₦airaland Forum

@bawomolo,

Actually overpopulation is one of the issues facing sub-saharan Africa. Some people have way too many kids they can handle.

Which comes right back to the issue of responsibility, right?

@Ikomi,

Let me commend you for something you know how to do best. It is obvious you know how to 'understand where others are coming from'. You have the ability to analyse others' post and declare its intellectual value without adding any value to the debate at all.

I think you should keep this up. Afterall, the few times you posted here betrays the dearth of your knowledge.

By the way, still not bold enough to refer to people directly?

@dayokanu,

Once in a while, a poor family turns out better after some years but why give birth to a baby while you are broke and HOPE things would turn out better.

I guess Africa will no longer exist as a continent if we are to follow your logic. I believe I can safely say that 95% or more of Africans in Africa fall within that poverty threshold you are talking about. So should we just die out without progenies because we are poor?

@Horus,

Okay. We've heard you, though I misss your point entirely!

@Ikomi,

I never called you an slowpoke, you could clearly see some people cant read talk little of following world politics. I have pleaded to them to stop typing my username but obviously in their restless void, they would not listen.

You said someone is a follower of an slowpoke. So what does that make the follower - a genius? There is something called logic.  You will understand my conclusion if you use it.

As to following world politics, I must confess that I don't know much. However, I know enough to not confuse a religion with a tribe. I know enough to understand where religious ideologies trump nationalistic sentiments. I would have been glad to educate you and share the bit that I know, but since you choose to ignore issues and attack personalities, I will leave you to your ignorance.  You must subscribe to the notion that it is bliss!

By the way, I have no problem calling you by name.  I am man enough to not hide my intent and to address the recipient directly. Question is: are you?

@Ikomi,

I have said before that I doubt you have any real grasp of the issues we are discussing.  In that sense, let me point out some basic errors in your write-up which show clearly how your conclusions are wrong because your premises are.  It's funny that you chose to make fun of yeswecan because he disagreed with you.  I believe you just called him an slowpoke. Can't you make your points without attacking personalities? That role has already been taken by Afam. You cannot out-do him at that, so I'll suggest you do not try.

1. A Shiite is not a member of a tribe.  A Shiite is a member of one of the two major sects in Islam.  Sunni Islam is the other major sect. Kurds on the other hand, are members of an ethno-linguistic group also in the Middle East.

2.  The Kurds basically have no interest in the Isreali-Pakestinian conflict.  They have a problem of their own.  They want independence and the right to form their own nation. Where you got this notion is beyond me, and I'll appreciate any info you have that may prove me wrong.

3. Your asserion that the Iranians seek domination of the Arab world is partially true. I said partially because it is really a religion thing, and not a nationalistic endeavour.  Iranians are not Arabs but Persians, and they mostly subscribe to the Shia sect of Islam.  If you know the history and belief of this sect, then you will be able to put their ambitions in proper perspective.

I will wait for your response to the above.  That will determine if its worth my time to explain anything to you any further.

@topic,

I can see Mr Abrasive Personality is back. We can expect the thread to degenerate into personality clashes once Afam is on board. As usual, no cogent points or facts to map out a position. Rather it is the usual personal attacks. Let me relax and watch the naked man dance in full view of the public.

@Negro,

Tayo, your turn. Now, what is your problem?

What an eloquent response.

@Negro,

What info are you asking for?  That the Isreali-Arab conflict predates 1973? You can be very funny atimes. You've made some very ignorant statements so far and I am beginning to wonder maybe someone else has hijacked your username while pretending to be you.  I seriously expect better from you.

@topic,

It is either naivety or intellectual dishonesty to think the Middle East conflict can be resolved or divulged from its religious roots.

@Tornadoz,

I said "I doubt a prophet admired by millions of people would really say to his followers  to hate  Jews."
Because I never read the Quran I was asking for proof that Mohamed instructed his followers to hate Jews, (what has Hamas charter to do with the above question?)

Hamas is supposedly fighting a political battle for a political end - a Palestinian State.  Their Charter clearly states what Mohammed said which directly answers your question.  You asked "did Mohammed ask his followers to hate the Jews"? The answer is YES.  And here is his quote "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree" (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Okay maybe he didn't say directly that they should hate them. But he was definitely direct in saying they should kill them.  Happy now?

Ikomi:
Since you know more than everyone, I suppose your a Jew yourself, God bless you with your views.

