[Athos]

You want to claim to be against abortion while not wanting to have any laws against it, thus demonstrating that you are very much pro-abortion. The truth usually comes out in the end.

YOU want to claim to be against abortion while allowing yourself the choice to support abortion in a case that directly affects YOU. That's called being PRO-CHOICE! Also called being a hypocrite.

Yes, DEFINItELY - the truth usually comes out in the end.

You post so much nonsense, Jl, it's child's play to pick apart your foolishness.

[tomder55]

the vaccines loose effectiveness real quick ;within a couple of months


Flat out wrong. Your opposition to vaccines and masking is deadly.

The CDC says I am right .The Pfizer CEO says I'm right . All the vaccine manufactures now recommend additional jabs . The Israeli government says I'm right .

That is just for the covid vaccines . Studies also show repeated boosters of other vaccines like the flu shot ,mumps, pertussis, meningococcal disease, and yellow fever lose effectiveness much sooner that previously thought .The flu vaccine loses effectiveness within 3 months . The covid vaccines demonstrably lose effectiveness in 6 . That is why all the manufacturers urge booster shots and the government is aiming towards approving them . They have already been approved for targeted vulnerable people

I have never been opposed to vaccines. I oppose mandates ;and I am realistic about what the expect from vaccines . They are a part of the solution ;Not the only solution. Covid is not going to go away .No jab will make it so. It will continue mutating on long past the time we run out of Greek letters to name them . A more targeted and diversified health strategy could have delivered better results. If, in addition to the early vaccines, we had focused on early treatments with antibodies and inexpensive and safe drugs instead of demonizing them because of who was in office (e.g. ivermectin), we might have saved many tens of thousands of lives. Without the economic and social destruction.

[jlisenbe]

WG, the question was this. You say you are against abortion. Then do you support changing laws to make access to abortion more restricted? An answer would be wonderful. In this case, do as the "fundies" do!

The CDC says I am right .The Pfizer CEO says I'm right . All the vaccine manufactures now recommend additional jabs . The Israeli government says I'm right .

With a thinking person, that argument would be compelling. It would at least be food for serious thought.

I'm all for the vaccine as well, but I'm not in favor of making it mandatory. And I have no confidence in the willingness of the Biden admin to be honest in passing out advice.

Tom, I do have one question for you. I hear the argument that life is filled with mandatory vaccinations. Schoolchildren must have them. Many members of the military, upon going overseas, are lined up and "shot". Does that make the case for mandatory Covid vaccinations more sensible? I don't like the mandatory Covid vaccines idea, but I have to admit that answering that argument is not easy.

YOU want to claim to be against abortion while allowing yourself the choice to support abortion in a case that directly affects YOU. That's called being PRO-CHOICE! Also called being a hypocrite.

I feel safe in saying that the great majority of people understand that being willing to acknowledge that saving one life rather than losing them both is very much pro-life. That's the situation when the mother's life is clearly at stake. No allowance of abortion ever directly affected me. Being against 99.99% of abortions is very much a pro-life position. Being in favor of 100% of abortions, as you are, is very much a pro-death position. Can you defend that? (Why I ask this person questions, I don't know. It will likely not be answered.)

[Athos]

The CDC says I am right .The Pfizer CEO says I'm right . All the vaccine manufactures now recommend additional jabs . The Israeli government says I'm right .

None of your sources say two months is the effective limit of the vaccines. As to Pfizer, they are hardly neutral in the matter. The Israeli government is not a scienfic outfit.

The covid vaccines demonstrably lose effectiveness in 6

6 months or a couple of months? Which is it? 10 months? 14 months?

I have never been opposed to vaccines. I oppose mandates

Those who oppose mandates rarely promote vaccines in the same sentence. They key on the mandates rather then keying on the vaccine. It would be a simple matter to do both.

I am realistic about what the expect from vaccines

Are you? What do you make of the fact that hospitalizations are now 99% unvaccinated people? A realistic expectation of getting the vaccine is that it will keep a person out of the hospital - and not die.

They are a part of the solution ;Not the only solution.

No argument there. There are many partial solutions to the pandemic including treatment, social distancing, masks, etc. - in addition to the prime solution of vaccination.

Covid is not going to go away .No jab will make it so.

