Since the last thread devolved into semantics I figure I could restart and add some things.

 If one is using religious or similar exemption to receive exceptions for a vaccine mandate specific to a private employer - and is using the fetal cell development reasoning, should they also exempt themselves from other things developed from the same fetal cell source?

 Such as: Acetaminophen, Albuterol, Aspirin, Ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation-H, Claritin, Prilosec, Zoloft.

If you can pick and choose and distort science to the point you can stand before someone and say men can have babies, I think you can pick and choose and claim religious exemption for fetal cell development whenever you want, for whatever purpose that suits you.

In my first example, I said Muhammad Ali successfully was labeled a conscientious objector even though his profession was one that permanently injured people. Of all races and religions.

Don’t start using logic now.

I gave you a legitimate answer. Do you think decisions and actions follow a logical pattern? You clearly have never been in sales. People make emotional decisions and then justify them afterwards using selected data that confirms their original emotional decision.

Personally, I’ve never heard of a single person bringing that up until recently. Project veritas has just done a big expose on that topic and how Pfizer was trying to hide that information. All that’s going to do is make those who have decided they’re not going to get the vaccine even more entrenched in their position. Will they apply that same thinking to some of the other drugs you listed Of course not. (Do you think pro-choice people apply the same logic of my body my choice to other political decisions?
Of course not.

I am against the death penalty because I came to the conclusion if we shouldn’t allow unborn babies to be killed for convenience sake (which we shouldn’t) then we likewise shouldn’t allow the State to kill certain convicted criminals.

I also understand those who are prolife but have no issues executing murderers. The State of Missouri just executed a man this week who beat three people to death with a claw hammer. While I might be against that, I’m not going to take a stand because I understand how and why people see the difference between a guilty murderer and an innocent baby.

However, I’m sure it would be easy to find positionsI have where there’s an obvious contradiction between opposite positions on the same issue. For example, I’m very much in favor of free speech and detest the censorship of the right by leftist in power right now but if I had a magic button to push that would eliminate Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram etc. forever from the face of the earth, I’d push it in a heartbeat. I’m aware that’s a contradiction but I’m not changing my position.

The practice of practicing religion is striving for perfection knowing full well it’s never attainable and loaded with contradictions. An atheist never faces the reality of being conflicted in this manner.

An atheist never faces the reality of being conflicted in this manner.

 I agree not in that exact manner, but conflicted desires in comparison to value structure is certainly not exclusive to religion.

 For instance I imagine this same question could be asked of an Atheist that thinks abortion is wrong, that fetal cell research is wrong, based off personal assessment of human life, and still have to decide if he uses Tylenol.

Eegore wrote on 10/07/21 at 10:21:05:

I believe that,
a Atheist,
(who’s ‘religion’ is, not believing in any ‘religion’)
who believes 95 (+/-)% of Abortion,
(The killings preformed JUST for Convince sake)
is wrong.

Would be a number,
      times 100,
that would fit on a Gnat’s Back !

Eegore wrote on 10/07/21 at 12:37:20:

The same way that Ali  was successfully a conscientious objector.