Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 9:34:47 GMT
tpfkar I'm not, because I personally don't like the idea of cannibalistic sex fetish meetings, so I don't 'want' mentally ill to be 'available' for that. I personally err on the side of supporting bodily autonomy, but I wouldn't campaign on behalf of cannibals. On the other hand, I strongly feel that a comfortable, easy and fail-proof should be a fundamental right for all humans; having been forced into a harmful existence without consent. You oppose it for religious reasons, and cannot give a single rational reason why suicide can ever be an irrational answer to the predicament that those people find themselves in. But instead of admitting to the fact that you hold humankind up as divine ( if I'm one of them, then my species must be divine), your prejudice against mentally ill people provides a convenient fig leaf. You either want them to be available when they assent, or you do not. You've already said you do, regardless of how much you cower and quibble more here. And you again reiterate it in the same breath via your "support bodily autonomy" for the mentally ill to be sexually mutilated, cannibalized and gutted by like-minded psychopaths. Humans aren't "forced" into into anything without consent, they're given the great option to choose for which they are massively grateful overwhelmingly, and in fact overwhelmingly also choose the experience vs. the early out. Nonexistent creatures aren't anything anythinged, and once extant then of course violently terminating them and violating the mother is certainly massive abuse, while simply letting the extant creatures decide once capable is certainly not, regardless of your nuke-powered wailing arlonitis. And of course you concoct externally and comically project your fervid internal religious passions without semblance of restraint; your aches for perfection, your fellow faithfuls' extremism toward procreation, and not last and not least your elevation of religion as the source of good as opposed to just being the product of the ideas of man (valuation is divine only to those wed to divinity). The mentally ill should not be abused as you wish for them to be mutilated and cannibalized "if they assent to it", and the mentally competent can easily accomplish the cessation of the fragile human system once/if they've actually decided. Suicide is a rational answer for those who can rationally arrive at such a conclusion; those who act out and involve the restraints of society, as well as those who demand that society should put down the mentally ill who cannot manage their own thought processes, explicitly demonstrate their own mental unfitness. Which is only reinforced by the display of such other utter derangements as holding that blowing someone's brains out instantly isn't harming them, choosing to desperately attempt to get others to choose differently while simultaneously "holding" that real choice doesn't actually exist, as well as continual ludicrous lugubrious distortions of language and thoroughly entertaining projections, religious and other. And you further give your perversity away with your characterizing of successful treatment as "brainwashing" and your predatory and narcissistic desires to force violate women and mass murder countless. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.As I've stated, it's not my cup of tea, or anything that I even really understand, but in most questions of bodily autonomy, I tend to err on the side of more freedom. In the extremely unusual case such as the one being discussed, the main harm that I would be concerned with would be the pain experienced by the person being mutilated and also the fact that they could regret their choice. For those reasons, I wouldn't object to laws prohibiting this sort of thing, even if personally I slightly come down on the side of autonomy. Neither of those would be factors at play in clinical assisted dying or euthanasia, and therefore there is no analogy to be made. There's nothing irrational about wanting the right to die by suicide, as opposed to merely the ability to do it. Everyone should have the right to a zero risk suicide in the most comfortable and swift manner that medical technology can provide. There is nobody unworthy of having the peace of mind of knowing that society supports their right to choose, and it can never be irrational to choose to be safe from harm.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 14:54:49 GMT
tpfkar There's no rational argument for bringing someone into existence so that they can "decide once they're capable" (but will of course, have to act without any assistance and often in contravention of strict social mores, and will also need to suffer sufficiently up to the point of choosing, and may never be capable of the act, etc), when the (socially limited) choice itself is only an imperfect solution to a problem that was created by bringing them into existence in the first place. And nobody who wants to impose on someone who cannot consent has any business to complain about a 'violation' of their freedom to do so. Sorry bud, you're certainly in no condition to judge "rational". Just because you suckle your first-world misery doesn't mean most do. Peeps greatly prefer to have had the option by overwhelming percentages, and want to experience this life by nearly as massive margins. Having at it is the great solution. The problem is with the narcissistic psychopaths and their pathetic jackboot dreams of violating women, poisoning the atmosphere, and mass murdering countless. Can't "impose" on the nonexistent, and not terminating the extant at the behest or force of the homicidal mentally ill is certainly the very opposite of "imposing". Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born: "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 16:52:23 GMT
