The Abortion Paradox

reply to post by Aermacchi

---

I would just like to point out that, besides you and a couple of people who thought it was necessary to post aborted fetuses, this thread has remained relatively docile.

This will be probably the 5th time on this thread, and God knows how many times on the other threads that you have followed me to, that I will ask you to stay on topic.

*Edit to add:

And while you critique my ability to argue, you're the one with -300+ points.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Irish M1ck]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you not know anyone whose mother had an abortion before she had them? Well, if she had not had the abortion, that person wouldn't exist.

She would have been my oldest sister and you are saying that abortion is why I am alive when I know for a fact born dead or alive makes no difference. My sister was born dead with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck and whether my Mom got an abortion or not this does not change a thing no more than it would if if I had been aborted or born dead like my sister, this wouldn't guarantee my little sister not being born a year after I was.

For you to say such a thing one would have to be all knowing omnipresent IE God and you are no God Mick, so quit acting like you can fill Jesus Jock strap. Ther is no way anyone could know what would have happened who would have lived or not.

We can only deal in the NOW and within the constraints of the scientific method IE what you can observe touch and feel but lets just recap shall we, I seemed to have missed out on some incriminating proof that you have no proof about me, OR this threads veracity.

Ill start here:



This is why I didn't vote for Obama because of his support of infanticide and why this argument is pointless.



That is because there isn't any and it (the argument is pointless)



WRONG the only lives that are gained are those that are not snuffed out by abortion. Abortion does not gain a life but ends one that existed. Had you not been born then you can not say you would have not existed so no one is lost that never was in the first place Hence Abortion didnt save a life it ENDED ONE!

It doesn't make a life in the future by killing one now and if this was your idea of survival of the fittest by killing those in the present to ensure the lives of the future we wouldn't have a future as mankind using this kind of logic would end any chance at all of our species existing to tell about it. '



WRONG there is NO argument and the FACT is the only ones that are NOT alive today, are those who are not alive because of an ABORTION! That is the ONLY FACT that CAN be PROVEN scientifically and unequivocally so your argument is moot.



No he isn't dancing around it, he is trying to find out what the point is and like I have proven in as many others have posted this confusion is NOT because they are dancing around the point of the thread but that the thread has not made point and it has not made a point because there is NO BASIS in FACT.

If you think you have a basis for fact then please share with us who is alive today that wouldn't be because of an abortion and ill show you a person that survived one and is alive to tell about it because that is all you can do. Anyone else never existed and never will so they can't say they never would have nor can they say they say they never did.



Do you believe your life has more value than one you can only speculate being around in the future if you had only died by an abortion so Mick can say that is a fact after?



Oh YES please do I love the pure science of mathmatics and this argument is as old as The Schroedinger cat paradox

quantumphysics.suite101.com...

If they can't get to a conclusion one way or the other than what makes you think anyone here can? Mick is no Einstien and even Einstien would have argued with him on this pointless theory but I am sure he would have been accused of being off topic as well



EXACTLY AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION!



I am adding him and you as well and yes I have busted a gut at this theory more than a few times myself



Seems like it is gonna be a long night HA HA HA

No NONE were gained and only those that existed were lost those you think would have been lost were would have never existed to ever be lost one has to exist and their is no memory in probability much less a non existing life that was never alive to know it would have been.



This you said to me after my first post where all I asked was a question, "prove you can say someone would have not existed"

This you have failed to do and the reason is YOU CANNOT for the same reason I cannot prefer those who do not exist, not exist because why? BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST TO PREFER THEY DO NOT EXIST THAT's WHY



Oh Rly?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
You said this to me after my second post and I defy anyone to tell me what I said in that post that you can call a personal attack because there is none to deserve your next remark



No Mick I am not stupid, In fact I got an I.Q. that would knock your socks off but I wouldn't need half that I.Q. to debunk your theory because the theory has NO BASIS in FACT only on speculation!

Now there have been multitudes of off topic posts in this thread but your focus has been to accuse MINE of this when you have posted more off topic remarks like that one above and the ones that follow:





No mick they would not have existed as you wouldn't so you can not say you wouldn't be here because there would have not been a you to say so in the first place.

