Police raid Nigeria 'baby farm'

[Thanatos]

BBC NEWS | Africa | Police raid Nigeria 'baby farm'

Police have raided a private hospital in Nigeria where they suspect new-born babies were being sold to traffickers. Police found the hospital in the south-eastern town of Enugu, when a 17-year-old girl escaped. Four people - two nurses and the hospital's owners - have been arrested in connection with the "baby farm", police said. Seven pregnant young women discovered in the hospital during the raid are now in the care of the state government. Escape State police commissioner Sani Magaji told the BBC Hausa service that a 17-year-old who was days away from giving birth had escaped from the hospital.

Article continues at website and brings up some interesting issues related to why this happened. Basically if you're poor and get pregnant in Nigeria while single you're utterly screwed; you can't get a safe abortion because of the nation's religious nutcases and your community kicks you out. This creates prey for baby farms because there's not much else these women can do to survive.

Would it be too much to ask for these women to be allowed to have abortions?

[ironeagle]

Yes it would because as you see we look at this article and say "Oh, my God they are selling babies!" "someone stop them how horrible", then on the next note you say let them all kill the babies instead, arrest the baby sellers who give them to good homes, but not parents who kill their children. Nice. Great balance and logic their. The real answer is a social program and education for these young girls and families not killing babies, and since their laws are against abortion what would mae you think they would legalize it anyway? This is the problem with our world.

[Nono]

Well, where would you get the funding for such a programme? Through (shudders) taxation?

By the way, iron, just curious: What are your views on the death penalty? (And yes, this question is perfectly on-topic.)

[ironeagle]

I feel your question is valid although not on topic, so I will answer it in a a different forum if you wish. I honestly don't care who will fund the programs and I don't care where the money comes from that's their problem. Here's a question for you, who is going to fund the abortion clinics?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ironeagle I feel your question is valid although not on topic, so I will answer it in a a different forum if you wish.

I have magic liberal telepathy and I know where Nono is going. If you consider yourself a utilitarian it will stay highly on topic and if you do not it will be a waste of time that will still be sort of on topic.

I honestly don't care who will fund the programs and I don't care where the money comes from that's their problem. Here's a question for you, who is going to fund the abortion clinics?

The free market, donors who care, perhaps taxes. Oh and don't say you don't care and that it's their problem if it's your proposal. That's as good as saying you don't care at all.

[Nono]

Quote by: ironeagle Here's a question for you, who is going to fund the abortion clinics?

First let me say that I'm not pro-abortion by any means. I join the American feminist writer Camille Paglia in insisting that we call a spade a spade and recognize that abortion is murder.
However, it's murder that I can accept in certain cases as a means of preventing greater evils.

What we should work on is making abortion unnecessary in the first place.

As to your question about abortion clinics:
Gosh, I've never seen one. Where I live women get abortions -- when they do -- in hospitals. And there's the answer. I'm for universal publicly-funded health care, and know what I'm talking about since I've lived most of my life in countries that have it.

I will answer it in a a different forum if you wish.

I do wish. But you'll have to tell me about it.

[Derek Wolff]

That country is so messed up.....

[GHook93]

Quote by: Thanatos BBC NEWS | Africa | Police raid Nigeria 'baby farm' Article continues at website and brings up some interesting issues related to why this happened. Basically if you're poor and get pregnant in Nigeria while single you're utterly screwed; you can't get a safe abortion because of the nation's religious nutcases and your community kicks you out. This creates prey for baby farms because there's not much else these women can do to survive. Would it be too much to ask for these women to be allowed to have abortions?

I agree! Let them have abortions! Nigeria has a population if 150 million people. They are is not even close to big enough or rich enough to support half or even a quarter of that population! Unfricking believable!>

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Derek Wolff That country is so messed up.....

They can pay for all of the above if more people would help them move money out of the country.

Can't they at least have condoms? We would not be having an argument over abortion then.

[loser]

I suspect that most of you believe in evolution. If so, aborting babies is counter-productive. Why not just kill the mothers (once the baby no longer needs her)?

Also, over-population is never a problem. Starvation and disease will always thin out the population and allow evolution to do its magic.

If you care about the human race, abortion is NEVER an option. If you believe in evolution AND abortion, then you are one confused puppy.

Kill the adults (the elder). Start wars but use the old, lame, and disabled to fight and die. The gene pool can only improve by removing the defective and useless and sparing the promise of the future.

Healthy babies are a much desired product (even Nigerian babies). How else could they sell them? I bet that you can't get much for a tired, worn-out diseased mother.

Think, people, think.

