Sociopath Community

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

How about this question instead: When is life relevant enough to consider it murder? 

 okay, that's a different question

What's your answer to it? 

 murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

so murder depends on the laws. in a Red State like Missouri. All abortions are murder.

In Blue California, not murder.

But what's your opinion? 

 My opinion is that all abortion is killing and that murder will follow the state laws.

 

 Are you saying the government has the right to decide appropriate medical treatments and then dictate those treatments on an individual's personal body if they deem it will save another's life? And, if an individual rejects the state's medical decision about their body they should go to jail? 

If so, then you must agree that the state should be able to administer forced vaccinations on people to save lives?

LiYang said: 

Bitch said: 

LiYang said: 

Lenalee says life begins at birth.

Well I believe life begins at conception, because, if left alone, a new human life is formed.

the sperm is not life, the egg is not life, together they form life.

No religion involved, just science.

So abortion is killing life, imho

If you find yourself in a hospital with a patient and the nurses are transferring blood and parts of your organs to the man to keep him alive, are you allowed to disconnect yourself from the man and not donate your blood and organs to him? Is that murder?

 Instead of a hypothetical thing, lets use a natural event. Im not an organ donor, so the above scenario would be criminal.

These conjoined twins share organs, which one deserves to die? Neither of course. Your logic fails.

I only asked the question because I was curious about your answer? I didn't get what your answer was.

LiYang said: 

Bitch said: 

LiYang said: 

Lenalee says life begins at birth.

Well I believe life begins at conception, because, if left alone, a new human life is formed.

the sperm is not life, the egg is not life, together they form life.

No religion involved, just science.

So abortion is killing life, imho

If you find yourself in a hospital with a patient and the nurses are transferring blood and parts of your organs to the man to keep him alive, are you allowed to disconnect yourself from the man and not donate your blood and organs to him? Is that murder?

 Instead of a hypothetical thing, lets use a natural event. Im not an organ donor, so the above scenario would be criminal.

These conjoined twins share organs, which one deserves to die? Neither of course. Your logic fails.

 

 

 Actually lots of doctors make the decision with the parents to kill off one twin if one the twins does not develops it's own heart or lungs(or has very weak lungs-manchester case) because it would be too taxing on one body and ultimately kill them both. There are cases like above where both have developed certain organs and can ..live, but more cases where the weaker twin is killing the stronger twin and is killed off are more common and not typically reported as a feel good story

MissCommunication said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

How about this question instead: When is life relevant enough to consider it murder? 

 okay, that's a different question

What's your answer to it? 

 murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

so murder depends on the laws. in a Red State like Missouri. All abortions are murder.

In Blue California, not murder.

But what's your opinion? 

 My opinion is that all abortion is killing and that murder will follow the state laws.

 

 Are you saying the government has the right to decide appropriate medical treatments and then dictate those treatments on an individual's personal body if they deem it will save another's life? And, if an individual rejects the state's medical decision about their body they should go to jail? 

If so, then you must agree that the state should be able to administer forced vaccinations on people to save lives.    

im saying abortion is killing

forced or coerced medical procedures are criminal. No State has the right to force medical procedures.

and R v W was repealed due to being Government over reach.

abortion is not a force medical procedure,

now, if I elected to get a vaccine that knowingly killed someone else. wow

LiYang said: 

MissCommunication said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

How about this question instead: When is life relevant enough to consider it murder? 

 okay, that's a different question

What's your answer to it? 

 murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

so murder depends on the laws. in a Red State like Missouri. All abortions are murder.

In Blue California, not murder.

But what's your opinion? 

 My opinion is that all abortion is killing and that murder will follow the state laws.

 Are you saying the government has the right to decide appropriate medical treatments and then dictate those treatments on an individual's personal body if they deem it will save another's life? And, if an individual rejects the state's medical decision about their body they should go to jail? 

If so, then you must agree that the state should be able to administer forced vaccinations on people to save lives.    

im saying abortion is killing

You are also saying that women should not have the autonomy to murder their unborn, right? 

