₦airaland Forum

nddy:
its not being racist, its like saying chicken is black people's meal. People don't know whats racist and all not

I wouldn't immediately say both examples are similar, but I understand your point. But let's not forget that all people have some ethnocentric behaviour in them. It's an evolved trait among humans that helped us survive for hundereds of thousands of years; We should acknowledge that and try to fight these tendencies as much as possible.

nddy:
i wasnt racist

I'm not saying you are. but what else could you call your remark?
Language is a powerful thing, be carefull when you use it

vexxy:
I wouldn't say only white people would stay nor the "religious folks." My bestfriends aunt dates a man who is HIV positive. They've been dating for about 3 years now and she's known about the infection for 2 of those years. It takes a while for it to show up in your system.

You can still be with someone who is HIV positive and not contract the disease. You can't get it by holding someone's hand or eating off the same plate.

If I found out that the person I'm with has contracted the disease we would talk about it. Go to the doctor and find out all about it. The cause, the effects, etc. After we are fully informed we would then have a long talk about how it will effect us and where we will go from there. Only then would I decide whether to break it off or to keep going.

Well spoken. You bring empathy and common sense to the debate

A lot of you immediately said you'd dump him.
Without even knowing how he contracted the virus? It could have been from an infected needle as well

Don't be so quick to convict someone without knowing the facts.

nddy:
hahahaha i am thinking only white folks that might think about staying together

Let's bring in a little racism as well.

Greatpeter:
You are cofusing yourself.
It seems you don't understand the scriptures very well.

Care to explain it to me then?

Greatpeter:
You are putting warfare in place of commandments.
I won't take you on again on this issue.

So you are saying that God, in these instances, is not [b]explicitely [/b]asking the Israelites to kill, contrary to the commandment not to kill? That's not what I read. Or is it OK to kill in some instances and in others not?

And because I quote something from the scriptures that doesn't fit your ideas, you won't discuss with me anymore?

It seems that you only want to make assertions without backing them up or debating their merit. I would very much like to understand your point of view, but you deny me that opportunity

Greatpeter:
The Bible says thou shall not kill.

Is abortion not a kill?

Is abortion killing in all circumstances? At what stage does life begin?

And what about the death penalty? What about christians joining an army or the police force?

And even in the bible it is full of passages in which God [b]explicitely [/b]asks to kill:
e.g.:

Ex. 32:27
"thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor."
1 Sam. 15:2-3
"thus saith the Lord of hosts... go and smithe Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not: but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Greatpeter:
I don't know of this tradition of a thing you are talikig about but I know the word of God.

I attend a pentecostal Church and I know abortion is a sin before God and not tradition at all.

Ok, I'll try to be more clear: what parts of the Bible condemn abortion?
Where do you even find exegetic sources for the condemnation of abortion in all cases

Greatpeter:
Good and nice pix.
Beautiful kids.

May God protect them but Please show them the way of the Lord.

Is your wife a Nigerian?

Thanks for the compliment. The mix of both my wife's an my features creates a blend that erases the cruder parts of our physique . We are indeed lucky

I will most definately try to teach them to be good, loving, caring and moral individuals, whatever path in their life they may choose

And yes, my wife is Nigerian

Greatpeter:
Haba Christians have ever being preachers against abortion, prostitution, gay marriages and all other social vices.

God condemns them all.

Exactly, you're referencing tradition. Can you make a solid argument on scriptural grounds?

If not why aren't all Christions orthodox or catholic?

Greatpeter:
Sorry a mistake on my own path.

I wanted to say either legal or illegal abortion remains criminal.

Than man legalize abortion does not mean God legalises it.

It still remains a sin before God.

I never really understood this. On what exactly is this based? I've never seen a convincing argument on why a christian should be against abortion in all cases

The only argumentation I've seen is based on tradition

Here are my son (@ 4,5 years) and daughter (@ 2 weeks)

Actually we've been together for 9 years.

