Originally posted by Irish M1ck


You are crazy.

hehe you have NO idea Mick

but,, I'm not your enemy

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
I've heard many say that abortion is killing a baby, and therefore, a soul. The baby is a person from conception and must have a soul, so it is murder, etcetera, etcetera. However, I had one question I'd like to pose to you:

What about babies that would not have been born if abortion was not legal? What of women who have abortion, go on to finish college and meet the right guy, and then have children. I think we can all agree that if the woman had the kid, a sort of "Butterfly Effect" would have happened, and her life would have been completely different. I know women who have had abortions and they would not be where they are today if they hadn't.

Many say having an abortion is robbing a child of his/her life, but what about the kids who wouldn't exist if abortion wasn't legal? Isn't that robbing them of their lives?

This is so callous in so many ways.

First, I beleive in a woman's right to choose. Maybe my wife or I wouldn't choose abortion as an option, but we won't tell anyone else what they can do. To us it is as simple as that. No "butterfly effects" are required.

However, the narcissistic "logic" used in the OP is almost sick. Abortion allows the mother to avoid a "butterfly effect", while her aborted child just gets to avoid life altogether. By any chance are you feeling sorry for the jailed mother in the Caylee Anthony case in Florida? After all, having the child was obviously enough of a downer for the mother that she ended up killing the child so she could resume her life of partying.

And my turn to ask you what the hell does this little logic gem mean?

"Many say having an abortion is robbing a child of his/her life, but what about the kids who wouldn't exist if abortion wasn't legal? Isn't that robbing them of their lives?"



[edit on 1/23/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
And my turn to ask you what the hell does this little logic gem mean?

"Many say having an abortion is robbing a child of his/her life, but what about the kids who wouldn't exist if abortion wasn't legal? Isn't that robbing them of their lives?"

[edit on 1/23/2009 by centurion1211]

Now you know why I said it was "Pointless"

If you think that is pointless, wait till you try to explain to him WHY,
it is pointless.

I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us who have tried and participated in this thread when I say,

"NOW THAT,, was pointless"



[edit on 23-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

Let's say she chooses option 3, and the fetus is aborted. She goes on to meet Father 2 and they have Kid 2. Kid 2 would not have existed if the fetus was not aborted.

Again assuming the consequent calls for speculation

If you are religious, the logical person would have to admit that it is possible that the abortion was meant to happen.

Affriming the antecedent calls for speculation

Otherwise, Kid 2 couldn't exist. Morality wise, if you were to go back and remove the possibility of abortion, you have killed Kid 2.

False Premise, False Dilemma, and morality has NOTHING to do with it!

Absolutley ridiculous that we should concern ourselves with the moral issues regarding the children that don't even exist or have any idea wll exist in some sick twisted eye for an eye trade off where we are compelled by the trap of Micks idea of logic.

That in each case someone has to die, either one that exists or one presumed won't exist if we don't kill the preceding one in some immorally asinine damned if you do damned if you don't double talk.

The gist of it you say?

Absurd and utterly

Pointless







[edit on 24-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Just thought I would elaborate on this one Mick

The fact of the matter is, the entire pro-life outlook is, "every life counts". However, that's clearly not a truthful statement. Most pro-lifers agree with the death penalty, and obviously are not affected by the thought of basically aborting people who are alive today.

The death penalty IS consistent with pro life in that it is what is reffered to in the old Testament as an eye for an eye. That he that taketh life loses his own is pro life. Anyone in our sociey that is about taking lives should lose his own to promote and sustain the lives otherwise threatened by someone who obviously doesn't give a damn about life except his own.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
If a woman chooses to have an abortion and has it, it's God's will.

Is it Gods will if someone shoots you in the head in a driveby shooting?

If God didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen.

God doesn't interfere with the freewill but he does use others to circumvent. As birth, if God didn't want it to happen, I'd think he would just manifest a miscarriage but saying he would have US kill an innocent is not consistent with his nature.

END OF STORY. If God didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen. And maybe, JUST maybe, that child she has later in life has a purpose as decided by God, of which no one can challenge without opposing God's will.

Same asinine logic that has caused many other deaths in the name of religion. Absurd

To argue against that is to argue against God, which is going to make anti-abortion Christian enthusiasts' heads explode in frustration.

I don't know about my head exploding but your post does have my sides splitting

To Aermacchi:
"…but where in the Bible does it say it gets a new embryo to inhabit?
Where does it say in the bible that a soul goes ANYWHERE to get ANY new body to inhabit and does this happen in just the pregnancy stages or does it happen after suggesting a reincarnation of sorts?"

Where in the Bible does it say that the soul COULD NOT inhabit a new body?
Speculation on both sides?

To Aermacchi:
"…but where in the Bible does it say it gets a new embryo to inhabit?
Where does it say in the bible that a soul goes ANYWHERE to get ANY new body to inhabit and does this happen in just the pregnancy stages or does it happen after suggesting a reincarnation of sorts?"

Where in the Bible does it say that the soul COULD NOT inhabit a new body?
Speculation on both sides?

Originally posted by memyself
To Aermacchi:
"…but where in the Bible does it say it gets a new embryo to inhabit?
Where does it say in the bible that a soul goes ANYWHERE to get ANY new body to inhabit and does this happen in just the pregnancy stages or does it happen after suggesting a reincarnation of sorts?"

