hand, are to assert the contrary.

3. But early marriage in Nigeria is legally permissible!

4. Although you went on like a documentary for a while over matters that were not in issue. The moral/cultural consideration is what's in focus here. Now, if culture has a different perception of a woman from the man wouldn't such consideration weigh on the human rights? If culture sees the man with more responsibilities and duties, and accordingly approves more rights to the man; wouldn't that weigh on the human rights?! So the moral and cultural considerations are the yardstick by which the prior rights are measured and weighed.

As I said earlier Law is mainly philology, ordinary ppl read the rights and exclaim about how sweet and equal these rights are, but they neglect the yardstick in 45.

The examples you are made, are isolated. That's not the general expectation of a woman in Nigeria, her nudity is an ultimate shame.

5. I will agree to disagree with you on that. Again your analogies are always off.

6. Yes to you, language can be trivial, but in the legal scene, even the meaning of "is" is hotly contested.

jamesbridget13: Its striking question indeed. There's no escape friends. One place is sure. Search urslf. If its heaven, then continue in d faith, dont let anything distract u but then if its hell, turn a new leaf today. So now friends, where do u think u re going if u happen to die today?

It is a distraction from the true question, do both worlds exist?

@anonym1

On Abortion

No matter how you see it, abortion is still a means of self control, an affirmation of self autonomy by a woman. The biological difference between the sexes has to be accounted for. The man equally has full control over his reproductive capabilities albeit does not involve a pregnancy but same concept. So when the right to privacy spills over to the woman, it manifests as abortion.

I couldn't avoid commenting on your analogy and like all your analogies, was remote and reared issues of its own rather than clarify the one at hand. At the time of birth, the child is considered a person and it has its own bundle of rights that can be exercised against its mother. On the other hand, whilst in the mother's womb, the mother's health primarily supercedes its life.
Not just physical health but mental. To deprive a woman that, is unjust.

The Woman and Marriage

As I have said earlier, marriage is a fusion of man and woman into one union/unit. The alter ego of that union is legally recognised as the man. In effect, the woman's identity dissolves in the marriage. She has no corporate status except through the man. Anony I can guarantee you this is in our marriage statutes and case laws, but I can not take the onerous pain of reproducing all that in here. It is not my style to write long winding posts nor put them up to the academic paper standard.

To further my point, our marriage institution has been influenced by Roman law, where the pater familias or so, is the head of the household and the wife is under his authority. So same sentiment exists here.

Woman Education

Hope you realise that your original claim was that there was no right to education in Nigeria. And if you read Chapter II properly, you know that the State is to ensure free education in as far as practicable. Also implicit in that guarantee is a right to education. Although I find the clearest and broadest right to education IN the right to free thought and conscience; but its too broad.

Section 45; 1999 Constitution

This section has an overriding power over the prior sections on human rights. This is the most dangerous section. With this section, evils can be propped up. With this section, there is ethical, religio-cultural overriding considerations over the prior rights provided. And these considerations are reflections of the society we live in, they form the yardstick with which all rights are measured by. That's why homosexuality is not considered a human right in Nigeria, because our society is generally against it. So also, we can not deny the patriarchal attitude of our society: the man is the head of the family. There is an ideal image of a woman, and it is not an outspoken woman. It is the quiet, self absorbed, obedient repressed woman.

A man can strip off his clothes as a political gesture. With such intent, society does not frown at it. In fact it can be admired. He can wear undies on a stage, dance with it and it does not impugn on his reputation. But a woman dare not try that. She would be the image of a bad woman. A woman can not use nudity as a means of self expression because it is sinful and repugnant to our culture. That automatically limits a right.

Same also with education, education on a woman is seen as too excessive especially when it will interfere with her primary duty as a baby machine, child rearer and househelp. We know as a fact that young girls in Northern Nigeria and in the Middle Belt are married off often without education.

Citizenship

The Nigerian constitution (from my point of view) guarantees all male spouses an added value to their citizenship and ensures whatever foreign spouse they choose, enjoys the same benefits of they enjoy. Why the constitution is selective and denies a Nigerian woman that advantage, boils down to the patriarchal values of our society. The man is a window to citizenship, the woman is not AND yet both are Nigerians. The foreigner has no right ordinarily to citizenship but only an affiliation affords him/her the privilege so he/she is not discriminated.

Gender Sensitive Language of the Constitution

Law is basically philology. Interpreting texts within a context. The manner in which a law is written greatly influences its interpretation. Especially when the draftsman is aware of other means of writing. To select one manner over the other is usually to a purpose.

By a gender sensitive language, I meant a consistent reference to the feminine and masculine third person pronouns. It is a balanced writing, which expressly refers to genders. Unlike the Nigerian constitution, the writer is quiet about the female gender. And that goes a long way in the interpretation of the constitution. Some have espoused the view that in matters relating to the matrimonial setting, the rights of the wife must flow from the husband whom the law directly endows such rights and powers.

The Bible did not anticipate cigarettes, so did not make provisions for it. However the conservatives (who know themselves by their wild dislike for anything modern) bent a couple of bible passages from their original intent to cover cigarettes which Bible did not talk about.

