The Abortion Paradox

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I agree, but as things stand now an extremely small percentage like less than 1%, of abortions are done because of health, rape, or other similar reasons. The vast majority is for convenience and institutional cost reductions, in it is cheaper to give free abortions than to provide support and services for a child over many years.

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me as a parent was actually how little a child costs. There's food and diapers the first few years. Things get pricey around age 4 if you have to place your child in a daycare for work...but a lot can happen in four years. In that time, a person can get a college degree as I can testify (with low income I was able to get federal loans for classes and books, WIC program helped too). My child was born to working parents who were both going to school. Yes, it was hard, yes it was a lot, but it surely can be done.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So are some people saying that abortions are good, because there are people alive today that would not be if abortions were illegal?

Yes, I believe that's the justification of the day for abortion. "Thank goodness mommy got rid of my older sibling so that I could live life as her favored one".

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So are some people saying that abortions are good, because there are people alive today that would not be if abortions were illegal?

Yes, I believe that's the justification of the day for abortion. "Thank goodness mommy got rid of my older sibling so that I could live life as her favored one".

So why do people feel that with them in the world things are better then with those aborted.

I think everyone who feels this way should devote their whole lives in service to the human race to justify their existence, and honor the dead who made it happen.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So are some people saying that abortions are good, because there are people alive today that would not be if abortions were illegal?

No the supposition that misk is proposing is one that if it were true, we could create a model to effectively alter the existence or non existence of another by an event (an abortion) that happens in the present or past

If this were true then it is possible to avoid death by using other events postulating it would effect avoiding a car accident in the future using the same logic Mick is using to support his claim and also why such claims are called a logical fallacy for assuming the consequent.

Now what mick doesn't get is the very death we could then avoid would be the very death he claims was responsible for another persons life.

in other words, the death we could now avoid would be THE ABORTION !

This theory is so full of circular logic it is pointless and THAT is why he keeps accusing me of being immature and anything else he has gotten away with because he doesn't like BEING WRONG or Admiting his theory is pointless. That however does not change the facts and the facts I have given are undeniable

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Ya, people think that the future is a linear constant and they justify it by looking at their single line past...and they say "see"....

We see this also all the time when people say how they would do things differently in their past if they could. They say this with little understanding that yes it would change the future, but that doesn’t mean for better.

People ask me if my life so far has been successful and I say I’m alive with all my finger and toes, so yes it is successful so far.



[edit on 20-1-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Ya, people think that the future is a linear constant and they justify it by looking at their single line past...and they say "see"....

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Xtrozero]

Exactly, it is like playing arm chair quarterback in an endless game where nobody could win and nobody could lose.

yet he wants to debate me so bad using this tact because he thinks he can't lose but what he doesn't understand is,,

he can't win either




[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

For me this isn't about winning an argument, this is about winning a life. If one person reads this thread and decides not to have an abortion, but rather nurture the growth of a child with love, discipline, and a sense of morality, all these words would be more than worth it. The price paid for merely speaking is so very little compared to the reward of a new life being given a chance at hope, freedom and peace in this world.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
For me this isn't about winning an argument, this is about winning a life. If one person reads this thread and decides not to have an abortion, but rather nurture the growth of a child with love, discipline, and a sense of morality, all these words would be more than worth it. The price paid for merely speaking is so very little compared to the reward of a new life being given a chance at hope, freedom and peace in this world.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by saint4God]

Oh I don't mean it like that saint, I could care less about stars and points as you may already know. It is about appearances and the message you speak is speaking to someone out there the same as mine.

I prayed the night before I came back to this thread and that the words mick uses whether he is mindfull of them or not, DO suggest that their is some "Virtue" in abortion when clearly, their is not and it is ALWAYS,,

a lose lose scenario.

Micks convoluted logic may confuse or in some twisted way, justify an abortion as lousy an excuse as this argument has been, it was seen by more than a few that way.

It is for that reason I prayed the right words so they, like your own, is speaking to someone out there and using them to acknowledge this tact as pointless because it is and I think it is no accident, you , xtrozero and myself are even here discussing it.

I think God has a way to use those that are his to circumvent such a small thing that could quite possibly, and in the grand scheme of things, resulted in another senseless loss of life due to abortion.

