₦airaland Forum

merieam16: Tell d guy 2 b matured its just a name

Men hey? Why the upset?

Just because everytime he calls his sons name he is reminded of the man that first shined, polished and buffed his wife's congo, the one who popped her cherry. The one who pillaged and plundered her virgin territory. Who plucked it like a guitar, flipped it up, turned it over, positioned it and turned it around. The striker who worked his way into her box and scored. Repeatedly! Header, back-heel, nutmeg and volley. The tap-in, long range thunderbolt, half-volley and penalty strike.

A permanent reminder of another player - who may have been better. Someone he'll suspect he's "substitute too" and not a "replacement for".

And he can't actually do anything to prove otherwise - this guy is immortalised and a legend - as his wife will always have this romanticised ideal of loffaboy in her head.

Such treachery - that's why he's refusing to play! Name change, transfer or substitution .


TV

001ng: I'm a happier Man now.

But the question is; are you a better man?

You've had a close - and welcome - escape, but there are almost certainly lessons for you to take away from that relationship.
Keep your game up to date. The one you currently have may seem happy now, but that could change and it doesn't mean she's the right one.
Be wise, look within yourself and focus on your current relationship

Meanwhile, regardless of what happened between you in the past, she is another mans wife. Keep off.


TV

Kay17: @TV01 I'm not trying to be sneaky, rather trying to admit you to my side.

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.

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

Kay17: 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.

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.

Pregancy is not thrust upon a woman. A foetus is not a parasite, neither does it ask to be concieved.

Kay17: So one must admit that women just have a natural right which they can easily enforce over the foetus.

Both mother and child have "natural" rights and none have primacy over the other. Further, the mother has a duty of care for her unborn child as one entrusted with it's care and nurture and we all have that duty of care in defense of the defenseless.

Why are you even fighting for or championing rights if you would deny them to the most vulnerable amongst us?

Kay17: Besides the foetus is as much potential as egg and sperm. Nonetheless please see my arguments as being without malice or deceit.

Thankfully, this has already been debunked.
Nobody is claiming rights for the billions of spermatozoa that don't make it (losers !) or the unfertilised ova that are passed as waste.

Mon ami, you are astruggling

TV

Kay17: 1. You didn't contradict me regardless of how sketchy my argument was. So what I have said remains uncontroverted.

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

Big belly laugh...early candidate for riposte of the year !


TV

Kay17: 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.

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" ) !

Numbers 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey...

So yes I may be talking like an a55, but you are talking out of yours .


Yield...then repent!


TV

Kay17: My position has always been that the foetus is not a legal person. So does not have a superceding right over its mother.

...lol! You are now trying to hide behind "legalities". The law is not the source of morality in as much as it atttempts - often quite woefully - to codify it.

The law permits partial birth abortion - abortion at or near term of a perfectly viable baby. In your view "not a legal person". What morality or intelligence concludes that a human being has to be legally deemed so by others in order to be a person accorded the sanctity of life?

As MrAnony1 has pointed out, what if women were deemed legally (or culturally or religiously) less than men - or babies - would your "morality" readily accept the reversal of your position?

Kay17: 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.

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?}

Kay17: @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?

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?

Kay17: 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.

The sanctity of life is universal; and it is equally applicable to all.[/quote]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?

Kay17: 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**}

An0nimus:

what happened to this thread?

Nothing. I'ts a guy thread. We get to do our own thing and reconvene as and when suits. We pick up right were we left off; it's banter, jocularity and lots of situational advice.

Well done the Gunners and congrats to all Gooners. Nothing for 9 years and then 2 in 9 weeks. May your trophies come like buses.


TV

^{**whats up house**}

MrAnony1: [size=18pt]Death can never be the resolution to avoiding the dilemma of death.[/size] - TV01
Very well said. This ought to be framed and hung in the sitting room.

Thank you. It may well read better if "killing" or "murder" replace the first "death".

I wonder how far and with what arguments pedople will go in order to justify on demand abortion in the name of autonomy, rights and equality?

TV

KAYD007: 1) Atheists can be as good or evil as believers

2) Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.

3) Religion had thousands of years to address slavery, race and sex equality, sanctity of life and has not done well. The enlightenment drove these forward.

4) During the reign of religion we have had more wars, murder compared to now - as the grip of religion has decreased.

5) Where we see religious fundamentalism we often see more violence. The most devout are often the most dangerous.

6) We owe much of our more civil societies to enlightenment values of equality, freedom

We have a sound basis for morality without god. We don't need god to value life

No one is saying non-believers cannot have a sense of morality or code of ethics. Simply put, without God, there can be no absolute or objective morality. Without God, morality is actually pointless.


