Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters

[Dos Equis]

I thought it was pretty obvious what I stated.

I have talked to women who have had children and gave birth and wished they either never had them.  Men as well.

You obviously stated that a baby may or may not be a human being after it is born, but before the cord is cut.  Clear as mud.   

What is the distinction between a newborn baby that is a few days old and one that is in the womb shortly before birth or after birth before the cord is cut? 

[The True Adonis]

You obviously stated that a baby may or may not be a human being after it is born, but before the cord is cut.  Clear as mud.   

What is the distinction between a newborn baby that is a few days old and one that is in the womb shortly before birth or after birth before the cord is cut? 

Uh, its no longer attached to the mother.

[Dos Equis]

Uh, its no longer attached to the mother.

Yes.  Although I'm talking about in terms of dependency and the newborn baby's ability to survive on its own.

[The True Adonis]

Yes.  Although I'm talking about in terms of dependency and the newborn baby's ability to survive on its own.

Why?  Just put the baby up for adoption and then the biological mother becomes irrelevant.  However, the mother should have had the right to terminate the unnecessary birth.

[Dos Equis]

Why?  Just put the baby up for adoption and then the biological mother becomes irrelevant.  However, the mother should have had the right to terminate the unnecessary birth.

I see you don't like giving straight answers, which is fine because this is only a message board and nobody has to say anything they don't want too.

But here is what I'm getting at (or trying to understand):  where do you draw the line, logically, between the ability to kill a baby after it comes out of the womb?  Is it before the cord is cut? 

Overall, there is no logical distinction between a newborn and a third trimester baby at say 38 weeks.  The lungs are the last thing to develop and by 38 weeks they are good to go.  A newborn is just as dependent as a third trimester baby.  Arguably, a newborn is more dependent because the baby has to be fed, changed, held, etc., whereas an unborn child has the cord and placenta providing everything the baby needs to survive. 

[The True Adonis]

I see you don't like giving straight answers, which is fine because this is only a message board and nobody has to say anything they don't want too.

But here is what I'm getting at (or trying to understand):  where do you draw the line, logically, between the ability to kill a baby after it comes out of the womb?  Is it before the cord is cut? 

Overall, there is no logical distinction between a newborn and a third trimester baby at say 38 weeks.  The lungs are the last thing to develop and by 38 weeks they are good to go.  A newborn is just as dependent as a third trimester baby.  Arguably, a newborn is more dependent because the baby has to be fed, changed, held, etc., whereas an unborn child has the cord and placenta providing everything the baby needs to survive. 

If you don`t like abortion, don`t have one.  Simple as that. 

I don`t care about dependency because that is what abortion prevents.

[The True Adonis]

I see you don't like giving straight answers, which is fine because this is only a message board and nobody has to say anything they don't want too.

But here is what I'm getting at (or trying to understand):  where do you draw the line, logically, between the ability to kill a baby after it comes out of the womb?  Is it before the cord is cut? 

Overall, there is no logical distinction between a newborn and a third trimester baby at say 38 weeks.  The lungs are the last thing to develop and by 38 weeks they are good to go.  A newborn is just as dependent as a third trimester baby.  Arguably, a newborn is more dependent because the baby has to be fed, changed, held, etc., whereas an unborn child has the cord and placenta providing everything the baby needs to survive. 

If you really want to get to a logical argument, then the organism really is just 50 percent of genes owned by the mother and 50 percent owned by the father.  If both mother and father agree that they do not want their genes spread, maybe they should have the right to stop it at any time as biologically the entire makeup solely belongs to them.

Just how Biologically logically do you want to take it?  (see what I am doing here?)

[Dos Equis]

If you don`t like abortion, don`t have one.  Simple as that. 

I don`t care about dependency because that is what abortion prevents.

We're not talking about abortion, but I can see you have tunnel vision. 

We're talking about when a baby becomes a human being and the logical distinction between killing a baby before and after birth. 

[Dos Equis]

If you really want to get to a logical argument, then the organism really is just 50 percent of genes owned by the mother and 50 percent owned by the father.  If both mother and father agree that they do not want their genes spread, maybe they should have the right to stop it at any time as biologically the entire makeup solely belongs to them.

Just how Biologically logically do you want to take it?  (see what I am doing here?)

Are you suggesting parents should have the right to kill their kids at any time?

[The True Adonis]

We're not talking about abortion, but I can see you have tunnel vision. 

We're talking about when a baby becomes a human being and the logical distinction between killing a baby before and after birth. 

Its clear, you want your own set of rules.  Logically speaking, humans are just vehicles for the genes they contain.  Genes are the only thing we are talking about.  You could, logically break it down further by elements and atoms therein.  

I don`t think you understand the inanity of it all yet.

[The True Adonis]

Are you suggesting parents should have the right to kill their kids at any time?

Depends on how far you want to take the logic as you seemingly wanted to do.  How far do you want to take it?  If you take it all the way to a biological level, then it would be permissible, logically and biologically speaking. 

[Dos Equis]

Its clear, you want your own set of rules.  Logically speaking, humans are just vehicles for the genes they contain.  Genes are the only thing we are talking about.  You could, logically break it down further by elements and atoms therein.  