I'll add some pics of the kids as well (more recent)

But this is when we were still young and beautiful ( 7 years ago) And yes she is Nigerian. Came to Belgium 9 years ago

Of course she is. How else would I end up here (of course there are other reasons, but I think this is a valid one )

Me and my wife on our wedding day

Greatpeter:
Either or illegal abortion is criminal.

What do you mean? Of course illegal abortion is criminal, otherwise it wouldn't be illegal. The question is, should it be?

Seun:
Nferyn, thanks for answering my question. The law is "legalistic" by nature - an ambigous law is not useful in practice.

Of course, but the discussion is not limited to the law. In your last replies,you were implicitely limiting yourself to the legal context. That's why I made that remark

Seun:
Anyway, my view on abortion has changed in the course of our discussion: I now believe that, when a woman no longer wants to carry a baby, she can abort it - the doctor can induce something like a miscarriage. After the baby comes out, then the doctor must try to save the life of the baby using all medical means possible.

At what stage of the pregnancy are you talking about a baby? An 8 week old fetus is not a baby. Even religions (which usually don't base their arguments on solid science) greatly diverge on this point, e.g. Orthodox Judaism only starts talking about a baby from the moment it draws it's first breath, thus after birth.

And how would this work in practice? Using this procedure may very well put the life of both the woman and the fetus at risk. And suppose this procedure results in a high chance of having a severely handicapped baby. You would actually be increasing the number of handicapped children in the population.

Maybe someone with a medical background could explain what this all means, I certainly don't know all the consequences.

Seun:
If the baby doesn't survive, that is a successful abortion. This way, nobody has actually killed the baby - it only failed to survive.

This is the kind of reaction I would expect from a Jesuit. This is purely semantics. There were actions carried out that highly increased the risk of death, some would call that killing

Seun:
If the baby survives, then the abortion has failed and the child must be taken care of by the mother or given up for abortion.

And what condition will the baby be in? To me, the quality of life is at least as important as the fact that it is alive.

Seun:
I used to think that abortion was ok, but now I don't support it. Instead of legalizing abortion, the state should provide better support for those who mistakenly get pregnant so they'll not want to abort the baby anymore. At this point, I think I really detest abortion because a life is a life. If the baby has the capacity to survive, why not let him/her survive?

Yes, but at the same time you're advocating a solution that would probably make everyone worse of.
Nobody - certainly not me - ever said that abortion was a good thing. We should do everything in our power to prevent it, but let us not lose track of the facts:
[list]
[li]Countries with legalised, properly regulated (and I'm explicitely NOT talking about the US here) have lower levels of abortions. The number of abortions actually goes down once it is properly regulated[/li]
[li]Comprehensive sex education is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnencies[/li]
[li]living in a moral fantasy world where you regulate based on higher ideals is not helping the situation. Just say no doesn't work, abstinence only doesn't work. People have sex, so we better make sure that there are as little negative consequences as possible (the pope advocating against the use of the condom in Africa is a perfect example: this kind of statements is costing thousands of lives)[/li]
[/list]

I still think that the way abortions are handled in Belgium isprobably one of the best solutions (and I'll quote myself):

nferyn:
In Belgium abortion is legal under strict conditions untill the 12th week of pregnancy. Untill the 14th week a ethical medical commission can grant permission after carefull review of the case. After 14 weeks, abortion is only legal in case of severe health risks to the mother or in case the fetus is severely handicapped.

adesodgi:
false..
did you know that The Eskimo has fifty two names for snow because it is important to them, there ought to be as many for love....

that's actually false as well. An overzealus anthropologist with an axe to grind
see: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010202.html

Bibi:
@nferyn; I completely agree with you. However, maybe from a different point of view, borrowing your last comments. I don't see weak states, I see corrupt states. The multinationals are like every business man, make profits, more and more and they need to do that to keep their shareholders. As you said, the weak economies actually have more to gain from Globalisation. Multinationals are moving operations to low cost economies (outsourcing, less cost, more profit), the big industrial nations are looking at importing more from poor nations (cost of goods/sales is low, affordable). If you put all that together, then why are we complaining. It doesnt look to me like its the US or the West that is cheating Nigeria (example), rather it is Nigeria that is suffering from poor leadership not to have benefited from the opportunity.
[SNIP]

