deleted. refer to the next post for contents.

Chrisbenogor:

Hello wirinet,
I do not quite fully agree with your position on how evolution can deal with the problems of man, yes in time it will manage it just for the time being like the sickle cell anemia. I am sure if more research is done there would be other possible less life reducing ways to deal with malaria for instance, is a more concerted approach to the whole issue not possible. I mean like a consensus, because I think that nature is only looking for ways to eliminate man and man constantly evolves to try and meet these challenges, for instance a violent strain of a virus can wipe out the human race no?

Thanks chrisbenbogor, let is refreshing to be rubbing minds, and not engage in emotional and verbal jousts. It will be a bit difficult to deal with the malaria parasite unaturally, because the malaria parasite also had evolved well enough to ensure its survival, it is very plastic and versatile and any drug we throw at it is only effective temporarily, the parasite soon learn to resist the drug.

Nature is not looking for ways to eliminate man or any specie, nature is an impartial arbiter, if a specie is not versatile, strong or smart enough it will die naturally. Man is all of those things and that is why we are the must successful specie on earth. The purpose of the universe is survival, the universe is adverse to and resist anything that threatens its survival, same with animals, both individually, group wise or specie wise. The malaria parasite is trying to survive and had fashioned out ways to ensure its survival, it employs the ubiquitous mosquito as its mode of transmission since the parasite cannot survive outside a body, unfortunately it threatens the survival of a race of humans - the Black race. The humans affected has to fight back evolutionarily to ensure its own survival, at the end of the day there is a truce, until one of them fashions out a new way to gain advantage.

It is unlikely that a violent strain of virus can wipe out the human race. Because it would be evolutionary suicide for the virus to completely wipe out its host, how will the virus itself survive. Besides humans also are highly plastic and versatile, in time some would develop resistance to the virus. for examples in areas of high HIV prevalence, a certain percentage of the population is completely immune to the virus. Even the HIV virus makes sure it does not kill the host too fast to ensure its propagation before the host dies.

wirinet:

Thanks chrisbenbogor, let is refreshing to be rubbing minds, and not engage in emotional and verbal jousts. It will be a bit difficult to deal with the malaria parasite unaturally, because the malaria parasite also had evolved well enough to ensure its survival, it is very plastic and versatile and any drug we throw at it is only effective temporarily, the parasite soon learn to resist the drug.

Nature is not looking for ways to eliminate man or any specie, nature is an impartial arbiter, if a specie is not versatile, strong or smart enough it will die naturally. Man is all of those things and that is why we are the must successful specie on earth. The purpose of the universe is survival, the universe is adverse to and resist anything that threatens its survival, same with animals, both individually, group wise or specie wise. The malaria parasite is trying to survive and had fashioned out ways to ensure its survival, it employs the ubiquitous mosquito as its mode of transmission since the parasite cannot survive outside a body, unfortunately it threatens the survival of a race of humans - the Black race. The humans affected has to fight back evolutionarily to ensure its own survival, at the end of the day there is a truce, until one of them fashions out a new way to gain advantage.

It is unlikely that a violent strain of virus can wipe out the human race. Because it would be evolutionary suicide for the virus to completely wipe out its host, how will the virus itself survive. Besides humans also are highly plastic and versatile, in time some would develop resistance to the virus. for examples in areas of high HIV prevalence, a certain percentage of the population is completely immune to the virus. Even the HIV virus makes sure it does not kill the host too fast to ensure its propagation before the host dies.

Hello Sir,
I prefer sunday morning service on this religion section lol, hmmmmm I always wondered why I never read anything that had to do with the life sciences ( I just never really had any fondness for it sha plenty annoying teachers) , so sometimes when I try to hypothesize as an engineer I always see that things work slightly differently. So is it that there is no way to genetically engineer a child that will be fully resistant to the malaria parasite? I mean if the way the life cycle and properties of this parasite is studied is it not possible to at least build a human being where the parasite would not be able to survive? Ok maybe another alternative would be to attack the source?
How are we even sure that some countries have not started genetically engineering their soldiers? Oh and now that I remember, I once read in a WWII book that most of the research work done by german scientists on human beings were the corner stones of some medical breakthrough, do you have any idea of such experiments?
Cheers.

