₦airaland Forum

Zither:
When you have fact and evidence for evolution, monkeys mutating to human species, the origin of man, an expanding chemical soup that created the stars, moon, sun, planets, plants and the universe at large, then I'll take these scientific theories serious.

The facts of evolution is all around us. Evolution is like upgrades of products or software. The first cars produce is quite different from the cars we drive today, but they are all evolution of the first car designed by Karl Benz and Henry Ford. We can see the evolution of the first car to the latest cars we have today.

The pictures below are pictorial representation of the evolution of the car. Older models are still available today.

The character of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels could not have existed as a person, I believe the character was a creation of the romans from a mosaic of characters from near and far eastern mythology.

First there could not have been anybody called Jesus Christ because the name is purely roman names and title. Jesus is said to be a transliteration of the name Joshua, while christus is a roman title meaning messiah. So how can he answer roman name and title when he was not born of roman parents? So in effect nobody called him Jesus when he was alive.

On the christus appellation, who gave him the title of messiah? Not the Jews (who till today do not see him as the Messiah ) and definitely not the Romans. So he must have been given the title christus post mortem by the writers of the bible.

Secondly, there were no reference to Jesus by contemporary authors and historians of his days, meaning he was virtually unknown. For a man that was said to have done such great works and miracles such as feeding 5000 people, raising people from the dead, preaching sermons to thousands of people, resurrected after being publicly executed and then interacted with hundreds of people thereafter, etc, surely he should have caught the attention of a few historians and writers. All references to Jesus in the gospels were written post mortem. Lots of important people from that period had their biographies and statues preserved.

OLAADEGBU:
The fact that you've never heard of partial birth abortion shows that most Democrats are voting in ignorance and are kept in the dark regarding this dastard killing on babies on full-term pregnancies as long as part of their bodies remain in the body.

Which one is Democrat again? I, living in obodo nigeria, a democrat? Are you insinuating that only Democrats support abortion? There are pro choice supporters in all countries of the world. Are you saying that China that abortion is legal and sometimes state sponsored is Democrat?

You guys are just trying to use emotional and physiological blackmail to support your pro life beliefs. What is the aim of using graphic and appalling pictures of babies being murdered. We are discussing abortion especially early term abortion and you are showing a baby in a noose.

Maybe, I too should post pictures of unwanted babies dumbed in dustbins, gutters and even rivers to support my arguments.

As I have said, I think abortion should be restricted to the first trimester, that is enough time for a mother who definitely does not want a baby to decide to abort it. It is stupid and unreasonable (not to mention callous ) for a mother to go through the pain and stress of a 9 month's pregnancy and the decide to abort the baby just before birth or kill it immediately after birth.

OLAADEGBU:
Do you also agree with partial birth abortion?

Never heard of partial birth abortion, can you explain what it means.

Even though I am pro choice, I support the bill. I believe 20 weeks is enough time for a mother to decide whether she wants the baby or abort it.

A woman should never be forced to birth a baby she definitely does not want.

My problem with pro life people is that they seem more concerned and sympathetic to the unborn baby than the actual baby after it had been born. They do not care whatsoever for the unwanted baby after it is born but can spend time, energy and resources to make sure the baby is born.

MrPRevailer:
The true and typical nature of the athiest was just demonstrated here.

You ADMIT here that there are many things you don't understand/know, YET, YOU ARE SURE that a spiritual place such as Heaven and Hell do not exist.

And then YOU WANT ME to begin giving explanation for a place that YOU HAVE DECIDED you won't believe exists. (Casting pearls to swine)

Give chance joor make I laugh well.

I truly believes religion completely switches off the cognitive functions of the brain. You talk as if you are permanently high on some very high potent drug.

You talk about understanding a heaven and hell without explaining what, where or how it entails.

The fact that there are many things i do not understand does not mean i will believe anything and everything you throw at me, no matter how crazy it is.

There had been many things I did not believe before, but precise explanations had made me have a change of heart.

The greatest minds in the world have changed their opinions to superior arguments. Even Einstein had to have a change of mind concerning the randomness of the universe (quantum mechanics) when presented with superior arguments by Neils Bohr.
Present your arguments concerning heaven and hell, since you claim to be an authority.

