₦airaland Forum

Maeve7:
You want a child to be given away at birth into a system that can never replace a loving family

This is like saying child orphans should be killed since the orphanage won't be the loving home that they were born into.

As I earlier said, tragedy happens in life, but such tragedy should not stand in the way of a human life to live.

...and you want to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and push out a baby, which is painful both physically and emotionally and then you claim that you don’t want children with disabilities to be born to suffer but it’s ok if a woman who was forced to give birth suffers and also an orphan who has to live with the knowledge that they were unwanted for the rest of their lives. I see.

This is where I gave my response to this after modifying my view after some moment of thinking through it. I don't know if you saw it or not, but here it is below...

Exactly, you are right on this one 🤔. Thanks for this. After thinking about this, I had modify the view. And this include my initial responses to you regarding the issue.

So here it is, if the deformity of the fetus is one that will affect the life span of the child, then the fetus can be aborted, since it all ends in the death of the child... except the parents says they still want to birth him or her.

But if the deformity is one that won't affect the life span of the child, then yes, that child should be born. With the system in place, healthcare would be provided for the child if the parents can't afford it.

Never forget, temporal pro-choice should be allowed until the system is effectively in place.

Thank you for the exchange. I really enjoyed it. Haven’t had such a good discussion in a long time.

Same here 😎



#Xavier

Maeve7:
There are organizations concerned with children‘s welfare and foster parents caring for kids whose parents can’t and yet … nobody wishes to be from a broken home or given away at birth.

Such is life, nobody wishes to be from a broken home or be given at birth, but shit happens. But that doesn't and shouldn't deny the fetus... a human life the right to live.

We already know if we really care to know, do you?

As I said, only one way to find out, and that is the government and society making the effort to ensure that. But as I said, the responsibility lies on us. If we contribute our own quotas, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a reality. It all depends on us. I personally, won't wait on the government or other people, I will make my own efforts and see it true. With time, I believe, the government and the society will join in.

But until such becomes an effective system in place, temporal pro-choice should be allowed.

Are we talking about a utopian place or the US or Nigeria?

No, I'm talking about when the system is effectively in place.

Good luck with this system. My humble opinion, look at how well it’s working now and then what needs to be done to improve it and hopefully the government will provide you with tax payers money to give the unwanted child a beautiful life.

👍👍👍👍👍


#Xavier

.

Maeve7:
Suffering is a part of life. Everyone suffers at some point. What gives you the right to decide who can suffer how much and who is worthy or unworthy of living?

Exactly, you are right on this one 🤔. Thanks for this. After thinking about this, I had modify the view. And this include my initial responses to you regarding the issue.

So here it is, if the deformity of the fetus is one that will affect the life span of the child, then the fetus can be aborted, since it all ends in the death of the child... except the parents says they still want to birth him or her.

But if the fetus is one that won't affect the life span of the child, then yes, that child should be born. With the system in place, healthcare would be provided for the child of the parents can't afford it.

Never forget, temporal pro-choice should be allowed until the system is effectively in place.



#Xavier

Maeve7:
First of all, some women get pregnant despite birth control.

That's why I used the word, higher chance. The probability of getting pregnant despite birth controls is very low which still brings me to my point of the orphanage and child support coming in only in the few cases.

Secondly, a lot of women don’t want to carry a pregnancy and give birth. Not only because they are not ready for a baby but because they don’t want to be pregnant in the first place. A pregnancy is not a walk in the park.

This is where birth control comes in. If you don't want to get pregnant then be celibate or use birth controls. And in the very few cases where birth control fails, then the government have to ensure that the baby should be born in which he or she would be enrolled into the orphanage system, after which the woman if she chooses not to be a part of the child's life can go on with her life.

Rather than focus on feelings, we should be focusing on the right of a human life to live.

And for many women having an abortion is better than having a child grow up in an orphanage. Maybe in your fictional book orphanages are like Disneyland but the reality is very different.

If birth controls are used in the first place, unwanted pregnancy drops significantly. It's only in few cases where pregnancy comes in. So yes, in reality, the proliferation of orphans as you are imagining it to be the case won't be the case.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
Au contraire, I have been reading your answers to me very carefully. I like your humanitarian approach and I share some of your views but your problem is that you are naturally smart and thus have become intellectually lazy.

Here is why:
I have mentioned trisomy 13, 18 and 21 on purpose to see how you will react and what your line of argument would be. I anticipated that you would continue to argue passionately to make your point which would make you blind to a lesson or two you could learn and eventually make you sound incoherent.