Hi Tudor. Thanks for your well-reasoned response. Find below my views on your post.

Biological life,hmmmm. . . . . I would hold the view that the sperm and ovum have biological life in the first place, they perform the entire characteristics of living things as do other cells.
The union of the two cells forms the embryo. The genetic program for the development into a child as contained in the embryo comes from these two cells it doesn't just magically appear.
So again if i wanted to use your logic i'd hold that life starts from the formation of the sperm and ovum.

When I used the term biological life, I was not refering to characteristics of living cells or things. I was refering to the physical human body. My point is that the zygote or the fertilized egg is the first step or stage in the development of the physical human body. A sperm or an egg lacks the genetic program to develop into a human body. A fusion of the two gametes is a most. Thus, only when an egg is succesfully fertilized by a sperm does the development of a human body starts. Even in cloning, an ex-nucleated egg cell still requires a 2n-chromosome number to artificially trigger the process of embroyogenesis. It is impossible for a gamete or an n-chromosome number to undergo embryogenesis. See below a brief outline of embryogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis

You do not believe in God and thus there is no point in bringing spiritual perspectives to the discussion. I keep to the scientific issues.

I will hold that understanding comes from experimentation and exploration.
How would you expect us to know of the nature of viruses if not from research conducted by experiments.
There was no scientific evidence either that vaccination would work. It took putting the hypothesis to work by experimentation and observation.

Quote

The human body, irrespective of its developmental stage should not be used as a guinea pig for experimentation. There are already anectodal evidence from folklores that a vaccine will work. I refer you to to read up how Edward Jenner came to use cowpox virus, a relative of smallpox virus to vaccinate against smallpox. Ordinary people already knew that those women that milk cows have no pox marks on their faces. Let scientists that champion this design nonsense provide a proof of principle in animal models first. The onus lies with them. Many times, people underestimate the compexity of the human genome and how it is expressed. To destroy embryoes on the promise that stem cells harvested from them will be the panacea for several diseases is not science in my view. Let them provide proof of principle using animal models first. That is, let them provide experimental evidence first in these animal models.

If it were that easy, you wouldn't have them experimenting with embryonic stem cells. Clearly the Adult stem cells are much more difficult to work with or manipulate. I even read somewhere that studying embryonic stem cells holds the key to how we can use adult stem cells because obviously the adult cells are products of the embryonic stem cells

Sure, adult stem cells are more difficult to work with than embryonic stem cells. But looking for easier alternatives is not the way to go when what is involved is the starting point of the human physical body.  My view is that human cloning, embroyonic stem cells, invitro fertilization (whether done in a petri dish or by artificial insemination into the body of a woman), designing babies for whatever purpose are not the right way to go. But it is my view, others can have theirs and time will provide evidence for who is right or wrong. The natural laws which to me is the laws of God in the material universe will provide unmistakable judjement on these processes and technigues. Referenced below is a brief summary of IVF as it will help readers have an over view of what is involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

Stay blessed.

I agree with justcool, and I wish to use this opportunity to warn people. Doctors never really explain to people what the procedure of in-vitro fertilization involves. I have a friend who for a long time now has been in a serious problem over his ex-girlfriend on the issue of embryos remaining after their first attempt at IVF.

Many embryos die in the process. This is what they dont always tell you when you are about to do IVF. Even the description of the process in wikipedia smartly avoided certain things in the procedure like the unavoidable losing of embryos in the process.