TV

KAYD007: Morality comes from a variety of sources, but a supernatural god is not one of those sources.

And you can confiently say this because

KAYD007: If a modern human were to stone to death an adolescent for not honoring his/her father and mother, we would certainly think him/her immoral. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for such acts, according to Abrahamic texts. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for

And how do you know that we do not follow are texts to the letter. You've already demonstrated your ignorance by claiming stoning as the prescribed sanction for juvenile delinquency?

KAYD007: determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard. The reasoning behind this filter is the same reasoning from which morals come.

Nope, I discard nothing from the scriptures. Does that make me insane as you declared in your first post on this thread?

KAYD007: Aside from this intuitive denial of a divine moral source,

So, we intuitively know right from wrong and intuitively deny morals have a divine source? That must mean that belief in God is the source of all mens ills?

KAYD007: we are encouraged to question whether something is good because God tells us it is OR is it good regardless of God's commands. If you answer with the latter, then religion is irrelevant to morality and if you answer with the former, then morality is arbitrary (i.e., if God commanded that everyone be serial killers, this killing would be moral) and that seems wrong.

It would be interesting if you could provide proof of a perfect morality amongst those that do not believe in God, along with proof that it is also absolute - not arbitrary like Gods morality.

TV

KAYD007: Every sane person on the planet knows right from wrong without needing a religion to tell them. It's a natural instinct of all animals and probably the only remaining animal instinct in humans that is beneficial.

Knowing right and wrong is a "natural instinct?". Please, could you show us how you arrived at this conclusion. Nature is not moralistic and animals act purely on instinct. If you'd read the thread prior to posting, you'd have seen evidence of that fact.

Are you really saying animals act or reason on the basis of an instinctive right or wrong? Or that new born babies and young children instinctively know right from wrong

KAYD007: In many cases religion only alters and blurs what is right and wrong. Killing is wrong,

Yet abortion is not?

KAYD007: but killing in the name of god seems to be okay. History and present day prove that to be true. Many religions enforce these altered ideas of right

Where does it say that killing oin the name of God is ok? Killing in the name of rights, autonomy and freedom also seems to be ok.

KAYD007: and wrong with blind faith and self-righteous attitudes, which in turn, creates more problems pertaining to ethics and morals. I firmly believe the most ethical and moral human beings are the ones who know right from wrong and also have no affiliation to any religion.

So in essence, you are saying we are all born with the instinct of right and wrong, but those that take up religion have it warped?

TV

Kay17: Sorry for my late response.

No problemo. You are not in any way bound. Although I appreciate the courtesy shown

Kay17: So you want "murder when necessary" not "murder on demand", right?!

Nope, no murder at any time. And certainly not "on demand" for convenience or lifestyle' sake.

There are very few situations where a prenancy endangers a womans life AND abortion is the only or best solution. Death can never be the resolution to avoiding the dilemna of death.

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

Kay17: 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.

See above. We don't elect to "kill" the child - or anyone for that matter. Your ideologically abominable notion of abortion is what does that. It makes a bad moral option a logical choice.

Kay17: Searching deeper into your moral system, the denial of a woman abortion, is a form of punishment for socially unacceptable behaviour.

Nope, it is not a "form of punishment" unless you believe carrying a pregnancy or giving birth are punishments. It is to afford the mother and child the sanctity of life, and the right and best chance to that life that they both deserve.

Kay17: 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.

Classify it as you will. the essence of my position is clear. All laws are really a codification of what is considered "morally" right. So the morality/legal distinction is mostly semantics. Abortion is morally wrong. It's murder.


TV

njokusboy: There is a reason why I picked primates, primates think, they are not like lions... Although that selfishness is there.. Interest they say is thicker than blood... Primates know to protect their family... They know what is right and fair, they know to make tools... They don't have a God yet they steal and hide.. That is not instinct.. That is reason...

Monkey Bizness !

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1882134/why_do_chimps_attack_and_kill_each_other/
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081230122812AAsLTu5


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPznMbNcfO8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYM

Once again, nature is not morally deterministic and animals act on instinct. Chimpanzees (the most intelligent non-human primates) commit murder, including infanticide. They are also canniballistic. And yes thier "reasoning" informs their actions, but not in a moral sense.

TV

njokusboy: lai lai, without morality, there is no religion, morality helps correct the defects of religion, it is worse now that religion is killing people here and there.. one only needs to be reasonable and deduce what is right.. what is right or wrong is not subject to what is written in any holy book....