Please stop writing my username, its a bit of a distraction you see, so I could attend to reasonable comments.

Of course my comments are not reasonable to you becuase you cannot intellectually refute them. And since you know nothing about this issue, you will do well to keep quiet rather than spread misinformation on the www.

@Negro,

I have no comment on the topic of debate but I need to correct the idea that Jewish is "HOLY".  What is HOLY is their scripture, The Torah, not the Jewish tribe itself.

Of course Jews are Holy in the biblical sense. Being holy just means you are set apart for a purpose. The Jews are the agency of God's judgement on the nations on the earth.  They are so unique that they are the first set of 3 groups of people recognised by God - the Jews, the Church and the Nations/Gentiles.   Anti-semitism is actually rooted in the spirit of the anti-Christ. Why? Because Christ's work cannot be complete without the Jews. So to defeat and annihilate the Jews is to defeat Christ!

The people back then referred to as Jews are what today is called Zionist.  So replace the Hamas' call for death to Jews, with death to Zionism.  Here is why,

Zionism did not exist back then, so your argument does not hold water. I don't understand how people try to revise history.

At the time the Quran was revealed to Mohammed (A.S.W.S), he was commanded to wage war against three groups of people and not to take them for friends - the Jews, the christians and the idol worshippers.  The idol worshippers were the Arabs.  God commanded Mohammed to seek alliance and friendship with the people of the scriptures.
So in essence, God is commanding him and his followers to step beyond ethnic identity and seek support only with people of Faith - the people of The Law (Ten Commandments) and the people of The Testament (Bible) - against the interest and security of the Jews (replace "Zionist", the Christians (replace "Crusaders" and the idol worshippers (replace "Fundametalists".

If you make sense of this interpretation then, then the decree to wipe out the zionist will equally apply to the fundamentalist (in this case, Hamas).

Forget all that story. His evolution shows that his revelations come with convenience. Here is what he had to say about Jews and Christians: “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120How can you say he sought friendship with Christians and Jews when he expressly declares that friendship with them will lead to enmity with allah?

I know you are only trying to be politically correct, but we have to recognise this evil for what it is - evil. Muslims refer to us and Jews as pigs and devils because Mohammed said so. Hiding his hatred behind flowery words of peace does not extinguish the underlying hate.

@Ikomi,

I am not surprised by your incoherence. It is the hallmark of ignorance. Mohammed made a direct call for muslims to kill ALL Jews. Hamas and co are only following his orders. So if Hamas are fanatics, Mo himself was the Prince of fanatics. Try as hard as you may, you cannot dribble around the fact that Mo called for an ethnic cleanising of Jews. He linked this ethnic cleansing to his timetable for the end time. If you are not even aware of this, why should I bother educating you at all.

@Ikomi,

It appears you don't even have an idea of this issue. With that background, it is very laughable to see you making fun of another person who has shown a better grasp of the issue than you do.

Your premise that the State of Isreal is the problem is absolutely wrong. The problem Islam has with the Jews is not the State, but the very essence of Jewishness. Mohammed called for the killing of all Jews not because they had a State, but because they were Jews. The State is only a modern day excuse by the blood-thirsty hordes of allah to perpetuate and bring to pass, the depraved desire of a blood-thirsty and pedophilic prophet.

@Tornadoz,

I doubt a prophet admired by millions of people would really say to his followers to hate Jews.

Here is a quote from Hamas' Charter:
The Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Obviously I don't need to answer any more of your postings. If you could be fundamentally wrong about this, everything else you wrote is totally mute.

@Truequest,

Thanks for being true to the truth. Unfortunately, the lines btw right and wrong is continually being blurred in today's society. It's refreshing to see that not all have fallen for such.

@toshman,

Congratulations. And so it comes to pass that indeed: "you will never walk alone".

@dayokanu,

Like I said earlier, you obviously haven't gone thru this thread. If you did, you will find I have provided answers to all the points you raised. I don't think I want to start reposting them again. Go thru the entire posts and glean the answers you seek.

@dayokanu,

Notre Dame is a catholic establishment and I have some reservations about their teaching especially on the use of contraceptives and abortion.

I doubt you'll ever find a church you'll agree with 100%.

Catholics dont support the use of contraceptive and abortion. In a family, if every sexual act should result in a baby what happens to the welfare of the family,the health of the mother and the upbringing of the children.

I tire o. lease ask them!