tpfkar There's no rational argument for bringing someone into existence so that they can "decide once they're capable" (but will of course, have to act without any assistance and often in contravention of strict social mores, and will also need to suffer sufficiently up to the point of choosing, and may never be capable of the act, etc), when the (socially limited) choice itself is only an imperfect solution to a problem that was created by bringing them into existence in the first place. And nobody who wants to impose on someone who cannot consent has any business to complain about a 'violation' of their freedom to do so. Sorry bud, you're certainly in no condition to judge "rational". Just because you suckle your first-world misery doesn't mean most do. Peeps greatly prefer to have had the option by overwhelming percentages, and want to experience this life by nearly as massive margins. Having at it is the great solution. The problem is with the narcissistic psychopaths and their pathetic jackboot dreams of violating women, poisoning the atmosphere, and mass murdering countless. Can't "impose" on the nonexistent, and not terminating the extant at the behest or force of the homicidal mentally ill is certainly the very opposite of "imposing". Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born: "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."Unless you've been holding back all this time, or misrepresenting your views, I'm in a better place to determine what's rational than you are. Nobody who can be asked whether they'd like to be born or not has ever experienced the condition in which they were not born, or can imagine not having been born, therefore are not in a position to state a preference for having been born. And there's certainly nothing rational about saying that the wellbeing of those alive at present are worth considering, but we should never grant any consideration to the wellbeing of those who will exist in the future, but do not exist now (which you would contradict in any case if asked whether we should take steps to minimise the impact of global warming, for the sake of future generations who are currently non-existent).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 16:55:24 GMT
tpfkar You either want them to be available when they assent, or you do not. You've already said you do, regardless of how much you cower and quibble more here. And you again reiterate it in the same breath via your "support bodily autonomy" for the mentally ill to be sexually mutilated, cannibalized and gutted by like-minded psychopaths. Humans aren't "forced" into into anything without consent, they're given the great option to choose for which they are massively grateful overwhelmingly, and in fact overwhelmingly also choose the experience vs. the early out. Nonexistent creatures aren't anything anythinged, and once extant then of course violently terminating them and violating the mother is certainly massive abuse, while simply letting the extant creatures decide once capable is certainly not, regardless of your nuke-powered wailing arlonitis. And of course you concoct externally and comically project your fervid internal religious passions without semblance of restraint; your aches for perfection, your fellow faithfuls' extremism toward procreation, and not last and not least your elevation of religion as the source of good as opposed to just being the product of the ideas of man (valuation is divine only to those wed to divinity). The mentally ill should not be abused as you wish for them to be mutilated and cannibalized "if they assent to it", and the mentally competent can easily accomplish the cessation of the fragile human system once/if they've actually decided. Suicide is a rational answer for those who can rationally arrive at such a conclusion; those who act out and involve the restraints of society, as well as those who demand that society should put down the mentally ill who cannot manage their own thought processes, explicitly demonstrate their own mental unfitness. Which is only reinforced by the display of such other utter derangements as holding that blowing someone's brains out instantly isn't harming them, choosing to desperately attempt to get others to choose differently while simultaneously "holding" that real choice doesn't actually exist, as well as continual ludicrous lugubrious distortions of language and thoroughly entertaining projections, religious and other. And you further give your perversity away with your characterizing of successful treatment as "brainwashing" and your predatory and narcissistic desires to force violate women and mass murder countless. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.As I've stated, it's not my cup of tea, or anything that I even really understand, but in most questions of bodily autonomy, I tend to err on the side of more freedom. In the extremely unusual case such as the one being discussed, the main harm that I would be concerned with would be the pain experienced by the person being mutilated and also the fact that they could regret their choice. For those reasons, I wouldn't object to laws prohibiting this sort of thing, even if personally I slightly come down on the side of autonomy. Neither of those would be factors at play in clinical assisted dying or euthanasia, and therefore there is no analogy to be made. There's nothing irrational about wanting the right to die by suicide, as opposed to merely the ability to do it. Everyone should have the right to a zero risk suicide in the most comfortable and swift manner that medical technology can provide. There is nobody unworthy of having the peace of mind of knowing that society supports their right to choose, and it can never be irrational to choose to be safe from harm. Whether you say "it's your cup of tea" is wholly irrelevant to the fact that you've multiple times posted that you want them available for sexual mutilation and cannibalization and murder if they "assent" to it, however you rationalize it and wilt. And what law restraining bodily autonomy would you in fact not object to while you support such "bodily autonomy"? One that disallows someone from choosing to give themselves pain that they might regret? And much like your holding that putting a bullet in someone's brain doesn't "harm" them as long and they never know it, this sickness is simply a window into your shattered thinking. You've posted many psychopathic desires, from mass-violating women to poisoning the atmosphere and mass-murdering countless, as well as a seeming unending stream of raw irrationalities as listed above, many times previous, and will be ongoing. And of course you don't want "the right to die", you want the right for third parties to kill people even when they are deranged and not acting in their best interests. And of course your ideas about "harm" and a slew of other words are patently demented and ever entertaining. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:05:56 GMT