You've said religion springs out of morality, and now that morality corrects the defects of religion? Anyway.
What people do in the name of religion - as I've pointed out in a previous post - is not necessarily about the religion per se.
If one can reason towards what is right, one can reason away from it. And ultimately, if there is no God and no judgement, why does it matter?

njokusboy: what do you mean by this? a monkey murders anothers kids or steals somerhing and goes into hiding and your excuse is that is harmful or sanctionable... sanctionable by whom or by what? This is the shallowest thing i have ever seen you write.. The animal knows it has done wrong.. it is as simple as ABC.

I already stated that nature is not moralstic. Animals are driven by instinct - thanks again smurfy
When a new leader takes over a pride of lions, it kills all the baby cubs? Wither conscience? or is infanticide not morally wrong? Does it hide or run? No. Because no one can say to it "what have you done" or judge it. And believe me, I have written some really shallow things, but that is not one of them !

njokusboy: somethings are wrong at all times and places.. there is nothing relative about them. as i have ahown earlier.

And as I have shown. All moral constructs that are not from above, or not transcendent, are therefore subjective, and can be relativised or changed.

njokusboy: what is wrong with working on the sabbath when you are merely trying to survive? what is wrong in worshipping an idol. shey na choice? this things are only wrong because the bible says they are.... is it right to marry a 13 year old? some religions say there is nothing wrong with it.

Christianity doesn't demand a sabbath. If you belive in a transcendant God, why would you worship an idol? If you don't, why worship anything? In any event, Christinity does not deny you your choice.

Some cultures - without religion - allow 13 year olds - and younger to engage in intercourse and have abortions. And they see it as morally right. Is that better than allowing them to marry at that same age? Not that I'm championing marriage or sex at that age

njokusboy: morality is the bedrock on which all religions are built, other religions have however added some of their own beliefs, it is what distinguishes them, but the basic foundation is basically the same.

Religions proffer morals, but don't arise due to, or in order to codify morals. But the point is not about religion per se, but the fact that there is a Lawgiver. And only with a Lawgiver can we have an absolute moral reality.

TV

njokusboy: I don't see anything wrong with your post aswear... Most of the pastors that endorse those beliefs are highly Educated... I dont agree lack of education is why.... I choose to blame it on religion...

U know what they say about opinions and a$$ holes, "everybody got one and everybody thinks everybody elses, stink....

...what obtains in Nigeria is a consequence of the people, their culture, their education - or lack of, and more latterly of the economic climate. It's not an indictment of the religion...just how they choose to practice (or exploit it). That's what Aisha2 missed (or ignored) and CFW clearly pointed out.

And as Smurfyy noted, tha fact that Aisha has not seen or does not believe in miracles is no proof they don't happen. Even if Aisha2 does believe, the fact that miracles are sometimes faked, is also not proof they don't happen.

So I know I was a bit off in my remarks - and perhaps breached protocol, so I wholeheartedly apologise. That's not to shy away from what I think of the post. Please, if it was a male, I would have e-dissed him more sef !


TV

njokusboy: Wait first, lemme go back... Was it CFW or aisha you were bashing....

Please...I wasn't bashing anyone 0 !

I have way more interaction with CFW and disagree much more with her. But CFW gets that debate can be both heated and robust. I actually agree with some of Aisha2 comments, it's just that she has this sanctimonious manner and and loves being prescriptive. I mostly ignore or have a silent chuckle to myself. I should have maintained that, but glee cash' me !


TV

Morrin',

njokusboy: oga when you do something and your conscience pricks you or you feel guilty, you have done something wrong, its that simple, you cant feel guilty, atleast not when you feel you are right. Even deviants know. they are wrong, subjectivity only justifies their reason for doing wrong depending on the circumstances that led to it. under such conditions, the wrong doing can be excused but that doesnt make it right.

If morality is conscience or feeling dependent, then it remains relative. It has to be transcendent and objective. Only God (not necessarily religion) can provide that.

njokusboy: Homosexuality..These are controversial issues, although, i get your point, however, there are things which are right or wrong at all and everytime, armed robbery, murder... These things have never and would never be relative. It was wrong a 1000 yrs ago, it is wrong today and would be wrong tomorrow... They can be subjective like murder which could be excused as manslaughter or during wars.
Even the law gives room for subjectivity that is why trials exist even in the most glaring cases. Everything is subjective but relative?? i no gree

Armed robbery is just exaggerated theft. As for murder, why are both both mother and Doctor able to assent/assist the termination of a viable baby during an abortion, and for no reason other than convenience without a prick of conscience?

