Roe Vs Wade? God the greatest Abortionist.

[Immanuel Can]

For me, a "person" is someone that is no longer requiring support via an umbilical cord.

So your answer is that so long as the baby is attached to the umbilical cord, even if she's out of the womb and on the table crying, you can take a knife and slice her up...and it's not murder.

Have I understood your positon?

[attofishpi]

For me, a "person" is someone that is no longer requiring support via an umbilical cord.

So your answer is that so long as the baby is attached to the umbilical cord, even if she's out of the womb and on the table crying, you can take a knife and slice her up...and it's not murder.

Have I understood your positon?

Where the fuck are you getting that idea from you sick twisted piece of shit.

[wtf]

Please read the points I have made on the previous page regarding a SOUL. Should a woman that has been raped be considered a murderer when she terminates her pregnancy?

I'm responding to the point you made right here. That someone who is not loved may be morally killed. Is that what you said or not?

[attofishpi]

.

[wtf]

By someone that is not loved may we include a foetus impregnated by a rapist - or is that going to be too much for your moral highness to have to comprehend?

You're deflecting and tossing out ad hominems. Not doing a very good job defending your own indefensible point. Why don't you just admit you misspoke yourself?

[attofishpi]

I'm responding to the point you made right here. That someone who is not loved may be morally killed. Is that what you said or not?

By someone that is not loved may we include a foetus impregnated by a rapist - or is that going to be too much for your moral highness to have to comprehend?

You're deflecting and tossing out ad hominems. Not doing a very good job defending your own indefensible point. Why don't you just admit you misspoke yourself?

LMAO. Look closely in the mirror pal, as far as deflecting goes, i'll back up everything I said on ANY previous page, but the point I make above is salient to our discussion of LOVE, and you are refusing to provide where you stand on this matter.


NB. How I am far more ethical in debates by keeping the quotes intact, thus context is not lost.

[Immanuel Can]

For me, a "person" is someone that is no longer requiring support via an umbilical cord.

So your answer is that so long as the baby is attached to the umbilical cord, even if she's out of the womb and on the table crying, you can take a knife and slice her up...and it's not murder.

Have I understood your positon?

Where...are you getting that...

From you words, above.

If a person is not a person, and a child is not a child so long as she "requires support via an umbilical cord," then a baby is not a baby until that cord is gone, no?

But you don't need to be abusive. I did not tell you what you thought; I asked for confirmation that that is what you meant. And if you meant that the umbilical cord is the point, then there is zero reason for you to be appalled at the suggestion of cutting up something that's just a cluster of meaningless cells, right?

You say it's not, now. So you're perfectly free to go on and explain what you did mean instead.

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

[henry quirk]

So your answer is that so long as the baby is attached to the umbilical cord, even if she's out of the womb and on the table crying, you can take a knife and slice her up...and it's not murder.

Have I understood your positon?

Where...are you getting that...

From you words, above.

If a person is not a person, and a child is not a child so long as she "requires support via an umbilical cord," then a baby is not a baby until that cord is gone, no?

But you don't need to be abusive. I did not tell you what you thought; I asked for confirmation that that is what you meant. And if you meant that the umbilical cord is the point, then there is zero reason for you to be appalled at the suggestion of cutting up something that's just a cluster of meaningless cells, right?

You say it's not, now. So you're perfectly free to go on and explain what you did mean instead.

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

Gettin' to the root: Atto sez viability is the determiner. As I say: if that's the case, then a whole whack of folks become non-persons well after exitin' the womb as they lose viability to disease, accident, and aging.

[attofishpi]

So your answer is that so long as the baby is attached to the umbilical cord, even if she's out of the womb and on the table crying, you can take a knife and slice her up...and it's not murder.

Have I understood your positon?

Where the fuck are you getting that idea from you sick twisted piece of shit.

From you words, above.

If a person is not a person, and a child is not a child so long as she "requires support via an umbilical cord," then a baby is not a baby until that cord is gone, no?

But you don't need to be abusive.

You DISGUSTING piece of shit. The question was from Henry Quirk as to what constitutes a "PERSON", and from that in your SICK DERANGED mind you infer that means I would take a knife and kill that child. Either you are the stupidest Evangelist I have come across on a forum or just plain STUPID.
Take your pick which form of STUPID are you?

[RCSaunders]

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

When it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.

[henry quirk]

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

When it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.

So: when a person cannot breathe on his own, when he must be fed thru a tube, he gives up personhood, yeah?

[Immanuel Can]

You DISGUSTING...

I see. No answer. Just ad hominems.

I can see you get it. You hate it, but you get it. That's why the anger.

Well, rage away. It won't change the facts.

[Immanuel Can]

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

When it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.

So a baby who's out of the womb, hasn't drawn breath and has the umbilical cord attached...not a person. You can kill her anytime? But a baby a microsecond later, when the doctor has cut the cord and the baby has drawn one breath...a full person, and it would be murder to kill her?

Explain that reasoning, please. What's the essential differentiator that happens in that microsecond, more than one knife stroke and a puff of air? From whence is full personhood so suddenly conferred on that which was in no way a person before?

[henry quirk]

Where the fuck are you getting that idea from you sick twisted piece of shit.

From you words, above.

If a person is not a person, and a child is not a child so long as she "requires support via an umbilical cord," then a baby is not a baby until that cord is gone, no?

But you don't need to be abusive.

You DISGUSTING piece of shit. The question was from Henry Quirk as to what constitutes a "PERSON", and from that in your SICK DERANGED mind you infer that means I would take a knife and kill that child. Either you are the stupidest Evangelist I have come across on a forum or just plain STUPID.
Take your pick which form of STUPID are you?

Hey, guy, you're the one who has viability as the measure. If the baby is attached to its mom via the umbilical, it's not a baby, not a person, right?

Or, mebbe, you mean as long as the baby is dependent on the umbilical it's not a person (so, even if still connected, as long as it can fend for itself, it is a person).

Mannie is just lookin' for clarity on your position, as am I.

[attofishpi]

From you words, above.

If a person is not a person, and a child is not a child so long as she "requires support via an umbilical cord," then a baby is not a baby until that cord is gone, no?

But you don't need to be abusive.

You DISGUSTING piece of shit. The question was from Henry Quirk as to what constitutes a "PERSON", and from that in your SICK DERANGED mind you infer that means I would take a knife and kill that child. Either you are the stupidest Evangelist I have come across on a forum or just plain STUPID.
Take your pick which form of STUPID are you?

Hey, guy, you're the one who has viability as the measure. If the baby is attached to its mom via the umbilical, it's not a baby, not a person, right?

Or, mebbe, you mean as long as the baby is dependent on the umbilical it's not a person (so, even if still connected, as long as it can fend for itself, it is a person).

Mannie is just lookin' for clarity on your position, as am I.

Not sure why you and IC are clearly so fucking STUPID that you are inferring just because I stated what a person is (satirically btw) - THAT THEREFORE I WOULD BE QUITE HAPPY TO SLICE OPEN A CHILD THAT STILL HAPPENS TO BE CONNECTED TO AN UMBILICAL CORD!!!

I am simply bewildered at how stupid people - most often from that side of the pond - come to the most ridiculous conclusions!!