You have decided to lump all three forms of trisomy together under the umbrella of 'severe deformity‘'. Whatever that means, these three genetic anomalies are very different from each other and I would have loved to see what you would do about them individually. So much for intellectual laziness.

Whatever you mean by 'severe deformity' remains a mystery but it is safe to assume that you see a human/fetus without deformity as inherently better and of more value than one with deformity/disability. And that makes you incoherent and proves LordReed‘s point.

There's nothing to do about them individually as far as they are all deformities that would subject the child when born to physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering. All deformity capable of the mentioned fall under severe deformities, and as such should be a justifiable reason for abortion except the parent says otherwise. It still boils down to life.


#Xavier

budaatum:
Actually, its because she doesn't want to be pregnant at all.

Then she should use birth control. End of discussion.



#Xavier

budaatum:
The drug addict will oppose it, and it would be unconstitutional to deprive the woman of her rights just because of the foetus inside her.

It's her right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, but when a human life is being threatened, then protection of human life have to be enforced. Liberty that despises the protection of a human life is inhumane.

We have not agreed that the rights of a foetus trumps that of the pregnant woman yet you see, so you'd have a hard job forcing the addicted pregnant woman to accept what you are proposing.

Yeah... same way the right of the drug addict parent triumphs that of a child to live and be cared for... indeed.

If anyone wants to be irresponsible, they're free, but they should keep it out of the life and welfare of children and fetus. And this is where the government comes in to ensure that.

You can't even stop her drinking and smoking as it is, so what makes you think you can deprive her of her fix? Would you lock her up so she can't fix herself?

I've already addressed this issue in my response to Maeve7.



#Xavier

Maeve7:
The aim of abortion is for the woman not to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term in the first place. You don’t have to be a woman to understand it or maybe you do?

... Because she doesn't want to exercise responsibility over that child. Don't forget that. It seems to me you just want to ignore that basic fact. The system prevents her from having to exercise such responsibility. Aside that, if she doesn't want it, why not utilise birth controls? At least that gives her a very high chance of not getting pregnant.



#Xavier

budaatum:
"Highly unlikely", except that it already happens that some oppose feeding school children! Or are born school children not of greater value and more needing of care than a foetus?

Even in socialist UK, there's a Two Child limit to benefit payments, how much less in uber capitalist USA.

The question is, are the opposers in the majority? That's all I'm asking.

Regarding the child support and orphanage, I've made it clear countless times that this isn't only the responsibility of the government, but also that of the society... that is willing individuals and organizations. And I've dedicated myself to be part of the willing individuals.

How many individuals and organizations will be willing to be part of it? Only one way to find out.

And we should also not forget that this would only occur in few cases if such system is in place thanks to the fact that birth controls would be subsidized and made available, affordable and accessible, unwanted pregnancies will significantly drop.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
Xavier5 probably thinks that the government has an unlimited amount of money and resources to go around.

It seems you don't read my response to you. I make it clear that this isn't only the responsibility of the government, but also that of the society... that is willing individuals and organizations.

How many individuals and organizations will be willing to be part of it? Only one way to find out.

And let's not forget the fact that this only occurs in few cases since due to birth controls being subsidized and made available, affordable and accessible, unwanted pregnancies will significantly drop.

This is not an overnight thing, this is why I made it clear that lots of time, efforts and resources will be spent but nevertheless its possible. That's why I always state that temporal pro-choice should be allowed until the system is effectively established. I don't know which part of that you're finding difficult to grasp.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
You are punishing a person for being sick to save a fetus that couldn’t live outside the person’s body.

So because it can't live outside the woman's body mean we should just snap its neck? Is it the fault of the baby that it found itself in such condition? Why should he or she be punished.

The fetus is a human life... a living human, and as such should be protected. That's the baseline.

I agree with the point about birth control but it still happens.

No, an addict won’t necessarily seek help. That’s the nature of addiction. They will hide, cheat, use plenty of avoidance strategies and even accept punishment.

Yes, they might cheat the system, but if the baby dies because of their refusal to the right thing, then the law comes for them. It takes an inhumane and selfish person to make such decision. The fear of the law will make them act in line.

As as for those that will be too inhumane and selfish to the point that they are willing to put the baby's ife in danger and serve punishment. Then good luck to them. Such irritates and disgusts me 😠😠😠

But the thing is, majority will act in line for fear of punishment.

One more time, have you ever been to an orphanage? And do you really think that it is that easy to give up your child for adoption even if you are not ready to be a mother?