My friend tried the precess with his ex girlfriend. After first attempt, they had eight embryos remaining in frozen state. The couple broke up and my friend refused to continue with the procedure. The fertility clinic sent them bills for the keeping the embryos, but my friend refused to pay. His ex-girlfriend tried to trick him into giving her the right over the remaining embryos, but he refused. To make a long story short. At the end, the girl sued both my friend and the clinic which was about to thaw the embryos. For the sake of the remaining eight embryos my friend allowed the clinic to inplant them in to the girlfriend one more time.  Only for the clinic to tell them that during the thawing of the embryos, they embryos all died. This is how the case was settled. They started with 20 embryos, out of which only 13 were good. The 7 bad ones were destroyed by the doctors. Out of the 13 that was remaining, 5 was implanted into the woman in their first trial but she had a miscarriage. The remaining eight that was frozen did not survive thaw, according to the clinic the embrayos had no surviving cells, and cannot be used.

Invitro fertilization always involves losing or death of embryos. Clinics dont always tell people this. Even the collection of eggs from the woman is not as simple as they make it appear. Justcool is right, the woman has to be placed on drugs first before she can produce eggs that will be surgicaly removed. Natural pregnancy alone is had on the behavoir of women, but women on invitro are almost crazy, My friends girlfriend later confinded in me that it could be the affects of the drugs that made her act crazy, and why they broke up.

Doctors do not tell you that there will be bad embryos wich will be destroied, they dont tell you that the proceess off frezing and thowing an embrayo kills it.  Only some websites are truthfull anough to tell you this.

If you think that I am lying read this:

 
Will all the embryos survive the thaw?

How well embryos survive the thaw depends upon the freezing and thawing protocols used and the quality of the embryos before freezing.  Embryos graded higher before freezing tend to be more resilient to freezing and thawing.  Many clinics will not freeze embryos unless they are of suitable quality. On Day 3, they should have at least 6 cells, and no more than moderate (20-25%) fragmentation, or they are unlikely to survive the procedure.  Typical embryo thaw rates vary from 50-80%, with many labs achieving >70% routinely.  It is important to ask about the thaw rates at the clinic you will be using.

After thawing, embryos are evaluated.  Some will have no surviving cells.  These embryos are called “atretic.”  Others will be partial survivors, with some cell damage.  Large numbers of embryos fall into this category.  The damage may be minor or extensive.  Though subsequent pregnancy rates do have an inversely proportionate relationship with the extent of damage suffered, these embryos are still capable of resulting in a live birth, and often recover.  This was dramatically demonstrated with the very first live birth after a frozen embryo transfer, which occurred in Australia in 1984.  The embryo was frozen with 8 cells, but 2 cells were destroyed during freezing/thawing.  It was transferred with 6 cells, survived, implanted, and eventually proved to the world that successful human embryo cryopreservation was possible. Since then countless children have been born thanks to this procedure, often after the transfer of embryos that have experienced some degree of cell damage. 

The very best quality embryos are those that survive with 100% of their cells intact.  It has been suggested that these embryos are essentially as viable as if they had never been frozen, but fewer embryos tend to fall into this category.

Embryos with an even number of cells seem to have an edge over embryos with an odd number of cells; they survive freezing at apx. 5-10% higher rates.  Embryos created with donor eggs seem to freeze better than embryos of the same grade created with infertility patient’s eggs; apx. 2-5% more of them survive freezing. 

Survival rates may also be affected by the stage of development at which the embryo was frozen.  There is some evidence that embryos frozen at earlier stages of development survive freezing better, perhaps because they are simpler in structure and still have an intact nuclear membrane.  (For this reason, if there are a very large number of good quality embryos, a portion may be frozen at the 2PN stage, and a portion incubated to produce 8-cells or blastocysts for transfer.)  However, it is also postulated that blastocysts may survive better because they have more cells, and therefore can recoup easier from the loss of some of them.  In practice, this is a variable that may be lab-dependent, since there are a number of variations to the protocols used for freezing and thawing.  What is most relevant is what your clinic has found works for them. 

http://www.miracleswaiting.org/factsembryos.html#q15

This website's dicribtion of the prcocess is more trutfull than most. Please I advise anybody considering invitro fertilization to read cearfully the questions and anwers in this website. http://www.miracleswaiting.org/factsembryos.html#q15

I remeber, I was so worried for my friend that I opened this thread for him:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=130785.msg2206272#msg2206272

Many thanks to m_nwankwo who gave advice. And also justcool who I later met in person and discussed the issue with.