I do agree, but corruption is not the main factor. Bribes, etc are generaly just considered a cost of doing business. The main problem is the lack of predictability that goes hand in hand with the type of corruption you see in Nigeria. You don't know beforehand how much it is going to cost ad that cost fluctuates constantly. This ensures that only ventures with higher profit margins are undertaken and that some industries or services are not even considered by investers, precisely for that reason

Bibi:
[SNIP]
I don't doubt that US or the West in General may have a hidden agenda to command and control the weak economies, however I see most of the remaks by Sokari entertaining, James Bond style criminal immagination with economic hitmen living and operating in a fantasy comic world. I bet this goes more for a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum style Novel than an economic reality.

Actually they probably don't have a hidden agenda and these conspiracies are mainly just conspiracy theories without much basis in reality. However, that does not mean that the results of these economic actors are very different than what would result from such a conspiracy. All those transnational companies are there to maximise their profits and they choose the easiest route to obtain these objectives. If that means exploiting weak and corrupt states, then that is exactly what they will do, regardless of the consequences.

In the same token, if they can increase shareholder value by closing factories or moving production to regions with lower labor costs they will do so. This is exactly what is currently happening with the so called industrialised west. What Nigeria really needs for an economic jumpstart is a stable infrastructure, the rule of law (especially enforcability of contracts) and political stability. In view of the overall ingenuity among Nigerians, that's all that's needed

bijorium:
Much of this goes to show that much of the Father-Christmas America plays all over the world is meant to serve its own selfish interests. It's a case where wars are no longer fought to control another country's resources ( except that the Present American administration has excepted that in the guise of chasing Saddam out of Iraq and their refusal to leave as it were months after no weapons of mass destruction were found).

I think it was Kissinger that once said (paraphrased) that the US does not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.
International politics is a very a-moral game as there is no accountability of the actors (their constituencies are not the ones affected)

bijorium:
The intent of it all is to steal and plunder and rape these nations (Nigeria inclusive) until they are barely sovereign entities capable of taking any decisions without recourse to the whims and caprices of a willing 21st Century Slave master. I am not in the least surprised. It's a case od the one who pays the piper dictating the tunes. And until the leaders of third world countries begin to really serve the interests of their people and not stash away money in different parts of the world, there is little we can do save Pray( And get involved actively in whatever way we can) . I rest my case. IMHO Nigeria isn't anywhere near poor. She has only been robbed, raped, and plundered by willing thieves in position of power.

God bless Nigeria

It's not only nations that are being pludered and raped. Our runaway capitalistic system is continuously degrading the value of human life all over the world. I am fully in favor of free markets, but these can only work within a strict regulatory framework and under more equal starting positions.

We have the science and technology to give each and every inhabitant of our small planet a decent life. There is no need for this rat race. Too many people end up either in the meat grinder or under so much stress that living is not really worth wile.

Seun:
Should the offence of deliberately aborting a pregnancy old enough for the feotus to be regarded as a person (25 weeks) be regarded as 1st degree murder and prosecuted the same way? With life imprisonment or execution? Can you give a reason for your answer?

You're hinging on technicalities here, Seun. I find this topic here way too delicate to be discussed in such a manner. If you take a legalisic perspective: yes.

And when judging murder (as a legal term), you do not immediately end up with such sentences. They're way out of proportion regarding the crime

vexxy:
Would you consider an infant to a full human? What is a full human? When the famale has developed breasts? When the male has gotten a beard?

I consider a fetus a full human once it is sentient

vexxy:
Did you know that with proper care and immediate attention a 24 week old can survive outside of the womb? Wouldn't that make it human?

No I didn't, but I wonder what kind of quality that life would be. When my wife was pregnant, my daughter had to come 6 weeks earlier because her liver was breaking down and carrying the baby any longer would have caused her death. I was terrified, because I have seen a lot of premature babies that are seriously behind in their mental development. Luckily this wasn't the case for us. Now she can no longer take the risk to become pregnant again because there are serious health risks for her.

