Your question is rhetorical. You are not in the least interested in a discussion. Off you go, troll.
Yes, he's a troll. The answer to his question is that I don't approve of taking a human life for the sake of the convenience of a third person. Now, I'll make my points.
1. I reject the premise that human life begins at conception.
2. I believe that control of ones body is right protected by the Constitution. That's why a law requiring you to donate a kidney, a liver, or some other organ or body part would most certainly be unconstitutional, even though in not doing so you may be condemning an actual living person to death because it is 'inconvenient' for you to donate.
3. The position taken by the poster is almost certainly hypocritical, my guess is that this person would make exceptions in the case of rape or incest, or does not oppose invitro fertilization, IUDs or the morning after pill.
But those are topics for a serious poster to discuss, and he is not. Which is why he is now on ignore.
christiefan915 (08-04-2020), StoneByStone (08-04-2020)
christiefan915 (08-04-2020)
I would ask you to stick with the wording of my question and not try to shift semantic goalposts. Leftists are generally required by their slavemasters to endorse and support the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes and who have not expressed any desire to die.
I don't use the word "people" because some WACKY leftists think dogs are people too. I specify "living humans." You shifted to the word "innocent" and that word is somewhat ambiguous. My question specifies the absence of having committed crimes, otherwise one could point to a situation in which someone committed a crime for which the penal code specifies the death penalty.
So, do you support the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die ... and would your answer change if the killing would make a third living human's life more convenient?
@ ThatOwlCoward ... I know you are curious to find out whether I counted you amongst the cowards but you cannot ask without revealing that you read all my posts ... so for your convenience the answer is "Yes" ... you have been successfully listed among the cowards ... amont the TRUE cowards in fact ... and you don't have to worry; no one is judging you.
Proof?
I don't use the word "people" because some WACKY leftists think dogs are people too. I specify "living humans." You shifted to the word "innocent" and that word is somewhat ambiguous. My question specifies the absence of having committed crimes, otherwise one could point to a situation in which someone committed a crime for which the penal code specifies the death penalty.
No I do not. And no the answer will not change.So, do you support the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die ... and would your answer change if the killing would make a third living human's life more convenient?
I would advise you to seek professional help.
Cypress (08-04-2020)
AProudLefty (08-04-2020)
Just out of curiosity, what's your position on "abortion"?
Agreed. I'm just not getting the NAT gateway to work on my own. It's supposed to be straightforward but I think you're right and that I'm going to have to get some help.
You have a good track record so I'm going to give your suggestion some serious consideration.
No, you are a coward. When I ask you about "abortion" you'll know because my question will include the word "abortion."
Is there any reason you can't answer the question other than you are a sniveling, cowardly snowflake who camps out in a safe space? I checked with grammarians and my question isn't overly complex or confusing. The problem is clearly on your end.
Interesting. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that you are in favor of being able to choose to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die if it will make some other person's life more convenient?
What does any of that have to do with whether or not a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die is being killed, if you don't mind me asking?
Define "living human". A brain-dead person is a "living human".
How can something with no consciousness express any desire?What does any of that have to do with whether or not a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die is being killed, if you don't mind me asking?
Do you know who Gosnell is?
christiefan915 (08-05-2020)
Sure.
Living: standard medical definition, i.e. has a heartbeat. If there is a heartbeat then there is life.
Human: of the species homo sapiens
Correct. If that person has signed a signed a DNR then that person is said to have expressed a desire to die.
How can a passed-out woman say "No" to sex? She can't. We require consent.
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.
Bookmarks