Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Abortion Paradox

page: 17
2
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
To Aermacchi:
You talk about ignorance? As they say: "Don’t throw stones when you are in a house of glass."

The last link www.christliche-reinkarnation.com... is a whole book on "Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church" which is available for free as a PDF file.

As you should know (but obviously don’t) is that in original Christianity there was the belief in reincarnation, but it was thrown out of the dogma by emperor Constantine at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The earliest Christian movement was that of the Gnostic Christianity, earlier than the Paulinian movement, and they definitely taught reincarnation.

Therefore, reincarnation was part of original Christianity but was politicized out of it at the council of Nicaea.

Read the book and you will understand. Or maybe not, if prejudice stands in the way...

The other links result from 30 years of experience with many thousands of sessions of regression therapy. Facts that some never want to accept. And that is called ignorance!

So maybe you should read the rest before you are capable of discussing it.

An ignorant with lipstick is still an ignorant.




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


reply to post by centurion1211
 


I'll answer you both, since in essence, you are the same people.


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.


Apparently you never read the thread. At multiple points I have made it clear that I am not discussing the morality of abortion here, but mainly trying to promote philosophical thinking (since it is the philosophy forum).


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".


What does that have to do with anything? I mean, honestly, did you even read it? Anyone who is here who has read this thread, and comprehended what I am saying, would know that if you took that away from it, then you are slow.

I'm sorry, but you have to either be willfully ignorant or thick to take that away from this thread.


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.


I suggest you go back and read through it.


Again assuming the consequent calls for speculation


Again, I have to disagree. In fact, I'd say it is far more speculation to assume the opposite (and I think I proved that quite nicely when I posted up the statistics about what the odds are of having even a similar child).


Affriming the antecedent calls for speculation


Well, Aermacchi, I did say the logical person, so I wasn't exactly referring to you there.


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.


Only you are discussing trade offs! It's not a damn trade off, it is reality. These people exist just as much as you do, and for you to deny their existence is absolutely absurd.


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.


Only you look at it that way. I look at it as life prevails either way. You look at it in a negative light, and that is a problem that maybe you should work on.


Pointless


Then perhaps you should vacate the thread. However, it is quite refreshing to see you attacking the post instead of me for once (at least for most of your rebuttal).



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


I'm still trying to understand your position on all this. Are you saying abortions are good or bad because there are different people born because of them?

Or are you just stating a fact that different people are born because of abortions?

In either case if we look at the future can you tell me today which abortions happening in the present are doing good or harm in how they affect future conceptions?

By saying different people are born with or without abortions is just a statement that does not really sit on one side or the other of a debate.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Exactly! I am not trying to sit on one side or the other in this thread. I don't want it to be about that, and I don't think this position really is justification for anything anyway.

It just is. It doesn't make it better, but it certainly doesn't make it worse. For instance, it only works backwards, and not forwards.

You can't say, "Well, if I have don't have an abortion then I am taking away life from someone in the future". So it doesn't justify the abortion.

However, when looking back, you can say, "If i hadn't had that abortion, Jimmy would have never been born."

It doesn't justify anything, it just is. And like many people have pointed out, it doesn't just happen from abortion, but many different choices we make in life.

Abortion was just the one I chose here because I was thinking about it.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

It just is. It doesn't make it better, but it certainly doesn't make it worse. For instance, it only works backwards, and not forwards.

You can't say, "Well, if I have don't have an abortion then I am taking away life from someone in the future". So it doesn't justify the abortion.

However, when looking back, you can say, "If i hadn't had that abortion, Jimmy would have never been born."

It doesn't justify anything, it just is. And like many people have pointed out, it doesn't just happen from abortion, but many different choices we make in life.

Abortion was just the one I chose here because I was thinking about it.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Irish M1ck]


I agree, but I don't really is anything to debate. I guess a person can say "I'm alive because my mom had an abortion" but that is really just an observation and doesn't really create a debatable matter.

Many here and as I have pushed this topic in a more debatable direction of whether abortions is killing a person or allowing a person personal choices about their life, or quite possibility both are accruing at the same time.

Some have given a more religious direction to this including whether it is against god, and if a there is a soul, while other, myself included, are looking at this action as how it has affected our social morals of society.

It is a very difficult thing to debate for everyone is very bias in how they feel about the emotionally charged event, which being emotionally charged and a extremely life changing event are some things everyone can agree on.

Whether you go to hell, kill a person or just remove some cells, provide freedom or disregard responsibilities, create a worst or better situation, create different morals in society...etc is something we can all debate until we die.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Yo, Mick ...