MrPRevailer:
Scientists have seen other dimensions with advanced technology but cannot explain it because it is difficult to explain.

There are many things you cannot understand or comprehend as a human. So the best thing you should do is simply shut-up. And stop talking as if you are very sure there is no eternity or hell or heaven.

I make only positive statements about heaven. It is a place of perfection.

You guys just talk and yet do not say anything. Which scientists have seen which dimensions and with what kind of technology? I hope it is not spiritual technology.

There are many things I cannot understand, but you can? Why not take the liberty to explain these things.

I am very sure that there are no heaven or hell, because they are meaningless and senseless terms that the formulators of Christianity borrowed from Greek mythology to scare people into accepting their religion.

There is no concept of hell in judaism.

Explain more about the positive statements of this your heaven you so dream of going.
What is perfection?

You were not shocked because you were not grounded. Meaning there was insulation between you and the ground. You were probably wearing a rubber slippers or standing on non conducting surface. If you should touch the bare ground or wall or if someone who is grounded touches you, you will be electrocuted.

Electricity acts like a fluid, it needs to flow in and an opening to flow out.

Music is universal and is enjoyed by people irrespective of race breed or creed. Lots of Nigerians enjoy Indian music without hearing a word of hindi. Many oyinbo people enjoy fela, sunny ade, awilo, etc.
I enjoy Don Moen, kirk franklin and even many church hymns, it is music, just music.

In the reverse, lots of Christians enjoy 2face, flavour, davido and many other musicians whose lyrics are "unchristian", does that stop them from being Christians?

MrPRevailer:
Codedrock
Contd.
This ignorance is another reason Atheists dislike the idea of Eternity in Heaven because they feel it's like living as a human being that can become bored or become used to certain delights.
In Eternal life, things are 100℅ different from your negative thoughts and infinitely ahead of my positive thoughts.

If you can understand that God doesn't have a beginning but is the beginning. He doesn't have an end, cause he lives forever and ever. Then you can understand that everything about God is infinite. Wisdom, knowledge, joy, peace, riches, beauty, glory, power and things humans don't have a terminology for.

Tautology, you are just repeating the same senseless phrases again and again. First there is nothing like eternity, everything will eventually come to an end - even the universe.

Then the concept of heaven is as senseless as it is stupid. A person lives may maybe 18 years and because the person have sex, you God will therefore send him to billions of years of punishment. Does that sound sane to you.
Sometimes, I hear your God send children to hell, even humans do not send children to prison.

So you have positive thoughts and negative thoughts in your heaven? So what are these your delights that you can never get bored of?

You are so ignorant of biology and science in general that you use the bible to hide your ignorance. The only reason I take time out to respond to your senseless post is prevent you from misleading others, especially the youth who intend to study science.

butterflylion:
Kindly shut your mouth if you have e nothing worthwhile to say.

1) Science claims snakes once walked on limbs as far back as 150 million years ago.

2) The book of Genesis was written almost 4000 years ago.

How could an alleged unscientific book written by unscientific people have gotten right what science first denied then later agreed to and said this was so 150 million years ago?

If you say it was evolution, were the bible writers there 150 million years ago to witness that the snake once walked on limbs?

The primitive stone age writers did not need the holy spirit to know that snakes must have had limbs, they simply only need to catch a real snake and look at its underside, they would see what looks like tiny legs and claws in some species of snakes.

I do not know where you got the idea that biologists had ever denied that snakes once had legs, when the evidence of legs is there for all to see. Please show me evidence that scientists ever denied that snakes had legs.

How did they manage to get it right? How come God said so as a curse to the serpent?

As I said they were only making their assumptions based on evidence they are seeing. Nothing extraordinary about that. God did not curse snakes, it was the primitive stone age writer's explanation on why snake have no visible limbs. They feel it must be punishment. They knew nothing of adaptation or evolution.
Meanwhile, snakes are not the only animals without prominent limbs.

Please note: scientists say that the limb growing mechanism in snakes is still there but was simply SWITCHED OFF. Why? Who switched it off?