tpfkar As I've stated, it's not my cup of tea, or anything that I even really understand, but in most questions of bodily autonomy, I tend to err on the side of more freedom. In the extremely unusual case such as the one being discussed, the main harm that I would be concerned with would be the pain experienced by the person being mutilated and also the fact that they could regret their choice. For those reasons, I wouldn't object to laws prohibiting this sort of thing, even if personally I slightly come down on the side of autonomy. Neither of those would be factors at play in clinical assisted dying or euthanasia, and therefore there is no analogy to be made. There's nothing irrational about wanting the right to die by suicide, as opposed to merely the ability to do it. Everyone should have the right to a zero risk suicide in the most comfortable and swift manner that medical technology can provide. There is nobody unworthy of having the peace of mind of knowing that society supports their right to choose, and it can never be irrational to choose to be safe from harm. Whether you say "it's your cup of tea" is wholly irrelevant to the fact that you've multiple times posted that you want them available for sexual mutilation and cannibalization and murder if they "assent" to it, however you rationalize it and wilt. And what law restraining bodily autonomy would you in fact not object to while you support such "bodily autonomy"? One that disallows someone from choosing to give themselves pain that they might regret? And much like your holding that putting a bullet in someone's brain doesn't "harm" them as long and they never know it, this sickness is simply a window into your shattered thinking. You've posted many psychopathic desires, from mass-violating women to poisoning the atmosphere and mass-murdering countless, as well as a seeming unending stream of raw irrationalities as listed above, many times previous, and will be ongoing. And of course you don't want "the right to die", you want the right for third parties to kill people even when they are deranged and not acting in their best interests. And of course your ideas about "harm" and a slew of other words are patently demented and ever entertaining. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.Bodily autonomy stops where it encroaches upon the rights of others. And I've stated that I would err on the side of the person choosing the right to be mutilated, so I haven't contradicted that. The right to die must encompass the right to be consensually killed by someone else, because it makes no sense for it to be illegal to assist a consenting party in asserting their right, or for the state to be able to forcibly deny you that right when you aren't endangering someone else in the exercise of it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:15:35 GMT
tpfkar Unless you've been holding back all this time, or misrepresenting your views, I'm in a better place to determine what's rational than you are. Nobody who can be asked whether they'd like to be born or not has ever experienced the condition in which they were not born, or can imagine not having been born, therefore are not in a position to state a preference for having been born. And there's certainly nothing rational about saying that the wellbeing of those alive at present are worth considering, but we should never grant any consideration to the wellbeing of those who will exist in the future, but do not exist now (which you would contradict in any case if asked whether we should take steps to minimise the impact of global warming, for the sake of future generations who are currently non-existent). The patently deranged always do believe that. "Nobody can be asked" is a clue to your dementedness, the kind that has you ascribing "violent imposition" to to clearing an unconscious choke victim's airway in a restaurant. And if you've flopped back again to concern for the nonexistent after many squalling denials, that's fine, but then you consider all aspects for them, including the sky-high likelihood that they'll both overwhelmingly want the absolutely superior option and in fact will choose the experience over early exit by massive margins. And your global warming "analogy" remains pure stupid, as we do our best to improve the standing of all kids that come into the world, wholly compatible with both fighting global warming and laughing wholeheartedly at your silly religious cult desires to poison the atmosphere. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 23:22:57 GMT
tpfkar Unless you've been holding back all this time, or misrepresenting your views, I'm in a better place to determine what's rational than you are. Nobody who can be asked whether they'd like to be born or not has ever experienced the condition in which they were not born, or can imagine not having been born, therefore are not in a position to state a preference for having been born. And there's certainly nothing rational about saying that the wellbeing of those alive at present are worth considering, but we should never grant any consideration to the wellbeing of those who will exist in the future, but do not exist now (which you would contradict in any case if asked whether we should take steps to minimise the impact of global warming, for the sake of future generations who are currently non-existent). The patently deranged always do believe that. "Nobody can be asked" is a clue to your dementedness, the kind that has you ascribing "violent imposition" to to clearing an unconscious choke victim's airway in a restaurant. And if you've flopped back again to concern for the nonexistent after many squalling denials, that's fine, but then you consider all aspects for them, including the sky-high likelihood that they'll both overwhelmingly want the absolutely superior option and in fact will choose the experience over early exit by massive margins. And your global warming "analogy" remains pure stupid, as we do our best to improve the standing of all kids that come into the world, wholly compatible with both fighting global warming and laughing wholeheartedly at your silly religious cult desires to poison the atmosphere. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.There's nothing 'deranged' about the fact that non-existent people do not feel deprived of joy. Even you have admitted to that. Therefore, being brought into existence is not a solution to that person's deprivation of joy, or however you would characterise life. And I've never expressed any concern for the non-existent, only ever the people who will come into existence. If you think that future generations are worth worrying about (in relation to concerns such as global warming), then you're concerned for the self-same people for whom I'm concerned. Therefore, if it's irrational for me to be concerned about the future suffering of people who do not yet exist, then it's equally irrational for you to worry about how future generations will cope with escalating global warming. Either it's rational to worry about the wellbeing of future people, or it's not.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 23:23:51 GMT
tpfkar Whether you say "it's your cup of tea" is wholly irrelevant to the fact that you've multiple times posted that you want them available for sexual mutilation and cannibalization and murder if they "assent" to it, however you rationalize it and wilt. And what law restraining bodily autonomy would you in fact not object to while you support such "bodily autonomy"? One that disallows someone from choosing to give themselves pain that they might regret? And much like your holding that putting a bullet in someone's brain doesn't "harm" them as long and they never know it, this sickness is simply a window into your shattered thinking. You've posted many psychopathic desires, from mass-violating women to poisoning the atmosphere and mass-murdering countless, as well as a seeming unending stream of raw irrationalities as listed above, many times previous, and will be ongoing. And of course you don't want "the right to die", you want the right for third parties to kill people even when they are deranged and not acting in their best interests. And of course your ideas about "harm" and a slew of other words are patently demented and ever entertaining. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.Bodily autonomy stops where it encroaches upon the rights of others. And I've stated that I would err on the side of the person choosing the right to be mutilated, so I haven't contradicted that. The right to die must encompass the right to be consensually killed by someone else, because it makes no sense for it to be illegal to assist a consenting party in asserting their right, or for the state to be able to forcibly deny you that right when you aren't endangering someone else in the exercise of it. What right are you now saying is being encroached upon with the mentally ill that want to be sexually mutilated, cannibalized, and slaughtered by a like-minded psychopath given they "assent"? And in your second sentence you again reiterate that you want them available for it. Schizophrenia beats dining alone! Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 23:26:37 GMT
tpfkar Bodily autonomy stops where it encroaches upon the rights of others. And I've stated that I would err on the side of the person choosing the right to be mutilated, so I haven't contradicted that. The right to die must encompass the right to be consensually killed by someone else, because it makes no sense for it to be illegal to assist a consenting party in asserting their right, or for the state to be able to forcibly deny you that right when you aren't endangering someone else in the exercise of it. What right are you now saying is being encroached upon with the mentally ill that want to be sexually mutilated, cannibalized, and slaughtered by a like-minded psychopath given they "assent"? And in your second sentence you again reiterate that you want them available for it. Schizophrenia beats dining alone! Does Free Will Exist?I never disavowed my statement that people should have the right to pursue their sexual fetishes, so long as they're not dragging anyone into it without full consent; I merely accepted that there are reasons to be concerned for the way that such an act might impact upon someone's wellbeing, in a way that doesn't apply to cases of physician assisted suicide.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 23:32:40 GMT
tpfkar The patently deranged always do believe that. "Nobody can be asked" is a clue to your dementedness, the kind that has you ascribing "violent imposition" to to clearing an unconscious choke victim's airway in a restaurant. And if you've flopped back again to concern for the nonexistent after many squalling denials, that's fine, but then you consider all aspects for them, including the sky-high likelihood that they'll both overwhelmingly want the absolutely superior option and in fact will choose the experience over early exit by massive margins. And your global warming "analogy" remains pure stupid, as we do our best to improve the standing of all kids that come into the world, wholly compatible with both fighting global warming and laughing wholeheartedly at your silly religious cult desires to poison the atmosphere. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.There's nothing 'deranged' about the fact that non-existent people do not feel deprived of joy. Even you have admitted to that. Therefore, being brought into existence is not a solution to that person's deprivation of joy, or however you would characterise life. And I've never expressed any concern for the non-existent, only ever the people who will come into existence. If you think that future generations are worth worrying about (in relation to concerns such as global warming), then you're concerned for the self-same people for whom I'm concerned. Therefore, if it's irrational for me to be concerned about the future suffering of people who do not yet exist, then it's equally irrational for you to worry about how future generations will cope with escalating global warming. Either it's rational to worry about the wellbeing of future people, or it's not. The entire concept of what non-existent feel or don't feel is comically deranged. On the same level as "the dead can't hurt" as the psychopathic justification for killing people. Nobody ever cared about your silly "solution" when one is not describing problems. And now you're back off the nonexistent while on them in the same post again. You got dem schizo blues! And since your definition for "concern" is in the same distant galaxy as yours for "imposition", "rape", "violence", "worry", "religious", and on and on etc., your line about similarity between us is positively mental hilarity. And once again again, you can pick ether to "care" or not to "care", but either case all is considered, not just your demented psychopathic homicidal lugubrium. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 26, 2018 13:57:14 GMT