It makes it go away for a person for at least 6 months as you stated above.

instead of demonizing them because of who was in office (e.g. ivermectin)

Don't forget bleach/disnfectants, hydrowhatever, and whatever else that demon you cite proposed.

we might have saved many tens of thousands of lives. Without the economic and social destruction.

There is no "might have" with Trump. His inaction led to over 400,000 deaths from Covid.

[Wondergirl]

WG, the question was this. You say you are against abortion. Then do you support changing laws to make access to abortion more restricted?

Why do we need laws for or against abortion? We don't need laws to have a tooth pulled by one's dentist or laws for elective surgery.

[jlisenbe]

Why do we need laws for or against abortion? We don't need laws to have a tooth pulled by one's dentist or laws for elective surgery.

Why do we need laws against murder, or rape, or bank robbing, or any one of many other actions which the law says is wrong? If you are truly against abortion, then wouldn't you want it stopped by force of law? Otherwise, you will continue to have what you have now. So that's why I just don't think you are really against abortion. I don't think you have thought it through. If it is the destruction of a human life, then it should be stopped. If it's not, then as you said, it's nothing more significant than having a tooth pulled, in which case I can't imagine why anyone would be against it.

[Athos]

I feel safe in saying that the great majority of people understand that being willing to acknowledge that saving one life rather than losing them both is very much pro-life.

To choose one life over another is about choice. Try as you may, you cannot change that absolute fact. You want to have it both ways, but you can't. It's called rationalizing a decision. You've also got a moral problem with the end justifying the means.

No allowance of abortion ever directly affected me.

That's true of others here. The point?

Being against 99.99% of abortions is very much a pro-life position.

Not quite. There's your difficulty with words again. They don't mean what you want them to mean simply because they suit your position.

Being in favor of 100% of abortions, as you are, is very much a pro-death position.

Now it's pro-death. Ridiculous. You get crazier and crazier the more you post on abortion.

Can you defend that?

Do you really think I need to defend that nuttiness of yours?

(Why I ask this person questions, I don't know. It will likely not be answered.)

I have no idea why you ask anyone here questions. Just about everything you have ever asked or said has been roundly rebutted by me and others.

Oh, in case you missed it, post #180 is also for you.

[Athos]

If it is the destruction of a human life, then it should be stopped. If it's not, then as you said, it's nothing more significant than having a tooth pulled, in which case I can't imagine why anyone would be against it.

Now you're getting to the crux of the matter.

[Wondergirl]

If it is the destruction of a human life, then it should be stopped.

Then war should be outlawed. Cars and trucks and planes should be banned.

[jlisenbe]

Then war should be outlawed. Cars and trucks and planes should be banned.

Wars are fought for many reasons, some of which are justifiable. As to cars and trucks, last time I checked, they do not exist for the purpose of killing people. That's like saying we should outlaw houses since they sometimes burn and kill the occupants. Abortion, on the other hand, always results in the killing of a human being. That's why I'm disappointed that you essentially approve of it.

To choose one life over another is about choice. Try as you may, you cannot change that absolute fact. You want to have it both ways, but you can't. It's called rationalizing a decision. You've also got a moral problem with the end justifying the means.

I've explained it very clearly. It is always best to save both lives, but it is not always possible. It's one of the cruel truths of life. My explanation is clear enough for a ten year old to understand, but evidently I'm not able to explain it so that you can, so I'll just repost what was, as I said, a very clear and logical explanation.

I feel safe in saying that the great majority of people understand that being willing to acknowledge that saving one life rather than losing them both is very much pro-life. That's the situation when the mother's life is clearly at stake. No allowance of abortion ever directly affected me. Being against 99.99% of abortions is very much a pro-life position. Being in favor of 100% of abortions, as you are, is very much a pro-death position. Can you defend that?

I'm disappointed you did not try to explain why you are always in favor of the death of the unborn child. For someone who's blowing up because I don't want the mother AND child to both die, it's amazing that you are ALWAYS in favor of the death of the unborn child. You said at one time that you did not want unrestricted access to abortion, but now you have made it clear that you don't want any restrictions. Death by abortion for any reason at any time is what you seem to have bought into. That is a position that's just stunning to me.

[Wondergirl]

Wars are fought for many reasons, some of which are justifiable.