The ONLY thing we can know is not about "the many who would not be alive today if it was not for abortion." but the many who would still BE ALIVE,,,

if it was not for abortion!


That life was something taken from what already existed and not something from someone that couldn't have existed in the first place.

If you were never born then your life wasn't gained from abortion because no more than it was lost to one because one didn't have an abortion.

You can not miss what you never had in the first place OR to know what you think might have existed but didnt exist to know it would have if only someone else would have been aborted.

The FACT is YOU CANNOT KNOW YOU would have not existed till you existed.

If you didnt exist in the first place than you were never lost to begin with is this so hard for you to grasp??

The only theory that comes close to dealing with the idea of whether something lives or dies is called the cycle of life and death that only those who are alive, die and those who never were alive never died because of an abortion

THE FACT IS YOU CANNOT KILL SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER LIVING BY KILLING SOMETHING ALIVE FIRST

Or should we all feel guilty about the lives we cost by being born alive! NO the only way to know for a FACT someone wouldn't have existed if someone have had an abortion is to ask the person who is not alive today because you were born. When you figure that out let us know who they are for I would LOVE to meet them.



Different than who Mick? The person that never existed to know he would have otherwise?

This is silly circular logic you are making here and the FACT is you can't say who would have never been alive if the past has changed because we live in the present and those that don't are dead but only those that have been alive and existed in the first place are the only ones that we will ever know existed and were alive at one time.

Who can say they wouldn't have or would have if this one did or didn't die an abortion is playing GOD. You can no more say who lives and dies in the future by knowing who gets aborted in the present than you can know who doesn't because it is just as likely



Wrong again Mick, All you know is that your life had a chance in hell and that you are alive today because YOU weren't the victim of a a legal abortion!

THAT is what you know for sure and NOTHING MORE

Got it?




Mediocre? and just what do you think yours is?

The alternative?









[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

I wouldn't recommend avoiding a thread because of someone on it. If you have something to say on an issue, here is the minimal time and place to do it. Just because someone is looking to prove how right they are or belittle others does not mean we should 'take it' and become silenced. Silencing what's right and what is true is more dangerous than anything another person could do to us.

reply to post by saint4God

---

He just likes to follow me around and try to press my buttons. Don't worry about it.

We have had a fine discussion on this thread so far.

I know another person who told me the same thing one time, and in that time I would have been guilty of many of the accusations I am not going to take from Mick on this inauguration day. He is a super moderator here and like you, are a Christian and a very good friend.

He told me not to compromise my posts in the face of ridicule and helped stem the tide of such ridicule that went all the way to the top affecting an apology coming from one of ATS owners.

One of the issues at the center of that argument was whether it is possible to attack the post without attacking the author posting it. That when someone says that the belief in God is stupid is not an attack on the person, who believes in God but the belief hence, should not see it as a personal attack. This cannot be further from the truth. You can no more not insult the post of anyone who believes in God then you can insult a post for having mentioned God.

Posts have no feelings, no emotions and only their authors do. When you make a post it is something you represent regardless of its basis in fact or fiction, what is or what isn't true, it is felt by those who subscribe to it whether it is the same of a drug addict who over hears someone saying drug use is stupid, the attack is on drug use but it is the drug user who feels the comment was made about them because they represent that remark.

For one to say belief in God is stupid, thinking they have not insulted a Christian, just ask anyone "then what does that say about the believer?"

Again, they would be compelled to suggest, that the believer is stupid also.

This is why we see so much passion in threads where evolution may be thought of, as stupid but the believer in such science lashes out in self-righteous indignation because they represent that belief and will fight likewise to defend it. I believe abortion is not only un-necessary, but all too often, it is stupid and a dumb choice to make for many who have made it.

In this case, I am not concerned about those who have not been born yet or whether or not they will NOT be born because of it. Like the post that has no emotions, no feelings to insult no substance to attack and no evidence it ever was attacked, it is the authors of such ideas that have now become laws that are at the heart of such passionate debate and while Rowe v Wades Supreme court ruling stands as law, it is Gods law and his divine providence that has brought a Born again Ms Rowe, to her knees. To come as a child and finally see that he is the only one that gives life and life eternal. That she be used as a message to those mothers contemplating abortion, that she was wrong and so is abortion in most cases if not to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape, that when you consider the wonder that is life itself and are humbled by its very creation and existence, HOW DARE anyone tell me they are insulted when I say someone chose it because it cramped their lifestyle.

