[__ Science __ ] Heartbreaking: 1 in 5 Babies Killed by Abortion in 2020

[AIG.com]

A new report recently came out from the Guttmacher Institute that serves as a horrifying reminder of how life-saving this SCOTUS ruling on June 24, 2022, is.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

Since about 1 in every 4 pregnancies spontaneously abort without any human intervention, the death toll is much greater than you suggest.

 

[jaybo]

A new report recently came out from the Guttmacher Institute that serves as a horrifying reminder of how life-saving this SCOTUS ruling on June 24, 2022, is.

Continue reading...

This is nothing but propaganda. By far the greatest number of pregnancies are terminated because it is medically necessary. BTW, abortions are still legal -- as they should be -- in the majority of states. How many women do you want to see die because of your spiritual blindness?

 

[Free]

This is nothing but propaganda. By far the greatest number of pregnancies are terminated because it is medically necessary.

Not even close. The vast majority are performed because the baby would in some way be an inconvenience.

BTW, abortions are still legal -- as they should be -- in the majority of states. How many women do you want to see die because of your spiritual blindness?

How will they die? Be careful in calling others spiritually blind when it is your position that contradicts Scripture and Christian history.

 

[jaybo]

Not even close. The vast majority are performed because the baby would in some way be an inconvenience.


How will they die? Be careful in calling others spiritually blind when it is your position that contradicts Scripture and Christian history.

You're wrong on both counts.

 

[Free]

You're wrong on both counts.

I’ll provide further evidence for my claims when I have the time. Perhaps in the meantime you can provide evidence for your claims and answer the question I asked.

 

[jaybo]

I’ll provide further evidence for my claims when I have the time. Perhaps in the meantime you can provide evidence for your claims and answer the question I asked.

I won't discuss anything with someone who writes this about me: "Be careful in calling others spiritually blind when it is your position that contradicts Scripture and Christian history."

 

[Free]

I won't discuss anything with someone who writes this about me: "Be careful in calling others spiritually blind when it is your position that contradicts Scripture and Christian history."

What was wrong with that? It is a warning because you said: “How many women do you want to see die because of your spiritual blindness?”. You want to call other Christians spiritually blind because you disagree with them but can’t stand to be warned about your own possible spiritual blindness, and that when you contradict the Bible and all of Christian history? Do you know what that is called?

I think you have no evidence. That you haven’t as of yet provided anything but opinion strongly points to that conclusion.

 

[jaybo]

What was wrong with that? It is a warning because you said: “How many women do you want to see die because of your spiritual blindness?”. You want to call other Christians spiritually blind because you disagree with them but can’t stand to be warned about your own possible spiritual blindness, and that when you contradict the Bible and all of Christian history? Do you know what that is called?

I think you have no evidence. That you haven’t as of yet provided anything but opinion strongly points to that conclusion.

a) You're wrong.
b) I won't discuss the issue with you until you change your tone.

Did you not read my previous reply? I won't discuss anything with someone who writes this about me: "Be careful in calling others spiritually blind when it is your position that contradicts Scripture and Christian history."

 

[Free]

a) You're wrong.

About what? Again, you have never provided evidence of anything and ignored all evidence proving you wrong.

b) I won't discuss the issue with you until you change your tone.

I have no tone. This is a serious topic that deserves far more serious attention than you have given it. I have simply been asking straightforward questions which you keep avoiding. In my experience, and the experience of several authors I've read, when someone continually avoids answering questions and doesn't produce evidence to support their position, it's usually because they have no evidence. Of course, it could also be cognitive dissonance--that uncomfortable feeling when a person's beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours contradict themselves. Something has to give and it works it's way out in different ways, including avoidance of new information.

Did you not read my previous reply? I won't discuss anything with someone who writes this about me: "Be careful in calling others spiritually blind when it is your position that contradicts Scripture and Christian history."

Again, what was wrong with that? You're upset that I pointed out that you're being hypocritical?

 

[jaybo]

About what? Again, you have never provided evidence of anything and ignored all evidence proving you wrong.


I have no tone. This is a serious topic that deserves far more serious attention than you have given it. I have simply been asking straightforward questions which you keep avoiding. In my experience, and the experience of several authors I've read, when someone continually avoids answering questions and doesn't produce evidence to support their position, it's usually because they have no evidence. Of course, it could also be cognitive dissonance--that uncomfortable feeling when a person's beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours contradict themselves. Something has to give and it works it's way out in different ways, including avoidance of new information.


Again, what was wrong with that? You're upset that I pointed out that you're being hypocritical?

Your personal criticism of me is nothing more than an ad hominem diversion. You have nothing valid to say about the subject of abortion so you resort to personal attacks.