Narcissism IS a philosophy and not a morality judgment.


Now, it was you in the 1st page of posts that spoke about mothers having abortions because having a child would create a "butterfly effect" on them, changing their lives in less than pleasant ways. Can you not admit that this represents such a narcissistic, shallow and childish attitude towards life.

I've NEVER been trying to discuss the morality of this with you, so please learn the difference before responding. In fact, I went out of the way to show that I am pro-choice - excepting when either viewpoint is shoved down someone else's throat.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I agree with you on a lot of that, including that there isn't much to debate about (which I agree with). In fact, the only reason this thread has continued is because many here don't get it, don't want to get it, or can't accept it.

Like you said, though, it can be transfered into other topics and integrated to make more interesting debate.


Oh, and also, I agree it is hard to leave out bias since it is such a charged topic, and that is why I wanted to keep this as close to topic as possible (as boring or as meaningless as it may be).

reply to post by centurion1211
 


What is narcissistic about it? I don't get what is narcissistic about telling the truth...

*Edit:

And again, butterfly effect was only said so that people who were having a hard time understanding what I was talking about could reference popular culture to get a grasp.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

What is narcissistic about it? I don't get what is narcissistic about telling the truth...



We all can tell. I guess it's school time for you. I could just tell you to look the definition of narcissism up, but ...

definitions

Just one of many ...


The term narcissism means love of oneself, and refers to the set of character traits concerned with self-admiration, self-centeredness and self-regard.


So, again in your OP, you seem to be saying that thoughts like the above are sufficient justification for having an abortion and ending a potential life. And again, the Casey and Caylee Anthony case in Florida would be a similar real life example (except that she "aborted" her child when she was 2 years old) of your "butterfly effect".

And what about the so-called 'partial birth abortions' supported by many on the left. You know, the procedure where they kill a baby that was far enough along to survive outside the mother's body? You OK with those, too?

[edit on 1/25/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
To conclude my contribution to this thread:
- there is an !ENORMOUS! Mass of evidence that the soul is pre-existent and reincarnates,
- there are MANY passages in the Bible which SUPPORT this (when correctly translated) and none which directly contradicts it, see this free book: www.christian-reincarnation.com...
- but this must never be an EXCUSE for abortion!! Because:
- abortion IS killing! It is basically acceptable only after a rape,
- BUT if it is done, the soul has another chance to incarnate somewhere else,
- and in many cases this can be a BETTER choice for the soul than the probability of being born into what would more or less be a hell for it,
- because people who want to abort are usually IMMATURE and not fit for parenthood,
- and if they were MATURE, they would not have had unprotected sex in the first place …

This means seeing it from the SOULS PERSPECTIVE, because who wants abortion is generally not mature enough to be capable to see this. So it isn’t by itself an excuse for abortion.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, again in your OP, you seem to be saying that thoughts like the above are sufficient justification for having an abortion and ending a potential life.


That has been addressed at least 25 times. Almost everyone but you and Aermacchi seem to be able to understand that I am not, but that's no big surprise.


And again, the Casey and Caylee Anthony case in Florida would be a similar real life example (except that she "aborted" her child when she was 2 years old) of your "butterfly effect".


How is that similar at all?


And what about the so-called 'partial birth abortions' supported by many on the left.


There are at least 15 other abortion threads open right now you could go bitch at liberals on about your superior morality. Go there and ask that question, since it clearly isn't even close to on topic here.


You know, the procedure where they kill a baby that was far enough along to survive outside the mother's body? You OK with those, too?


Am I in some sort of bizzaro world where this passes as argument? That's not even close to on topic. Did you even read one page of this thread? Honestly.

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Irish M1ck]

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

And what about the so-called 'partial birth abortions' supported by many on the left.


There are at least 15 other abortion threads open right now you could go bitch at liberals on about your superior morality. Go there and ask that question, since it clearly isn't even close to on topic here.


You know, the procedure where they kill a baby that was far enough along to survive outside the mother's body? You OK with those, too?


Am I in some sort of bizzaro world where this passes as argument? That's not even close to on topic. Did you even read one page of this thread? Honestly.


Mick, I think you actually ENJOY complaining about the off topic pet peave else you wouldn't have taken cents post seen below:


And what about the so-called 'partial birth abortions' supported by many on the left. You know, the procedure where they kill a baby that was far enough along to survive outside the mother's body? You OK with those, too?


and split it into two quotes just so you could complain about it twice as if it were two off topic posted off topic quotes.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Yes, it is my fault that I continually have to point out both of your inabilities to stay on and understand the topic.

