Xavier5:


A government that cares will be willing to spend to keep those children safe and cared for.

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?

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

So we learned that the rapist felon trump had as much as 7 phone calls with killer putin after he left office.

Also sent putin COVID testing kits while denying democrats governors PPE equipments and kits.

Arrggghhhh!

This traitorous old man is an enemy of the United States.

People will file up to piss on his grave.

Xavier5:


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.



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.



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

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.

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

Hey basilico loco, 9% republicans say they are voting for VP Harris. She's at 93% favorability with Democrats while the Lying rapist felon trump is at 80% with the republican.

The rapist felon is a goner even at 5% republican protest votes. The amazing thing here is that the 9% is gonna keep growing - Harris took the lead up from 5%.

I keep on telling you to prepare for a disastrous rapist trump's loss and point you to the direction of the tranche of republicans endorsing VP Harris. But maga cultists like you will just brush it off.

And i've been sounding the alarm since the midterms but the maga cult will never see the writing on the wall.

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

Xavier5:


@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?

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

Xavier5:

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.

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.

IjeBos:


Fox is basically an appendage of Trump's campaign.
She should not go on a Network that had to pay almost 1 Billion Dollars (not naira) for lying about the 2020 election to help Trump try to ferment a coup.

So trump should go to ABC or CNN which is liberal propaganda station to grant interview, u know CNN had to sack don lemon becoz of disinformation.

Xavier5:


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.

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

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.

bemeruca:


this is false equivalence and an absurd statement from you.
your argument assumes that human beings valuing human life more compared to animals is the same as animals valuing animals or their species over humans. This is so wrong as we know animals do not possess the same moral reasoning or ethical frameworks as me you or budaatum do

animals might consider ethical questions about species preference the same way humans do? you ignore the fact that humans, due to our advanced cognition and societal structures, hold themselves to different ethical standards than animals.

so what are you talking about?

What you do not seem to grasp is, it is all subjective that is why there are all these differences. If there was some inherent universal human value then animals would also value humans but there isn't. Your human
perspective and your empathy for other humans makes you value them. That value is not universal. Heck even your own family members don't have the exact value for others as you.

bemeruca:


No one sets the rules here. you should expect what you can get from a forum like this from what you have been seeing on this thread for months now. And again, no one insulted you, they only called your idea or statement ridiculous. that is fine. if you find it offensive, then you should not be discussing it with xavier5 in the firstplace

Yes I found it offensive and decided to stop.

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:


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

Xavier5:


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.



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

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?

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

Xavier5:


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?



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

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.

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

Xavier5:


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?

#Xavier

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?

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

Xavier5:

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.

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.

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

Xavier5:


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

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

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.

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?

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

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

Xavier5:


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

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?

Xavier5:


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.

"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.

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.

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

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

Maeve7:


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

And he seems to think government can act irrespective of those who elect the government and pay tax so government has money to spend.

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:


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

After using it on illegal, what do u expect

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:


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