Originally posted by Irish M1ck
That's not what he said at all.
I beg to differ mick and anyone reading my posts would have to see that BOTH xtrozero and myself are placing the focus of our inquiry on why you think
it HAS to be the event of the abortion as the deciding criteria in your theory. He asks why does it have to be the abortion and I ask to PROVE it has
to be the abortion when any number of other events could have made any number of differences suggesting since it could be postulated ONLY by
speculation making the argument pointless as it has no basis of fact.
You can't possibly know, as you insist, your life or who ever it is would or wouldn't have changed in any more or any less a significant way to say
unequivocally that you or anyone else for that matter is alive BECAUSE of an abortion. Is it possible? Yes but we will never know it is anything
MORE than JUST a POSSIBILITY. The only way we could is to go back in time, talk your mother out of it and see if their isn't enough allowances for
all the other people, places and things to still happen.
EXAMPLE : Single Woman gets abortion in her second week of pregnancy, she goes to work taking the bus so she can be there by 9:00 am. She sees the
same handsome fella that takes the same route she does only on this day he strikes up a conversation, they have always been hot for each other so they
start dating and on third date he makes a move to have sex with her and he succeeds in getting lucky. In no time he falls in love and like a lot of
shotgun marriages back then, he finds out he got her pregnant then gets married. A year later during their ritual Friday night love making they have
another child and say this time it is you or you could have been the first one.
Now same scenario only THIS time the guy on the bus starts meets on the same route, asks her out not knowing she missed her last period and is two
weeks pregnant. They have always been hot for each other so they start dating and on third date he makes a move to have sex with her and he succeeds
in getting lucky.
Like many woman living before the advent of DNA testing and the Maury Povich show, she leads husband to think it is his kid we know this happens a lot
and many woman had secrets like this and guys would often marry the girl to honor her name. Kid is born a year later during that same Friday night
love making and providing her menstrual cycle is pretty regular, chances are the same second pregnancy could happen only THIS time husband get in a
fender bender and hurts his back so they forgo the sex until Sunday morning, skipping church.
Lo and behold she is pregnant again only it wasn't because she got an abortion that THIS kid was born although he might think so if he knew the truth
but the fact still remains is this kid was born because Dad had a car accident so that Sundays sperm race winner got the brass ring in moms egg rather
than Fridays. There are so many variables like this it is too numerous to mention but the fact that there are and the fact that you, like the kid in
the scenario couldn't possibly know ALL the ramifications that may be the REAL reason you were born and not just because of an abortion.
He said why pick abortion and not something else. You were still trying to deny that having a baby will change the way someone goes through life...
which I have no idea how you can even begin to support that.
He singled out the Abortion only component I asked you to prove the abortion only component both of us trying to get you to see the same flaw in your
And this thread is perfectly fine for you to be in if you want to argue. I don't really enjoy this style of argument:
You mean the kind that someone proves your theory flawed?
but she decided to kill it because it cramped her lifestyle or whatever the reason was
Yes, Mick, cold as that sounds, that is what one does when they have an abortion, they kill the baby. I know the terminology may differ from "kill"
to "terminate" "abort" or "Baby" "early stage human" to "uterine tissue" "fetus" "embryo" "medical tissue" etc. This is done to make
the decision to kill ones own flesh and blood and by the grace of God there go I, a much more sterile experience. It is interesting to note that
woman who want to see the pregnancy to term but suffer a miscarriage, refer to it as "losing the "baby"". I have never to this day heard anyone
who wanted to keep their baby that miscarried, say they lost the fetus.
As for those who chose abortion and to bring back into context your use of quote mining my post, she may have had a reason like money or for some,
career and in some rare cases, to save the life of the mother, but all of these are cramps to our lifestyle that woman decide are either worthy of
making this decision.
My calling it what it is in what one can only assume is a hypothetical situation was in direct response to the premise of your argument. The meaning
you place on that hypothetical example must be why you use it as an excuse to say the following:
If you had said that about my mom to me in person...
is that a threat Mick? said what about your mom mick? May I remind you that YOU were the one telling us your Mom had an abortion. I said nothing to
insult you or her other than the facts you gave and any number of reasons that cramped her lifestyle so much it was an imperative.
was it not? I mean I have no idea do I? So quit putting my quotes into such a context to paint me in such a light. I assure you I meant no disrespect
other than what you imagined.
Did you want to say, "How does that justify abortion?" If so... say it!
How does WHAT justify abortion? Mick, you lost me. Ok I see, you are being presumptuous again. Mick if I wanted to say it like that,, I WOULD but
that isn't what I was saying and is the reason why I didn't say it like you imagine the "real meaning" must be.
You come into my thread and you start talking all sorts of trash. I can do that with you, but I prefer not to.
I'm sorry Mick but I disagree and while you say you can do that but you prefer not to, then,,
why ARE you?
[edit on 17-1-2009 by Aermacchi]