[GHook93]

Quote by: loser I suspect that most of you believe in evolution. If so, aborting babies is counter-productive. Why not just kill the mothers (once the baby no longer needs her)? Also, over-population is never a problem. Starvation and disease will always thin out the population and allow evolution to do its magic. If you care about the human race, abortion is NEVER an option. If you believe in evolution AND abortion, then you are one confused puppy. Kill the adults (the elder). Start wars but use the old, lame, and disabled to fight and die. The gene pool can only improve by removing the defective and useless and sparing the promise of the future. Healthy babies are a much desired product (even Nigerian babies). How else could they sell them? I bet that you can't get much for a tired, worn-out diseased mother. Think, people, think.

Ever heard of Easter Island? Your grand moralistic solution of starvation to overpopulation worked wonders over there. Overpopulation killed them all. Overpopulation consumes the resources faster than they can e replaced. Famine, droughts and supply storages aren't good things for anyone and shouldn't be considered a good way to promote natural selection. Just like individuals, countries need to live within their means and that includes population controls. Contraceptive should be given in schools, the use should be promoted at an early age and abortion during the earlier stages of pregnancy should be a protected right!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: loser I suspect that most of you believe in evolution. If so, aborting babies is counter-productive. Why not just kill the mothers (once the baby no longer needs her)? Also, over-population is never a problem. Starvation and disease will always thin out the population and allow evolution to do its magic. If you care about the human race, abortion is NEVER an option. If you believe in evolution AND abortion, then you are one confused puppy. Kill the adults (the elder). Start wars but use the old, lame, and disabled to fight and die. The gene pool can only improve by removing the defective and useless and sparing the promise of the future. Healthy babies are a much desired product (even Nigerian babies). How else could they sell them? I bet that you can't get much for a tired, worn-out diseased mother. Think, people, think.

Evolution is not a philosophical system. Ironically most social darwinists are religious and see it in philosophical instead of genetic terms. Atheist social darwinist is to atheist as gay Republican is to Republican; in secular humanist culture what you're talking about is an abomination.

Incidentally you got evolution itself horribly, horribly wrong in ways I feel compelled to correct. Killing the mothers would be an abomination to them too but by way of different logic. Strong mothers will survive and have even more strong kids while weak ones will die. If you meet anybody who follows your logic they're insane and just want to kill a bunch of people.

You don't kill the old people. Old does not equate to bad genetics, although it would equate to weak for a really hard core philosophical social darwinist. There is a strong evolutionary theory that old people are a selective advantage; grandparents are a valuable storehouse of useful survival information and if your family's genetics code for living a long time past reproductive viability then you have an advantage because you'll be better educated than everybody else around.

Besides, if someone really wanted to improve human genetics they'd be talking about genetic engineering. Enough of your deeply confused sarcasm!

Loser, are you a utilitarian?

[ironeagle]

I cannot think of a greater evil than killing a defensless baby, so I don't understand why anyone would support it over adoption. Now this would be a different story if we were talking about mothers who wanted their babies and were being forced, or tricked into adopting out the babies, but it costs money to have clinics, it makes money to adopt out children, so realistically the adoption versus the abortion is more economically sound, and better morally for both mother and child, and doesn't include killing.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ironeagle I cannot think of a greater evil than killing a defensless baby, so I don't understand why anyone would support it over adoption. Now this would be a different story if we were talking about mothers who wanted their babies and were being forced, or tricked into adopting out the babies, but it costs money to have clinics, it makes money to adopt out children, so realistically the adoption versus the abortion is more economically sound, and better morally for both mother and child, and doesn't include killing.

I don't think you absorbed what will happen to the kids after they've been sold or how little choice the mothers really have. This is horrible.

EDIT: Your statement that you can't think of a greater evil than death struck a cord I feel compelled to reply to. In Costa Rica there is an orphanage with a few kids who were liberated from this sort of situation. There's a four year old boy who takes newcomer's hands and leads them up the stairs to his room because he doesn't know he no longer works in a brothel. There's a six year old girl whose legs are on sideways because that's how she healed; the femurs healed wrong after she was beaten for disobedience. Using a child as expendable labor or a sex toy or just a punching bag is, if your philosophy allows it, a fate worse than death. You will get no school, you will get no care, you have very little hope of freedom except being dumped as too broken to be useful, your only hope of experiencing the pretense of love is being raped and you will probably go insane. The only reason I'm not yelling at you is that you probably had no idea what you were saying.

