Billionaires Line Up Behind Biden for 2024: 'Stakes are higher than ever'

I didn't use the word 'abortion' in my question. Continued evasion. Answer the question. Clearly, condoners of such killing are too afraid to answer this question.

My point exactly. It's how the global medical community determines the presence of life. The very first thing that they do is check for a pulse.

... and I explained to you that a braindead person with a heartbeat is considered "alive". No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered "dead". At such a point, additional measures are taken to attempt to heal the fauna.

You're getting distracted again. A medical professional has checked for a heartbeat and a heartbeat exists. Ergo, life exists. Ergo, additional measures are taken in attempt to heal the person.

Oh great, a "holy link". Splendid...

Ahhhh, the patented attempt to insert what is "legal" into the discussion as if that changes anything. Failed, once again.

No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered "dead".

Continued evasion of the questions presented to you.

 

Okay then, the answer is yes, though it doesn’t mean what you think it does. I don’t concede anything, but we are just repeating ourselves and you are not interested in understanding the ethics of abortion.

 

Finally you admit it, but then immediately deny it, so we're ultimately back to square one.

It means precisely what the question asks. It means that you condone the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die. You likely also condone said killing for the sake of another living human's convenience. Obviously you are ashamed to answer it honestly.

You've already effectively conceded by refusing to answer the questions asked of you. You've given several responses, but none of them have been answers.

... because you aren't presenting any counterarguments.

... because I didn't ask about the "ethics of abortion" in any of my questions to you.

 

You choose to ignore that the key to ethics is harm to others, and the key to there being an other is having a mind. Without a mind, there is no "person" to kill. If it's not a person, it's just human tissue. Since it's simply human tissue, your question is irrelevant and misleading. If you simply ignore my arguments, I am not sure what we can discuss.

I advocate holding the rights of actual persons above non-persons, whether they be embryos, or the braindead bodies of former persons.

Personhood is defined by having a mind, even a rudimentary one, and being of human origin, though animal rights are debateable. They are more in need of rights than mindless tissue, though.

 

I've been saying that for decades, republicans didn't care as long as it was on their side.

 

... and the "others" mentioned in my question is 'living humans'.

There you go rewording my question again. It makes no mention of "mind" or "person" or "tissue". It simply references a 'living human'. 'Human': of the homo sapien sapien species. 'Living': has a detectable heartbeat.

My question is not about 'tissue'. You really need to address the question as it was asked instead of attempting to morph it into something that it is not.

Once again, there's nothing in my question about 'rights' or 'persons' or whatever else. It only makes mention of 'living humans'.

See above.

 

You take your question as the starting point for the debate, but the validity of your question is rejected and you won't debate the reasons for using or not using the question, so there's no discussion to be had. Your question is deliberately misleading. Speaking of which, do you think people should be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?

 

Here's something you obviously haven't considered and it may make you unhappy......women are human beings with rights....

...and I 've never heard of a fetus with a SSN

 

Yes, because I am asking a specific question. It is the very beginning point of discussion. I am only asking about what is included within the question, and not about anything else that is excluded from the question.

How is my question invalid? I have every right to ask it, and there is nothing illogical about it.

Irrelevant. I have asked you a question, and you are unwilling to answer it because your honest answer to it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Of course there's discussion to be had. I have asked a question:

Do you condone the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die? 'living': has a heartbeat // 'human': of the homo sapien sapien species

This is where you answer the yes/no question and further discussion can be had about why yes or why no.

There is literally nothing misleading about it. It is asking a very specific question in a completely unambiguous manner. This question makes you feel uncomfortable, plain and simple... but that's what the truth does sometimes.

Continued evasion of the question asked of you.

 

Here's something you obviously haven't considered and it may make you unhappy......the words 'women', 'beings', and 'rights' are not included in the question that I asked....

...and there was no mention of 'SSN' in my question either, so that's likewise completely irrelevant.

There is a reason why that question is dubbed "the question that makes cowards out of leftists"

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Here's something you obviously haven't considered and it may make you unhappy......women are human beings with rights....

...and I 've never heard of a fetus with a SSN

LOL, I KNEW you wouldn't address my post ! Does that make cowards of rightists ??