That is not our responsibility but Micks

Cross to bear

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So are some people saying that abortions are good, because there are people alive today that would not be if abortions were illegal?

Yes, I believe that's the justification of the day for abortion. "Thank goodness mommy got rid of my older sibling so that I could live life as her favored one".

So why do people feel that with them in the world things are better then with those aborted.

I think everyone who feels this way should devote their whole lives in service to the human race to justify their existence, and honor the dead who made it happen.

My my,, I couldn't have said it better myself and you know I TRY HARD! l It also is indicative of just how far from our moral compass we have strayed. When you consider we give DOGS a more humane euthanasia than we give to some of those born alive living in a broom closet it has been reported as long as 11 hours.

In the dark, hungry, alone and cold, without anyone giving a single damn about them.

This is the kind of heartlessness one Barack Hussien Obama is all about.

I was intrigued and impressed with his eloquent speech today but words count for little when one does not back up their bravado with courageous action in deeds. I can only hope he does that and am praying that he never ever defends this practice of not providing comfort care for these dying survivors of abortion,,

ever again.



[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Why don't you all pat each other on the back a little more? There's been about 10 posts in a row discussing how each person is right, but not quite right, but right. You're right, this thread is pointless because there are some people who have such predetermined mindsets that having any sort of discussion with them is impossible.

I say abortion, you say, "Bad". It doesn't matter the context or the question.

Oh, and Aermacchi, it was you that challenged me to the debate, not the other way around. But I am more than willing to accommodate your request for it, because I would love to discuss anything with you in a setting where there are rules, consequences, and objectivity.

You see, out here, you can get stars and pats on the back from people who just happen to think the same way as you do, but that doesn't mean you are doing anything correctly. There is a reason that you have 232 posts but a negative post rating.

So you guys can pat each other on the back all you want, but in the end, in my opinion, not one of you even tried to actually consider the subject. You can "pray" for me all you want, it won't change anything - I don't respond to prayer, I respond to logic.

Saint, I respect your opinions on abortion, but I really don't believe you think my intentions are sincere. Also, I do not understand how you, or anyone else, can believe that things would be different but still work out the same.

How could things still work out the same? So many different choices would be affected. Do you go out with your friends that night? Do you go shopping or do you go on a date? Do you date this person or this person? Do you have sex that night (the baby might just cry)? All of those decisions would be impacted by having a child.

Considering how genetics play such a crucial role in who we are, just having a different sperm and/or a different egg is easily enough to make an entirely different person. As for religion, I guess I can't comment since I find it to be just as possible as any other mythology - and that's not much credibility in my book.

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.

Well I posed something a ways back, you know, looking into the mindset of the situation.

Still waiting on feedback.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


I apologize, you are correct and I didn't respond.

You know, I think you are dead on in this post. It is absolutely possible for someone to complete the same objectives in life. What I don't think is possible is everything else being the same.

Could, say, the woman still become a math teacher? Absolutely. Could she still be married to the same person? Of course (though maybe not!). What I don't find plausible at all is that she would create the same children.

The odds seem astronomical that the kids would even turn out remotely the same. I think there could be a lot of similarities, in theory, but I think there would also be stark differences.

It's all theory, and damn near impossible to prove - I suppose it could be proven with statistics, but I have a very short background so far in the realm.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Well, according to my mother she was a loving women who nurturied me at every moment.

my opinion? no.

So that's just the fact. What is the mother's consideration of time spent and the child's?

Fact is children want 100% time with their parents, on average. I know that if such had happened to me, I'd probably grow up to be a big baby, dependent on daddies dollar and mommy's milk. I wouldn't want that life.

Just saying, maybe it's better. Look what it did for Obama. That was his childhood. Now he's Mr. Prez.

reply to post by Gorman91


No I mean different genetically. I mean, unless they have sex on the same night, and the same sperm and egg come together, the child will not be remotely close to being the same.

However, I do agree with you about the nurture aspect of things. There definitely needs to be some sort of balance between being there for the child and babying the child.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
I say abortion, you say, "Bad". It doesn't matter the context or the question.

How about you tell us how you felt when YOU were aborted Mick?
One certainly should be able to do that using your logic. It isn't technically feasible but that hasn't stopped you from this line of thinking.