I suggest you research this and see the truth for yourself instead of posting nonsensical stuff up and down

Of course, the genes controlling limbs is switched off or recessive in snakes, just as webbed fingers is recessive in humans.

Below is example of vestigal limbs and claws in snakes;

OkCornel:
What needs to be clarified is if what these ancient writer(s) called "dust" is also what we mean as dust today...

Dust as defined by ancient writers is fine particles of substances such as sand and clay. They were adept at making sculptures of animals from clay. They reasoned must have been molded from clay by gods and have life breathe into it to animate it. They did not know carbon, oxygen, silicon or even atoms.

They were not aware of bacteria eating and decomposing dead bodies, so they reasoned that the disappearing bodies must have turned to dust and mixed with the soil or blown away in the air.

fellowman:
I didn't say made up of dust, read what I said.

God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust. (Genesis 3:19)

Man is not made from dust. Dust in reference to the earliest period of earth's formation (theists would say creation) consists mainly of silica ( sand) from ground up rocks. The present composition of man shows no signs of silica.

If man alone was made of dust, what of the other animals, what are they made of?

Man will not turn to dust as it decomposes. Bacteria, worms , termites and other insects would feed on the body to decompose it.

I do not know where primitive bible writers got the idea that man (apart from all other animals) turn to dust when they die.

butterflylion:
Genesis 3:14



That clearly shows you that it originally was not crawling on its belly. If it was crawling on its belly originally then what God pronounced wouldn't be a curse. Tell me your own common sense is blocked to that too.

If someone is rich and you wish to curse the person you will not say " you will be rich all the days of your life" will you? He already is rich so nothing said there.

However you will say something detrimental to his riches such as " you will suddenly come to poverty".

I know you will also wish to argue this so knock yourself out.

Snakes crawling on its belly is not a curse, it is evolution. The snake must have evolved from a swamp dwelling lizard. According to evolution, environment determines physical features. A lizard living in a swamp would have no need of legs, therefore it will quickly lose it. After it has left the swamps and evolved other adaptive featured, like elongated body, it might not need to evolve legs again.

Below are some lizards that looks like snakes.

butterflylion:
Yes and they all take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES. In fact they cannot stop themselves from flicking their tongues if their lives depended on it. Their feeding is tied to it as the tongue aids smell and tracking of prey.

So they must keep flicking and keep on taking in dust.

Lie to yourself if you wish.

The Christian and Muslim are ready to lie, kill and commit suicide to defend their doctrine no matter how stupid and crazy it is.

If just because snakes take in minute amount of dust while smelling with their tongues, it means they take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES, it therefore means all animals on earth eat or take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES.
When you breath or smell you must take in small quantities of dust ( as there is dust everywhere), which is then expelled from the body through sneezing.

Dalman, we better let butterflylion continue with his delusions, he is becoming desperate and suicidal in his attempt to defend his doctrine, just like Boko Haram.

butterflylion:
Ogbeni it says clearly that the snakes tongue is cleaned before it flicks it out again. So tell me how this cleaning process happens since the tongue comes out through the mouth.

Surely it is not cleaned by the wind or by rainfall or by a personal maid in the snakes mouth so how is it cleaned and where does the cleaned mess go?

For you to even say the dust could be expelled OUT the snakes body this means IT FIRST GOES INTO the body.

So where does it go? The snakes heart? Eyes? Stomach? Tail?

Keep deliberately lying to yourself despite knowing the truth.

How can you interpret something being expelled from the mouth to mean it was expelled through the anus? Are you alright at all? When you expel something from your mouth, you spit it out? You do not swallow it.

You are just to desperate to prove snakes eat dust, when logic and reality shows snakes don't even like dust.

no sane human being would conclude that a snakes forked tongue ( along with its Jacobson's organ) is a curse for eating dust, when it is its most sensitive and crucial sense organ.

Other animals have forked tongues for smelling the air and the ground, some examples are;

monitor lizards, such as the Komodo dragon and Nile monitor, have forked tongues.

Hummingbirds also have tongues that split at the tip

Quite the nonsense that a forked tongue is used to eat or gather dust as a punishment or curse from God.

butterflylion:
I suppose the snakes forked tongue which picks up the dust from the ground passes through its tail to touch the Jacobson's organ and not through its mouth.

