Contract Killing

[AProudLefty]

Excellent random question. Can you generate some more?

Embarrassing for you.

 

[Crepitus]

Excellent random question. Can you generate some more?

Why? If you can't figure out the first one it's not really worth the effort.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not 'avoiding' saying that, I and many other people simply don't believe that abortions qualify as contracted killings, full stop.

You are a math denier, just to maintain your killing supremacy. We have been over this many times. You don't get to "disagree" with math. You've had every opportunity to explain how { customer who is a pregnant woman } is somehow not a subset of { customer }, but rather than honestly try, and rather than honestly admit that { customer } is, in fact, the superset, you remain totally dishonest.

You are a killing supremacist who supports the Party of Death's agenda of "kill living humans for your own convenience."

Say it with me: "Support your local killer-doctor TODAY!"

One thing I will say, however, is that I sometimes -do- use the term 'living human' in abortion discussions

I haven't seen it. @gfm7175 and I are the only ones using the term "living human" while you specifically complain about it. Why do you complain about a living human being called a living human? In fact, you threw a hissie-fit and pouted like a toddler. Why?

Wait. I know. You feel VICTIMIZED when you are deprived of your killing supremacy. Indefensible.

- I think it is at times useful to have a word that groups together different stages of human development.

We already have a term for that, i.e. "the stages of human development."

"Living Human" is a class of all humans who are alive.

As an aside, I decided to look up the definition of sperm and was deeply rewarded when I came across this simple yet powerful definition:
**
The male seed of any kind, as the semen or seminal fluid of the higher vertebrates, the male spawn or milt of the lower vertebrates, or the seminal elements of any animal, containing the male germs, or spermatozoa.
**

I prefer coffee.

No one disputes that seeds are part of the first stage of development of plants.

Omniscience fallacy; you do not speak for anyone but yourself.

All biologists dispute your stupid assertion. All of them. You can ask any biologist "In sexually reproducing plants, is there ever a *new* plant with its own DNA prior to fertilization?" The answer you will get every time is "No." Nothing prior to the existence of the new plant is somehow a "life stage" of the new plant that doesn't yet exist.

Similarly, I think it stands to reason that sperms and eggs should be seen as the first stage of human development.

Similarly, neither sperm nor eggs are a "life stage" of any living human who doesn't yet exist.

As someone else pointed out, the 2 must be joined to actually create a new human being,

Thank you. So nothing prior is a "life stage".

but that doesn't change the fact that both are absolutely crucial for a new human being to reach maturity.

Let's analyze your logic. Is the sexual activity of the father and the mother a "life stage" of the child? Hint: it is absolutely crucial for a new human being to reach maturity, and it occurred prior to the child being formed with unique DNA.

 

[IBDaMann]

There you go again, putting in the word killing.

There you go again, denying the killing involved in a contract killing. Your denial of the killing is indefensible, your rejection of math is absurd and your killing supremacy is transparent.

I think you know full well at this point that I don't believe that any form of the word kill is appropriate when talking about the removal of a fetus from a female's body,

I think you know full well that you deny that killing is killing whenever such acknowledgement threatens your killing supremacy. The only possible response to you is "fuck you." Don't try to bully me into not recognizing the killing of living humans who haven't committed any crime.

Why won't you acknowledge that the professional killer-doctor is contracted to kill a woman's child? Why won't you acknowledge this?

ANSWER: because you are totally dishonest.

Are you in denial that contract papers were signed in each and every case? Yes, signed. Regarding these signed contract papers, for what services are they? Do the services specifically include the killing of a living human, specifically the living human mother's own living human child?

The correct answer is "Yes." Your dishonesty mileage may vary.

so long as it was the female's wish to [hire a killer-doctor to put a hit on her own child].

FTFY. Killing Supremacy.

Had you used a term like "ending the life of a living human", we could have continued your line of conversation easier.

Fuck you. Don't pretend to control what I say. If you believe that you must control any discussion in which you enter, then you never intended to have a discussion in the first place. You simply intended to preach your killing supremacy, and your indefensible advocacy for the killing of living humans for nothing more than convenience.

Make no mistake, all EVASION and DISHONESTY is coming from you. I have answered all of your questions, and you have been nothing more than a troll who pouts like a baby when his killing supremacy, or LGBTTQQIAPPIPALHABETSOUP+ supremacy, is denied.