Lenalee said: 

Actually lots of doctors make the decision with the parents to kill off one twin if one the twins does not develops it's own heart or lungs(or has very weak lungs-manchester case) because it would be too taxing on one body and ultimately kill them both. There are cases like above where both have developed certain organs and can ..live, but more cases where the weaker twin is killing the stronger twin and is killed off are more common and not typically reported as a feel good story

The other problem is that the argument is an objection from bodily autonomy.

If you find yourself in a hospital with a patient and the nurses are transferring blood and parts of your organs to the man to keep him alive, are you allowed to disconnect yourself from the man and not donate your blood and organs to him? Is that murder?

Someone out there is a fully independent, autonomous being, and you force someone to donate their blood and organs to another person, ripping them of bodily autonomy.

Someone out there is a fully independent, autonomous being, and you force someone to donate their blood and organs to a fetus, ripping them of bodily autonomy.

How do you complete that analogy for conjoined twins?

Turncoat said: 

You are also saying that women should not have the autonomy to murder their unborn, right?

He doesn't get it.

LiYang said: 

im saying abortion is killing

forced or coerced medical procedures are criminal. No State has the right to force medical procedures.

and R v W was repealed due to being Government over reach.

abortion is not a force medical procedure,

now, if I elected to get a vaccine that knowingly killed someone else. wow

This is not even be a question where men should get to vote on because you have no idea what you're talking about. You will never get pregnant.

LiYang said: 

MissCommunication said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

LiYang said: 

Turncoat said: 

How about this question instead: When is life relevant enough to consider it murder? 

 okay, that's a different question

What's your answer to it? 

 murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

so murder depends on the laws. in a Red State like Missouri. All abortions are murder.

In Blue California, not murder.

But what's your opinion? 

 My opinion is that all abortion is killing and that murder will follow the state laws.

 Are you saying the government has the right to decide appropriate medical treatments and then dictate those treatments on an individual's personal body if they deem it will save another's life? And, if an individual rejects the state's medical decision about their body they should go to jail? 

If so, then you must agree that the state should be able to administer forced vaccinations on people to save lives.    

im saying abortion is killing

That's a personal opinion and I agree it would be a good reason for you not to have an abortion. But why do you think people who don't see abortion as murder should be forced to accept your and their government's view on this? Do they not have the personal freedom to make their own choice?

forced or coerced medical procedures are criminal. No State has the right to force medical procedures. and R v W was repealed due to being Government over reach. 

How is denying someone access to a medical procedure different from forcing/coercing them to have a medical procedure they don't want?

How was R v W overreach when it left the decision up to an individual?  Do state laws override individual freedoms?

abortion is not a force medical procedure, now, if I elected to get a vaccine that knowingly killed someone else. wow

But what if the state thinks differently and says that not getting a vaccine could cause mutations/variants in a virus that puts others lives at risk and therefore all people must be vaccinated. Is it ok for them to make that choice for you? 

Animals eat their young and the others survive stronger for that

Star said: 

Animals eat their young and the others survive stronger for that

 That's an appeal to nature fallacy that assumes just because something happens in nature (in isolated and specific conditions (among certain species) we may not understand) it is therefore ethically acceptable in a civilized society. 

"There are other solutions as well to the problem of dangerous majorities. James Madison argued in Federalist 10 that representative government would tamp down the excesses of public opinion. He also reckoned that a vast nation, including all manner of factions, would keep any one group from amounting to a numerical majority and tyrannizing the rest."

These guys were fucking smart, just coming from EU tyranny and religious persecution. They had a very good understanding of how to prevent tyranny in the future.

I am happy to live in a Republic where factions can have their turf. This allows for many different cultures to thrive. Cultural diversity.

Trying to force your views and culture on another faction is Anit-Democratic. The USA is really a great place for independence to thrive.

Justice Thomas:

“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,”

You have the freedom to move to other States (other factions) that are more in line with your values. Just don't force your tyrannical cultural genocide on me.

You can still have abortions in the USA, you just have to go to another faction.

Many countries like Sweden that are importing large numbers of cultural immigrants would do well to understand the USA and it's State and Federal relationship.