Yes, I do and I donate regularly to them. I'm not a sit and watch pro-life. I'm an action one. And as I earlier stated, I'm working on creating a humanitarian organization that will be committed to the system mentioned.

Also, if a fetus is diagnosed with trisomy 13 or 18 or 21, should the baby be born?

This means you've not been read my write-ups... cos I made it clear that one of the critical cases in which abortion should be allowed is severe deformity of the fetus in other to prevent subjecting the child to severe physical, emotional and mental pain, except the parents says otherwise.

And as I will always say, temporal pro-choice should be allowed until the system is effectively in place.



#Xavier

budaatum:
And I'm trying to make you understand that government is not some institution that operates "irrespective" of the people who vote for governments, and in a society that hails personal responsibility and abhors socialism, you'd have a tough job selling such an idea just as there's opposition for feeding already born children, and that's besides the fact that you would be impinging on the freedom and rights of the pregnant woman whom the foetus is inside.

And that's why I'm saying those opposers are always in the minority. The majority do support. I'm yet to see a democratic nation where majority oppose children and infant welfare. So the concern you're trying to raise is highly unlikely.


#Xavier

IjeBos:
Creating a thread is not your thing. But people should respond to the thread you will create to sell your book to drive traffic?
Did I get it right?

Creating a thread for discuss is not actually my thing. Why? Because, I won't be active to maintain it. But in the case of my book/ story, economic reasons will make me, against my wish, to do it. I don't know if you get it?

So that's why I always prefer to discuss on already created threads or one created by the person I'm debating or discussing with.



#Xavier

Maeve7:
By the way, once you force a woman to give birth, she becomes a mother. She might not take care of the baby in case of adoption but she is still the biological mother. Just for the sake of clarity.

The aim of abortion is for the woman not to be forced to accept responsibility over a child. With the system I mentioned, she wouldn't. That's what I mean by mother. I'm not talking about biological motherhood, but functional motherhood. I hope that's been clarified.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
The government should persuade an addict to stop what addicts, by definition, and even with professional help, can’t stop doing. Alcoholics have a 70% relapse rate, the small number of those who actually stop until they start again .

So in other words, you want to punish sick people for being sick.

And what if family members don’t report? Will they also be persecuted for being complicit? Where is the limit to policing female bodies and lives? Do a woman’s fundamental liberties and rights end with pregnancy?

What about anorexic women? Will they be fed by force?

And have you ever visited an orphanage?

It's not punishing a sick person for being sick, it's taking measures to protect an innocent human life.

Aside that, the "sick people" should not get pregnant in the first place. This is where subsidizing birth control to ensure their affordability, accessibility and availability comes in. With this, unwanted pregnancies drop significantly.

And secondly, as I said, if she refuses to seek medical and therapeutical help for the sake of the child. Then the government should make it known that if the baby dies because of her refusal to seek help, then she will be punished legally. Such a woman being so selfish hence putting the life of an innocent baby at risk is highly inhumane. If you don't want to do it for yourself, then do it for the baby.

The fear of being punished legally if anything happens to the baby because of her, will cause her to take seek the help. So either way, she would seek the help.

Now if she says she doesn't want the baby, she should be persuaded to give birth, after which the baby will be enrolled into the orphanage system in place hence freeing her from such responsibility. But if there's a relative willing to shoulder the responsibility over the baby, then the child would be handed over to them. If finances is the problem for the willing woman or relative, then the child support system comes in.



#Xavier

budaatum:
You have earned respect from me. And I repeat, this is why you were asked to create a thread.

Creating a thread is not really my thing, I would love to discuss it here. But if such is not possible, then I think there's an alternative. I'm currently writing a fictional book in which the issue of intrinsic human value will be discussed. I will be releasing the story on Nairaland, and when I do, I will tag you and other interested people to hop in. How about this?

The system you say should exist sounds like government control of a pregnant drug addict, which sounds pretty much like taking any rights a woman has from her just because she's pregnant and a drug addict.

Which makes me ask, have you read or seen Handmade's Tale? No drug addict pregnancy there, but you might understand why I oppose your system.

I have explain what the government can do to address the issue to Maeve7 above.

You see it as taking the right from an drug addictive pregnant woman, I see it as taking measures to protect a human life.

Further explanation on how the government can handle the issue to ensure the woman isn't forced to be a mother against her will while simultaneously protecting the life of the baby has been addressed in my response to Maeve7 above.


#Xavier

budaatum:
That was the reasoning of some. The child suffering was not their concern.

And I'm glad they were the minority.

