Latest Topics

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

You are the one who can't logically explain the standard you use for saying that a woman shouldn't get an abortion.

You said "women shouldn't get abortions because they know that they can get pregnant as a consequence of having sex."  I then pointed out that just because you know that there may be a unintended consequence to your actions, it doesn't necessarily mean that you wanted those consequences to happen, or that you should be without remedy simply because you knew that something unintended could happen.  This is were the car accident example came in.

Since then, all you have done is try to distinguish the car example with the pregnancy, by bringing up distinctions which have nothing to do with the main point I was making.  

I find it funny that you claim that I have thrown out logic here.  At one point, you said "And then when you add the fact that we're talking about human life and not car insurance... Yah, it's not even close."   If you knew how logic worked, you would know that it doesn't matter if we are talking about planes, cars, or unborn children.  A logical justification to do something will not simply because the thing you are talking about is different.  If you can make a logical argument for being pro-life, then that logical argument can be used as the standard for other things.

If your logical standard is "you are killing an unborn child", but when confronted with situations were society is ok with letting a child die, you try to tell distinguish both cases.  It shows that your true logical justification for being pro-life is not simply "killing an unborn child", and during this whole pointless back and forth, all I've wanted you do to is force you to tell me your logical justification for being pro-life.  Please tell me what is your logical reason for being pro-life.  And remember, it has to be a logical reason.  If your logical standard cannot be applies to other circumstances with the same overall facts, then it isn't a logical justification.

I don't have time to read this written spew of shit, but let me make it simple:

People are responsible for their own actions. Other people should not be killed because someone ELSE made a mistake or had an accident. I'll annihilate your post after dinner, but if it's anything like what you've said so far that won't ate much.

[GatorLaw]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 11 November 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

I don't have time to read this written spew of shit, but let me make it simple:

People are responsible for their own actions. Other people should not be killed because someone ELSE made a mistake or had an accident. I'll annihilate your post after dinner, but if it's anything like what you've said so far that won't ate much.

And again, you fail to even address my whole point.  Your reason for being pro-life completely ignores the fact that a woman has to go through 9 months of pregnancy.  If your reason for being pro-life ignores that fact, then you are not looking at the whole picture.  

Can you give me a LOGICAL reason for being pro life, which takes into account the life of the unborn child AND the fact that the mother will go through a pregnancy if not allowed to have an abortion?

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

And again, you fail to even address my whole point.  Your reason for being pro-life completely ignores the fact that a woman has to go through 9 months of pregnancy.  If your reason for being pro-life ignores that fact, then you are not looking at the whole picture.  

Can you give me a LOGICAL reason for being pro life, which takes into account the life of the unborn child AND the fact that the mother will go through a pregnancy if not allowed to have an abortion?

Dude, you're a fool. A woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy? Yes, THAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE! If you have sex with a 13 year old and you're 50, you have to go through the rest of your life labeled as a sex offender. If it's rape, you go through your whole life known as a rapist. If you run a million red lights and speed all the time your insurance will be way higher. If you don't understand what a consequence is, I don't have time to deal with you.

Pregnancy is a consequence of unprotected or unsafe sex. It happens. You might not want it to happen, but it does. If you're speeding in your car you obviously don't want to pay a ticket and have your insurance go up, but if you get caught that's what will happen. If you're a 50 year old raping teenagers you don't want to go to jail and be labeled a sex offender, but you will.

And of course the examples don't have to be limited to crimes; they're just  easiest illustrations. If you do a shitty job at work and get fired, should you be able to kill your boss if he/she gives you a negative recommendation to future employers? After all, women only have to live nine months being pregnant but you might have to live your whole life not getting good recommendations.


Basically, your argument is that people shouldn't be held accountable to their actions if it inconveniences them somehow. That's stupid. Killing cannot be justified because of an inconvenience. If someone is in my house robbing me, then yeah, I can shoot them. If someone blows leaves into my yard every Saturday for years, I can't kill them.

The logic is simple. The mother always has a choice. If she chooses to have sex then she is willfully taking the risk of becoming pregnant. At that point, she has another life that she can't just take away because she feels like it. You cant take back actions that have already happened. you seem to think that those actions can be erased by killing the baby and that this is perfectly logical somehow. i dont see how it's logical to justify killing under the misdirection of "choice" when the choice was already made when the child was conceived. That's the choice and women just have to learn to live with it.

And again, a parent can be charge with neglect if they don't take care of their children, so the law already requires some degree of nurturing of children. Also, if a man knocks a woman up, whether he wants to or not, he can be court ordered to pay child support. Where is the logic in abortion being legal when men don't have a choice on paying child support?

Anyway, I've made my point and anyone with common sense can see and understand from where I am coming. They might not agree, but they'll see my point. If you can't, that's your problem.

