Do 'pro-life' Christians ever . . .

[Lek]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

[SteelCurtain]

[Lek]

[Lek]

That's because it is not a scientifically verifiable terminus. It is a red herring. There is no "human test." As such it is only an attempt to shift the goalposts. We can only say that 'x weeks' is the point where it is extremely unlikely that a fetus will survive outside of the womb. And even then that number is moved back because of scientific intervention, a la NICUs.

I agree that it is not scientifically verifiable.  That's one reason I am against abortion.

So you choose an non-viable fetus' life over the life of the mother. And don't say you sympathize for someone and then attempt to take their lives away. That is some dishonest rug pulling, no less. You clearly do not sympathize with the women. You are merely acknowledging that it sucks, but you know what's best for them.

No, I don't choose the life of a fetus over the life of the mother.  If it's a "life for a life situation", I think the mother should make the decision.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

*sigh* re-read what you posted above, and then re-read your citation. I understand and appreciate the attempt to find an unbiased source, but the source cited gives zero credibility your still unevidenced claim.

So, again, citation for your claim please.

Women have various reasons for using birth control. If they are having an abortion for financial reasons, they are still using it as birth control. Like the link says, more than half of women who get abortions used birth control the month before. I'm not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs or calling them bad people. I just think they are wrong. Do you think that most women who have abortions do it more for themselves or for the good of the child?

You are not providing a citation for your original claim in the above response.

I'm not responding to you on any other matter until you provide clear evidence of your claim, quoted below:

Most abortions are not because the mother can't afford the child anyway, but rather just for convenience - just a form of birth control.

This thread is at an impasse until you retract or evidence your claim, and I will continue asking until you do one or the other.

[Lek]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

^^ no, it's nothing of the sort. The above implies only what is stated. It elucidates no further on personal circumstances, or on what other birth control methods were used and when, and how that relates to pregnancies. Maybe a % were relying purely on abortion for birth control, however I doubt that is the case for the majority (no evidence of that in your citation, either).

Whilet the study talks to several women, 1000+ is hardly a sample size which would lend any credibility to your claim in any case.

You are suffering from confirmation bias on your own pre-held beliefs. The above is not a citation of your claim. Sorry.

[MTL]

just a form of birth control.

Do you really believe this Lek? In a world where a few bucks buys a variety of contraceptives, women are opting for an expensive medical treatment instead?!? Seriously?

Agreed.  An abortion is a very unpleasant process for a woman to endure...on multiple levels.

Far preferable are the traditional contraceptives.

[Minimalist]

If someone is trying to preserve this living being, then they are pro-life in that regard.

What business is it of yours if some woman has or does not have a kid?  You should examine your motives.

I think you are a fucking busy body.


And before you start with the welfare horseshit try to remember that these fine xtian republicunt scumbags are forever trying to cut those benefits.