A heartbeat indicates consciousness?
When a person is brain-dead, he/she is already dead.Correct. If that person has signed a signed a DNR then that person is said to have expressed a desire to die.
Old straw man.How can a passed-out woman say "No" to sex? She can't. We require consent.
Correct but that's another straw man.How do we kill a living human who has committed no crime who has not expressed any desire to die? We don't. We first require consent.
A heartbeat indicates life. If there is a heartbeat, there is life. You asked me to define "living human" and consciousness is irrelevant.
Nope. If a person is brain-dead then the brain is dead ... but if there is a heartbeat then there is life.
So you do, in fact, approve of the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
So you agree with me?
If the head is chopped off and the doctors keep the body alive, there is life?Nope. If a person is brain-dead then the brain is dead ... but if there is a heartbeat then there is life.
I told you I do not approve that.So you do, in fact, approve of the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
That's what "keeping the body alive" means. If there is a hearbeat then there is life. This is why the first thing medical professionals do is check for a pulse.
Yes, but then you explain how you approve of it. You explain how you approve of it being legal for a woman at choose to kill a living human who has committed no crime to make her life more convenient, for example. You explained how that is totally acceptable to you, just that you would prefer that it wouldn't happen. What would it mean if you were to say that you would prefer people not be murdered; should it be assumed that you would nonetheless be OK if it were legalized?
gfm7175 (08-12-2020)
You're stating the obvious. You haven't proved it means presence of consciousness.
Again, life does not mean consciousness.Yes, but then you explain how you approve of it. You explain how you approve of it being legal for a woman at choose to kill a living human who has committed no crime to make her life more convenient, for example. You explained how that is totally acceptable to you, just that you would prefer that it wouldn't happen. What would it mean if you were to say that you would prefer people not be murdered; should it be assumed that you would nonetheless be OK if it were legalized?
I'm not stating; I'm asking a question. Now I'll ask you a new question: Why should being unconscious make it legal for a living human to be killed? Suppose that a violent BLM rioter killed you in your sleep. Would that be OK? Is that the kind of world you seek? My personal position is that it should not be legal to kill any living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die, regardless of his state of consciousness.
But you say otherwise. Could you elaborate?
You are stating the obvious. Of course a living human can be either conscious or unconscious. I fail to understand why you raised this point.
... which means you are a dishonest snowflake.
... and you are a liar. You fully endorse the killing of a living human for the sake of the convenience of a third person. You explain this below. You have to open with an outright lie because you think it hides the fact that you are a schitty person, the likes of which society would be much better off flushing away. But you know this already.
Big deal. The question is whether there is life with a heartbeat. All medical science says there is, i.e. if there is a heartbeat, there is life. I bet you are a science denier, yes? We'll just presume that you are since you are cowardly dishonest snowflake shiece of pit.
You believe that living human A has the Constitutional right to control and to kill the body of living human B ... for convenience. Would you be surprised to learn that you are egregiously mistaken?
Hey snowflake, I bet you are just fine with living human A donating any and all parts of formerly living human B, who living human A killed for convenience, without ever securing human B's permission. Am I right, snowflake? Only respond if I am mistaken in some way.
Hey snowflake, exceptions to what? Any serious poster would ask me. Only a dishonest cowardly snowflake would assign to me a bogus position that I do not have and then presume to attack me for it. You have been clear that you are fine with killing a living human for convenience and with pretending to deny it just because you used different wording. You seem to be oblivious to just how obvious your weasel-wording is, perhaps because you never received a decent education.
I am on your ignore list because you are a coward. You think everyone is desperate for attention like you are and you think that putting someone on ignore will somehow sting like a bitch. Boy do I have bad news for you.
So allow me to thank you for the reduced whining and sniveling with which I will have to deal in the form of your responses. I, for one, know full well that you will nonetheless be reading every single one of my posts. Have a great day, snowflake. Flee, flee, flee.
It's quite simple. When there is no brain activity, there is no consciousness. Hence not alive. A sleeping person still have brain activity and dream.
Of course. A person can be unconscious and still have brain activity.You are stating the obvious. Of course a living human can be either conscious or unconscious. I fail to understand why you raised this point.
Bookmarks