[GatorLaw]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 11 November 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

Dude, you're a fool. A woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy? Yes, THAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE! If you have sex with a 13 year old and you're 50, you have to go through the rest of your life labeled as a sex offender. If it's rape, you go through your whole life known as a rapist. If you run a million red lights and speed all the time your insurance will be way higher. If you don't understand what a consequence is, I don't have time to deal with you.

Pregnancy is a consequence of unprotected or unsafe sex. It happens. You might not want it to happen, but it does. If you're speeding in your car you obviously don't want to pay a ticket and have your insurance go up, but if you get caught that's what will happen. If you're a 50 year old raping teenagers you don't want to go to jail and be labeled a sex offender, but you will.

And of course the examples don't have to be limited to crimes; they're just  easiest illustrations. If you do a shitty job at work and get fired, should you be able to kill your boss if he/she gives you a negative recommendation to future employers? After all, women only have to live nine months being pregnant but you might have to live your whole life not getting good recommendations.


Basically, your argument is that people shouldn't be held accountable to their actions if it inconveniences them somehow. That's stupid. Killing cannot be justified because of an inconvenience. If someone is in my house robbing me, then yeah, I can shoot them. If someone blows leaves into my yard every Saturday for years, I can't kill them.

The logic is simple. The mother always has a choice. If she chooses to have sex then she is willfully taking the risk of becoming pregnant. At that point, she has another life that she can't just take away because she feels like it. You cant take back actions that have already happened. you seem to think that those actions can be erased by killing the baby and that this is perfectly logical somehow. i dont see how it's logical to justify killing under the misdirection of "choice" when the choice was already made when the child was conceived. That's the choice and women just have to learn to live with it.

And again, a parent can be charge with neglect if they don't take care of their children, so the law already requires some degree of nurturing of children. Also, if a man knocks a woman up, whether he wants to or not, he can be court ordered to pay child support. Where is the logic in abortion being legal when men don't have a choice on paying child support?

Anyway, I've made my point and anyone with common sense can see and understand from where I am coming. They might not agree, but they'll see my point. If you can't, that's your problem.

Damn.. you are so obsessed with the "its a consequence of your actions."  

"The logic is simple. The mother always has a choice. If she chooses to have sex then she is willfully taking the risk of becoming pregnant." When I drive a car I'm taking the risk of getting into a car accident, so what?  You can keep repeating the same thing, and totally ignore my objections to your argument.  I'm don't think you understand how logic works.  That's for sure.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Damn.. you are so obsessed with the "its a consequence of your actions."  

"The logic is simple. The mother always has a choice. If she chooses to have sex then she is willfully taking the risk of becoming pregnant." When I drive a car I'm taking the risk of getting into a car accident, so what?  You can keep repeating the same thing, and totally ignore my objections to your argument.  I'm don't think you understand how logic works.  That's for sure.

I'm not obsessed, it just seemed like saying it only once made it impossible for you to understand.

You still have no idea what is going on. I kind of feel bad for you.

[GatorLaw]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 11 November 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

I'm not obsessed, it just seemed like saying it only once made it impossible for you to understand.

You still have no idea what is going on. I kind of feel bad for you.

And yet again, you don't address my objection.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Damn.. you are so obsessed with the "its a consequence of your actions."  

"The logic is simple. The mother always has a choice. If she chooses to have sex then she is willfully taking the risk of becoming pregnant." When I drive a car I'm taking the risk of getting into a car accident, so what?  You can keep repeating the same thing, and totally ignore my objections to your argument.  I'm don't think you understand how logic works.  That's for sure.

1. Driving in a car is taking a risk. If your actions chosen by you cause a negative consequence, aka a wreck, it is your fault and you pay.
2. Having sex is taking a risk. If your actions chosen by you cause a negative consequence, aka a baby, it is your fault and you pay.
3. If you are driving a car and someone else hits you while you are minding your own business, it is not your fault and you don't pay.

You keep trying to equate number three to number two, but you can't because they are not the same situation. Numbers one and two are the same situation, number three is different. If you can't understand that, you have no business trying to debate anything with anyone.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

And yet again, you don't address my objection.

You haven't addressed anything I've said, you keep going back to a scenario that doesn't even apply. See my above post.

[GatorLaw]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 11 November 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

1. Driving in a car is taking a risk. If your actions chosen by you cause a negative consequence, aka a wreck, it is your fault and you pay.
2. Having sex is taking a risk. If your actions chosen by you cause a negative consequence, aka a baby, it is your fault and you pay.
3. If you are driving a car and someone else hits you while you are minding your own business, it is not your fault and you don't pay.

You keep trying to equate number three to number two, but you can't because they are not the same situation. Numbers one and two are the same situation, number three is different. If you can't understand that, you have no business trying to debate anything with anyone.