Abortions are done for many reasons, many of which are justifiable.

I have been fortunate in that I did not become pregnant because of incest or rape, our birth control methods worked, we were able to afford the children born to us, my mental and physical health were good, the unborn babies were healthy with no mental or physical fetal defects, my husband was able to support us so I could be a stay-at-home mom and not have to work to keep us afloat, extended family was supportive. In other words, a win-win situation.

[jlisenbe]

Abortions are done for many reasons, many of which are justifiable.

Finally we make some progress. Would you list both the justifiable and the non-justifiable reasons for killing the unborn child?

[Wondergirl]

Finally we make some progress. Would you list both the justifiable and the non-justifiable reasons for killing the unborn child?

I did. Reread my most recent post before this one.

[jlisenbe]

You mean these? They were not presented as justifiable reasons, but that's all I can find. If this is not them, then perhaps you can link them. You certainly did not list what you consider to be UN-justifiable.

Do you agree pregnant females who want an abortion should get counseling?

Do you believe females pregnant because of rape or incest should be allowed an abortion?

Should pregnant girls under 16 have an abortion?

So your list then is rape, incest, or under the age of 16? Do I have that right?

[Wondergirl]

No,I didn't mean those. I was explicit as to where to find my (partial) list. Here is again, simplified:

Justifiable reasons for abortion:
1. pregnant because of incest or rape
2. birth control has failed
3. can't afford a child or more children
4. the pregnant woman's mental or physical health is not good
5. the fetus has mental or physical defects -- or both
6. the pregnant woman has no means of financial support
7. extended family is not supportive
8. the pregnant woman is in an abusive relationship/marriage

[Athos]

I've explained it very clearly. It is always best to save both lives, but it is not always possible. It's one of the cruel truths of life. My explanation is clear enough for a ten year old to understand, but evidently I'm not able to explain it so that you can, so I'll just repost what was, as I said, a very clear and logical explanation.

What you have explained very clearly is YOUR rationale for approving an abortion. What you have failed to explain is that your rationale is a CHOICE. It couldn't be any clearer - whether to a ten-year-old or a hundred-year-old.

you did not try to explain why you are always in favor of the death of the unborn child.

Can you read? Really. I'm serious.

I have never said I am in favor of the death of an unborn child. Oddly enough, or not so oddly, YOU are the one, the only one here, who has said he is in favor of the death of the unborn child. You made it crystal clear when you CHOSE the life of the wife over the life of the unborn child.

it's amazing that you are ALWAYS in favor of the death of the unborn child. You said at one time that you did not want unrestricted access to abortion, but now you have made it clear that you don't want any restrictions. That is a position that's just stunning to me.

The truly stunning thing is your incredible ignorance in understanding what the simple word "choice" means. You have been called out on your lack for as long as you have been on these pages by just about every member here including a Greek scholar, a psychologist, a co-religionist, a moderator, and sundry others.

What is it about you that refuses to examine yourself when so many are pointing to your error?

THAT is what is most stunning!

[jlisenbe]

So you are OK with killing the unborn baby if birth control has failed, or financial problems (adoption?), or poor mental/physical health (overweight?), the unborn baby is missing an arm, no extended family support, or the woman is in an abusive relationship. So you would be OK going, in effect, to the unborn child and saying, "Sorry, but your mom doesn't have enough money, or is overweight, or has too little family support, so we're going to have you killed?"

What if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?

Note for the non-thinking crowd. I am not endorsing the second paragraph. It is simply a question asked for clarification.

[Wondergirl]

So you are OK with killing the unborn baby if birth control has failed, or financial problems (adoption?), or poor mental/physical health (overweight?), the unborn baby is missing an arm, no extended family support, or the woman is in an abusive relationship. So you would be OK going, in effect, to the unborn child and saying, "Sorry, but your mom doesn't have enough money, or is overweight, or has too little family support, so we're going to have you killed?"

What if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?

Your train has run off the tracks. But apparently you're okay ending an pregnancy begun because of rape or incest.

[jlisenbe]

I've already said I'm not.

Now stop with the smokescreen and tell me what if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?

[Wondergirl]

I've already said I'm not.

Now stop with the smokescreen and tell me what if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?

Why oh why are you overcomplicating the question?!