Regarding abortion and TayoD, why cant a woman be allowed to take decisions on what she wants for her body?

Have you followed this discussion at all? I am totally pro-choice. Anyone can do whatever they want to do to their bodies. What I do not subscribe to is to harm another person through your action. Your rights end where others' begin. Get it?

TayoD like a law that tell you what to do with your own body. You said the Mother wants to take the life of a fetus,

But that is what happens. Savanaha puts it most eloquently. The woman kills the child.

Would it be right to separate the mother and the fetus and let the fetus develop in test tubes so that both the mother and the embryo can go their separate ways and not harm the others health?

Of course that is crazy! You guys keep neglecting the issue of responsibility. If you can't take care of a baby, don't have one. If you are matured enough to have sex of your own volition, you should be ready to accept the responsibility of that action if it results in pregnancy.

The theory of making a woman carry the fetus she does not want still baffles me

What baffles me is the theory that life is disposable in order to relieve an inconvenience!

ThiefOfHearts:
when you rape boys like they do, you dont need contraceptives or abortion so why would they care

@bawomolo,

I know but a 16 yr old without a baby is preferably to a 16yr old with one.  Again i agree that using contraception is better than the hassle of getting an abortion.

An irresponsible 16 year old with a baby is better than an irresponsible, self-serving 16 year-old individual and a dead baby. Obama has being talking about sacrifices recently. Maybe he needs to preach more of these to the abortionists.

pro-lifers would have more success if they campaigned against government funding and not the right to choose itself.

Maybe. But the fundamental problem is still there. Govt is meant to protect our Rights.  So if abortion is considered a Right, then the govt has an obligation to fund its protection. So the question still remains, to what extent can basic Rights be exercised? Can a woman, or man exercise his/her rights to the detriment of another's?

If single parenthood isn't ideal then why force such a choice on these unfortunate or misguided people?

Didn't you finish reading my statement? I said killing babies is fatal and the unideal is still better.

@pres-elect,

All the best with your exams. Just let me know anytime you land.  I might arrange for a meeting if you are anywhere in my neighborhood. I have just one recommendation for you.  Do not join MoveOn or any non-profits like that.  I want you to work for one year. It's amazing how many people become conservatives when they see their W-2s   .  Perhaps your eyes will be opened when you realise that you spend the first 40 to 50% of your time working for the govt before you keep any money for yourself at all. Reality might just hit you in the face when you see healthy and capable people on welfare who are eating better and living a more flambouyant lifestyle than you do.  And by the way, those taxes might go up another 15% if we are to adopt universal healthcare.  You'll get less for more money.  Isn't that ingenious?!

Again we are back on the semantics of neing pro-abortion or not. I know image is very important to the DNC. However, looking deep down, it is not the image that matters, but the consequences of thri actions and decisions. Your position effectively condemns babies to the slaughterhouse for no reason at all. Should we ignore the consequences of your position?  Or do you find it so uncomfortable that you don't want any attention to it?

Obama claims that a Doctor should not be brought in to keep alive, a baby born alive through a botched abortion.  He claims it burdens the decision to abort the baby in the first place. This is the same guy who thinks getting pregnant will be a punishment if his daughters ever find themselves in that position.  Are you sure you are on the same page with him?

@bawomolo,

I care about them and that's why i don't make choices for them unlike you. you haven't answered though, how did they get the stats?

What about the innocent children that are being murdered? Care anything for them? The way to help people is to make them realise and take responsibilities for their actions. I guess you will grasp this conspt when you become a parent. Your kids wont learn atimes until you let them live with the product of their actions.  

How else do yo obtain such stats if not through records and survey? The poster child of liberalism today, Al Gore proves that study right as well.  I hope you know that this isn't the first study that came to the same conclusion.  

no that's your argument, you would still throw an hissy fit if someone send their daughter to france to get an abortion.

This issue is multi-faceted. I clearly made my position known when this became relevant. Of course I'll throw a fit also whether the baby is killed on American soil or overseas. It's injustice to kill those innocent babies. Was it not Martin Luther King who said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"? The same attrocities commited overseas is the one being brought into America today in the name of globalisation.  

Would you support pro-choice if government funds weren't used? yes or no

You have succeeded in taking my response out of context. I only responded to your erronous statement that govt funds do not fund abortion.  I certainly I'm against abortion, wether with govt funds or not. I have stated my only exception - when the woman's life is at risk.  For you to claim we are forcing our will on pro-abortionist and deny taxpayers the right to express their will by not funding the murder is hypocrisy at its best.