I don`t think you understand the inanity of it all yet.

What rules are you talking about?  If you're talking about the basic "rules" regarding having a conversation, then yes I like to stay on topic.  

What seems apparent is you want to talk about abortion and are either unwilling or incapable of having a discussion about human life and death without spouting political talking points.  

If you're able to step outside the box, maybe you can discuss precisely when you believe a baby becomes a human being and whether we should kill newborn babies.  And if you're smart enough, maybe you can do it without talking about abortion.  

[Dos Equis]

Depends on how far you want to take the logic as you seemingly wanted to do.  How far do you want to take it?  If you take it all the way to a biological level, then it would be permissible, logically and biologically speaking. 

Ok.  So "logically and biologically speaking," you believe parents should be able to kill their children.  Got it. 

[The True Adonis]

Ok.  So "logically and biologically speaking," you believe parents should be able to kill their children.  Got it. 

Depends on how far you want to take it.  You tried to make a "logical" argument and I shot it to shit if you really want to break it down biologically.

[Dos Equis]

Depends on how far you want to take it.  You tried to make a "logical" argument and I shot it to shit if you really want to break it down biologically.

A sign of someone who isn't quite sure of themselves and isn't right too often is to pound their chest and proclaim victory, particularly when it's done completely out of context.  Nobody is keeping a scorecard here.  When you are "right" about something, you don't have to tell people. 

But I digress.  I understand your pretty extreme position on parents having the right to kill their kids. 

[The True Adonis]

A sign of someone who isn't quite sure of themselves and isn't right too often is to pound their chest and proclaim victory, particularly when it's done completely out of context.  Nobody is keeping a scorecard here.  When you are "right" about something, you don't have to tell people. 

But I digress.  I understand your pretty extreme position on parents having the right to kill their kids. 

I already told you what would be the ideal law.  Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord.  I am fine with either. 

[Dos Equis]

I already told you what would be the ideal law.  Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord.  I am fine with either. 

I understand your position.  You are fine with killing a baby post birth before the cord has been cut, because that baby is "maybe" not a human being until after the cord is cut. 

You also support parents killing their kids.  I assume that means at any age before the kids become adults? 

[The True Adonis]

I understand your position.  You are fine with killing a baby post birth before the cord has been cut, because that baby is "maybe" not a human being until after the cord is cut. 

You also support parents killing their kids.  I assume that means at any age before the kids become adults? 

I already told you what would be the ideal law.  Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord.  I am fine with either. 

[Dos Equis]

I already told you what would be the ideal law.  Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord.  I am fine with either. 

Do you believe parents should be able to kill their kids up to the age of majority? 

[The True Adonis]

Do you believe parents should be able to kill their kids up to the age of majority? 

No.

[Dos Equis]

No.

Holy smokes.  A straight answer.     Thanks.  Since we are on a roll:  Up to what age should parents be able to kill their kids? 

[The True Adonis]

Holy smokes.  A straight answer.     Thanks.  Since we are on a roll:  Up to what age should parents be able to kill their kids? 

Depends. Consider the crying baby dilemma:  It's war time, and you are hiding in a basement with several other people. The enemy soldiers are outside. Your baby starts to cry loudly, and if nothing is done the soldiers will find you and kill you, your baby, and everyone else in the basement. The only way to prevent this from happening is to cover your baby's mouth, but if you do this the baby will smother to death.  Is it morally permissible to do this? 

[Dos Equis]

Depends. Consider the crying baby dilemma:  It's war time, and you are hiding in a basement with several other people. The enemy soldiers are outside. Your baby starts to cry loudly, and if nothing is done the soldiers will find you and kill you, your baby, and everyone else in the basement. The only way to prevent this from happening is to cover your baby's mouth, but if you do this the baby will smother to death.  Is it morally permissible to do this? 

Even though you answered my question with a question, I'll answer yours:  aside from the fact your hypothetical is completely unrealistic and would never happen in this country, it is immoral for a parent to kill their baby solely to save themselves.  I'd go further and say it is immoral to kill someone who is completely vulnerable solely to save yourself.   

Now what is your answer?  I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children? 

[The True Adonis]

Even though you answered my question with a question, I'll answer yours:  aside from the fact your hypothetical is completely unrealistic and would never happen in this country, it is immoral for a parent to kill their baby solely to save themselves.  I'd go further and say it is immoral to kill someone who is completely vulnerable solely to save yourself.  

Now what is your answer?  I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children?  

Interesting.  I would smother the baby as it would be the most logical thing to do as it would save the most people.  You on the other hand, would let everyone die, including the baby.  I find that to be the most immoral choice.

This is a real scenario and happened in Germany.  

[Dos Equis]

Interesting.  I would smother the baby as it would be the most logical thing to do as it would save the most people.  You on the other hand, would let everyone die, including the baby.  I find that to be the most immoral choice.

This is a real scenario and happened in Germany.  

I would not sacrifice the life of a baby to save an adult. 

But back to my question (that you answered with a question):  I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children?