The bottom line, as far as I and others are concerned,

You don't speak for any others. Your EVASION and DISHONESTY is your own.

... is that the question of whether it's ok to [ kill a living human ] depends in great part on [ensuring the living human being killed gets no say in the matter].

FTFY. Your position is indefensible.

 

[IBDaMann]

There's some steps between sperm and fetus, but anyway...

There are some steps ...

Ergo, I've been very clear and unambiguous about what child means. I'm not referring to any particular stage of human growth/development. Rather, I'm referring to the completely brand new set of DNA that has been formed and has been growing/developing into a new and separate living human. I'm referring to genealogy. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

@Scott's argument, in a nutshell:

"Killing isn't killing if we're talking about the appropriate life stage for such killing, which makes it specifically not killing, so fuck you for using the term "killing" when I am controlling the wording of the conversation and I have declared that this is the appropriate life stage for killing which isn't killing, you moral extremist! The living human in question had life stages prior to its own existence, so focus on that, and stop judging and demanding accountability from women; this is absolutely none of your convenience. This is why we can't have this conversation anymore. "

 

[IBDaMann]

I decided to see what the law had to say about the definition of a living human, if anything.

The standard leftist tactic in discussions is to shift conveniently between "what should be" and "what is" as if they are interchangeable. Laws can change to make "what is" into "what should be."

The law uses the term "person" which is always contentious. My definition adheres to science and to the global medical and biology communities, so there is no contention.

I will obviously ignore all contentious legislation that deviates from math, science and the global medical and biology communities.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, there are many animals who have fetal heartbeats, but no one's clamoring that they too get "fetal rights" as far as I know.

Correct. I presume that you acknowledge that none of these animals you mention are living humans, which is what I am discussing, yes?

You know who else doesn't have DNA that is distinct from the father/mother? The father and mother.

Incorrect. The father and the mother have DNA that is distinct from their respective parents.

Does that suddenly mean that they're not living humans -.-?

I presume that you understand how the parents aren't the grandparents.

 

[EdwinA]

Good grief, if I "harvest" a deer, did I kill it?

These sociopaths are just oblivious to their own blood lust.

 

[IBDaMann]

If I'd disagreed with Yakuda's point, I would have said so.

Another great pivot. Just because you didn't say that you disagreed doesn't mean that you agreed, or even acknowledged his point. You are currently operating under the totally dishonest assumption that the living human inside the mother is not a separate and distinct living human from the mother, and you avoid mentioning your assumption because you know that it would instantly reveal the indefensible nature of your killing supremacy.

I simply asked you to be honest and to acknowledge that separate living human that is being killed and you won't, because you think you are somehow fooling everyone. You are totally dishonest.

 

[IBDaMann]

Whether a pregnant female is legally permitted to remove her embryo or fetus depends on which jurisdiction said female is in.

I'm discussing the "should" in "Should we, as a society, be killing living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die." You say "Hell yeah, if there is some convenience to be gained." I disagree. I have asked you to explain your position many times but you refuse, knowing that your killing supremacy is indefensible.

We disagree on what the female's legal rights -should- be.

Exactly. You believe that women should have killing supremacy and be allowed to kill their own living children ... and I do not. You don't see the pure evil of your position.

You are totally in favor of contract killings, and you refuse to explain why. Obviously you don't place any value on human life, or at least you place less value on human life than you do on convenience. I think that's pretty shitty.

 

[IBDaMann]

think of this from the perspective of a mother or family unit that doesn't have enough resources to feed themselves or their family already.

I don't think you're really thinking this whole thing through- think of this from the perspective of a living human who is about to be executed for nothing more than someone else's convenience. Imagine being that living human who is standing between a woman who has sufficient resources and family members to adequately raise him ... and her convenience of being able to continue irresponsibly fucking various men as she pleases without any accountability for her actions and decisions. Well, as you can imagine, you are going to lose that battle every time as she hires a killer-doctor to snuff the life out of you, her own child, and to dispose of the remaining pieces of your body in a landfill or through a sewer (as could be done in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin or Wyoming ... or most of the rest of the planet)

Refresh my memory as to why women need this kind of killing supremacy that nobody else has?

So -more- people may die as a result of not having an abortion instead of less.

Who do you think you are fooling? I know you reject math, but don't you think it's totally absurd to assert that allowing all children to remain alive through birth and thereafter causes more death than does killing all of them in the womb?