Would it be fine if homosexuals adopted this kids?

Of course it'll be fine.  I have no problems with homosexuals. I do however, don't believe in homosexual marriage if that is what you are driving at.  I am okay with homosexual couples also raising the kids if that is what yu meant.  I don't think its ideal, just as I don't think single parenthood is ideal, but it is better than killing the children.

@savanaha,

The conservative liberal dichotomy is very reflective of the pro-choice and the pro-life position. While there are exceptions, liberals are generally pro-abortion while conservatives are generally pro-life. So get over it already.

You obviously jumped into this discussion without readign the previous posts. If you did, you would have found my references to the statistics. Of course we care about the living which explains why we give more to the needy than the pro-choice people. Maybe poverty won't be as widespread if they gave their fair share.

I support non-profits that take care of orphans. Though while I have not officially adopted an orphan, I have stood by many that have family issues. Besides, I have a family of five that I have never met but will be moving into my house in the next few weeks. I do my part quite alright.

@bawomolo,

how was the stats gotten? Anyway we liberals are too busy spending our hard earned money on trips to disneyland rather than taking care of babies we don't have or want

How can your liberal conscience permit you to be taking trips when there are many poor people who are going hungry at this time? I thought you care so much for them!

Why don't you end all forms of contraception if you care about life so much?

See logic. How many times have I said here that you should be ready to live with the consequences of your actions - be it pregnancy or anything else.  I am happy with my use of contraceptives and live with the consequences.  Those who chose not to use contraceptives should live with the consequences as well.

Abeg make we rest jare.  As long as government funds isn't used, people can abort as much as they want.

That's part of my point if you have been following the argument, govt funds is being used!

ThiefOfHearts:
Have I ever been any other way

And that's d way I like you. Okay, maybe not entirely!

@savhana,

When you've backed yoursel up to a wall, the next thing is to start dancing around the issues. Perhaps you should tell liberals like Al Gore, Obama and the DNC as a whole to make up the giving to the poor. The statistics I provided above already shows that we conservatives are by far doing more for the poor than the vocal liberals who can't spend their money.

@savanaha,

You guys are so twisted in your defences. Am I the one that made this about rich and poor or you? Aren't you the people claiming money is an issue in the killing of babies? I do not have that statistics but will appreciate you sharing them with me.

@TOH,

You just can't pass the opportunity to bash people can you? nasty, nasty you. You need some spanking! You are running wild!

@savahana,

O.K so when the baby is born and is rejected and ends being shot at 14 or a similar age it alright as long as it was not aborted. Interesting.

So babies born into rich homes don't get shot at at 14 too? What exactly is your point?

@savanaha,

Yeah easier said than done! After whats her name. . . preached it (Palin) didn't her daughter get pregnant? So she didn't have an abortion but many people don't have people that will help them through it.
I personally don't agree with all types of abortion like reckless sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy and then abortion but I am not going to hammer down on someone not to kill a child that I cannot take care myself. There are also people that no matter the circumstance disagrees with abortion and that is definitely ridiculous

I am glad you called it what it is: killing a child! If you are okay with killing a child because of poverty, fine with me. As long as you and your conscience can live with it.

I have said here that I am in support of the death penalty. That only in the case of a convicted cold-blooded murderer. Such a life can be taken because it deliberately took a life in cold blood. According to the justice principle of no cruel and unusaula punishment, every reaction to an action must be comparable. In that sense I have no problem with abortion when the life of the woman is at stake. Anything other than that is unjustified. Life can be exchanged for life. Life cannot be exchanged for money or lack of it!

@savanaha,

There is a way to avoid abortion - don't get pregnant! Is that too much to ask? If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to understand its consequences.

@savahana,

I don't have to tell you what I am doing or have done. Anyone can come online and claim whatever they want on this faceless forum.  I mentioned Bachmann because she is a leading conservative voice, and the facts in this case can be verified. Other facts presented here show that people like me give more to the poor than people like Bawomolo, Al Gore etc.  Just to put this in proper perspective for you, my giving to charity is a sizeable multiple of the average that the article above posted. I don't intend to say more than that.

@TOH,

Understand where I am coming from. Savahana declares that if we really hate abortion then we should be ready to take care of the babies. The ideology behind that statement is that life is disposable for economic reasons. I don't understand how else to interprete such a statement. Do you?