Contract Killing

[IBDaMann]

Here's a blast from the past (May 2023)

What about recognizing that a fetus with a heartbeat and human DNA is a living human? How can that not be absolutely true? Maybe Concart can explain.

 

[IBDaMann]

Provide source for that.

The source is provided. Click on the button.

 

[IBDaMann]

How is laughing ad hominem?

Too funny. AProudLefty never learned what ad hominem means, yet he refuses to demand his money back from his failed deaf studies.

 

[AProudLefty]

The source is provided. Click on the button.

What button?

Are you saying that the termination of fetus under 3 weeks old is not murder? Keep in mind you defined heartbeat as living.

 

[AProudLefty]

Too funny. AProudLefty never learned what ad hominem means, yet he refuses to demand his money back from his failed deaf studies.

Too funny! IBDaMann wavered in his definition of living.

 

[IBDaMann]

What button?

The button next to (to the right of) the names in the posts cited, i.e. the circle with the up-arrow.

Are you saying that the termination of fetus under 3 weeks old is not murder?

Once again, your deaf studies has failed you utterly. I am not specifying any time period. I am specifying the heartbeat as the delimiting factor.

Once there is a heartbeat, it is alive.

Prior to there being a heartbeat, it might be alive.

Keep in mind you defined heartbeat as living.

I will keep it in mind.

 

[Crepitus]

Your thought-masters had you target me?

My what, now?

 

[IBDaMann]

I think we can agree that if a female is too young and/or immature to raise a child, they shouldn't be doing it.

You think incorrectly. I think we can all agree that if a female is too young and/or immature to be pregnant, she shouldn't allow herself to get pregnant. I think we can all agree on that one.

That doesn't really raise whether they should have an abortion or not.

Yes it does. If the woman ensures she does not get pregnant, there is no issue of "abortion."

I personally believe that a female shouldn't have to carry a pregnancy to term if they don't want to.

Who are "they" who get to decide?

Here you reveal your killing supremacy.

First, let's examine what is NOT your position: "If a woman is abstaining from sexual activity but is nonetheless raped then she shouldn't have to carry the pregnancy to term ... but if she engages in sexual activity knowing the risks, she accepts the consequences of her actions and must allow any living human she creates to remain alive."

This above position, which you do not hold, represents accountability for one's actions and decisions. Your supremacist attitude rejects the idea of accountability, and that one in your specially designated group (e.g. women) should not be held to any standards of accountability that are applied to everyone else. Now let's examine your supremacist position:

"If a woman, who should not be getting pregnant, nonetheless engages in reckless sexual activity, heck, she should be able to kill the living human she created so as to skirt all responsibility for her actions and decisions. Since such killing must be accomplished by a doctor, of course she will need to contract out to a killer-doctor to kill her own child and to dispose of the body."

Let's have a conversation on the merits of your position.


Have you ever wondered how killer-doctors operate? Them killers never get the full credit they deserve.

I think we can agree, however, that if, for whatever reason, a pregnant female who isn't capable of properly raising a child carries their pregnancy to term, that there should be mechanisms so that this child is raised properly.

I have great news! Those options exist. p.s. How many people are sharing this pregnancy anyway?

From what I've seen, this simply isn't the case.

Let me guess, once again you are refusing to see the mountainous evidence all around you. Go on, say it, you know you want to, i.e. "I haven't seen any evidence that there are any mechanisms to raise the child properly." Go on, say it. I'll wait.

From what I've read,

How about what others have read? Aaaah, but then you'd have to acknowledge having seen the evidence, and that wouldn't be any fun.

the primary problem isn't that a female (or male for that matter if the father chooses to care for their child) isn't capable of caring for their child per se, but rather that they don't have the financial resources.

So they are faced with great inconvenience. I get it. Inconvenience is often the result of poor decisions.

You were going to explain how killing living humans is a viable solution for reducing inconvenience, starting with the living humans who haven't committed any crime. You were going to explain how your killing supremacy had all the answers. I'm listening.

Did you say that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions and decisions? Is that what I read? We should look at killing living humans as viable solutions for our problems? Did I get that correct?