Will you be honest enough to answer at least that?

Now, I fully admit that I know of no studies that study this issue,

There are many, and once again you deliberately didn't see any of them. That should be enough to tell everyone what those studies found.

but I just think you should consider that what you think would increase average life expectancy might actually decrease it.

Allowing someone to remain alive increases one's life expectancy, it does not decrease one's life expectancy, and this in turn increases average life expectancy, it does not decrease it. All of the math that you reject says so.

And this is -especially- true for those who don't consider an embryo or fetus to be a natural person.

Aaaahhhh, your insistence on avoiding the biological term "living human" for the ill-defined and not understood term "natural person" simply underscores your intention to remain completely dishonest in the name of defending your killing supremacy. How shitty of you.

 

[IBDaMann]

I had never heard of systematic risk before you mentioned it.

Just remember that you were pretending to be an expert. Remember that the next time you try to give me pushback.

Apparently, it's used in finance and economics.

It exists in all aspects of human society. You were misusing it while discussing abortion, prompting a correction from yours truly.

Just remember that you were the one who raised the issue of women taking risks.

We're not talking about either here.

You most certainly were. In fact, you raised the topic.

I think we can agree that one should always try to assess the risk/reward ratio

I think we can agree that the moment one accepts the risk in deciding to carry out deliberate activity, one has made one's plan, even if that plan is to do nothing special.

There are no "unplanned" pregnancies. There are only unwanted pregnancies, i.e. unwanted for the inconvenience they bring.

and only take risks where the ratio is favourable for the reward side of the equation.

Nope. Once the risk is accepted, one should be held accountable for engaging in the deliberate activity. No woman should be allowed to have her own child killed, no matter how much convenience is at stake.

 

[gfm7175]

@IBDaMann It's become obvious to me that leftists are even more afraid of this thread than they are of your "question that makes cowards out of leftists" thread.

 

[IBDaMann]

I value the different stages of human life differently.

Let me guess, you value the fetus the most because he has essentially all of his life ahead of him, and death at this point would represent the maximum loss possible, whereas the value of a middle-aged man is less because he has only a fraction of his life remaining, i.e. the unproductive part, and death at this point wouldn't represent that much of a loss, yes?

Most would agree that fertile males masturbating shouldn't be a crime,

Most men would agree that masturbating is a crime ... considering there are so many women in the world.

Nobody should go to bed hungry. No man should have to masturbate.

even though millions of sperms may meet their end every time it happens.

Sperm are not living humans. No heartbeat, not a life stage, and you don't get to "disagree."

Similarly, few would consider it a crime every time an unfertile egg is flushed out of fertile female's body.

Ova are not living humans. No heartbeat, not a life stage, and you don't get to "disagree."

Apparently, things change for a fair amount of people if that same egg were to be fertilized by [a sperm].

FTFY. Now you have unique DNA, distinct from the father and the mother.

As I've mentioned previously, both Into the Night and gfm believe that this would be murder.

Believe me, I am very familiar with their positions, which are religious in foundation. Having said that, I find their position to align very well with mine, i.e. I oppose the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. Among my axioms are:

1. if there is a heartbeat, there is life (and you have yet to either refute it or to acknowledge it).
2. having human DNA makes one human.
3. A killing as requisitioned in a contract to kill a living human is a contract killing (you have yet to either refute it or to acknowledge it).
4. {customer who is a pregnant woman} is a subset of {customer}.
5. A father should NEVER be prevented, either legally or physically, from saving his child's life.

Now, let's look at your position:

1. Life is not needed for there to be a heartbeat.
2. having human DNA does not make one human.
3. A contract to kill a living human is not a contract killing simply because others do not get to use the word "kill"
4. For weeks you denied that {customer who is a pregnant woman} is a subset of {customer}, then you said you were OK if someone else believes it, or something. You weren't clear. Nevertheless, until you are clear, you are a math denier.
5. A father should DEFINITELY be prevented, both legally and physically, from saving his child's life if someone with killing supremacy is having his child killed.


Your position is indefensible.

I find it interesting that you have decided not to answer this question as of yet.

Strange. Why would you expect me to answer one of your questions? When you start being honest, stop being EVASIVE, start engaging in rational, adult conversation and answer my questions as I have done for all of yours, perhaps I will feel inclined to answer your questions in return.