But when you drive a car, you also run the risk that you may get into an accident without it being your fault.  Even though a driver knows that he may be involved in a car accident caused by someone else, it doesn't mean that we as a society say "too bad someone crashed into your car, you knew thee was a risk of being in a car accident when you drove that car."

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

But when you drive a car, you also run the risk that you may get into an accident without it being your fault.  Even though a driver knows that he may be involved in a car accident caused by someone else, it doesn't mean that we as a society say "too bad someone crashed into your car, you knew thee was a risk of being in a car accident when you drove that car."

If you're having sex and you get pregnant, it's your fault.

[GatorLaw]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 11 November 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

If you're having sex and you get pregnant, it's your fault.

And is this because the woman knew that she could get pregnant if she engaged in sex?  Again- the standard you would be setting would be "Everyone is responsible for whatever happens to you, as long as you knew it was a possibility that it could happen to you."  If not, how would you state your standard?

And in your previous reply...so much for your logical argument.  You say that 2 and 3 cannot be equated because they are different.  You know what I was expecting to read after that sentences?.. and explanation as to how they were different.  But you don't distinguish the cases, you just say "they are different" and move on as if you just PWNED me with a logic bomb.  You have repeated already that you are tired of repeating the same things to me, but the problem is that you haven't actually addressed my objections.  All you say is "it's not the same" or "they are different."  Instead of telling me how they are different, you should probably explain HOW they are different, and HOW the difference is material.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorLaw, on 11 November 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

And is this because the woman knew that she could get pregnant if she engaged in sex?  Again- the standard you would be setting would be "Everyone is responsible for whatever happens to you, as long as you knew it was a possibility that it could happen to you."  If not, how would you state your standard?

And in your previous reply...so much for your logical argument.  You say that 2 and 3 cannot be equated because they are different.  You know what I was expecting to read after that sentences?.. and explanation as to how they were different.  But you don't distinguish the cases, you just say "they are different" and move on as if you just PWNED me with a logic bomb.  You have repeated already that you are tired of repeating the same things to me, but the problem is that you haven't actually addressed my objections.  All you say is "it's not the same" or "they are different."  Instead of telling me how they are different, you should probably explain HOW they are different, and HOW the difference is material.

You still don't get it.

If you're old enough to physically have sex, you know that you can become pregnant. Don't even try to tell me that middle schoolers and high schoolers don't know that because I taught for two years. They know.

And you're putting words in my mouth. Again. Let me say this, AGAIN: You are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Is that simple enough? Obviously not considering how many times I've said it and you still come up with something else in your mind that you think I'm saying every time.

And you want an explanation as to how two and three are different? Easy:

In number two you are making a choice by your own free will to do something that might result in a negative consequence as a direct result of the choice and the actions that you have made.
Getting pregnant is a direct result of you having sex. It's something that you decided to do knowing that it could happen and knowing that you had a part in making it happen. It's your responsibility because you are a direct participant.

In number three, something happened to you that is the direct result of someone else's actions. Your actions did not cause the wreck, their's did. You didn't play a part in it happening because you were the one where you were supposed to be whereas the other person at fault was doing something that they were NOT supposed to do, i.e. run a red light and slam into you.


Now your response was probably about to be, "Oh well you CHOSE to drive haha lol lulz hehe it's the same" but the problem with that is what I bolded above. If you're driving and someone breaks the law, slamming into you, the wreck is in no way a direct result of your actions, it's the direct result of someone else's actions.

If you have sex with someone and get pregnant, it is a result of both people's actions. Now, if you can find some way to work in a third party in this situation, good for you, pervert.

And the only way to logically argue against this is to say that nobody is at fault for anything, that if you get murdered it's your fault for walking outside, etc. because that's the logical followup to saying it's your fault for driving at all if you get into a wreck that is caused by someone else. The only argument I can think of for you to use would be if a guy tells a girl he is using a condom and he lied to her about it.

[GatorHunter]

My wife's brother aggravates the hell out of me...he's a good guy...he's just got untreated ADD (my diagnosis) and is impossible to talk to...he's always all over the place.  He lost his job last year because he took my advice and stood up to his supervisor...he couldn't find work and had to live with us for almost a year...it was really inconvenient for us...I should have just killed him.

Edited by GatorHunter, 12 November 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

GatorHunter, on 12 November 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

My wife's brother aggravates the hell out of me...he's a good guy...he's just got untreated ADD (my diagnosis) and is impossible to talk to...he's always all over the place.  He lost his job last year because he took my advice and stood up to his supervisor...he couldn't find work and had to live with us for almost a year...it was really inconvenient for us...I should have just killed him.

Dude, you're absolutely right. Why should you have to live with him in your home for a year? You should have killed him where he stood; I bet Gatorlaw would have helped you!~