So tell us Mick,, was dying worth it for what his name who gets to live because you died?

Can't tell us can you? and ya know why?

Ill tell you this, you can thank your lucky stars arguments like yours are so easily debunked by posts like mine

Oh, and Aermacchi, it was you that challenged me to the debate, not the other way around.

Yeah?? So?? I never said I didn't only used your description of yourself being so cock sure you would win in ANY argument as just how bad you think you can win one.

I am more than willing to accommodate your request for it, because I would love to discuss anything with you in a setting where there are rules, consequences, and objectivity.

Yeah that WOULD be nice because I sure wouldn't want someone threatening to knock my block off again or call me stupid or ignore the facts of the physical universe and the finite existence we all share

You see, out here, you can get stars and pats on the back from people who just happen to think the same way as you do, but that doesn't mean you are doing anything correctly. There is a reason that you have 232 posts but a negative post rating.

Yeah that would be that I have not been in many threads, made as many posts and the one alert you made crying about me asking you to make sense but that is what you are about when you can't win on your own merit and the veracity of your claim

So you guys can pat each other on the back all you want, but in the end, in my opinion, not one of you even tried to actually consider the subject. You can "pray" for me all you want, it won't change anything - I don't respond to prayer, I respond to logic.

Consider the subject? umm do you not get this Mick or are you just willfully ignorant? I ask this so we may know if you are really just not understanding this or are just wasting our time.

Please share with us so that we can understand what part of this fallacy you do not understand.

Alias:
Asserting the Consequent
Affirmation of the Consequent
Example:
Never has a book been subjected to such pitiless search for error as the Holy Bible. Both reverent and agnostic critics have ploughed and harrowed its passages; but through it all God's word has stood supreme…. This is proof…that here we have a revelation from God; for…if God reveals himself to man…, he will preserve a record of that revelation in order that men who follow may know his way and will.
Source: Hillyer Straton, Baptists: Their Message and Mission (1941), p. 49

Analysis Example Counter-Example
If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.

Therefore, it's raining.

If it's snowing then the streets will be covered with snow.
The streets are covered with snow.
Therefore, it's snowing.

Form
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p.

Similar Validating Forms Modus Ponens Modus Tollens
If p then q.
p.
Therefore, q. If p then q.
Not-q.
Therefore, not-p.

get it?

Exposition:
Affirming the Consequent is a non-validating form of argument in propositional logic; for instance, let "p" be false and "q" be true, then there is no inconsistency in supposing that the first, conditional premiss is true, which makes the premisses true and the conclusion false.

Together with its similar sibling fallacy, Denying the Antecedent, instances of Affirming the Consequent are most likely to seem valid when we assume the converse of the argument's conditional premiss.

In the Example, for instance, we may assume:

(Suppressed Premiss) If the streets are wet then it's raining.

Since wet streets usually dry rapidly, it is a good rule of thumb that wet streets indicate rain. With this suppressed premiss, the argument in the Example is valid. So, in general, in an instance of the form Affirming the Consequent, if it is reasonable to consider the converse of the conditional premiss to be a suppressed premiss, then the argument is not fallacious, but a valid enthymeme.

In contrast, it would not be reasonable to consider the Counter-Example to be an enthymeme, since the converse of its conditional premiss is not plausible, namely:

If the streets are covered with snow then it's snowing.

Unlike rain, we know, at cold temperatures it takes snow a very long time to evaporate. So that, while snow on the ground is a good sign of past snowing, it's a bad sign of present snowing. Thus, the Counter-Example is a fallacious instance of Affirming the Consequent.

Sibling Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent

Mick you are done here, and just because you haven't realized you are finished, doesn't mean a thing.

Oh I'm still waiting for those two names on the list I asked for and if you cannot deliver them than you cannot claim the genetics of such people not in existence, genetically exist, now or in the future. The last time I checked, even YOU say that is what proves your claim.

So where and who are they? if you have no witnesses you have no case because like anywhere else, you need PROOF that someone is alive because someone died in an abortion. Simply assuming the consequent by alleging you stand as that proof is is a hypothesis that can't be tested no more than proving a negative can in does God exist debates. Now I know you know better than this but are having trouble admitting it.