Thanks to chris m_nwankwo, justcool, wirinet and others. . .this is about the first discussion thread i've been in without any punches and hassles.

Anyway i consider this issue to be a grey area. As we all know morality is arbitrary, there sometimes are no set boundaries on what is wrong and what is right.

Peoples views on this matter are mainly dictated by personal beliefs and i'm pretty sure the realization of this project would be determined by the personal belief of world leaders.
Case in point, Bush vetoed a bill approving stem cell research coz he's anti abortion, obama the liberal has reversed the veto.

All you can do is hope that the world leaders share your own POV.

Yes tudor, this is one thread where our religious divide does not into play.

Justtcool and seeklove have valid points. But the problem goes even further than that.

Like i have said evolution ensures the best and most healthy genes are used to produce offsprings, so tampering with that process might have undesirable consequences.

Let me explain, to produce an embryo requires two healthy gametes, the female releases a egg once a month and the best once are released early in a matured girls life, from teens to mid 20s. The male gamete is more complex The quality of sperm also degrade but only at very old age, but the male releases millions of sperm. So you have millions of sperm swimming across the fallopian tube ( a distance similar to swimming across the Atlantic ocean - relatively) to get to the egg. So at the end of the day you have the strongest and fastest sperm (best genes out of millions) fertilizing the egg, thereby relatively ensuring that high quality babies are produced.

But when you randomly pick 20 sperm cells out of millions and fertilize a random egg, as is done in In-vitro fertilization, it is very unlikely you will get the best set of genes. And subsequently the babies you will get might not be of the best quality. That is why a very large number of eggs is fertilized to ensure a least one good zygote Most of the time a clinical report of the baby is never known, as the baby and parents disappear after conception, and information about the baby being conceived invitro is kept both from the baby and medical records.

I am not, against invitro fertilization, at times it is the only option left to a couple. It is just that i am not convinced on its necessity just to have well designed babies.

wirinet:


Like i have said evolution ensures the best and most healthy genes are used to produce offsprings, so tampering with that process might have undesirable consequences.

Let me explain, to produce an embryo requires two healthy gametes, the female releases a egg once a month and the best once are released early in a matured girls life, from teens to mid 20s. The male gamete is more complex The quality of sperm also degrade but only at very old age, but the male releases millions of sperm. So you have millions of sperm swimming across the fallopian tube ( a distance similar to swimming across the Atlantic ocean - relatively) to get to the egg. So at the end of the day you have the strongest and fastest sperm (best genes out of millions) fertilizing the egg, thereby relatively ensuring that high quality babies are produced.

But when you randomly pick 20 sperm cells out of millions and fertilize a random egg, as is done in In-vitro fertilization, it is very unlikely you will get the best set of genes. And subsequently the babies you will get might not be of the best quality. That is why a very large number of eggs is fertilized to ensure a least one good zygote Most of the time a clinical report of the baby is never known, as the baby and parents disappear after conception, and information about the baby being conceived invitro is kept both from the baby and medical records.

@wirinet
Wow! You are so right here! What you said above has always been my argument. I couldn't have said it better.
Nature made fertilization, and even pregnancy arduous in-order to ensure that only the healthiest gametes ends up producing an offspring. This is natural selection. This is evolutions way of ensuring the survival of the human race. The funny thing is that it is the scientists who should understand this process, that end up coming up with procedures that abridge this natural selection.
Although I said that artificial insemination is okay because it dos not involve destroying embryos as is involved in in-Vitro. but it is still not comparable to natural conception. Taking sperms that could not swim across the fallopian tube and putting them straight into the cervix or the uterus is like abridging a natural safety barrier. There is a reason why nature makes the path to the uterus(across the falopian tube) arduous and toilsome for the sperm. It is to ensure that only the healthiest sperms succeed in fertilizing an egg. This way, only the heathiest genes are passed on to the offspring.