In short, I do think that the potential quality of life of the baby to be should be the main driver, the baby may very well be technically alive, but what are the life expectancies of such a baby and in what kind of health (both physically and mentally) would it be?

vexxy:
Also, isn't it termed a "Late Term Abortion" once week 24 kicks in? That's when, in order to abort, the woman must partially give birth to it, then the doctor stabs it in the head, sucks out the brains to collaps the skull, and then commences to pull the rest of it out. What kind of madness is that? It's horrible, it's inhumane, and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I guess that's specific to the US. In Belgium abortion is legal under strict conditions untill the 12th week of pregnancy. Untill the 14th week a ethical medical commission can grant permission after carefull review of the case. After 14 weeks, abortion is only legal in case of severe health risks to the mother or in case the fetus is severely handicapped.
I honestly believe that this is one of the best regulations around. Even though a 24/25 weeks fetus is not yet sentient, I do have emotional (although logically there shouldn't be any) problems with abortion at that stage. But my motivations here are purely emotional, not rational and policy should not be guided directly by emotions;

joftech:
Like any new development globalization has it's own wonderful implications as well as woes.

The issue of Wordl Bank and IMF loaning money to poor countries is not the fault of the West, if they gave you an offer and you refuse they will never force you to take the loan. But our leaders simply for their selfish interest sheepishly oblige to take all the poison laden morsel(loans) thrown at them.

The best way to kill someone is to give him/her unfettered access to loans. I don't blame the west, i blamed our leaders for our own woes; what are the so called leaders even doing with those loans; the loans always eventually end up in some western bank vault while the masses whom are supposed to be beneficiaries of the loans end up not getting the loan.

That's exactly the problem: the unaccountability of the leaders. Only loans granted to truly democratic countries should be honored (e.g. the DR Congo is still paying off loans granted to Mobutu)

And on top of that access to credit should be easier for the masses in the developing countries (e.g. who can afford to buy their own home if they don't have access to mortages?)

joftech:
It's a well known fact that multinational companies are the worst thing that can ever happen to a country and community. Multinationals always send their profit to their home country after milking people in their operating bases, but we still pray for their presence.

That also depends on the political organisation of the host countries. For example there are a lot of multinationals that operate in Belgium (we actually hardly have any own large enterprises left), but in general their presence is beneficial

joftech:
Until each country develop their internal economic system to a state where it can be substainable without external influences the issue of globalization will continue to be a huge contention.

That is actually no longer possible (even the US and EU economies are internally not sustainable). It is extremely important that the economies of the large trading blocs (US and EU) stop putting up large trade barriers. One of the policies of the EU I hate most is the CAP (common agricultural policy), which basically suffocates competition from developing countries.

joftech:
The ilk of George Soro (sorrow) and co always and will continue to bring sorrow to masses in improverished nations for their own selfish interest, when you fail to play ball with them you are seen as a foe that must be vanquished

Well, George Soros really just milked the system and aimed his arrows also the industrialised world. His interventions made both the British Pound and the South African Rand devaluate, but of course the implications for South Africa and the on South Africa dependent economies were far greater

On the other hand Soros is starting to turn around and now devotes a considerable amount of his money to bringing democracy to the world (e.g. Orange Revolution in Ukraine)

Did you know that the human genome contains both bacterial and viral DNA?

Did you know that the mitochondria in our cells are actually evolved symbiotic bacteria?

vexxy:
[SNIP]
More than just a group of cells.

No question about it, but still no person.

I understand that this is an emotional subject and I feel that we should do everything in our power to avoid abortions, but logically you cannot equal an 24 week old fetus to a full human. To put it bluntly, an adult chimpansee is closer to a human than a 24 week old fetus

The problem lies in the fact that large multinational corporations in current corporate capitalism, where wealth and power is accumulated far greater than that of nation states, are in essence sociopathic. Currently there is no power to counterbalance these corporations, as they practically [i]own [/i]the political forum in the US and have a strong influence on the European Commission
There needs to be a counter force that can bring these corporations in check

see
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Psychopathy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007DBJM8/104-6897113-2505532?v=glance