For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:58 amFor me, a "person" is someone that is no longer requiring support via an umbilical cord.
Where the fuck are you getting that idea from you sick twisted piece of shit.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:53 amSo 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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:58 amFor me, a "person" is someone that is no longer requiring support via an umbilical cord.
Have I understood your positon?
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 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:35 am
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?
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 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:01 am 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?
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.wtf wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:53 amYou'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 wrote: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?
From you words, above.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:53 amWhere...are you getting that...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:53 amSo 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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:58 amFor me, a "person" is someone that is no longer requiring support via an umbilical cord.
Have I understood your positon?
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:41 pmFrom you words, above.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:53 amWhere...are you getting that...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:53 am
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?
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?
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:41 pmFrom you words, above.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:53 amWhere the fuck are you getting that idea from you sick twisted piece of shit.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:53 am
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?
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.
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?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:14 pmWhen it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.
I see. No answer. Just ad hominems.
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?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:14 pmWhen it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.
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?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:04 pmYou 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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:41 pmFrom you words, above.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:53 am
Where the fuck are you getting that idea from you sick twisted piece of shit.
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.
Take your pick which form of STUPID are you?
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!!!henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:28 pmHey, 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?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:04 pmYou 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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:41 pm
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.
Take your pick which form of STUPID are you?
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.