Where in the Bible does it say that the soul COULD NOT inhabit a new body?
Speculation on both sides?

I never said the Bible says the soul "goes" anywhere and that is why I don't think it does.

Understand, The Bible assumes the reader has common sense, having said that, asking it to give all the answers to things that DON'T apply to it is a bit much don't you think?

I mean If I had said the soul gets a new host in say a pig and you said where does the Bible say that? I guess I could get real clever the way you are in this example asking the bible to prove a negative or to answer you by asking the question,,

where in the Bible does it say it couldn't inhabit a pig?

This is a logical fallacy, just because the Bible doesn't say it doesn't inhabit a pig, doesn't mean it is saying it does.

That isn't a call for speculation

it's just sillyness








[edit on 24-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Well, this isn't too clever, either!

Becoming a pig is VERY specific ...
I asked a GENERAL question: Where does the Bible contradict that a soul could enter a new body - any new body, and we would normally think of a human one.

You write that the Bible doesn't say that it could, but then where does it say it could not? I think you ow an answer to that. If it says neither, then we are free to assume that it could.

That is called logic ...

And if you say that it doesn't go anywhere, where do you think it stays?

Originally posted by memyself
Well, this isn't too clever, either!


Becoming a pig is VERY specific ...

Yes it was specific as was your saying it goes onto another human embryo. I suppose I could have been very general and say it says it goes into anything it wants to but the problem with that argument is the same nevertheless

TextI asked a GENERAL question: Where does the Bible contradict that a soul could enter a new body - any new body, and we would normally think of a human one.

I know what you asked and I answered it, the PIG was used to illustrate an example but it really makes no difference what it was the logical fallacy is the same.

I think you ow an answer to that. If it says neither, then we are free to assume that it could.

I owe you an answer? Hey guy I DID answer it, moreover It is NOT my responsibility to explain to you what you do NOT understand!

That is called logic ...

No it is NOT, it is called Appeal to Ignorance or ("Ad Ignorantiam")

This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

OR

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

OR

A man is accused of robbing a bank and someone like me asks if there was any witnesses to say he did it and the Bank manager says there were none. Then a smart aleck like YOU comes in and says

Yeah but there were no witnesses to say he DIDN'T do it either so that must mean he did!

It's like I said guy,, just because the Bible doesn't say what a soul doesn't inhabit, doesn't mean it is saying what it doesn't, it does.


Now, if you insist on looking foolish who am I to deny you






[edit on 24-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

To Aermacchi:
"Yes it was specific as was your saying it goes onto another human embryo. I suppose I could have been very general and say it says it goes into anything it wants to but the problem with that argument is the same nevertheless."

Yes, let’s say it goes into anything it wants, or God wants, OK?

"I know what you asked and I answered it, the PIG was used to illustrate an example but it really makes no difference what it was the logical fallacy is the same."

You gave no answer but just avoided the issue which indicates you don’t know what to say.

"I owe you an answer? Hey guy I DID answer it, moreover It is NOT my responsibility to explain to you what you do NOT understand!"

So explain what YOU DO understand. I wonder how much that is …

That is called logic ...

"No it is NOT, it is called Appeal to Ignorance or ("Ad Ignorantiam")"

So is that what you do?

"Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X."

So how can A claim it is true without any proof or evidence? That is called an assumption…

"It's like I said guy,, just because the Bible doesn't say what it doesn't inhabit, doesn't mean it is saying what it doesn't, it does."

But it DOES mean that it may! Where the issue is left open we are free to assume.

"Now, if you insist on looking foolish who am I to deny you."

Thank you, the same to you …

Originally posted by memyself
You gave no answer but just avoided the issue which indicates you don’t know what to say.

Trust me guy, if I wanted to avoid the answer, I wouldn't have posted anything at all but assuming you are saying I ommitted the answer to your question regarding where it goes,, READ MY POST!

My answer was regarding THE LOGICAL FALLACY, NOT where does the soul go and do you know why??

For the third time,,

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT GOES TO ANOTHER BODY!

THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T SAY THAT IT DID!

So explain what YOU DO understand. I wonder how much that is …

I understand that after you die the soul goes to one of two places for an eternity



That is called logic ...

"No it is NOT, it is called Appeal to Ignorance or ("Ad Ignorantiam")"

So is that what you do?

No, I denied yours

"Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X."

So how can A claim it is true without any proof or evidence? That is called an assumption…

Now you're catching on

NOT!

"It's like I said guy,, just because the Bible doesn't say what it doesn't inhabit, doesn't mean it is saying what it doesn't, it does."

But it DOES mean that it may! Where the issue is left open we are free to assume.

It isn't left open it is explicit and after the first flesh host it doesn't say that it goes to another one and that is why I think it doesn't.

It is your imagination adding to it so that it will fit your philosophy on reincarnation or just a red herring and one I am afraid goes off topic but you are welcome to start a thread on that topic.

If I said the Bible says the soul goes to one of two places, YOU would say that what about a third place? Then I would say, it doesn't say that it goes to a third place and YOU would say but it doesnt say that it doesn't either.

Then I would say but it doesn't say that it does
and then you'd say but it does mean that it may!

Now you can add circular logic to you list of logical fallacies

IGNORANCE DENIED