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
It just is. It doesn't make it better, but it certainly doesn't make it worse. For instance, it only works backwards, and not forwards.


No Mick, it doesn't work at ALL and life isn't some timeline where we know the events that are to happen before we get there. Saying it doesn't make it worse only makes sense to someone who doesn't make sense because his logic is so flawed, he thinks it doesn't make it worse because another kid is born afterward. That doesn't justify it as not making it any worse moreover most haven't a clue at the time of the abortion their will even be another kid much less one at all. You assuming you will know the consequences in these actions and arguments without thinking them through logically is why you keep making that same logical fallacy.



You can't say, "Well, if I have don't have an abortion then I am taking away life from someone in the future". So it doesn't justify the abortion. However, when looking back, you can say, "If i hadn't had that abortion, Jimmy would have never been born."


This is why they say hind sight is always 20 20 and why arm chair quarterbacks are so good at football because like you, THEY CAN ASSUME THE CONSEQUENT! This is why it is a false premise a logical fallacy IT DOESN'T WORK MICK because we KNOW that had that armchair quarter back not already seen the game and know what players are gonna do what HIS COACHING ADVICE WOULD SUCK!

Like you however, they usually go on and on as if they know how a player screwed up this play and how their idea would be the right one just like you think your theory is right.

It is NOT




[edit on 25-1-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Yes, it is my fault that I continually have to point out both of your inabilities to stay on and understand the topic.

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Irish M1ck]


No I didn't say that is YOUR fault I said finding ways to make more complaints about it is your fault and seeing how you couldn't even resist doing it again for my pointing it out, gives us some of the reasons why you haven't been able to understand the logic in the opposing arguments because you are too busy either making off topic statements yourself like the one I am now responding to OR divising reasons to in others.

Oh and Mick, it isn't that I don't understand the topic, it is that YOU think it is understandable at all



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



No I didn't say that is YOUR fault I said finding ways to make more complaints about it is your fault and seeing how you couldn't even resist doing it again for my pointing it out, gives us some of the reasons why you haven't been able to understand the logic in the opposing arguments because you are too busy either making off topic statements yourself like the one I am now responding to OR divising reasons to in others.


I find staying on topic paramount to good discussion, so I apologize if you find it to be annoying. I could have gone to the mods, but I don't like doing that if I don't have to, and they seem to be rather unhelpful to me lately anyway.


No Mick, it doesn't work at ALL and life isn't some timeline where we know the events that are to happen when we get there.


Well, actually life is on a time line. It's called the space time continuum.


Saying it doesn't make it worse only makes sense to someone who doesn't make sense because his logic is so flawed, he thinks it doesn't make it worse because another kid is born afterward. That doesn't justify it as not making it any worse moreover most haven't a clue at the time of the abortion their will even be another kid much less one at all. You assuming you will know the consequences in these actions and arguments without thinking them through logically is why you keep making that same logical fallacy.


Well, if you read my post you would know that when I said that, I wasn't referring to abortion, but rather the line of thought I am presenting.

Are you able to think of any way that discussing people who are born today because their mother had an abortion makes the act of abortion worse?


This is why they say hind sight is always 20 20 and why arm chair quarterbacks are so good at football because like you, THEY CAN ASSUME THE CONSEQUENT! This is why it is a false premise a logical fallacy IT DOESN'T WORK MICK because we KNOW that had that armchair quarter back not already seen the game and know what players are gonna do what HIS COACHING ADVICE WOULD SUCK!

Like you however, they usually go on and on as if they know how a player screwed up this play and how their idea would be the right one just like you think your theory is right.

It is NOT


Exactly! Hindsight is 20-20, which is why we are able to be arm chair quarterbacks and examine the situation. You are able to look back and say, "Well, had he used two hands to hold onto the ball he wouldn't have fumbled".

Unfortunately, that is about as far as this comparison can go, but you're right that hindsight is 20-20.

I am not sure I follow exactly what problem it is you have with this discussion. Can you elaborate? Is it that you still don't believe that having an abortion alters the path the person would have taken otherwise? Is it that you don't think it matters?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

I am not sure I follow exactly what problem it is you have with this discussion. Can you elaborate? Is it that you still do not believe that having an abortion alters the path the person would have taken otherwise? Is it that you do not think it matters?


No I am certain it would have altered the path but then THAT would have been the here and now and who knows what that could have been and that is really the point, we can only speculate and while it may be true you might not have been in this present had she not had the abortion, who would ever know you were missing? Not even you. To say that you being here was the direct effet of that same abortion and you were the result is again speculation. We can just as well give the credit or blame for you being here (hehe) to any other event.