How Dare you think we are all nothing more than what ever the "excuse" someone uses to justify what would by the grace of God be our very own lives had our own mothers not chose such a patently pathetic reason for killing someone no matter what stage of life they are at, no matter who their life depends on, we depend on each other. That all throughout our lives, NO ONE is an island unto themselves.

That we have a responsibility to make sure our elected officials see how serious the act of abortion is and that covering it up with words that amount to arguments in semantics, while the semantics make death of a child so sterile so distant when it is the termination of a fetus, it is when I understand that I WAS ONE OF THOSE FETUS and I AM ALIVE TO KNOW MY EXISTENCE MY VERY LIFE AND WHO I AM, SHOULD BE INSULTED BY ANYONE THREATENING THE LIFE OF ANOTHER.

That "other" in "another" was all of us at one time. Shifting the consequences of life from one who has been alive found guilty of being the only being it can be at the time of its existence is contradictory and so counterintuitive to assume it as anymore guilty or responsible for our very own existence by virtue of its destruction.

The idea is absurd and if that insults those who represent those assertions, it is no different then those hurt by those same assertions. I am sure those who have died at the hands of an abortion would trade their sentiments for Micks hurt feelings ANYDAY.

Another Baby, another human becoming another human being and if their is anything I can believe about the evolution of man it is the evolution of man from the moment of conception and that the survival of the fittest is only possible for our species when one defends the survival of the weakest of our species, those to young and too weak to defend themselves.

This was a practice defended by Barack Obama called born alive abortions and even though an abortion was executed, the baby survived the execution only to be born a living, crying infant. An American just like you and I who had defeated all the odds Mick says are about consequence and genetics.

These are Americans now deserving the same civil and humanary fundamental rights, Barack Obama is talking about in his acceptance speech.

The same rights I have prayed during his acceptance speech that he would defend NOT for those who might never have existed but for those who do exist now whether in the womb or not in the womb and to give people the wisdom to understand that the author of all lies comes in many shapes and forms, from the temptation of a prostitute to the powder we put in our noses, to the post we read about a life snuffed out in an abortion with cavalier and callous abandon.

No different is the attitudes about this subject as those we would have for removing a wart. Satan justifies the sins of man in many many ways making them seem so easy to accept and so scientifically justified when the vernacular of Science makes understanding so vague with meanings that change depending on what the politically correct climate is.

Knowing the impact, this place has on babes in Christ. I am compelled to correct the erroneous falsehoods that may make such people so young in the faith but so strong in the lord from getting the wrong idea about whom we are and what we are.

You gave me some advice long ago saint and Ill tell you more about that in a u2u as it has nothing to do with this thread but more about what Christians should do about people like this threads creator.

I am typing this as Barack Obama is taking the oath of his office and I must admit I am moved by this event just as I am grateful to be alive here to see it. Albeit his stance on abortion is one I cannot agree with, I believe in the divine providence of our lord that all things work out for the common good of all that are his and that in the end it isn't my will be done or micks will be done but the lords will be done.

Frankly saint, the reason I am back is for the same reason you gave me in your post and the same reason Mick will have to answer for, in front of one with more authority than any Mod, or Supreme court Judge.

Someone that Ms Rowe has faced and been convicted by and is now forgiven


[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi

---

About 3% of that post was on topic.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Most silly pet peave I have ever witnessed anyone upset themselves so much about but to each his own. I say 50% of the posts on this thread not given by me are off topic but I don't see you whining about them. Could it be that MY posts 3% being so devastating in that mine make any sense at all regarding your theory is what really bothers you and that your need to be right being in jeopardy is what this is really about?

If you want to argue this premise of existence in a formal debate fighter, I am more than happy to oblige because I would just love to see how you aquire the proof prima facie to substantiate such absurd notions using witnesses that have never existed nor will we ever know if they will.