And the government is not, "on the other hand", because it is the people who elect the government that serves at the pleasure of what the people think or feel. And if the government irrespectives of them, they'd elect a new government that respectives of them at the next election.

Unfortunately the government have taken decisions and actions lots of the people don't agree with, so why should this be the exception.

And let get this clear, it's impossible for the majority to be against such humane act by the government. Only few will, and this few, in a democratic society, can't influence or stand as a threat to the government... except the government itself doesn't care about the life of children or the fetus.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
You suggested it so please be so kind and explain to me how the government will prevent a pregnant woman from drinking or smoking or taking too many pain killers or the wrong ones? And what if a woman refuses to eat because she suffers from anorexia, will the government force feed her? Pray tell.

What the government can do in this case is to step in and persuade the addict to seek medical and therapeutical help, on the government's expenses if she can't afford them, in other to keep the baby safe. If she agrees, good. But if she refuses, the government have to let her know that if the baby in her womb dies because of her reckless and addictive actions, then she will be legally punished. This will persuade her. Legal punishment have a way of making people act right.

Now if she says she doesn't want the baby, she should be persuaded to give birth, after which the baby will be enrolled into the orphanage system in place hence freeing her from such responsibility. But if there's a relative willing to shoulder the responsibility over the baby, then the child would be handed over to them. If finances is the problem for the willing woman or relative, then the child support system comes in.

Yes, as I earlier said, the process is physically, mentally, emotionally and financially straining, but as I said, a human life is worth such strain.

So you want family members and friends to report each other to the authorities? The DDR comes to mind.

No. But if the addict is pregnant, family and friends should persuade her to seek medical and therapeutical help, but if refuses, then the family or friends should involve the government which will take the above action.

And I will always emphasis that temporal pro-choice should be allowed until the system is effectively in place.


#Xavier

budaatum:
A few weeks ago we were discussing school meals, and some here who pay tax so the government has money to care said, "hell no"!

Their argument was, "If you can't feed your children, don't have any. Society should not be bearing your responsibility for you!"

What you think?

Such line of reasoning is BS. Should a poor child suffer of hunger if a meal can help? No. It will be very disheartening if pro-lifers hold this view.

The government on the other hand should do the right thing irrespective of what some people might think or feel.


#Xavier

budaatum:
As soon as I read, "the universal intrinsic knowing", which you haven't bothered to show exists, my mind just shuts down to whatever follows, because its like asking me to join in a venture with you that relies on hot water being 0⁰C.

Just saying. And I doubt I'm the only one.

@bolded

You're right and I think we should have this discussion, but unfortunately it can't be now, I currently have my hands full. Later down the week or next week will be free for me. There are lot of things I need to explain. How about that?

budaatum:
Show me just one instance of a government anywhere stepping in with anything to prevent a pregnant drug addict from taking her drugs.

Grasp what I'm saying first before you make statements like this. I never said such system exist, I'm saying such system should be created as regards policies and healthcare if the drug addict is pregnant in other to prevent harming the child in her womb. And this system should only apply to the case of a drug addicts being pregnant. If she isn't pregnant, the system doesn't or shouldn't not apply to her. The aim is to protect the human life in her womb. Get what I'm saying first before quoting me.



#Xavier

Maeve7:
Prevent her how exactly? What if she is not known to be an addict? And what about those addicts who knowing that the government 'steps in' won’t go and see a doctor? Don’t you think your ideas will increase the number of women who hide their pregnancies to dump the baby later in the trash?

As I said, policies and healthcare. Regarding policies, If you were to be the government, what policies would you create to prevent the woman from doing so? And what efforts would you take to make this addicts comply? Think about that, you will get your answer.

Secondly, if nobody knows about it then there's nothing that can be done. But as far as there are people in her life, awareness of her addiction won't go unnoticed. So which means the case of someone not knowing is highly unlikely.

Thirdly, no woman will dump her baby in the trash, not when there's a well funded orphanage and child support system. And with this system in place, any woman caught dumping her child in the trash will and should be punished with the law.

What if a woman, out of shame or because of pressure or whatever reason, decides to keep the child she wanted to abort but couldn’t, maltreats it because the child is not wanted?

As the government, what would you do if you discover a woman was maltreating her child in this context or scenario? Therein lies your answer.

Well-funded orphanage? How much money is a government willing to spend on unwanted children when even the school system is underfunded? How many workers will be in charge of how many children?

A government that cares will be willing to spend to keep those children safe and cared for. If the government is willing to spend on unneeded things like wars, then they should be willing to spend some portion of that money on child support and orphanage.