Perhaps the tongue comes out from the top of the snakes head and flicks vertically whenever it protrudes.

Your own case is extremely pathetic so I know you loose all intelligence when it comes to anything linked to scripture.

Maybe in these attached screengrabs the snakes tongue is flicking off a basket of apples and not the ground or off objects around it.

No where in all the pictures you posted did we see dust, not to talk of a snake eating it.

Look I am tired of arguing senselessly. Ok snakes eat dust. No let quit the argument.

Your experience is not novel, this is what everybody who thinks outside the generally accepted norms and ideas have suffered throughout history. It was what Christianity suffered when it first started out, it was what copernicus suffered, Galileo was scorned and persecuted for bringing a novel idea.

But....

You will prevail. Just work hard in your chosen career and succeed. Do not despair, do not let them make you feel inferior or bad. They will eventually learn to accept your for who you are and what you believe. If Tai Solarin could gain acceptance and respect for being openly atheist, if fela could gain acceptance for being a traditionalist and being weird, if bobrisky could gain popularity and some degree of acceptance for being transgender, why should you ashamed to state and defend your beliefs.

butterflylion:
From the bolder you can clearly see WHEREVER IT TOUCHES this includes the ground as the other screengrabs specifically said.


When it says the snake touches it's tongue to the ground perhaps to you it's chicken and chips it's touching and not the ground which is made up of sand and dust.

You people can argue senselessly to to defend your bible. So because a snake can pick up scents by touching the tips of it forked tongue to the ground therefore means it is feeding on dust. In that case, what of chicken and other fowls that eats directly from the ground, they eat a sizeable amount of dust with with their food? Are they cursed to eat dust? What of bovines (cows, goats,sheep, etc) that eat grass directly from the ground, are they caused to eat dust for the rest of their lives also.

If we should measure the amount of dust in guts of all animals, snakes would have the least amount.

butterflylion:


Keep deceiving yourself and lying to yourself. A picture they say speaks a thousand words. Check the words from the screengrabs.

I guess it is a scientific reality after all

In all you your screengrabs, nowhere did it state that the snakes uses it tongue to collect dust. Dust is not even mentioned anywhere. The tongue is used to collect chemical traces (scents) from the air or ground. The first screen grab put it nicely.
" The moist tongue collects scents and small organisms from wherever it touches and from the air around it".

Gggg102:
they do 'eat' dust as a bye product of collecting scent.

The same way you "eat" dust when you smell; or the same way numerous other animals "eat" dust when they smell with their olfactory organs or their Jacobson’s organ.

butterflylion:
You are the one who's wrong.

There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called "Jacobson’s organ". This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust in the air or by directly tasting the ground and picking them up on the points of the fork on it's tongue, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has "smelt" them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.

Which National Geographic channel are you watching? I hope it's not the ASN (atheist society of Nigeria) or Atheist church.

snake do not taste dust and they definitely do not eat dust. They use their tongue to collect scent from the air to be deposited and analysed by the Jacobson’s organ situated in the roof of the mouth. Many other animals possess Jacobson’s organ and they to not need to "eat dust" to make it work.

If you want to believe snake's eat dust, that is your faith. But quite attempting to make it a scientific reality.

fellowman:
Every snake eats dust, they bring out their tongue out from time to time to test the ground In which they crawl on or to track their prey. National Geographic Channel will help you on this.

False! Snakes do not use their tongue to "test" the ground, they use their forked tongues to taste the air for scent of prey or other animals.
Which national geographic channel are you watching? I hope it is not the one from TBN or emmanuel tv.

shadeyinka:
But your remedy is what I don't agree with.

Its like saying "let's legalize bringing in of "microchips" during examinations so that no student would be rusticated for the sake of exam malpractice. Of course, we live in an imperfect world. Some students will always chest during examinations.

Exam malpractice cannot be compared to aborting a baby. No school in this world would not criminalise exam malpractices. Exams are a test of knowledge, competency and skill, exam malpractice distorts these attributes, which can have devastating consequences.

