The Abortion Paradox

page: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck


You are crazy.


hehe you have NO idea Mick

but,, I'm not your enemy




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Well if you actually read the thread, you would know exactly what I meant by it. I will try to sum it up, since it took a lot of discussions to really get a grip on the whole idea, since it is very philosophical and out of the box.

I'll do it like a math equation for you. We'll use 5 people:

Mother
Father 1
Father 2
Fetus/Kid 1
Kid 2

Mother meets Father 1. Perhaps he rapes her, or maybe the condom breaks, or maybe she just gets pregnant. That's irrelevant. What is relevant, is that she does not want the child.

She has options. She could:

1) Have the child and keep it.

2) Have the child and try to give it up for adoption.

3) Have an abortion.

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.

Since Kid 2 exists, there a multitude of ways you can run with it at this point. If you are religious, the logical person would have to admit that it is possible that the abortion was meant to happen. 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.

That's basically the gist of it. Take of it what you will, I know you are bitter because I don't think Obama should be hung for saying, "I won", and I don't care.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 

The answer to the paradox is EXACTLY what anti-abortion Christian enthusiasts do NOT want to hear:
God works in mysterious ways.

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

If they interfere with God's will, then, well...bogus for them dude.

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



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 



If indeed you are irish then you would know that "IF my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle". Second guessing the choices one makes in one's life is a largely academic exercise and a poor arguement for abortion.
Dismissing the arguement that the unborn should be protected because of it's potential soul all depends on whether you were the child selected for existence or not, But i suppose that is the true nature of life. A constant selection for existence. Any decision to terminate a pregnancy could be considered in the grand scheme of things, just another variable effecting selection but remember when one takes a life, one also takes the lives of it's desendants. Remeber too, that this soul actually existed, the ones you speculate about don't and may never exist.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
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 …



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Here are some web pages to study for those who dare to risk that they may have to change their mind:
www.christliche-reinkarnation.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.christliche-reinkarnation.com...
www.christliche-reinkarnation.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I don't think you guys get it, he is not promoting or dismissing the use, he is just saying an interesting fact most of us have not thought of.
I know I found it interesting!


Originally posted by saint4God


"Generally we define the life giving activities of these systems as 1)a tendency to trap energy (either directly as radient energy or indirectly as matter, or both) within the system. This results in a build up of greater complexity inside the cells. 2) A further tendency to convert the materials brought into the system into new forms which are more useful to the system and to excrete unwanted products, both those brought into the system and those resulting from internal activity. 3) Finally, and most importantly in some ways, to reproduce themselves."

- www.earthlife.net...

By your cited definition I could say that, theoretically, a solar panel that powers a factory which creates more solar panels is alive!


Originally posted by Xtrozero
An unborn can own property by law in the event it is willed to that unborn child. So we see an unborn as a person unless the mother wants to kill it because it might make her life inconvenient, then it becomes a thing, or a piece of flesh.

Technically it isn't in possession until it is BORN, though.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
How about mothers who use it as birth control and have many, or how about a state that offers it free over all other services for they see it is cheaper to kill the child and pay a onetime expense than it is to provide services over many years for that child. All this cheapens the value of life, and so cost and future earnings become more important than life itself in justifing that taking a life is the right thing to do.

But, waging war to gain more resources and land, using Nike shoes made at $1 an hour, forcing countries to devalue their currencies, is all right, because they conveniences us far greater than your example.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
My mother is very old and is a burden, should I kill her because of that? I'm sure my future earnings would be better if she was out of the way...

But she is not a mass of cells. or maybe she is, I do not know her. By definition it is not a fetus until 3 months in.

Originally posted by saint4God
Abortion appears to be a selfish act, sacrificing another's life for the sake of one's own prosperity. I've heard the 'mercy kill' argument before, but better to have a hard life with a chance at change or hope than being involuntarily removed from having life at all. As an ex-baby myself, I'm grateful that abortion was never in the mind of my mother. Perhaps we should interview someone who was aborted to get their thoughts.

Yes, its better to be neglected and unwanted in life than to not know the difference. perhaps we should interview some unhappy homeless orphans and get their take on the matter.

I do wholeheartedly agree that it should not be used as birth control, but seriously folks, no rape victim should ever be forced to keep their illegit child. I have friends who actually support war but are pro-life. Yeah right.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by memyself
Here are some web pages to study for those who dare to risk that they may have to change their mind:
www.christliche-reinkarnation.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.christliche-reinkarnation.com...
www.christliche-reinkarnation.com...


Ya know I just read the first three pages from the links you gave of that BUNK you call Christianity and it is rife with the same calls to ignorance you were using in all of your posts. Like adding meanings to the phraze "Once to die" and the rationale they use to justify it meaning more than once or that it "May" mean more than once, tells me why the mainstream calls it a cult and why your logic is so hysterical because it is using relativism and post modernism

That's just one of the very few times where it actually DOES use the Bible but the rest is a load of crap.

thinley veiled Hinduism masquerading as Christianity with a few refinements because in its raw form it was REJECTED by Christian Americans just as this one would be.

You can put lipstick on a pig

and it's still a pig.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Well if you actually read the thread, you would know exactly what I meant by it. I will try to sum it up, since it took a lot of discussions to really get a grip on the whole idea, since it is very philosophical and out of the box.

I'll do it like a math equation for you. We'll use 5 people:

Mother
Father 1
Father 2
Fetus/Kid 1
Kid 2

Mother meets Father 1. Perhaps he rapes her, or maybe the condom breaks, or maybe she just gets pregnant. That's irrelevant. What is relevant, is that she does not want the child.

She has options. She could:

1) Have the child and keep it.

2) Have the child and try to give it up for adoption.

3) Have an abortion.

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.

Since Kid 2 exists, there a multitude of ways you can run with it at this point. If you are religious, the logical person would have to admit that it is possible that the abortion was meant to happen. 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.

That's basically the gist of it. Take of it what you will, I know you are bitter because I don't think Obama should be hung for saying, "I won", and I don't care.


Blah, blah, blah.

As usual, you didn't answer a single issue I raised.

You seem to justify taking a like simply because it is an inconvenience to the would be mother. I repeat that that is callous and narcissistic.

Any decision made to have or not to have an abortion should be thought through way more than, "gee, I might miss some parties if I have the child".

And I still would like us all to hear a - rational this time - explanation of the "pretzel logic" you were using at the end of that post to try and justify the narcissistic taking of an innocent life.





top topics
 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join