Morals without God can be both subjective and relative. They can be taught and untaught. Again on murder; how did the whole of Germany under the Nazis accede to the pogrom against the Jews? Simply because the ethical and moral orthodoxt they inculcated said it was a "good thing".

As smurfy beautifully put it; "outside God there is no virtue". He alone is good. And more than that, Holy and unchanging.


TV

aisha2: Is there any satisfaction from insulting strangers?
This wasnt an apology, if being "Right" is all you want to be regardless of who you must be rude to so you can be "right" goodluck to you.

Aunti Aisha2, you won't leave me. I knew I should have just waka pass jejely...but after a number of what I considered "off posts", I couldn't resist it, especially as CFW set you straight.

Now, you are right, if I have issue with a post or poster, I should respond direct to the content. And for that I apologise. I know better. But the fact remains; in the words of the speedster Usain Bolt..."your post was a bit shite"

It wasn't a question of my being right. If that was my aim, I'd have shredded your post myself. It was more a case of schadenfreude on my part . Thanks again CFW.

Now, as for your sanctimoniously trying to adopt the moral high ground and "shame" me. Sister forget that. Firstly, I no dey shame ! Secondly, your post took a whole class of people and a whole religion and wrongly denigrated both them and it - one of the reasons it was piss poor. You have no ground to stand on and you should be contrite - notice how you haven't actually retracted your error?

Do have a pleasant weekend


TV

njokusboy: For the last part, morality birthed religion not the other way around,

Lai, lai...without religion, there can be no absolute morality...we see that even as it's place recedes in daily life across nations.

njokusboy: even monkeys know it is wrong to steal.. Which religion taught them that??

Who told you they know it's wrong. Dangerous, harmful, sanctionable maybe, but not wrong. Animals and nature do not determine or act moralistically.

njokusboy: Morality is a given,

How, where, by whom or what? Morality that you have claimed to be relative and by agreement. How can it be a given? Especially as you've also noted - and I have shown - that it can be relative.

njokusboy: religions disagree on that which is right and that which is wrong.. What is morally right maybe religiously wrong, depending on the religion...

Please provide examples - and I'd appreciate using Christianity which I know and practice.

njokusboy: Morality derives from reason, it is inductive.. Religion is deductive deriving from truths already established by reason (morals).. Morality is general while religion relies on the scriptures be it Bible, quran or whatever...Morality does not depend on religion, religion depends on morality....

No way, that is counter-intuitive. Are you saying reasoning gave us religion. Please read what you wrote. The second bolded contradicts the first bolded. If religion - as you claim - is derived from truths established by reason, how can there religious rights that are moral wrongs.

njokusboy: Nd what is religion of disbelief... A religion is a unified system of belief and practices related to sacred things or belief that relates one to spirituality, how does not having such beliefs equates to religion

I'm sure Crackhaus can respond, but religion does not have to about holiness/supernatural or the sacred. it can be merely about a tightly held orthodoxy or set of beliefs.


TV

aisha2: Please as much as we disagree with others daily here, calling another persons post a rant and "arrant nonsense" is not very nice. I would not respond in kind because I will just put it on you having a bad day, I doubt on a normal day you would respond with insults, on a good day You would normally respond on merits and demerits promoting a healthy debate.

Enjoy the rest of the lovely evening

I must confess you are right on pretty much every point you made. I hereby apologise. But damn, that post was poor - I was right on that point.


TV

njokusboy: The fact that a deviant and other deviants like him disagree with that which is generally accepted does not make it relative.. He/they are merely trying to excuse their wrong, why do they run and hi
de after doing wrong... There aint nothing relative about it (stealing)

The fact that it is "generally accepted" does not make it right. Neither does the fact that they have deviated make them wrong. They would run and hide to avoid sanctions, not necessarily due to conscience or guilt. A morality that is subjective is not transcendant and if it's relative,it cannot be absolute, if it' not absolute, then it's mere convention

njokusboy: It is objective and transcends any single individual... It is wrong in any human society....
Objectivity is antonymous to subjectivity not relativity...

No it is not objective. 30 years ago homosexuality was wrong, now it's right. Moral relativism. It's either always wrong or always right. Any morality that is not absolute is not really morality. I take your point about antonymity, but the point stands. It must be transcendant and absolute. Then we accept it objectively. Not subjectively or relatively


TV

njokusboy: There is no objective moral standard in totality,

Then it is relative, a mere convention

njokusboy: but there is a moral standard and it does transcend us....

Then it is objective and nothing ot do with us.

Which is it?


TV

carefreewannabe: The problem in all of your accounts is not religion but lack of proper education.