So I have no burden of proof but,,

YOU DO

and untill you can prove this or even provide a testable method of cross examining witnesses that we KNOW will exist as soon as someone is aborted, you have lost this argument as lost as lost can get and you may as well be running around saying the sky is falling the sky is falling.

So?? whatcha got hotshot

Oh and by the way Mick,, I would like to know who I am going to debate when you fail to exist. Ya see after I test your theory that someone lives when someone dies in the past, Ill want to test that theory by allowing said person that died to live instead.

Then when I hear that loud POP! from the airspace clapping together that you used to occupy, a whole chain of events will also be happening that will make this thread go away because like you,, NOW it no longer exists along with the supposition that you ever did.

If you never did exist than you can't say you ever existed because of an abortion because as it turns out, you were never missed in the first place and were never meant to be here

and I don't like arguing with myself but that is EXACTLY what you are asking me to do but then again who knows, something like that could create an entire paradigm shift and ATS may never have been here at all.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
How about you tell us how you felt when YOU were aborted Mick?

That's easy, I wouldn't feel anything. I don't see how one life is worth any more than another.

Yeah that WOULD be nice because I sure wouldn't want someone threatening to knock my block off again or call me stupid or ignore the facts of the physical universe and the finite existence we all share

It is you that takes my words out of context. I didn't say I would do that, I just said it might just happen to you if actually keep that childish attitude person.

What facts of the physical universe? That a different sperm and a different egg create different people? What law am I ignoring? Please tell me.

Yeah that would be that I have not been in many threads, made as many posts and the one alert you made crying about me asking you to make sense but that is what you are about when you can't win on your own merit and the veracity of your claim

I have only about four times as many posts as yours, and yet, I can't even compare my score to yours because yours is actually negative. It has nothing to do with how much, it has to do with post content. You are negative because:

1) You can't stay on topic. You attack people and not the argument. You set up straw men on almost every post (if you even get to the subject). At some time, you obviously were deducted points for something.

2) You don't get applause from mods for posts with quality content. Also, not my problem. You could have the exact same number of posts as I do, and I promise you wouldn't have near the points.

That's not my fault. You should at least have 1,000 points by now, but don't blame me.

Consider the subject? umm do you not get this Mick or are you just willfully ignorant? I ask this so we may know if you are really just not understanding this or are just wasting our time.

Please share with us so that we can understand what part of this fallacy you do not understand.

If you understand it, why did you have to plagiarize from another website. If you were that lazy that you didn't want to source it, you could have at least paraphrased and summed it up yourself.

Basically, your very own logical fallacy, called affirming the consequent, is the biggest method used by those who are religious. It's also known as circular logic.

"God created the Bible. The Bible says Jesus was the son of God. Therefore God says Jesus was his son".

That is not at all what I am doing. I have provided support to others and to you.

Oh I'm still waiting for those two names on the list I asked for and if you cannot deliver them than you cannot claim the genetics of such people not in existence, genetically exist, now or in the future. The last time I checked, even YOU say that is what proves your claim.

Why do you think I have to do anything you say?

Jane and Bob.

Happy?

Let me ask you this question:

Do you think that different sperm and different eggs could create the same person?

reply to post by Aermacchi


How do you know I was never meant to be here? Because God says so? Talk about circular logic.

You are right, if we were to play by "Back to the Future" rules, if someone went back in time and cause the abortion to not happen, I would go "Pop" and cease to exist.

However, your logic that one person is more valuable than another certainly goes against your principle of "pro-life", where "Every life counts"!

*Edit:

Just get the debate going and let it go, Christ.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

That's easy, I wouldn't feel anything. I don't see how one life is worth any more than another.

Not as easy as you think, Mick, when you say you wouldn't feel a thing. does that mean you wouldn't or couldn't? You see that is hearsay and conjecture is not proof it is what you believe but that isn't evidence

care to try again?

TextIt is you that takes my words out of context. I didn't say I would do that, I just said it might just happen to you if actually keep that childish attitude person.

FOUR TIMES????

What facts of the physical universe? That a different sperm and a different egg create different people? What law am I ignoring? Please tell me.

yeah that works fine but only in people that exist in the hear and now mick and ya know why??