I once had this argument with my cousin and I told him that artificial insemination, and all procedures that involve taking a sperm and fertilizing an egg unnaturally--outside the woman, is like taking a homeless man who could not pass primary school and making him a university professor. Or taking a man from the road side and making him the president. Any institution(country, school, and etc) that does that is doomed to catastrophes and extinction.

And one cannot argue that normal human beings have resulted from such procedures because these procedures are relatively new. The offsprings of these procedures are at the most in their early thirties. It is to early to say that they are completely safe and normal.

My apologies to any who was conceived through artificial insemination, in-Vitro fert, and etc, who may be reading this. This post is in no way intended to hurt any body. Remember, you are the victim and not the perpetrator. The fault is not yours.

Ben20001:

*moved*

*brings him back*

justcool:

Taking sperms that could not swim across the fallopian tube and putting them straight into the cervix or the uterus is like abridging a natural safety barrier. There is a reason why nature makes the path to the uterus(across the falopian tube) arduous and toilsome for the sperm. It is to ensure that only the healthiest sperms succeed in fertilizing an egg. This way, only the heathiest genes are passed on to the offspring.

I don't get it. Is speed the sole indicator of sperm cell health? If the fastest sperm cells are conceived because they're the healthiest, shouldn't that mean everyone naturally conceived is born in perfect health? That's almost everyone on earth. But that isn't the case. Babies, who got to the womb first because they're the fastest, are born with birth defects and serious disease every day. I'm not sure speed has a relationship to sperm cell health. Male sperm cells are faster than female sperm cells, but tire easily. Sometimes they flag on the way, and the slower but more steady female cells overtake it. If the male sperm cell can maintain its speed to the womb, then bingo, you have a boy.

Mad_Max:

I don't get it. Is speed the sole indicator of sperm cell health? If the fastest sperm cells are conceived because they're the healthiest, shouldn't that mean everyone naturally conceived is born in perfect health? That's almost everyone on earth. But that isn't the case. Babies, who got to the womb first because they're the fastest, are born with birth defects and serious disease every day. I'm not sure speed has a relationship to sperm cell health. Male sperm cells are faster than female sperm cells, but tire easily. Sometimes they flag on the way, and the slower but more steady female cells overtake it. If the male sperm cell can maintain its speed to the womb, then bingo, you have a boy.

Dear Madmax,
Good question, but however you seem to have missed my point. The issue is not speed per se. Lack of speed is not the only thing that makes sperms unable to swim across the fallopian tube. Also speed alone will not guaranty a successful swim across the fallopian tube, otherwise female sperms will hardly ever make it across the fallopian tube. So when a sperm fails to swim through, it does not mean that it lacks speed; or when a sperm successfully makes it across the fallopian tube, it does not mean that that sperm is the fastest.
Speed is hardly the major issue when considering the health of the sperms, and their ability to swim across and survive.
Here are the major things that impare the sperms ability to swim across and fertilize an egg:

1) Sperm count.  This is the most common major probelm. A man with a very low sperm count, even if his sperms are faster than the speed of light, they may be able to make it.

2) Morphology: This is another major probelm. Morphology refers to the shape of the sperm. An abnormally shaped sperm may never be able to fertilize an egg or swim across the fallopian tube even if it is the fastest sperm in the world.  Good sperms have a streamlined shape with a long tail which aids its movement. If a sperm has 3 heads and very small tail this may make it impossible for it to swim. Or if a sperm doesn't have a tail, a very short tail, or 3 tails, and etc all these will make it difficult for the sperm to swim across the fallopian tube and fertilize an egg.