Here, the hard way seems to be the best way: all students should study hard. Same with safe sex with respect to abortion. Abortion should not be legalized because some people will not have responsible and safe sex.

Abortion is a fact of life, whether you legalize it or not. If you illegality it, the industry will simply go underground with more negative consequences. Like all other religious inspired law, it is the poor women and their unwanted babies that would suffer, the rich would always find their way out. In Catholic Ireland where abortion is criminalized, the rich travel out of Ireland to abortion friendly European nations to procure abortion.

Illegalizing abortion is highly complex and sexist. The laws will be very hard to effect. Who do you prosecute for abortion?
The woman who does not want the baby?
The doctors and nurses who carried out the procedure?
The chemist who sold abortion pills to the woman?
Or
The guy who got the girl pregnant but refuses to take responsibility for the pregnancy and baby?

You see, our male chauvinistic society puts all the blame and responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman. Afterall, the man does not suffer any effect of pregnancy and caring for a new born. He can simply walk away and not give a care in the world. Even the religious people puts all the blame on the woman and so wish the woman have the baby as punishment for her sins. No care at all for the unwanted baby.

My question actually insinuates that the doctor has a motive. Example:
Let's assume the doctor is female and used to be the jilted and dumped girlfriend of the husband of this woman in labour. If she intentionally killed the foetus during what should be a normal CS delivery session, can she be sued for murder?

Could the argument go thus:
"My Lord, I admit I killed her foetus. But it was still in her womb and therefore, the baby isn't yet human"?

a. Would it be called an abortion?
b. Murder?
c. Inconsequential act (of destroying a parasite)?

I already answered this. I told you that if the doctor killed the foetus after delivery, it's murder. If the doctor killed the foetus before delivery, it's criminal abortion.

The very definition of the word abortion means the process was not allowed to complete or materialize. Aborting the installation of android means android was not installed. Aborting a baby means a baby was not produced.

You find many stories online of mothers killing their newly born babies. They are charged with murder.

Here is one;

Teen mom Erica Gomez arrested for allegedly stabbing, killing newborn baby - https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/amp.elpasotimes.com/amp/370068002

The baby has to be born first before it can be murdered.

shadeyinka:
Let's start with the portions you ignored because all you keep doing is asserting that a foetus isn't yet a person but a parasite hence can be murdered at will.

Yes, we have a problem ovlf overpopulation!
However, safe sex, responsible sex and maturity is the solution NOT abortion.

The question I'll like to pose to you is this?
Since you say a foetus is not human, when doe a foetus become human?
1. Is a 9 month old pregnancy foetus just a collection of cells?

And let me pose the same question I gave kholiwe

Surpose a surgeon decides to intentionally terminate the life of a Baby during a caesarian operation (just before the point of delivery) would it be termed as
a. An abortion
b. A Murder
c. An inconsequential action on the part of the doctor.

If it could be proved that the doctor has a motive?



Pls answer this question above as truthfully as you can.

Reason I stopped responding half way is that I am very tired. Had a difficult day at work today and want to go to bed.

Will try and respond as best as I can.

As I agreed, safe sex is the most ideal way to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy ( and STDs ), but ideal is diffetent from reality. We live in a sexually liberated and perverse society. Civilization comes with it the added baggages of vices, ie, sex and sexually explicit messages. You or our youth cannot escape it. From the Internet to the TV screens to magazines. So the issue of scaring people with threats of hell, guilt or even punishment will not work. Nigerians are some of the highest visitors to porn sites in the world. ( forget the hypocritical outward appearance of sisters and brothers in the Lord, they are all a facade.

The best solution is to take sex education more serious in the homes and schools.
I think I am beginning to digress too much.

About the surgeon that intentionally kills a baby during a CS operation. It will be very difficult to charge the doctor for murder, even if the mother dies in the process.
For the foetus. As I have said you cannot legally murder a foetus. The doctor can be sued and charged for misconduct, negligence, unprofessional conduct, but never murder.

As per the mother, it will also be difficult to prove murder. To prove murder in a law court, you will have to prove motive and premeditation. It will be difficult to prove he killed the mother with the baby intentionally.