 

[IBDaMann]

My what, now?

I see that you have joined AProudLefty in his inability to compose a coherent sentence. Too funny.

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

There is no disagreement. We both agree that:
1. you don't accept {customer who is a pregnant woman} as a proper subset of {customer} and
2. that you deny that you reject set theory.

We both agree on both points. We have your posts as confirmation.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think that deep down, you know that this argument is going nowhere.

Projection. Deep down inside you know that your position is indefensible and that being a killing supremacist is wrong ... but you can't let it go.

Our discussion is not to blame for your position. You are so ashamed of your arguments that you are conspicuously forced to avoid certain words that reveal the absurdity of your advocacy. You are relegated to EVASION because every single angle is immoral and destructive to society.

For the audience, IBDaMann believes that abortions are a subset of contract killings. I don't.

The "audience" has seen me lay out the case while you have done nothing but EVADE. You tipped your king long ago, and you haven't been honest since.

 

[IBDaMann]

Care to give an example of a "particular area" where you think that "contract killing should be legalized" as a "vehicle for addressing the problem"?

I am against all contract killing and against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

My comment was satirical; I was mocking Nordberg's comment.

For that matter, I'm curious as to how you're defining "contract killing" here as well.

The killing of a living human per a contract. Be curious no more.

 

[IBDaMann]

Surely you're aware that abortions can only be had prior to a human being born.

That is the case today. The Democrat party of death is always seeking to change that, including making "abortion" a "post birth" thing.

The current official Democrat position is kind of like the "5-second rule" when dropping food, in that if the mother is in labor and hasn't made the abortion decision yet and would like a little more time, then the baby is to be delivered, kept comfortable, and the mother can think about it, and if she later wants to snuff her child, then doctors can easily do so, or the child can be resuscitated if the mother decides to allow her child to remain alive. Neat. Clean. Jump to the 1:16 mark of the video.

Teenagers are well past that point in time.

There are no age limits in contract killing. Democrats don't appreciate the "up until birth" restriction for that subset of contract killing and they are fighting to get it removed. You, however, are jumping straight to permitting contract killings during appropriate life stages, as you insisted to gfm7175. That replaces arbitrary time limits with age requirements. This is your position, not mine.

 

[IBDaMann]

Are you really thinking these questions through?

From beginning to end. You'll also notice that I'm not EVADING anything.

I doubt there's a person alive who hasn't made a serious mistake in their lives

Irrelevant.

Having an abortion is almost always about trying to correct an error that already occurred,

Yes. Having an abortion is almost always about convenience and avoiding accountability for one's actions and decisions.

the error being someone who didn't want to get pregnant getting pregnant anyway.

THANK YOU! I appreciate you admitting that the pregnancies we are discussing are unwanted, not unplanned, and that abortion is being leveraged to avoid inconvenience and accountability for ones actions and decisions.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, you muddied what I said,

Too funny. You are being totally dishonest. There was nothing ambiguous about what I wrote. You are the one deliberately using weasel-wording.

I certainly agree that some on the right consider a wife having an abortion to be the same thing as killing a husband's child,

It is the same thing, objectively (assuming the child is his). You are pulling an AProudLefty move by introducing an irrelevant term as though it is relevant. In this case you are absurdly claiming that because the child's age is not specified that we somehow cannot be certain that the child is the father's, but that is stupid. The father's child will forever be the father's child.

So yes, my statement correctly clarified your deliberate obfuscation and your idiotic complaint is dismissed.

.A child can be a fetus, a baby, a teen, an adult or an elderly citizen.

Exactly. "Child" is a relation.

I strongly suspect that your goal, whether conscious or unconscious, is to purposely muddy the waters so that people aren't sure what stage of development the "living human" is at.

Incorrect. My objective is to correctly and clearly state the child's relation, which is "child" which you conceal with the generic word "abortion" so as to maintain your killing supremacy.

I imagine you believe that the "Party of Death" is democrats.

If you are only imagining that the Democrats are the party of death, I have not been clear enough. The Democrats are the party of killing living humans.