The majority of people in developed countries such as in the USA, in Germany, in Switzerland or in the UK are religious.

After your comment this morning I knew you were coming round. But oh boy! I didn''t expect it by close of business same day !

Loffly post


TV

^{**some people just love to rant, and arrant nonsense at that**}

njokusboy: There is nothing relative about taking that which isn't yours.. It is simply wrong... It might be subjective (every morality or doctrine is, the subjectivity only justifies it and not make it right but that is btw)...
Anybody who thinks otherwise is a deviant....
I think its high time you stated ur opinion... No more questions...

Without an objective moral standard - and one that transcends us - any morality is subjective. And like you noted, based on "agreement".
And your insist that something is "simply wrong", doesn't make it so - unless of course your protaganist agrees !


TV

njokusboy: It is wrong to steal because it is only common sense to earn yours and not take away that which another man strove to earn thereby depriving him of the fruits of his labour.... Even atheists agree... You don't need any God to teach you that...

You say it is wrong. Why is your judgement - which is only relative - any better than one who sees it as not morally wrong?


TV

njokusboy: Ones inner self, logic/reason, common sense... one doesn't need religion to tell him it is wrong to steal... Religion has however expanded morality....
There is also culture....

I said nothing about religion...just to be clear. How do we arrive at an objective moral position without God? Why is it wrong to steal?


TV

njokusboy: ....Morality tells us what is right or wrong...

And kindly expalin the source of this morality?

Thanks

TV

^{**my little boy sometines dines with me. If I dare raise that fork straight off, he'll stiffen a little, look at me and say "daddy pray". I'm still not sure if the look is scorn, rebuke or merely instruction, but daddy prays **}

5minsmadness: @TV01, very insightful post.

Thank you.

5minsmadness: I may however differ on your opinion that an unfulfilled sex life is less important than the functionality of procreation.

No problem with differing perspectives.

However, marriage without the "procreative possibility" would almost certainly not have come into being. For that reason alone, I don't believe pleasure can really be a bigger issue than procreration. Most men and women would trade great sex without children for average sex with children.

5minsmadness: I believe the former is the main cause of sexual unfaithfulness and infidelity which portends greater harm to the marriage union

We differ here also. The main cause of sexual unfaithfulness cannot be "unfulfilled sex life". The main cause is the cultural permissibility and lack of sanctions or sigmatisation.

"Unfulfilled", is a relative term. Who is 100% fulfilled? Who being 100% fulfilled, would not be equally or more fulfilled with some variety? It's not about being unfulfilled, it's about being greedy and lacking self-control and/or understanding.

5minsmadness: as against infertility in which case the couple can accept their fate or decide to adopt or even undergo IVF especially if financially capable.

In relative terms, cases of infertility are more likely to lead to irretrievable marriage breakdown than infidelity. Although I'd imagine cases of long-term or permanent infertility are not that common.

In a male preference society, not having a son can cause issues. I believe that long-term, we consider the need to procreate a more fundamental one than the desire for pleasure.


TV

5minsmadness:

But I think that's mostly after they are married. Don't know why.

Mostly - and for most women - because they see sex as something to win the man, while men tend to see it as a reward for winning the woman. So once the ring is on, she has won, whereas he want's his prize for winning. She want's the result, he wants the reward .


TV

^{**more reasons for difference, but I will only say so much here**}

MRbrownJAY: i would understand that, but if someone warns you about the dangers (of the said mad man) and you disregard them..... thats what i cant seem to understand.

I totally get you, and it's both simple and complex.

The call is for individual control and self-autonomy. Nobody can deny this woman "her right" to choose who she is intimate with. Her body is hers, to do with as she likes.

And the way women are wired means that some of the "dangerous traits" exhibited by this "mad man" will actually be attractive.

Afterall, why was she not charged? If indeed she cannot be denied her right to consort with whom she likes, surely she cannot refuse her responsibility to make her childrens welfare paramount? Most especially after she had been warned? Is that not at least culpable neglect?

If one knowingly drove a car with faulty brakes and someone died, would they go free? Or if they were aware of any other "hazard" they were responsible for sorting out and didn't, which then led to injury or death, would they not be charged.

So we are left to lament the needless death of another black child.


TV

Kay17: 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?!

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.

Kay17: My point is, your moral system is inconsistent and chaotic.

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

Kay17: The obvious truth is, a woman morally deserves to put her body and whatever within her to her purpose and benefit.

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 .

Kay17: If her mental or physical health is at risk, she by natural law (if there is anything like that) is obliged to protect herself.

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.}