On the other hand if the baby was born alive and the doctor killed the baby, he could be charged for murder, but the lawyers would still be required to prove motive and premeditation

Manslaughter would be easier to prove than murder.

shadeyinka:
Iron lung was a technology invented to help a person who cannot breathe to breathe through the machine. The machine literally forces a person to inhale and exhale. Its useful especially when there exist a form of paralysis/weakness of the thoracic cavity.

Why use this example:
Suppose my enemy is bedridden and breathes only through the use of the iron lung. If I intentionally disconnect this machine from its electrical supply to cause his death, would that not be murder?

Very poor analogy as I said earlier. I already showed why the analogy does not hold water. Your iron lung is like any other medical device that duplicates the function of a vital organ, ie dialysis machine, oxygen mask, heart pace maker, etc. Someone disconnecting such life saving device without authorisation constitutes murder.

A foetus is a parasite, it lives of the body of the mother. It causes discomfort and sometimes constitute some danger to the woman. If the mother wants and loves the potential baby, then she is prepared to risk all for the foetus to survive and become a baby. And that is only half the sacrifice.
A loving mother would be ready invest all her resources to ensure the survival of her baby. All these are missing if the mother does not want a baby. If she is forced to give birth to a child she definitely does not want as punishment for sexual immorality, it is the child you are punishing. The mother would simply dump the baby or the child after it is born, and the child then constitutes a nuisance to society.

This is a social problem plaguing many poor communities including black communities in the US.

Can I argue that the bedridden man cannot survive outside the machine therefore, he isn't human. In other words, the fact that my enemy is bedridden and helpless does not give me the right to terminate his life.

As explained before, a woman is not a machine. You can only use this analogy if the foetus is removed from her womb and placed inside a kind of "iron lung" machine, that is even if we accept a foetus being a legal person, anybody pulling the plug would be committing murder.

A baby in the womb is just like that. His only crime is that it has to spend 9 months in an iron lung (womb) of this woman who decided to deprive it of its right to life.

The baby might as well decide to spend the 9 months on another host, if the woman that the fertilization process took place in her body refuses to host it.

Let's examine your definition of murder
Murder is the unprovoked (here the foetus has not done anything against anyone). If there was any one guilty, it is usually the couple who decided to play ball without factoring in the consequences. What provocation could you say the foetus did?

and intentional killing of another person ,
Abortion is indeed intentional and deliberate termination (killing) of a human existence.

Person?
Who is person?
I think this is where we differ.
[b] For me , a Person is any personality with the potential of growing to be a human adult.[/b]

You rightly said; for you! For others a person is an actual human and not potential adult.

So,
A Human Foetus is a personality
A Human Baby is a personality
A Human Toddler is a personality
A Human Child is a personality
A. Human Teenager is a personality
An Human Adult is a personality

Something is common to all:
they have 46 chromosomes
they are at various levels of development

A Human Foetus has no personality, no identify and no seperate existence outside it's mother.

Some other animals also possess 46 chromosomes, having 46 chromosomes does not neccessarily make an animal human.

Some foetus can survive from the seventh month of development.

Most others survive for 9 months, few are born premature at 6 months and have to be kept in an incubator. The process that converts a foetus to a baby is birth. Once it is outside the mothers body, it becomes a separate entity or personality.

Yes, I agree with you here because the special word used for this kind of murder is abortion! The special reason is because the foetus cannot hire an advocate neither would lawyers defend a foetus.


Its not about religious sentiment!
Its about human right.
Its about justice
Its about fairness

Since fetuses are unable to defends their rights and you are so motivated, why not take up the challenge.

You can start an advocacy group that go to court to defend the human rights of fetuses.

Does a mother have the right to kill her own one month old baby because of her poverty? Can she argue that this baby was born blind or deformed?

Killing a one minute old baby is murder. One misconception people have is that women go for abortion due to poverty. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is the rich and middle class that perform abortion the most. The main reasons for abortion are career, schooling and the man refusing to take responsibility. Poor people cannot afford a proper abortion.

IjeleNwa:
you just wrote "Terminate?".
And I hope you know the meaning of terminate,so why are you stressing this.
You are simply overwelmed with guilt,it not as if you are trying to make a moral or academical point.

