(July 26, 2012 at 11:58 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:(July 26, 2012 at 2:01 am)Godschild Wrote: There's a big difference, you're to dense to see it or you just like making a fool of yourself. I believe it to be both, we did not starve him, that would take several days you idiot, he had about 24hrs. without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering, and as I stated it was his wish, He told us to do nothing that would extend his and our suffering, quite a noble love for us.
"without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering"
Translation; he died sooner than he naturally would of because he wasn't fed.
Thats cutting someones life short to prevent further suffering.
Thats euthanasia.
If you can't deal with that and want to continue with your dellusion then don't present it as evidence euthanasia shouldn't be legal because thats grossly hypocritical and I will call you out on it.
You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