Because That's the way genetics works

I have only about four times as many posts as yours, and yet, I can't even compare my score to yours because yours is actually negative. It has nothing to do with how much, it has to do with post content. You are negative because:

1) You can't stay on topic. You attack people and not the argument. You set up straw men on almost every post (if you even get to the subject). At some time, you obviously were deducted points for something.

Hey Mick If I was minus 8000 and brought to + 5000 which is something I can prove happens here, it STILL would have no bearing on this topic so what the hell are you going off topic about this time!

Or is this another one of your entrapment statements that require an off topic response so you can complain some more when I do.

You DON'T LIKE OFF TOPIC POSTS QUIT MAKING THEM BECAUSE THE LIONS SHARE OF YOUR POSTS SINCE I FIRST DEBUNKED THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN AT ME!

2) You don't get applause from mods for posts with quality content. Also, not my problem. You could have the exact same number of posts as I do, and I promise you wouldn't have near the points.

That's not my fault. You should at least have 1,000 points by now, but don't blame me.

Mick you have no idea what I have done and I have had 8 in five months can you beat that? Not that it matters anymore

If you understand it, why did you have to plagiarize from another website. If you were that lazy that you didn't want to source it, you could have at least paraphrased and summed it up yourself.

I didn't plagiarize a damn thing mick, the logical fallacy I quoted in the bracketed external quotes was one I got in an email but who sent it is none of your business. If you found it somewhere else than what do you need my help with? I never put my name under it and that fallacy is the same one anywhere. You think I should be accused of plagiarism for what is not given credit when no credit for it was taken by me? Nice try Mick but it is terribly desperate, even for you.

If you are goiong to use that frame of logic then practice what you preach smart guy because I see you using a lot of quotes of mine without a single link to the source.

Ridiculous you say?

Yeah that's what I thought when you tried that stunt on me.

Basically, your very own logical fallacy, called affirming the consequent, is the biggest method used by those who are religious. It's also known as circular logic."God created the Bible. The Bible says Jesus was the son of God. Therefore God says Jesus was his son".

Yes Mick it is the one that burns religious people and THAT is why a religious example is GIVEN and why it defeats it.

Atheist's generally know more about this area of debate then any Christian I have known but if you ask Ashley, Ill bet ya she will tell you what I think she will and that is YOU AIN'T DEALIN WITH SOMEONE RIGHT OFF THE TURNIP TRUCK and logical fallacy is something not many will know as well as she knows this christian does and why.

Don't worry about me holding her responsible for anything she says one way or the other, I asked for it and I think you know her integrity and honesty is impeccable. Much more than you or I could ever be.

You are correct in that it does bring about the endless loop of circular logic which is WHAT your premise is about!

That is not at all what I am doing. I have provided support to others and to you.

Support? I am not asking you to provide your friends or the peanut gallery to come here with pom poms in hand I am asking for PROOF not support.

Oh I'm still waiting for those two names on the list I asked for and if you cannot deliver them than you cannot claim the genetics of such people not in existence, genetically exist, now or in the future. The last time I checked, even YOU say that is what proves your claim. - aer

Why do you think I have to do anything you say?

Jane and Bob. Happy?

pffft jeeez ok,, what else,,,

let me ask you this question:
Do you think that different sperm and different eggs could create the same person?

I don't know,, I have never used differen't spem and differn't eggs to create me, have you ?

Didn't think so, but what makes that even more pointless is attempting it from outside the time continuum where anything is anyones guess

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

How do you know I was never meant to be here? Because God says so? Talk about circular logic.

You are right, if we were to play by "Back to the Future" rules, if someone went back in time and cause the abortion to not happen, I would go "Pop" and cease to exist.

However, your logic that one person is more valuable than another certainly goes against your principle of "pro-life", where "Every life counts"!

*Edit:

Just get the debate going and let it go, Christ.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Irish M1ck]

I have no idea where this is coming from but it is obvious yo uare missing the point, this isn't about one life having value over another it is about the ONLY lives that matter and that is those That EXIST! and only those that exist! Who the hell cares about lives that won't ? or those we THINK MIGHT just because we want to?

It is POINTLESS Circular Logic Mick plane AND

SIMPLE!