Which guilt? You guys think your guilt psychology can work on everybody. Let's me ask you one question;

How old are you?

Are you going to count your chronological existence from the time you were conceived or from the time you left your mother's womb?
You started existing as a person the moment you were born. If you add 9 months to your legal age, you will be guilty of perjury

shadeyinka:
I am sure you haven't heard of "Iron Lungs" before!

I have never heard of "iron lungs", please give me a hint of what it entails and how it relates to the subject at hand.

You seem not to be able to defend or oppose a view intelligently. Not a single proof, not a single definition, nothing ! Except that you feel and believe that abortion is not murder.

I will rub it in again. Abortion is MURDER! State your points.

Apart from religious sentiments, no body can equate abortion to murder.
Murder is the unprovoked and intentional killing of another person , a foetus does not become a legal person until after birth.

You kill a foetus 1 hour before birth - abortion; you kill the same foetus 1 hour after birth - murder.

As I said earlier no court in this world can charge someone who commits abortion for murder.

You insinuate that I am using religious sentiments: unfortunately, I have not even used the word Bible, Quran, God, Jesus, Mohammed, Sin etc.

It is only religious sentiments that makes others exhibit so much venom and hatred for other people's behaviours that has no bearing whatsoever on their life, ie abortion, homosexualism, mode of dressing, etc.

I have only opposed abortion from the following views
1. Scientifically: Characteristics of Living Beings
2. Legal: Fundermental human Rights
3. Definition of Murder
4. Logics: through analogies, scenarios and examples

Well your views are wrong and religiously tinted.
1. Scientifically a zygote or embryo is a living thing like all other living things. The man releases and "kill" millions of living things (sperms) and the woman also wastes hundreds of living things (ova), no big deal.

2. Legal rights of what? Just as your blood cells, your sperm cells has no legal rights, a zygote and an embryo has no legal rights.
What happens if I harvest my own sperm, obtain hundreds of eggs, mix them in a test tube to fertilize and then destroy the resulting zygotes two days later, will you charge me for multiple homicide? This same attitude of religious fundamentalists is what has slowed down stem cell research, which has the potential to help cure many illnesses.

3. I have explained what murder entails, it needs to involve a legal person. A fetus is not a person.

You want to make yourself look civil and humane while like an ostrich wishing away the fact that you support murder. Tell me on what excuse?

Civility and humanity is the exact reason I am a strong advocate of abortion. I have seen a new born floating on the Lagos lagoon. That memory traumatised me till today. My wife had seen a new born dumped alive in a refuse bin covered with ants. Luckily the baby survived. I strongly believe a woman who does not want to have and care for a baby should never be forced to have a baby as punishment for her sexual sins.

It is you religionists that play the ostrich and in the process cause a lot of harm to the society.
Catholic bans the use of condom and contraceptives, you have increase in HIV/AIDS and unwanted children as consequence.

You ban aspiring priest from marrying and having healthy sex, you breed child molesters and homosexuals as priests.

You ban and criminalise abortion, you create so many related problems, like over population, high rate of unwanted children roaming the streets becoming recruits for terrorists and armed robbers, high death rate from abortion related complications from people going underground to procure abortion from quacks . Too many problems problems to mention.

If you want to have unprotected sex, why not use one of the several pregnancy preventive methods? What does a man who jumps out of a moving plane expect: angels to come out and carry him? What do you expect from unprotected sex?

Prevention is better than cure they say!

If you want to have sex and not have babies, use contraception. Why must a man/woman in the making pay for my own recklessness? You think it makes sense?

This is the only quote I agree 100% with you. People should be educated on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies apart from STDs, teenagers should be taught both at home and at school the dangers of unprotected sex. In addition, provisions should be made for women who "mistakenly" become pregnant and do not want the baby. A law and facilities should be provided for pregnancy to be aborted early if the woman truly does not want the baby, probably within the first trimester.

Believe me abortion is not Nigeria's problem, it's over population. The birth rate in nigeria is one of the highest in the world, it is higher that the birth rate of all European countries added together. Nigeria is presently finding it difficult to cater for 200 million people with our limited resources.

