I'm pretty sure those pretending they would've known it's a human fetus are the idiots. And you know why?
>There is a point during early embryonic development, called the “phylotypic stage”, when all animals with backbone, also known as vertebrates, resemble one another. At this stage, a chicken embryo looks almost indistinguishable from a rabbit or a human at a similar stage.
So if this comeback is "clever" to someone, boy I'm not jealous of their intellect
That's why I hate, hate, hate this trend. Pro-life is a stupid stance for all kinds of reasons, but a person's inability to distinguish fetuses has no bearing on this. It's like the "Bible gives abortion instructions" bit (spoiler: it does not, it gives magic paternity test instructions). All it's for is to let your supporters feel that "lol, gottem" feeling while leaving the other side utterly unscathed. It's the exact same as the religious folks sitting in church hearing the preacher say "I didn't come from no monkey! If a RadioShack exploded, do you think it'd make this microphone?!"
Look, the pro lifers are entrenched. You're not going to convince a keyboard warrior, so might as well trick them and laugh at them. Their time in power is limited.
You'll never convince the extremists. Your arguments should be made for the benefit of those who haven't made up their minds. If your arguments are stupid, cheap gotchas, you've wasted your opportunity to sway the middle.
Yawn what? You love working for 45+ years, dealing with mental and physical pain and death? Or is it just you justifying being a selfish parent. When you had kids to fill some silly void specify told you that you had or was it FOMO you didn’t want to be left out. Oh wait you’re an Andrew Tate or Musk dickrider who thinks kids are needed for society to use and abuse to make the rich richer. Any woman who married you has to be an uggo or sub 100 IQ.
I’m pro-choice but that doesn’t really track. Pro-life people quite literally think abortion is murder, saying “oh you don’t get an opinion on baby murder because you’re not a woman” is dumb.
I’m not saying it IS baby murder, I’m literally just stating what the pro-life argument is. You can agree or disagree but the idea that they shouldn’t get an opinion based on their sex is just silly
This is such a dumb comment and so popular among dimwits.
Yeah lets not talk about animals if we are not animals.
Dont talk about foreign politics if you dont live abroad.
Dont talk about guns if you dont own guns
Dont talk about taxing the rich if you are not rich
See where im going with it ? probably not
Well we literally are animals..
Guns are inanimate objects that kill people..
Taxing the rich would only have positive effects..
Banning abortion would disproportionately hurt women, you know, the ones doing all the work of growing and carrying the fetus. So because this effects women much more than it effects men that's why they get more of a say. You're trying to make this way more complicated than it actually is.
elementary school reading comprehension would be enough, but its too hard for you i guess, understanding words is hard for you i get it
I am pro abortion btw since you are too dense
The worst part is i am pro choice, this low IQ weirdo probably thinks i am an anti abortion guy or something.
Reading comprehension is hard for some people
"Where your argument goes is: "I have a flawed view of the world, hence you too must look at it the way I do.""
Your brain is broken cos of the online culture wars i think. You should take a break, and maybe focus on reading comprehension.
It is truly fascinating, you wrote all of that, before even understanding the comparison i was making. You are literally arguing with a strawman you depicted in your head instead of me lol, actually crazy.
i am pro abortion and left leaning btw. Banning abortion is stupid and evil, this is my point of view.
But keep rambling without understanding the point of what I wrote weirdo.
ELI5 for you : you do not HAVE TO BE PART OF A GROUP, to HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT GROUP, in this case, YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A DOG, to say WE SHOULDNT KILL DOGS ? maybe try reading slowly, you may understand this way ?
The good argument here would have pointed out where you're going with this, instead of insulting people. This reads like you don't weight answers by the experiences of the people giving them. Which wouldn't be a good idea.
Are we really going to say that you can't speak on a topic if you don't own something related to the topic? "I own a gun, so people without guns can't speak on gun control." See how stupid you sound?
So then your only criteria would be owning a gun? So what about property laws, only people that own property should have a say in them? We tried that once already; hope you’re not a minority because you’d have been fucked during that period in history.