3) Motility: This is also a Major problem. This refers to the sperms ability to move. Sperms are graded by there motility. Some sperms may be very fast but tend to move in a circle. These are called non-linear motility sperms. Such sperms, even if they are faster than the speed of light, they will never make across because they move in circles. They will keep circulating around a sport until they die. Another grade of motility are sperms that never moves forward. They could be very fast but they only move sideways. Some of them have irreguler flagellum beats. The flagellum beat is what propells the sperms forward. Just as a swimmer has to swing his legs to move in water, sperms have to swing their tails. This swing is caused by the periodic beat of the flagellum. The ones with irregular beat may never move forward even though they are very fast. The best grade of motility are those that move forward in a straight line, and very fast. These are the healthiest.

4) Acidity. The female anatomy has a particular PH. A healthy sperm also has a normal PH(Acidity/Base level) in the fluid that comes with the sperms. These fluids help neutralize the woman's PH level so that sperms can swim through. This fluid is the stuff that men ejaculate before or along intercourse. It is not the sperm itself but it paves way for the sperm. Sick people or people with infections usually have very basic or acidic fluids. Such will increase the acidity of the womans birth carnal rather than neutralize it. Such acidity will easily tire or kill the sperm even if it is the fastest sperm in the world.

5) etc. these are the few that I remember but I know that their are many. Ask a physician about semen analysis and you will see that it is not necessarily just the speed that determines whether a sperm makes it or not.  One thing is sure any sperm that naturally makes it across the fallopian tube is a healthy sperm!

Mad_Max:

If the fastest sperm cells are conceived because they're the healthiest, shouldn't that mean everyone naturally conceived is born in perfect health? That's almost everyone on earth. But that isn't the case.

Yes that isn't the case because the health of a child does not entirely depend on the health of the sperm. The sperm contains 50% of the genetic material that make up the child while the egg contains the remaining 50%. But once fertilization occurs other things comes into play. The health of the mother, the condition of the womb, the habit of the mother, the food she eats, and etc. So two very healthy gametes can form a child that may become very unhealthy by the time the child is delivered. If the mother smoked during pregnancy(I see a lot of pregnant women do that) all these toxins that she inhales can interfere with the development of the child. If the mother works in a radioactive lab during pregnancy, or if the mother drinks too much alcohol, or eats to much bad food.  So you see, the health of the child does not totally or entirely depend on the health of the gametes that produced the child.
But it is impossible to have a healthy child resulting from two unhealthy gametes.

I will give an analogy: Imagine the gametes to be bricks or blocks for building a house. With very strong bricks or blocks, a very bad builder may still end up building a weak structure. The weakness lies in the structure(the fault of the builder) and not the building blocks or bricks. But with weak blocks or bricks, even the most gifted builder will not not be able to build a very strong house.
So you see, the structural integrity of a house does not totally or entirely depend on the strength of the building blocks.

I hope this helps.
Thanks and remain blessed.

I get your point now.
Why was this thread moved? It's about the moral and ethical considerations in the pursuit of designer babies,it's not about the science. It was interesting and belonged in the Religion section.

never!

Who moved this thread?
I wonder if some people can't read and understand that this topic is about moral and religious implications and not necessarily health.

I strongly condemn the movement of this post away from the religious section, and i am reporting the moderator to seun. We expressly begged the moderator not to move it and he ignored our pleas. If you live it here the thread is as good as dead.

Moderator, please move this topic back to the religious section. Below is an old article published in 2000 but I guess it is a summary of scientific,  ethical, policy and moral implications of reproductive technologies as seen by the authors. I do not agree with some of the views expressed but the paper gives a comprehensive overview which may help readers and discussants on this forum. Find below the link to the paper. I hope every person can have access to it.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/germline/report.pdf

Me babiez iz loveli,so I'll pass

a Big bioethical argument!,

i like my everything but i'm short i'd like my baby to be taller than me i'm 5'3 thats short right ?

i think its ok for a girl, tho

ALL OF YOU PEOPLE SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

ALLOW GOD TO DO SO, OR HAVE YOU ALL NOW BECOME GOD THAT GIVES CHILDREN?

