The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

[AProudLefty]

Just out of curiosity, what's your position on "abortion"?

I don't like abortion and I wish it doesn't happen but it does happen. I am pro-choice and if they can convince me that the fetuses have consciousness and feelings before 26 weeks (I've been convinced that it might be around 24 weeks), then I will change my stance.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, you're trolling about abortion.

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.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am pro-choice

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?

... and if they can convince me that the fetuses have consciousness and feelings before 26 weeks (I've been convinced that it might be around 24 weeks), then I will change my stance.

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?

 

[AProudLefty]

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?

Define "living human". A brain-dead person is a "living human".

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?

How can something with no consciousness express any desire?

Do you know who Gosnell is?

 

[IBDaMann]

Define "living human".

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

A brain-dead person is a "living human".

Correct. If that person has signed a signed a DNR then that person is said to have expressed a desire to die.

How can something with no consciousness express any desire?

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.

 

[AProudLefty]

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

A heartbeat indicates consciousness?

Correct. If that person has signed a signed a DNR then that person is said to have expressed a desire to die.

When a person is brain-dead, he/she is already dead.

How can a passed-out woman say "No" to sex? She can't. We require consent.

Old 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.

Correct but that's another straw man.

 

[AProudLefty]

BTW I wouldn't mind Jaleel being our president. Anything's better than Trump and Biden.

 

[IBDaMann]

A heartbeat indicates consciousness?

A heartbeat indicates life. If there is a heartbeat, there is life. You asked me to define "living human" and consciousness is irrelevant.

When a person is brain-dead, he/she is already dead.

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?

 

[IBDaMann]

That idiot is a troll.

You are another cowardly snowflake who just keeps rehearsing "would you like some fries with your order" in the hopes of one day finally landing a job ... and maybe even moving out of mom's basement (knock on wood).

 

[AProudLefty]

A heartbeat indicates life. If there is a heartbeat, there is life. You asked me to define "living human" and consciousness is irrelevant.

So you agree with me?

Nope. If a person is brain-dead then the brain is dead ... but if there is a heartbeat then there is life.

If the head is chopped off and the doctors keep the body alive, 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?

I told you I do not approve that.

 

[IBDaMann]

I opposed, and participated in protests against your war on Iraq.

I did, too.

[ * H * Y * P * O * C * R * I * S * Y * * * T * E * S * T * ]

Did you both applaud Trump for pulling troops out of Syria?

 

[IBDaMann]

If the head is chopped off and the doctors keep the body alive, there is life?

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.

I told you I do not approve that.

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?

 

[AProudLefty]

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.

You're stating the obvious. You haven't proved it means presence of 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?

Again, life does not mean consciousness.

 

[CFM]

How do you answer a straw man? Nobody supports killing innocent people.

Millions of innocent unborn babies are killed each year and those do it call it a choice.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

So you bring the count to four leftists who are made craven cowards by my simple, easy, straightforward question.

If my question hadn't driven your intellectual cowardice into an outright involuntary panic, you would have just answered my question (in the OP). I'm just sitting back and counting the cowards.

I don't think you should be drinking at your age - your Mom will be in trouble with your SS!

 

[IBDaMann]

You're stating the obvious.

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 haven't proved it means presence of consciousness.

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.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't think you should be drinking at your age - your Mom will be in trouble with your SS!

How cute! The pretty little leftist snowflake is making beautiful leftist dictator references as a form of projection. How could we ask for more?

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, he's a troll.

... which means you are a dishonest snowflake.

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.

... 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.

1. I reject the premise that human life begins at conception.

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.

2. I believe that control of ones body is right protected by the Constitution.

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?

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,

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.

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.

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.

But those are topics for a serious poster to discuss, and he is not. Which is why he is now on ignore.

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.

 

[StoneByStone]

How cute! The pretty little leftist snowflake is making beautiful leftist dictator references as a form of projection. How could we ask for more?

Being against underaged drinking means you're a dictator?

 

[AProudLefty]

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?

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.

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.

Of course. A person can be unconscious and still have brain activity.