[ironeagle]

What are oyu talking about, most of these children are adopted to people in the US or other wealthy countries and get great homes. I don't think mothers should be tricked into adoption but I don't think that if they don't want to adopt they necessarily want to abort instead.Information about the adoption place is not mentioned in the post so are you debating something I am not seeing here? There is no fate worse than the murder of your life and soul before your birth. Most people with handicaps are succesful people with a quality of life. And again for those with serious conditions you don't know thta someone might find a cure for them, one they will never get if not given the chance to live. It is only a burden to the parents and care takers not so much the child, and that's the selfish part isn't it. The adults are more worried about the children being a burden then the child is.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ironeagle What are oyu talking about, most of these children are adopted to people in the US or other wealthy countries and get great homes.

They were being sold to human traffickers. I checked. There really aren't that many visas issued for Americans adopting Nigerian babies.

I don't think mothers should be tricked into adoption but I don't think that if they don't want to adopt they necessarily want to abort instead.

"Want" leaves the discussion if the orphanages are full with people whose parents were killed by HIV. So does the third option you are implying, explained at the bottom of this post.

Information about the adoption place is not mentioned in the post so are you debating something I am not seeing here?

Yes actually that's exactly what is going on here. Paragraph 4 of the Escape section of the article.

There is no fate worse than the murder of your life and soul before your birth.

There are lots of other people who might want to spare their kids the pain.

Most people with handicaps are successful people with a quality of life. And again for those with serious conditions you don't know that someone might find a cure for them, one they will never get if not given the chance to live.

Where did that come from? I see no mention of handicapped babies anywhere.

It is only a burden to the parents and care takers not so much the child, and that's the selfish part isn't it. The adults are more worried about the children being a burden then the child is.

You've been kicked out of your community because of family values. You have no job, thank you family values and economic circumstances, which is a moot point because you're pregnant and you could not get much work done if you were in any country in the world. You probably have no charity to fall back on because your situation is not unique and several million people are in line too. You might starve regardless of what you do. You'll almost certainly starve during or shortly after pregnancy if you try to keep the baby and then the baby will starve.

You can sell the baby and eat something for sure for a little while with the check. Or, you can abort it and not get paid but you'll know it won't suffer.

[loser]

Ever heard of Easter Island?

Obviously not the one that you have. Are you talking about Rapa Nui, the isolated island of giant stone faces? I can't imagine how you think this island relates to starvation due to overpopulation. If we were talking about slave trade or colonization or the introduction of diseases by foreign invaders maybe you would have a point.

Just like individuals, countries need to live within their means and that includes population controls. Contraceptive should be given in schools, the use should be promoted at an early age and abortion during the earlier stages of pregnancy should be a protected right!

That is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Only pedophiles and confused children or dysfunctional parents could be behind such a pernicious suggestion. Once again, nature has its own methods of population control; abortion and contraception are not two of them. Children that die as collateral damage in wars is bad enough; the wholesale and deliberate slaughter of babies (unborn or not) is heinous beyond anything human. Those who would even consider such barbaric evil should be torn apart by hungry lions and we should all be allowed to watch the spectacle, witnessing the wages of such despicable sins.

A protected right should be the right to kill anybody who has any part in the taking of a baby's life (abortion included).

If you don't want the responsibility of children, keep it in your pants...or make sure that you are spayed or neutered.

Strong mothers will survive and have even more strong kids while weak ones will die.

Kids made strong by surviving less than perfect conditions will produce even more strong kids. It is the youth of the human race that give us the best chance for survival, not the old and diseased.

If you meet anybody who follows your logic they're insane and just want to kill a bunch of people.

I am not for killing people. Abortion is killing people. If you are for abortion, you just want to kill a bunch of people. Insanity is not knowing that.

There is a strong evolutionary theory that old people are a selective advantage; grandparents are a valuable storehouse of useful survival information and if your family's genetics code for living a long time past reproductive viability then you have an advantage because you'll be better educated than everybody else around.

What a croc! The only truth in that paragraph is "grandparents are a valuable storehouse of useful survival information". Regardless if my dad lived his natural lifespan of 100 or if he died in the war at 18, his family's genetic code had already passed to his offspring. I will concede, however, that children born to more mature (older) adults often receive better genes. Often, but not always. There are many factors at work.

Loser, are you a utilitarian?

I didn't even know what that meant but after reading about it, it sounded interesting. However, when I followed the link that Answers.com provided, it led to a treatise by John Stuart Mill. I hadn't read such pretentious, delirious fluff since reading "Science and Health with Key to Scriptures" by Mary Baker Eddy. I'll continue to stay it alone; I need no colleagues or cheerleaders...my understanding is enough.

I cannot think of a greater evil than killing a defensless baby...

Nor I.

I don't think you absorbed what will happen to the kids after they've been sold or how little choice the mothers really have. This is horrible.

So, you trade one certain horror for one potential horror? No wisdom in that.