And secondly, this isn't only the responsibility of the government. But with collaborative effort of willing individuals and organizations also, such systems can very well be created and funded. As I said, it's going to take time, efforts and resources, but it's possible.

And aside that, remember, we are talking about unwanted pregnancies. The system I mentioned include subsidizing birth controls to make it affordable, accessible and available which goes a long way to significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies if effectively done. So the issue of unwanted pregnancies only come into play in few cases, not in the majority of cases.

But I will always emphasis the allowance of temporal pro-choice until the the mentioned system is effectively in place.


#Xavier

LordReed:
Have a nice day.

You too bro 😊

And I apologize for calling your statement ridiculous... even though it was inhumane and outrageous. But as i said, I apologize, I'm sorry for that.


#Xavier

.

LordReed:
I could have equally used insulting words to describe your ideas but I didn't because I thought I was discussing with a mature respectful person but since it it not the case I don't wish to continue. Have a good day.

If I wanted to be insultive I would have used the words, stupid or abominable.

You're the first person I used the word ridiculous as regards his statement, you know why? Because unlike you, others in these thread didn't blame the fetus for something that wasn't his or her fault and used it to justify his or her killing. Even wirinet did not do that. Wirinet was more concerned about the welfare of the child when born, something I addressed in my response to him.

And yes, if I said something inhumane and you called it ridiculous, I will accept it, because that's what it is...


#Xavier

kkins25:
Not if the supposed guests are my own children, which I had to engage i coitus to create out of my will.




Sure. But even if society turns a blind eye, nature will carry out its course. It's not society forcing her to, It's good-old mother nature.




Of course. However, the autonomy of the individual cannot supersede that of society. After all, as much of an introvert as I am, when I left Christianity, it was hell. And I'm able to survive because I found society in my nairalander folks and those online. Without society, the individual becomes insane.





-https://www.routefifty.com/health-human-services/2019/12/pregnant-women-drug-use/161701/

Impressive, especially the bolded



#Xavier

bemeruca:
He all makes mistakes, and we can be contradictory, given we post a lot here. I don't see why simple things like acknowledgment or ignoring are a problem instead of saying someone is insulting him.

Such is life 🤷


#Xavier

Maeve7:
Are you suggesting that adoption/orphanages will make a woman provide the necessary care for the unwanted fetus/embryo inside her body and stop her from harming it with e.g. substance abuse?

I mentioned child healthcare and welfare systems. With such, if a woman is known to be a drug addict, the government steps in to prevent her from doing that with the needed policies and healthcare.

And when she gives birth and it is determined that she can't cater for that child, then the well funded orphanage system comes in to cater for the child. If there's a relative that's willing to shoulder that responsibility, then the child can be handed over to them. If money is the issue for the relatives, then the well funded child support system comes in.

But I also emphasized the allowance of temporal pro-choice until the mentioned system, which I personally call the Abortion Mitigating System aka AMS, is effectively established.


#Xavier

bemeruca:
It is okay to say someone is ridiculous or a post is ridiculous. That's not an insult. You are being petty. And if you think the Nazis subjective truth in killing the Jews is okay as objective truth does not exist. Why do you care someone calls your post ridiculous?

The issue here is that he might be dealing with a pricked conscience after realizing he just misfired with that statement, hence the complains that I called his statement ridiculous. Anything to distract oneself from that reality is welcome.


#Xavier

bemeruca:
Imaging saying there is nothing wrong with the genocide done to the Jews because he thinks it is lawful. How? How do you go about killing a particular race and another person says, well, there is no law stopping that and the Nazis don't see it as bad or murder so it is fine.

Anything you think in life is the right thing because it is your belief.

That's always the problem with this absolute relativist. They refuse to acknowledge that some things are actually or inherently true or right irrespective of personal opinions. But these are the same people that will be screaming rape is evil even though the rapist doesn't see it as so. These same people will be screaming election deniers are wrong even though the election deniers think they're saying the truth.

Why will they do the above if they think nothing is actually or inherently true, except they believe somethings are actually or inherently true irrespective of personal opinions. They never fail to contradict themselves and shoot themselves on the foot.

You say you don't believe in intrinsic human value, but you scream human rights and equality. How please? Why not also extend that to plants and animals, since intrinsically there's no difference in our and their value... thanks to all being intrinsically valueless.

Truth is, there are philosophies, and there is truth. There are philosophies, and there is reality. Reality always has a way of bringing us back to the truth irrespective of philosophies.

Objectivity and subjectivity exist.


#Xavier