Maybe if I knew what your mysterious question was I 'd answer it....unlike YOU ignoring what you can't address.

SSN is relevant...ever know a fetus to have one ? UNANSWERED.

 

Let me break down the problems with your question in more detail. I have an issue with the use of the phrase, "Living humans" because it is not a human as an independent moral entity unless it has a mind. An embryo cannot be called "a human" any more than sperm or eggs can. The only actual difference is a new combination of DNA, but if you cloned somebody and they didn't have a new set of DNA, they could still be an independent person once they have a mind. Having a mind is what makes them a person, and to pretend otherwise is illogical.

So when you then go on to "have not committed any crime nor expressed any desire to die." Things without minds have no desires nor can they commit any crime. It's like asking if a car deserves to be destroyed because it ran over a cat. The car has no mind, no feelings, and cannot commit crimes on its own. It is an inanimate object without blame and without interests. One could say the same thing about living things without minds like bacteria, cancer, and embryos.

And again heartbeat is not directly relevant. It is a vital pump, an essential tool, and it is used as a proxy for life because without it the mind cannot survive under normal circumstances (e.g. not on ECMO). But a heartbeat is not synonymous with life.

So your question is bullshit and does not deserve an answer from anybody. It is only meant to mislead. But as written, I would have to answer yes. If it were written as "persons" by my definition and so not including embryos and braindead bodies with a heartbeat, the answer would be no.

 

Continued evasion on your part.

 

... but it IS a human, and that's what's being discussed.

You keep trying to tack on other qualifiers that are completely irrelevant because your answer to the question AS ASKED makes you feel very uncomfortable about the poor ideology that you are told to support at all costs.

Irrelevant. My question doesn't involve an embryo (or sperm or eggs). It involves a fetus, specifically one with a heartbeat. Ergo, a living human.

Continued evasion of the question asked. None of this has any bearing on what the word 'human' means or what the word 'living' means.

Perfect. So no crime has been committed, and no desire to die has been expressed.

... and none of this is involved in my question at all. My question involves a fetus with a heartbeat, iow a 'living human'.

It is completely relevant, as you admit below.

Here, you admit that a heartbeat is used (as a proxy) for determining the presence of life (IOW, the global medical axiom, "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life"). That is why the very first thing that any medical professional will do upon any serious health issue or question of life is check for a pulse.

Oh wowwwww... "bullshit", eh?... Now you're just lashing out because I refuse to fall for your distraction tactics to get me talking about anything other than a living human, as defined by taxonomy and a global medical axiom.

I hold the winning position on this issue so long as I stick solidly with it and fail to fall for any of your "squirrel! squirrel!" tactics.

YOU are the only one here attempting to mislead. I've been very direct, unambiguous, and straightforward.

Precisely, and you are well aware of this, and it makes you feel very uncomfortable that you have to openly admit that you in fact do condone the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die.

You feel even more uncomfortable about it because you also condone said killing for the sake of another living human's convenience, and only so long as YOU are not the living human who is being killed. It's a morally abhorrent position to take, and you're fully aware of that, yet liberal dogma demands that you hold this morally abhorrent position anyway.

Yeah, but it's not written like that, is it? I specifically word it the way that I do, and offer unambiguous definitions of those words, so that there's no ambiguity or grey area to appeal to, ergo your failed attempts to divert away from the specific wording of my question.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
FoxHastings said: ↑
Here's something you obviously haven't considered and it may make you unhappy......women are human beings with rights....

...and I 've never heard of a fetus with a SSN




LOL, I KNEW you wouldn't address my post ! Does that make cowards of rightists ??

Maybe if I knew what your mysterious question was I 'd answer it....unlike YOU ignoring what you can't address.

SSN is relevant...ever know a fetus to have one ? UNANSWERED.

What TF am I evading ? You haven't asked me a question yet ??!!!

Making accusations without proof....is that how all righties operate ?


AND YOU evaded addressing anything in the post of mine you quoted....and I have proof you didn't

 

What question?

 

What question?


LOL, you can't even answer THAT !!!!

 

***************************