EDIT: Your statement that you can't think of a greater evil than death struck a cord I feel compelled to reply to. In Costa Rica there is an orphanage with a few kids who were liberated from this sort of situation. There's a four year old boy who takes newcomer's hands and leads them up the stairs to his room because he doesn't know he no longer works in a brothel. There's a six year old girl whose legs are on sideways because that's how she healed; the femurs healed wrong after she was beaten for disobedience. Using a child as expendable labor or a sex toy or just a punching bag is, if your philosophy allows it, a fate worse than death. You will get no school, you will get no care, you have very little hope of freedom except being dumped as too broken to be useful, your only hope of experiencing the pretense of love is being raped and you will probably go insane.

Wow, when you put it like that, we should kill ALL the children born and not let any survive (cause you never know...). It scares me to imagine what your childhood was like.

The only reason I'm not yelling at you is that you probably had no idea what you were saying.

I'm thinking we should be yelling at you...really loud!

[Sockem]

Quote by: Thanatos EDIT: Your statement that you can't think of a greater evil than death struck a cord I feel compelled to reply to. In Costa Rica there is an orphanage with a few kids who were liberated from this sort of situation. There's a four year old boy who takes newcomer's hands and leads them up the stairs to his room because he doesn't know he no longer works in a brothel. There's a six year old girl whose legs are on sideways because that's how she healed; the femurs healed wrong after she was beaten for disobedience. Using a child as expendable labor or a sex toy or just a punching bag is, if your philosophy allows it, a fate worse than death. You will get no school, you will get no care, you have very little hope of freedom except being dumped as too broken to be useful, your only hope of experiencing the pretense of love is being raped and you will probably go insane. The only reason I'm not yelling at you is that you probably had no idea what you were saying.

This is the definition of a strawman.

[gela]

I suspect that most of you believe in evolution. If so, aborting babies is counter-productive. Why not just kill the mothers (once the baby no longer needs her)?

What? I can't see any logic in that reasoning.

Also, over-population is never a problem. Starvation and disease will always thin out the population and allow evolution to do its magic.

I can't tell if your being serious or sacrastic

Great! lets let the people die of starvation before we "murder" a lump of heartless, brainless cells; that are incapabe of feeling pain.

Thats an awesome idea. Your christian compassion is so blinding, it hurts.

If you care about the human race, abortion is NEVER an option. If you believe in evolution AND abortion, then you are one confused puppy.

I think you are the one who is confused.
We can believe in evolution, without necessarily believing in improving the human race through evolution. Thats hitler logic.

Kids made strong by surviving less than perfect conditions will produce even more strong kids .... I will concede, however, that children born to more mature (older) adults often receive better genes.

You don't even understand the basics of evolution and genetics!
This is completely and utterly wrong. Go back to high school.

A protected right should be the right to kill anybody who has any part in the taking of a baby's life (abortion included).

Then you must support the killing of all westerners who eat more then they need to survive; whilst letting children overseas die of starvation.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Sockem This is the definition of a strawman.

Only if human traffickers are vastly different in Africa.

Human trafficking ’on the rise’ in Africa | Human Rights Tribune - www.humanrights-geneva.info

It's probably worse. Costa Rica has no demand for child soldiers.

Loser, I'm not going to try to make you understand evolution. We'll leave this as is. Believe whatever you want.

Quote by: Loser ]Loser, are you a utilitarian? I didn't even know what that meant but after reading about it, it sounded interesting. However, when I followed the link that Answers.com provided, it led to a treatise by John Stuart Mill. I hadn't read such pretentious, delirious fluff since reading "Science and Health with Key to Scriptures" by Mary Baker Eddy. I'll continue to stay it alone; I need no colleagues or cheerleaders...my understanding is enough.

The philosopher you were looking for was Jeremy Bentham.

You're the operator of a subway. Up ahead on the tracks are a group of ten confused construction workers. You can throw a switch and avoid the construction workers, but there's another group of five construction workers down the track that the switch will divert you to. You can do nothing and allow ten to die or you can throw the switch and kill five.

If you answer do nothing you're definitely not a utilitarian. Some people believe in rules-based morals and will not kill even if killing results in less harm to the whole. Utilitarianism is the belief that you should try for the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Another example of utilitarianism in action would be the military triage system. Another example of rules-based morals would be a judge finding a man guilty even if he had just cause for whatever he did because he believes upholding the law is more important than the individual situation.

You don't have to be really committed to one side or the other. Sometimes the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is found by preserving the rule of law.

Now, back to the reality-informed hypothetical I gave of the mother with a baby and it's symmetry with the train problem. What do you think?