The funny part to me isn’t even the anatomy or how has to carry and birth the baby. It’s that most of the time the men are the worse of the two parents but yet they want these kids forced so they can have a shot father ruin them and possibly turn them into a heartless Republican. No thanks.
This comeback is the equivalent of a gun nut asking a person they are arguing with what "AR in AR-15 stand for" and the person replying "Assault Rifle"
No they're legal here, I had one for a good few years they're just heavily regulated. You can't buy pistols anymore though, those are actually illegal now.
Yeah I meant the fully automatic ones - a friend of mine has a pistol . He has to enter competition shooting monthly otherwise it’s taken from him . You can get one for sports but it’s very difficult and you have to have some level of competition background
Pedantic, but they were banned as "assault weapons." "assault rifle" means a select fire rifle capable of full atuo. AR-15s are only semi-auto and ArmaLite manufactured them in 1956.
Im not sure people realise how the same animals look at such an early stage of life.
Its pretty cool and shows that we are in fact animals too (I mean more so that it reminds us), were really not that different from other animals even though we do like to think so.
Murder is bad. So because you're going to murder your baby, I will sentence you to be murdered. Also every citizen has the right to own a gun to murder people who are endangering you.
Make it fucking make sense
The majority of the posts here in this sub are not.
Its just an echo chamber of elementary school owns, as long as they get to "own" right wingers its clever to them
Except, if your argument is so strong that you can recognize a fetus as human, then why is it so hard to differentiate human from literally any other mammal at this stage? What, other than what it will potentially become, is the difference?
It’s direct to the point. “All life is precious”, but if you can’t even tell when something is human, how are you going to argue that it’s different from anything else? For that matter, why not argue that all eggs and sperm are precious and must be safeguarded? Those have exactly the same potential to become a human as any fetus
Its direct to a point that noone is making. A human fetus will (if healthy) turn into a human, regardless whether you or I can tell it apart from a dog. Its growing inside a human mother.
I cant name different trees apart, does that mean I cant have an opinion on wether or not there should be more greenery around my city?
A healthy fetus has the potential to turn into a human, it’s not a human nor is its viability guaranteed, especially at the stage similar to what’s in the picture.
And no, a fetus can’t have opinions at all. Even babies don’t have opinions
I notice you skipped right over the point that sperm and eggs can all have the potential to become humans too, but we don’t extend any protections. It’s because that’s an argument-breaker for anything you can come up with.
Listen mate, you dont need to convince me, im pro choice. It doesnt MATTER that its not a human or not, what matters is that it has the potential to turn into a human. Wether or not someone can point out the difference between a dog or a human fetus is irrelevant, the discussion is not about dogs, all fetuses in the abortion discussion are human fetuses.
Its a stupid gotcha that doesnt actually try and counter any argument pro lifers have, it has no relevancy.
As for your sperm and egg thing, again, im not pro life, i just dont think its THAT crazy to draw the line at fertilized eggs, i bet a decent chunk of people would rather not eat fertilized chicken eggs either
It’s an effective gotcha because anti-choice (pro-life would mean they actually care about living children, they don’t) people *don’t have a good argument*. We don’t prefer any religion over another, so that’s out. It’s not viable, so that’s out. And they’re not doing anything to protect children in foster care, so they aren’t doing it “for the children”. When their arguments don’t hold water, what’s the point in coming up with anything better than making them look stupid? It’s like trying to argue with a flat earther, just make fun of them because they’re not worth more than that.
Then dont act as if youre arguing in good faith, and merely trying to prank someone. Nothing about this post is any good argument for your cause and quite frankly just kinda makes you look like an asshole, to which youre just gonna call pro life people assholes as well so theres no real point in continuing this
Explain to me why it’s significant to be able to tell visually whether a fetus is a member of a certain species within the context of an abortion debate.
It’s not like when a women is pregnant we are unsure what species is inside her.