tpfkar What right are you now saying is being encroached upon with the mentally ill that want to be sexually mutilated, cannibalized, and slaughtered by a like-minded psychopath given they "assent"? And in your second sentence you again reiterate that you want them available for it. Schizophrenia beats dining alone! Does Free Will Exist?I never disavowed my statement that people should have the right to pursue their sexual fetishes, so long as they're not dragging anyone into it without full consent; I merely accepted that there are reasons to be concerned for the way that such an act might impact upon someone's wellbeing, in a way that doesn't apply to cases of physician assisted suicide. Sure, they should have the right to be fodder for your fellow crazies, just not have the right to not be strangled in the crib. I guess that is consistent for the deviant predator types who want slaughter on the menu. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 14:09:05 GMT
tpfkar There's nothing 'deranged' about the fact that non-existent people do not feel deprived of joy. Even you have admitted to that. Therefore, being brought into existence is not a solution to that person's deprivation of joy, or however you would characterise life. And I've never expressed any concern for the non-existent, only ever the people who will come into existence. If you think that future generations are worth worrying about (in relation to concerns such as global warming), then you're concerned for the self-same people for whom I'm concerned. Therefore, if it's irrational for me to be concerned about the future suffering of people who do not yet exist, then it's equally irrational for you to worry about how future generations will cope with escalating global warming. Either it's rational to worry about the wellbeing of future people, or it's not. The entire concept of what non-existent feel or don't feel is comically deranged. On the same level as "the dead can't hurt" as the psychopathic justification for killing people. Nobody ever cared about your silly "solution" when one is not describing problems. And now you're back off the nonexistent while on them in the same post again. You got dem schizo blues! And since your definition for "concern" is in the same distant galaxy as yours for "imposition", "rape", "violence", "worry", "religious", and on and on etc., your line about similarity between us is positively mental hilarity. And once again again, you can pick ether to "care" or not to "care", but either case all is considered, not just your demented psychopathic homicidal lugubrium. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldYou've stated previously that a universe without life is "baaaad", which seems to be describing what you see as being a problem. And stating that we should allow people to breed because the children might "have a blast" implies that the lack of 'blasts' being had would be a problem. A scenario where the person could feel harmed due to a fetish (having their genitals chopped off) is a very different proposition from one where the only possible outcome would be permanent escape from all potential future harm (the desire to escape harm cannot be an error in judgement). And I wouldn't want it to be legal for infants to be killed in any way which caused them to feel the experience of being harmed.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 26, 2018 14:27:37 GMT
tpfkar The entire concept of what non-existent feel or don't feel is comically deranged. On the same level as "the dead can't hurt" as the psychopathic justification for killing people. Nobody ever cared about your silly "solution" when one is not describing problems. And now you're back off the nonexistent while on them in the same post again. You got dem schizo blues! And since your definition for "concern" is in the same distant galaxy as yours for "imposition", "rape", "violence", "worry", "religious", and on and on etc., your line about similarity between us is positively mental hilarity. And once again again, you can pick ether to "care" or not to "care", but either case all is considered, not just your demented psychopathic homicidal lugubrium. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldYou've stated previously that a universe without life is "baaaad", which seems to be describing what you see as being a problem. And stating that we should allow people to breed because the children might "have a blast" implies that the lack of 'blasts' being had would be a problem. A scenario where the person could feel harmed due to a fetish (having their genitals chopped off) is a very different proposition from one where the only possible outcome would be permanent escape from all potential future harm (the desire to escape harm cannot be an error in judgement). And I wouldn't want it to be legal for infants to be killed in any way which caused them to feel the experience of being harmed. Well, whatever ramblings about "problem" you wish to natter on with, life is great, ergo... you can do it.... Can't stop the mentally competent minimally physically capable from exiting whenever they want to, and you've already made it well known that you're for the mentally incompetent being put down even when they are scratching and fighting against it and that you want them to be available for sexual cannibalism + gutting by fellow local as opposed to worldwide-dreaming predators. Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born: "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."
|
|