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.

Again assuming the consequent calls for speculation

Affriming the antecedent calls for speculation

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.

Pointless

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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....