You are just attempting to use emotional blackmail and guilt to impose your religious views on others. That is the standard modus operandi of Christianity, you impose guilt where there is non, ie Adam supposed sin is hereditary, so you are already guilty before you are born. The Jews or was it the Romans killed Jesus, so all is guilty of killing Jesus.

shadeyinka:
Suppose a grown man was given oxygen gas because he couldn't breath on his own and his enemy came and disconnected the oxygen hose from him. Would that not qualify as Murder in any law court?

Stupid analogy. If the grown man needs oxygen from my lungs to survive and I decide I do not want to continue to donate oxygen from my lungs anymore because I do not care for the man, how is that murder? How does that make me an enemy of the man?

There is no jurisdiction on the planet that equate aborting a baby to murdering the baby. Even in strict Catholic countries where abortion is a crime, a woman can only be charged for performing illegal abortion and never for murdering a baby. (Which is yet to acquire legal status)

Abortionists are enemies of the foetus who selfish reasons decided that a foetus MUST not live.
Murder is when an enemy decided that a person must not continue to live for their own selfish gain.

What selfish reason are you talking about? You that is selfless, why not go to motherless babies home and adopt abandoned children. How many suffering unwanted children have you selflessly catered for?

You need to publish your own dictionary so you can give a new definition of murder.

In war, the only moral ground for killing is self defence. That is, I don't shoot first, the enemy will shoot to kill me.

Senseless irrational rant.

But in the case of 99% of abortions, what has the baby foetus done? Nothing! Someone just decides that the foetus life should end because " she is not yet ready to be a mother, etc ". It is murder.

You already answered yourself. The woman does not want a baby? QED! Are you going to put a gun on her head and force her to be a mother? Oh! I forgot, you don't want her to engage in "sinful" sex. Well it is her body, she can pretty do whatever she wants with her body.

All murders have a motive and certainly, abortion does!

Abortion is murder!

Murder is intentionally truncating another life for selfish reasons
Abortionis intentionally truncating another life for selfish reasons

You can cry and shout all you want, you can even strap a bomb and blow up yourself in an abortion clinic, it will not change abortion to murder and it will not stop women from having consensual sex with whosoever they please.

cyrilamx:
These are the proponents of the culture of death which Abortion is. Abortion is evil cos it deprives an innocent soul the right to life. Why will u indulge in the act of giving life and turn around to terminate such life? Well the state might give legal backing to such nonsense, but it remains a moral evil in a sex saturated society. I don't pity any woman who die from deliberate Abortion.

Which culture of death are you talking about? Abortion is simply the termination of the process of birthing a baby. There is natural abortion and forced abortion. Natural abortion is when an egg becomes fertilised by a sperm but is unable to implant itself in the womb. The pregnancy becomes aborted without the woman ever knowing she was pregant, she might just notice her period coming very late, believe me this is very common among women. There is also miscarriage which is also natural abortion. Natural abortion is more prevalent than forced abortion.
Are you going to say natural abortion is evil also?

Having sex does not equate to wanting to produce life, else we all (including hypocritical christians) would have sex less than 10 times in their entire life time.
Most of the time people have sex for pleasure without wanting to produce a baby. I wonder why this is impossible for you guys to understand.

Why do you have an evil mindset and wish death on women that perform abortion? Maybe you should start stoning women that is caught engaging in fornication and adultery .

goodnewscliff:
if u get 5 masters degree ni nko Abortion is bad, biblically nd putting lives at risk becos of less dan 2 minutes without condom enjoyment aint worth d shit!!!! Dem dy hear

That is your personal and religious opinion. Lots of others hold a different view.

When I was operating a bar, I knew runs babes that do D& C in the morning and still go to night club in the evening to solicit for guys.

1Sharon:
You are so myopic. So any person who is pro choice must have done a series of abortions themselves?

For ur info abortion is a VERY SAFE medical procedure in the west

Do not mind the moral cape crusaders who intend to impose their religion on others by force.

Abortion is not only safe in the west but also very safe in Nigeria. It is close to 100% safety if done in a proper hospital by qualified gynaecologist and if done early enough (within the first 2 months).