1. Democrats advocate for abortion to become the people's birth control of choice, maximizing convenience while minizing accountability through the killing of living humans, specifically, through the killing of one's own children.

2. Children who manage to not be aborted can still be killed in Democrat-engineered school shootings following a two-step approach: 1. mandate that all schools be defenselessness zones in which it is absolutely prohibited to have any protection for the children *and* many signs are to be posted advertising that no protection is on the premises, 2. demonize home schooling and thus compulsorily obligate all children to shoehorn into the defenselessness zones every day for optimal shooter convenience and results.

3. Democrats are the party of defenseless citizens, seeking to abolish the 2nd Amendment and disarm the public, and to defund all police for good measure, all the while fomenting violence and rioting to endanger the lives of everyone in the country. If insufficient people are dying, all the world's violent criminals can be ushered in through open borders and provided free housing to boost death rates to acceptable levels.

4. Democrats are the party of Death Panels through Universal Unavailable Healthcare. Once everybody is completely dependent upon the government for healthcare, the Death Panels roll in and deny whatever is needed, sending people to their graves.

5. Democrats are the party of Assassination as a Service, treating the killing of living humans as a viable solution. When there is someone they want taken out, they keep ratcheting up the vitriol until some leftist patsy does their dirty work for them. Thereafter, they celebrate the assassination as having been the perfect solution.

I certainly believe that the democratic party has their flaws,

I don't believe you. The Democrat Party is a supremacist organization the nurtures your supremacies, especially your killing supremacy, being the party of death and all.

but when it comes to [the killing of living humans], I firmly believe they're on the right side of history.

Too funny. Of course you do. You're a killing supremacist who won't be honest long enough to acknowledge the living human who is killed for some woman's convenience. You won't ever mention him, as though you are somehow fooling everyone.

No woman should be forced to [allow a living human to remain alive if doing so will cause inconvenience].

FTFY. Your position is entirely shitty. You belong with the party of death.

Furthermore, Republicans tend to only care about "living humans" until birth.

I suppose you expect me to believe that you somehow speak for Republicans.

You don't. Stick with advocating for your killing supremacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

No "supremacy" here.

Your denial is dismissed.

Tell me, if women were prevented from arbitrarily killing their children, and were instead required to nurture their children and to keep them alive, would women be VICTIMS?

 

[IBDaMann]

The word child has many definitions.

The child relation is concrete and partitioned. There is no ambiguity and there is no issue.

On the contrary, it is of the utmost relevance when talking about abortions.

You are chanting. You have not shown how the killing of any particular living human is relevant to it being right or wrong.

Those against abortions like to muddy the water by using words like "child" or "living human"

1. What words am I to use if I am against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime?

2. What words am I to use to refer to someone's child?

is it better for a female to [kill her child/ren] when [facing inconvenience] and perhaps at a later date [consider allowing her children to remain alive] or [require her to face the inconvenience she brought upon herself through her deliberate decisions]?

The mother should be required to nurture her child, irrespective of the inconvenience she brought upon herself.

I'm not saying that IBDaMann and others on the right are -consciously- trying to muddy the waters, but it's what they're doing.

I *am* saying that you are deliberately obfuscating, as though your killing supremacy depends on it.

 

[AProudLefty]

The button next to (to the right of) the names in the posts cited, i.e. the circle with the up-arrow.

Ok. So I clicked on the button and saw no source in your post.

Once again, your deaf studies has failed you utterly. I am not specifying any time period. I am specifying the heartbeat as the delimiting factor.

No shit, Sherlock?

Once there is a heartbeat, it is alive.

Prior to there being a heartbeat, it might be alive.

Thank you for admitting that it may or may not be alive. So your "contract killing" argument breaks down at that point.

I will keep it in mind.

Good. Gotta keep you honest.

 

[Crepitus]

I see that you have joined AProudLefty in his inability to compose a coherent sentence. Too funny.

YOu can't figure out a 3 word sentence?

No wonder you're a tRumpling.

 

[IBDaMann]

YOu can't figure out a 3 word sentence?

Excellent random question. Can you generate some more?