Much less who they are lol

Let see how smart you really are tough guy


[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi

---

Do you even know how real debates work? Saying tough guy and posting up pictures of you with your shirt off will not get much respect.

If you want to, I suggest you U2U a mod and get fighter status. Then, ask MemoryShock to start up a debate.

I will do this topic, or any other topic versus you. I'll prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster use his noodely apendage to create me, if that's the topic you choose.

Just get off my thread, or stay on topic otherwise. I don't care. (And that's why I don't say it to anyone else, because they don't post 5000 off topic remarks, just one).

Yeah and neither will telling someone they are stupid for believing in people that exist and can prove it beyond all doubt, by someone who believes in someone that never existed.

It is why so many fail at proving God and is called the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent. It is the same one that kills the theory of intelligent design and the reason it still cannot be scientifically proven in spite of my attire or you calling those you threaten with innuendo about my block being knocked off.

The pic was a favor to you mick and not the kind you might think.

You see, the owner of that block you suggested wouold be knocked off happens to be me so I wanted you to know that the owner of that block you threatened to knock off could most likely break your arm like a stick if he got his hands on it.

That was the reason for the pic mick, just in case you are some nut that wants to meet me.

Just wanting to show you, you may be wasting your time is all because I have met very few that could do that to me without regreting it in a hospital somewhere.

I know people that were banned for saying such things but you made this threat not once to me in this thread but FOUR TIMES.

So if you are going to judge me this way, take the log out of your own eye before you spot the speck in mine.

Sorry to get off topic Mick but you instigate it because you ain't all that bothered by it. You do this sort of thing because you think you are clever and alert the mods to get people post banned. I have seen your kind long before you thought of it Mick.

Now getting back to your premise

Your premise in this thread is why time travel and all the ramifications of it cannot be proven with the reasoning it is impossible.

Time being only one way. Even worm holes are not thought to be two way as their is galactic drift and entry points would be shifting.

This idea has been thought out well in such television programs like Stargate to give creedence to the shows idea and so it will make sense.

The reason shrodingers cat proves your theory is full of holes and the reason you still think you are so smart that you could beat einstien in a debate.

It isn't that you are smart mick, but that you are proud and that pride says you are never wrong. You may admit it to some that you wrong but to me,,, for some reason you got it in for me and I couldn't care less what issues you have with that.

I have been nothing but decent with you in this thread and the one removal of a post was because I asked you to make sense. I could have argued it but why bother,, the fact is still the same when someone doesn't make sense people start asking them to make a point and that is what I have shown to be the case here by so many other posters it is undeniable

I have given you nothing less than a measure of respect while you have shown me nothing of the kind and can't help it you take personal what i have so effectively debunked. That isn't personal attacks mick, that is called winning the debate and you can't take it.




This is the kind of talk that suggest to all of us mick that it is YOU who doesn't understand the protocols of debate




I will do what I want to do Mick whether you like it or not YOU AINT DA BOSS HERE HOSS so BACK OFF with your bossy attitude and until YOU stay on topic yourself, don't expect anyone else to.

Oh the mount of posts I have is numbered there mick and if you think I follow you around,, then share with us how many threads you are in that I am not in vs those you and i are BOTH in. After ya do that (because I happen to think this is very curious of you) Tell us which of those I followed YOU in vs those you followed ME in

Then tell us what you came up with and Ill bet you your membership on this forum for mine, that one of us never comes back if you can prove I follow YOU.

Frankly mick, you ain't that damn important to me but I understand why YOU think you are.

I'll talk to shock besides showing you how you lose this debate before you can even get one started and for the same reason you lost this one.







[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi

---

Again, stay on topic. If you want to debate, go to the debate forum and get yourself set up.

Splendid mick. Oh and by the way, I will require you give me a list of names of those not existing that WIIL exist in the future because of an abortion. Nothing any attorney wouldn't require before a trial.

No biggie for someone like you and ill only need a couple for cross examination.

Good luck with that

And 0% of this post was on topic.

