[count-your-change]

“I'm listening.”

No you aren't, not now and you haven't been and therein is the reason I don't respond to your inquiries.

I asked if a serious discussion was wanted when you came up with some silly “scenarios”. I either gave or pointed you to where your questions could be answered,(and now others have too). Since you've rejected that, so be it, you're on your own.

I'm not going to wrangle with you like some fish monger in the street over your useless comments and attempts at cleverness.

[Cronos]

Hardly -- you asked for medical proof -- i gave it to you. you have been shown that medically blood transfusion is at times a necessity.

So, I ask you to provide your Jehovah's Witness philosophical reasoning for not allowing blood transfusions

[Cronos]

In fact you started this conversation like a fish-monger by comparing blood transfusion to abortion!

In post 14 you said As with abortion due to medical necessity transfusion of blood for medical necessity is a term proving obsolete.

Then, in post 35, Dr. Brian Kopp refuted your statement by pointing out that Yes, there most definitely are times when blood transfusions are not only medically necessary but ethically mandatory, i.e., without them you would be condemning a patient to death

So, do you retract your statement that abortion is the same as blood transfusion?