Nonso23: 1) agreed
2) It will greatly depend on whether you mean the original feministic movement or the modern 'man-hating rampage' feminism

Ok. You like the "original" feminist movement and it is still relevant today in asfar as it pursues equal rights for both sexes, right? If you agree, then we have resolved it all.

texbaba1: the major problem is dat people seek rational explanation for evrythng buh not evrythng can rationally be explained, especially things that hve to do with revelation, inspiration and spirituality...things in d metaphysical realm.i am a professional philosopher nd trust me lots of these issues ihve ponderd, querried, denied...using the cartesian method but in d end u would realise dat as humans ther is very little we know nd
understand in the grand scale of things with our over stated knowledge. We tend to mke d mistake of interpreting evrythng only from one paradigm...but if u can extend d horizon of ur knowledge to accomodate other paradigm, u would realise an uncomon standpoint that is neither here nor ther...nothing is proven, nothing is dispeld, it boils down to wht u choose to hold on to...faith or reason- foolishness to heaven or wisdom to hell. I hve come to realise dat not all christians rily understand the word of God or what christianity is truely all about. My advice is dat just like me, take d wager- according to blaise pascal in his wager argument, the ultimate end will tell.

Pascal's Wager will only work if Christianity was the only religion in the world.

coogar: so that they could be taxed heavy. ever heard of corporation tax? the government gives you 1 dollar & then take 80 cents from you in another way.

as for the nutcase - yeah, that's what brain dead bimbos who call themselves feminists resort to when they see superior arguments.

Corporation tax on the household?!

texanomaly: The prophet Muhammad says the Quran is from God. Do you believe in its validity?

It is still indirect.

MrAnony1: Neither does the man have the right to transfer a living human foetus into a woman without seeking her consent.


Will do at some point but you can help the conversation along by pointing out the specific laws that you have in mind.

This is not a case of equality, rather it is a case of special treatment based on gender which is what feminists claim to be against. You are not asking that the two genders be treated equally rather you are demanding special treatment for females especially since you haven't mentioned a single law that is tailored to the man and unfair to the woman. Please provide specific laws that you are referring to.


Since you have insisted on being vague, I can't take you seriously here


Really? From which section of Nigerian law did you get this? Please give references


What exactly is this difference that I am supposed to find? How exactly is the woman omitted? Are you suggesting that Nigerian women are exempt from Nigerian law?


No it isn't. The beneficiary of Nigerian citizenship via marriage is always the woman and not the man. This shows that men are discriminated against.

1. So at the end of the day! Who wants the unwanted foetus?! The. Woman should reserved the right to abort an unwanted foetus PROVIDED nobody wants it transferred to their bodies.

2. Anony I can not drag tomes into this forum, you have to look them up yourself. It is physically impossible for me to do that. I have made my stand, a marriage dissolves the identity of the woman. It is left to you to prove to the contrary. It just proves you had no idea about it before.

3. It is not vague. I referred you to a single book - Nigerian constitution. Check Chapter II if that makes you feel better, but its preferable you read the whole thing.

4. I didn't say equal treatment of sexes nor meant that. Rather I emphasized on equal rights. For equal rights to emerge in the workplace, the employer must be legally obliged to satisfy the greivances of the workwoman. Hence I quoted Bismarck.

5. Chapter IV of the constitution.

6. It is not written in a gender sensitive language.

7. Who is being discriminated against, the Nigerian woman or the Nigerian man?

MrAnony1: Remember that I asked you to name one right that men have in Nigeria which women lack. Let us review your answers again.


1. Except that the foetus is an entirely different human body (evidenced by the fact that it has an entirely different DNA from the mother). So no, the demand for the right to an abortion has nothing to do with demanding for the right to control ones own body rather it is asking for the right to violate another person's body. You have failed to show in this instance that men have a right that women don't have.


2. Where may I find these marriage laws? References please


3. What does this have to do with Nigerian law?


4. To vague. Where exactly in the constitution should I check? What section please?


5. Provide a few instances please


Really? How so?


6. It is interesting how you phrased this. Because of your pro-f6minist bias, you made it sound as if the man is making his wife a citizen of Nigeria and not the Nigerian state. This can be read as discrimination against men because the state clearly denies men the right to citizenship by marriage but grants this right to women. This is actually an example of a right that women have that men do not have in Nigeria.

Though the examples you have submitted have not made your case, I can no longer hold that Nigerian law is gender-equal and so I grant that so far from the information you have provided, Nigerian law is not gender-equal rather it favours women over men

1. But does the woman have the right to transfer this living human foetus to your body for example? No. The world would seek for your consent first (at least). That's because they find your body so sacred, that you are the only authority over it.

2. Go through Nigerian statutes on marriage. And read the case law.

3. The labour laws we have are entirely tailored after the workman not the workwoman. There are no mandatory obligations on the employer to provide insurance for miscarriage induced by work, or nurseries for babies at the workplace, or sufficient maternity leave, nursing breaks and leaves etc. There is harldly any job security for pregnant women on the job.

4. Read your constitution, you'd find it.

5. Am I supposed to help your imagination too?! I pick the FEMEN tactic of nudity. If a woman tries that in Nigeria, she can be locked up. While a man who uses his nudity as a political or social statement, will be let free.

6. If you compared the Nigerian constitution with the SA and other gender sensitive constitutions you'd find the differences. The woman is entirely omitted.

7. It is actually the other way round, the Constitution confers on the male spouse the privilege/right of conferring his foreign spouse by relation a Nigerian citizenship. The same Constitution clearly does not extend the same flavour to the Nigerian female spouse. So that's how the constitution weighs the value of the man's citizenship and the woman's.

Nonso23: That has always been the point. How did you miss it ??.

Men and women are different. Not equal. And unless feminism can add a new spice into our female gene soup to correct what they perceive as a biological error their job here is done.
Fortunately, they can't, so therefore their job is done.
The laws have been amended, men and women have equal rights. There is nothing left for them here. It (feminism) is obsolete.

Let's try another step at agreeing. Let's BAN the word equal and equality.

1. Women are different from men

2. Feminists want women to have equal rights as men.

Do you agree to the 2 premises?