The problem in this idea is that there's a group of people who believe that the future changes entirely with every single little action or decision we make. But, when we look at the bigger picture of things, this isn't necessarily the case. For example, if a person is born, lives a life of a rebel, thumbs his nose at society and dies being remembered as such, it does not mean the country in which he lives becomes obsolete. The country was there before him, it was there while he lived, and will exist after he is gone. That minute series of actions/decisions has no effect. In the same way for many who believe in Cosmic Correction, Nature, Fate, and/or God, they would say no matter what you do minutely, the whole of the universe will still take place...minus your minute actions. In this case, a believer in one or all of these would say whether your sibling was aborted or not, you would still exist, your other siblings would still exist, the difference is minus one. Now, given that that minus one is a human life, it therefore becomes a tragedy that has a great negative emotional impact on all who lives and a death that needlessly occurred.

Stay on topic Irish M1ck, this post too was off topic.

The reason why this topic is such a passionate one for those who are pro-life is because those babies have no voice. It is unfair to deny them the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for selfish gains. They're being taken advantage of because they cannot represent themselves in any way. Their only hope is those who hear their cry and take a stand so that they do not die.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God

---

I mean what do you expect me to do, saint4God? Do you think it appropriate for me to just ignore his posts? Should I retaliate with the same level of immaturity? So far, reminding him to stay on topic has been the most effective way to keep him from destroying good discussion (like the one we are having).

I understand what you are saying about passion. Again, I am not trying to change anyone's perspective on abortion or make any claims about the actual act of abortion. I really am not. On other threads I might, but I really just don't want to get into all of that.

Really, my only goal in this entire thread was to convey that large probability that many of us would not be here without abortions. In my mind, that represents a paradox on both a moral and religious level. On the religious level, we have to realize the connection between our DNA and our souls. There has to be a connection. So, even with the same soul, I would still need the same DNA to be the same person.

On a moral level, it seems almost as immoral to dismiss the lives of the people who were born because of abortion. What is your opinion on it?

Just humor me. You don't have to believe it, but what if there are people who would not be alive if abortion was illegal? You said, "It is unfair to deny them the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for selfish gains."

So what about the people who are born after them? Why is it okay to speak for them? Don't you think they also want "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", or do they not deserve it?

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Up front, I do not defend abortion as a means of birth control. But to those who think that even in cases of rape and incest that adoption should still be THE option to take....well, you've obviously never been held down and forcefully impregnated. I think the people actually making these decisions should be (or have the advice of) those who actually know what they're talking about. It's not a decision that one comes to lightly, and it's much easier to sit back in your comfy computer chairs and pass judgements on those who've laid awake at night agonizing over them.

Why must there be a connection?



I don't know why this has to be the case either, but okay. Let's say then that if you destroy a baby in the womb, its soul then dies too?



My opinion is we cannot say that they would not have been born because of the abortion. A person would have to ascribe to the idea that the future and big picture changes with even the slightest action or decision.



Although possible, it is un-natural. If one believes in nature, nature says when a woman is pregnant, she's likely to have a baby unless nature makes the decision that the baby does not live. Mankind is therefore overriding nature and forcing it to do its bidding.



I believe those people would also exist. Both, not one or the other.



Everyone deserves life. Why do you believe that post-abortion babies have the right to life whereas aborted babies do not?

[edit on 20-1-2009 by saint4God]

One question: Are you your parents?

I agree, but as things stand now an extremely small percentage like less than 1%, of abortions are done because of health, rape, or other similar reasons. The vast majority is for convenience and institutional cost reductions, in it is cheaper to give free abortions than to provide support and services for a child over many years.

You mean people who agree with what can not exist hence can not be proven in a finite universe?




VS The 100% probability and the ONLY one that can be scientifically proven beyond any doubt of the 100% that would STILL be alive today if it had not been for abortion.

HELP ME WITH THE MATH MICK!




it is the least we can do to return the favor of your own brand of humor mick. Oh and "what if"? I already addressed this "what if" thing in a previous post and proved it a mindless exercise in futility

What about, "what if" mick? can you be more specific




No I was the one that said that




Sure Mick, just tell us who they are please and we will defend them not having their equal rights as soon as they exist to even know what rights those who don't exist, don't have.

Again, Good luck with that



[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

So are some people saying that abortions are good, because there are people alive today that would not be if abortions were illegal?