PLEASE, STOP THIS WAHALA.

^^^Yep, GOD made me and I'm a muthafuckin work of art!!!!

3spade3:

^^^Yep, GOD made me and I'm a muthafuckin work of art!!!!

uh okay, thats nice.

but my whole point is, people should shut the hell up.
and if their baby doesnt come out the way they like, are they going to no longer love the child or think the child is ugly?
people should stop wishing for their children to look a certain way, its poison.

let GOD be the judge.
none of you are GOD.

THE AMAKA:

uh okay, thats nice.

but my whole point is, people should shut the hell up.
and if their baby doesnt come out the way they like, are they going to no longer love the child or think the child is ugly?
people should stop wishing for their children to look a certain way, its poison.

let GOD be the judge.
none of you are GOD.

Hey bitch, let me get those digits. Join a real nigga's team.

exuse me? who the Zap. are you calling a bitch?
did your mother not teach you anything?

not now nor ever will i join your filthy team.
nigga my foot. you aint S.HIT

dont tell me you are another nigerian trying to act like a black american.
didnt your parents teach you not to act like an akata!!!!

THE AMAKA:

exuse me? who the Zap. are you calling a bitch?
did your mother not teach you anything?

not now nor ever will i join your filthy team.
nigga my foot. you aint S.HIT

dont tell me you are another nigerian trying to act like a black american.
didnt your parents teach you not to act like an akata!!!!

Well f u c k you to hoe. Dont insult my brothers from another. OK, I'll kick a bitches ass for that shit FOR REAL!!!

3spade3:



Well f u c k you to hoe. Dont insult my brothers from another. OK, I'll kick a bitches ass for that shit FOR REAL!!!

WOW!!!! DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE A BLACK AMERICAN.
ACTING AND TALKING LIKE THAT WONT GAIN YOU ANY RESPECT.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST BLACK AMERICANS, BUT WHEN NIGERIANS INTENTIONALLY TRY AND ACT LIKE THEM, IT IRRITATES ME.
okay youre going to kick my ass, go ahead. im scared now.

and actually its ho not hoe, unless we are talking about the gardening tool called a hoe.
please, just mind yourself.
foolish, dont reply to me anymore.
i dont have time to waste on fools like yourself!

THE AMAKA:

WOW!!!! DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE A BLACK AMERICAN.
ACTING AND TALKING LIKE THAT WONT GAIN YOU ANY RESPECT.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST BLACK AMERICANS, BUT WHEN NIGERIANS INTENTIONALLY TRY AND ACT LIKE THEM, IT IRRITATES ME.
okay youre going to kick my ass, go ahead. im scared now.

Didnt your nasty ass momma tell you not to disrespect a MAN? Huh hoe!!! Them my nigga's OK. Bring dat lil ugly ass around my town. Chris Brown part 2 bitch!!!

Thatz what all this genetic researches are trying to do, Genome ko GUnit nnd they think.

And they think cancer is their ultimate problem. hmmm

WOW! NO LIFE LOSER.
YOU JUST CAME TO THIS FORUM TO LOOK FOR TROUBLE.
TALK ABOUT NO LIFE!!!
SO I GUESS IF SOMEONE WAS TO BEAT AND BITCH SLAP YOUR MOM YOU WOULDNT GIVE A RAT'S ASS.
GO WITH YOUR STUPID GHETTO TALK, WE DONT NEED THAT HERE ON THIS FORUM.
CHRIS BROWN PART 2? YOU SERIOUSLY NEED HELP.
JUST GO TO SOMALIA OR SOME COUNTRY THAT FORCES ISLAMIC LAW AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN LIVE A HAPPY LIFE KNOWING WOMEN LIVE UNDER MEN, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD, THINK TWICE.
LOSER, NO LIFE PUNK!!
KEEP ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.
BYE!!!!!!