Example: We can say that you are here because of Joe Blow.

Who is Joe Blow?

Joe is the guy that asked your mom out and eventually got her pregnant after 20 mins of sex. Had he not had sex, she would not have gotten pregnant and not have had to get an abortion. However, if it had not been for Joes friend Bob, who introduced Joe to your mother, Joe would have never met your mom and on and on.

So saying it was BECAUSE of the abortion is cherry picking events to suit a theory which looks suspiciously like someone trying to find a silver lining to such a subject of contention that it begs the question why the OP is singling it out as THEE event that brought about your present existence.

Therefore, that is the reason so many have asked what your point is. Otherwise we would not have a clue because the rest of us understand that it is the kind of issue we will never really know one way or the other. Therefore, if it is not that and it is not to promote a virtuous reason for having an abortion, then we are still at an impasse.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
There is some strange logic here ...
How could he be here because of John Blow if the mother aborted?
Then he wouldn't have her as a mother, but someone else ...
Or do you mean that his mother got pregnant once more?
What does that in that case have to do with her earlier abortion?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by memyself
There is some strange logic here ...
How could he be here because of John Blow if the mother aborted?
Then he wouldn't have her as a mother, but someone else ...
Or do you mean that his mother got pregnant once more?
What does that in that case have to do with her earlier abortion?


Dude, I should have had red flag warnings whe you made this *Block Buster* statement when I responded to your last loaded question. All that did is bring that bunk baloney about reincarnation being originally part of the Christian Religion and that Constantine kept us from ever finding the so called real thing.

responding



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.


.

Does The Bible Teach Reincarnation?

Reincarnationists sometimes cite Scripture to support their belief. The four references they use most often are John 3:3, Matthew 11:14, Hebrews 7:2-3 and John 9:2. In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that to see the Kingdom of God one must be born again. Jesus, the reincarnationists say, is teaching that a series of rebirths is necessary to achieve perfection. This interpretation does not hold up, however. Nicodemus expressed his puzzlement and spoke of a second physical birth (not exactly like the one spoken of in reincarnation, but similar). Jesus promptly corrected Nicodemus, calling the rebirth He was speaking of a spiritual one (John 3:4-5). Thus, Jesus did not expound the Law of Karma, but refuted it.

Reincarnationists also call attention to Jesus' statement in Matthew 11:14 that John the Baptist was Elijah. However, one must look further in Scripture. Luke 1:17 says that John would precede Christ "with the spirit and power of Elijah." John the Baptist, a man who was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time he was in his mother's womb, himself denied that he was Elijah (John 1:21). Scripture also states that Elijah never experienced physical death (Hebrews 11:5) and during the earthly ministry of Christ still existed as Elijah, as evidenced by his appearance with Moses at the Mount of the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

Another pet Biblical passage among reincarnationists is Hebrews 7:2-3. This verse, they say, tells us that Jesus was Melchizedek in a previous incarnation. However, one need only to read the verses cited to see that the Old Testament character Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God," not that he was Jesus (the Son of God). The writer of Hebrews is saying only that there is no record of Melchizedeks' birth, death or family. Moreover, Melchizedeks priesthood was unique in that it was not transferred to another. Melchizedek was only being likened to Christ, not being called a previous incarnation of Him.

The fourth Scripture often cited by reincarnationists is John 9:1-3, which tells of a man born blind, and the disciple's question as to whose sin was the cause of his blindness. The question may, on the surface, appear to be in accord with the Law of Karma. However, Christ's reply that the man's blindness was in no way related to sin, renders the reincarnationists' stand indefensible www.believersweb.org....


Having looked at what the Bible DOES NOT say in support of reincarnation, and knowing the reincarnationist's while bearing there usual false witness. You will play the same game you did last time. So here TWO can play at that game.

God does not agree with reincarnation and if you ask where in the bible does it say that, Ill just ask you to show me where it doesn't say it.

When you say it doesn't then Ill say "but it may""!

Just like you did with that answer you gave me the very first time.

So if you don't quite get it in my last post to Mick, try starting from the begining, of this thread because thats all you're getting from me in the way of help.

You you are simply too much exercise and too ungrateful.












[edit on 26-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
To Aemacchi:
Here is an extensive answer:
www.christian-reincarnation.com...
Pleas read and then we can communicate again.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
But I do agree on Hebr. 7,23.

And I do insist:
There is some strange logic here ...
How could he be here because of John Blow if the mother aborted?
Then he wouldn't have her as a mother, but someone else ...
Or do you mean that his mother got pregnant once more?
What does that in that case have to do with her earlier abortion?






top topics



 
2
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join