₦airaland Forum

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.}

MRbrownJAY: thats what happened when women shack up with mad men, get warned about these mad men, but yet disregard the warnings and leave their child alone with such evil man.

The truth is, that abuse and violence against children is estimated at about 6-7 times as frequent where one of the two "parent figures" is non-biological. Sure, some step-parents are fantastic, and mum/dads new "partner" can be great, but the fact remains, in such situations children may be subject to everything from "mad men" to "wicked stepmothers".

The traditional family still offers the best outcomes for children (and indeed their mothers).

BeFoRe^TM


TV

ihedinobi2: Lol. Well done, Bro. Can't swear I understand the "green-fïngered" part but honestly I don't plan on waiting too long for my own plot.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/green-fingered


TV

^{**the dirty-minded spambot , for manipulated, please read f1ngered **}

I’ve often wanted to write more exhaustively on this subject, but just haven’t been chanced too. I don’t believe I can do it full justice here, but hate to let it pass without comment. I’ll try and respond generally-specifically and hope it helps.

First, the situation here is not one of “incompatibility”. In as much as sex is a bio-mechanical function, the male/female sexual binary in humans means they are inherently compatible.

Secondly, they have a child. Intimate functionality is confirmed as fully operational in this couple. Sex is first and foremost for procreation. In all likelihood, inability to conceive will always be a long-term more serious issue than the actual pleasure of sex, and is more likely to lead to marital breakdown.

Thirdly, your “colleague” did not complain about the actual pleasure of the intercourse, this sounds like an issue of frequency – that is libido differentials.

Libido almost always varies between couples and is more notable in the medium to long term. This is also one of the reasons why test-driving will often give you a false positive, as sex when a relationship is new and fresh can be quite lustful and frenzied for both parties.

Longer-term, when “normalcy” kicks in, a clearer picture of the differentials emerges. Men typically possess 5-10 times the testosterone levels of women and are typically more libidinous.

Whatever the case, couples need to discuss this openly and seek to explore ways of mutually ensuring the satisfaction of the other. This will probably mean compromise, with both taking time or turn to stretch – for which read sacrifice (put-out) – to ensure fulfillment for the other.

Longer-term, a myriad of factors can influence libido in both partners. Pregnancy and childbirth is one that particularly affects women – but studies show a marked libido reduction in husbands as well.

Stress and the burdens of leadership can also lead to reduction or even temporary impotence in men. Whatever the case, all of these situations can be worked on and the mutual desire & support of each is key. That is why finding a spouse who is totally committed to you, with your long-term best interests at heart and comes to the union with a loving, sacrificial posture is way more important than test-driving.

There is no one-size fits all solution. Each couple should come to a place of mutual agreement and satisfaction and be ready to vary it as appropriate. Sex, whilst very imprtant and a great "binder" is not the be-all and end-all of a marriage. Please don't obsess or compare as you look for greater heights - which is good even if there are no issues. Make your sex-life yours, not your idea of what others think it should be.

Lastly, the differential here is the more common male high, female low (at least for now). For men, the pleasure of "close" intimacy can be interspersed with instances of “blessed relief”. Please tell me you understand? as too say more would make me blush.

Please offer your “colleagues” sound counsel. And congratulations you are now officially the office “ water-cooler sexpert”


TV

ihedinobi2: Happy anniversary, TV. Didn't realize it was your anniversary o. More pruning and fertilizer to your garden, sir.

Thanks Bro',

My real life garden gives me horrors and I'm seriously considering outsourcing. But I know only the owners can tend the marital plot. I'm on it.

TV

^{Please don't keep us waiting 0 - I'm convinced you are quite green-f1ngered !}

bellong: TV01,

Bon anniversaire.... May your home keep soaring like an eagle. It shall be a blessing to generations

Muchos graciás...much appreciated.

May your home flourish like grass kissed with early morning dew.


TV

damiso: Happy wedding anniversary TV01 May God continue to keep and bless your home.I so feel your 'one of' wedding anniversary days thing We have 3 but just choose to celebrate the white as the main the main.

Thanks & a big amen to your prayer, may The Good Lord smile continuously on your home.

I think of the Naija Trad as the day, my wife prefers this - the church - one. I still managed to not get cards both days ! I find cards so pointless, but I know I should make the effort as she loves them - and of course she got me one. I need to make amends.


TV

ladygogo: I recently tied the knot and I thought i'd share some tips on how I worked with my budget.

Hearty congratulations to both you & your husband, as well as your respective families.
May it be permanent, frutiful and fulfilling.

It happens to be one of my two wedding anniversaries today so I had to extend my sincerest regards !


Did you not cost for your rings (if you used them) or your honeymoon (if you had one)?


TV

Kay17: 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?

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

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

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

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

Kay17: On Abortion

No matter how you see it, abortion is still a means of self control, an affirmation of self autonomy by a woman.

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.

Kay17: 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.

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.

Kay17: 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.

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)

Kay17: 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.

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

coogar: i cannot believe you guys are not shocked. why do lesbians want babies? they don't want a man & yet they want babies? why aren't they adopting instead? NHS is for the sick people for fück's sake. being gay is not illness.

Appalled yes, shocked no. Not anymore. Like Pick says, this is a moving train.

Saying they are now trying to prove a homosexual couple make for better parents than natural parents. Long-term policy? Take kids from natural parents and place with homosexuals. Dystopia has come and gone...we in Pisstopia now...

Nature made you "homosexuals" but gave you heterosexual reproductive capacity. It made your "loving & natural pairing" sterile, but gave you the desire for children. One can only be so smart , but it takes a certain kind of sick, twisted and perverted mind to make a case for normalising the sickness that is homosexuality. Anyways, sexual deviancy has long been the norm in this country,it's just been on the down-low. Judgement is upon them.

coogar: you know some genuine sick people like cancer patients, etc would be genuinely turned down or made to wait on a long queue because of this sheer waste of public funds.

Unneccesary plastic surgery such as boob-jobs have been available on the NHS for years (it may have finally been stopped this past month, not sure). You only had to plead distress at your GPs and pretty much any procedure was available. Yet they run around acting all saintly and screaming about FGM. Is that any better? Hypocrites.

Train crash ahead.

TV