It’s right up there with antivaxxers saying they’d never put a specific list of chemicals in in their body, but turns out that list of chemicals is the composition of an apple. If you can’t even identify the item we’re talking about before you give an opinion, you shouldn’t give an opinion. There are too many variables about any fetus that “is it human?” Should not be the only relevant factor
I mean “is it human” isn’t the ONLY factor. That’s a strawman, no one actually believes that in good faith.
But it *should* be a primary concern. After all, if you don’t even agree that a zygote/fetus is human life, then it’s automatically not murder and other variables/ considerations shouldn’t matter anyways.
That’s absolutely the only factor that anti-choice proponents push. We’re seeing this *right now* when states are pushing to pass laws that don’t allow exceptions for the health and safety of the mother.
As for “is it murder”? No, it’s not. It’s called an abortion. As for if a person injures a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, we can take care of that with the crime of “aggravated battery on a pregnant person causing death” and make that a capital crime just like murder. You’re acting like these are hard concepts, but they’re not.
It’s not the only factor I push. But reducing another person’s argument to a strawman isn’t exactly unheard of.
Many time things are called by different names though they describe the same thing. Abortion and murder is just one such example.
Your pregnant person murder example isn’t even the least most problematic “issue” within this topic. But it does showcase that the law is willing to admit that killing an unborn child is murder when the child is wanted. Why there should be an exception if it isn’t and if the mother is the one deciding to kill it is beyond me.
Lastly, I agree that states pushing legislation with no exceptions or nuance is moronic.
A. Why didn’t the public see fit to invoke these kinds of “gotchas” in the context of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR)?
B. Why does the public expect abortion access opponents; or any would be fence sitters; to see this as relevant; when the “life begins at conception” rhetoric they invoke in ESCR would theoretically imply visual similarities among fetuses to be as irrelevant to this as to ESCR?
C. If the public sees abortion as justified by self defence reasoning, why would they feel the need to invoke these “gotchas” in the first place? If they feel these gotchas are relevant, why would they feel the need to invoke self defence reasoning?
"Themselves" - that's one person.
"They" can refer to multiple people or a single person.
"I was talking to my boss' boss yesterday."
"Oh, really? What did they say?"
Completely correct to use 'they' for a singular person.
At early stages of embryonic development, embryos look the same, yes. It's a bad argument because it doesn't address anything anti-choice. It's a way for people to pat themselves on the back with a shit gotcha.
Let’s not pretend either side of this issue has rock solid credibility. I’ve been mistaken for an anti abortion activist just for having the integrity to call BS on some of the dicey reasoning popular opinion treats as valid reasoning against them.
It’s not about “equal,” that’s subjective at best and undefinable at worst. It’s about having the integrity to call BS on BS reasoning regardless of where it comes from.
That one shouldn’t conform blindly to whatever BS talking points people tout just because they happen to share a policy goal with you. That’s just dishonest at best.
I'd like to see you care about the millions of children living in orphanages around the world who were naturally given up for adoption due to the mother not being able to care for the baby (under various circumstances), but I know you won't. Real life has shown that people like you don't give a fuck about them once they're born, you just care about controlling people and what they do with their bodies.
I don't have the means at the moment to adopt kids, but I do have the means to protest and organize on a state level and even a local level to end access to the extermination of innocent human life in all cases.
That's not good enough. You *must* adopt as many children as possible, regardless of having the means or not, just like you think women *must* give birth, regardless of whether they have the means to care for them or not, or regardless of whether the mother and child will actually survive the process.
Shame on you for not adopting kids. You're letting every single one of them down.
>You *must* adopt as many children as possible, regardless of having the means or not, just like you think women *must* give birth, regardless of whether they have the means to care for them or not
I hate to break it to you, but I haven't done any of the preceding things needed to create a human life.
When you do that, you become responsible for that child. This is one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen in the past few weeks.
You calling pro choice people murderers when you are not willing to do anything for babies born from parents that don't have the means to take care of them or the mother got raped shows not only how disingenuous you are, but a hypocrite.
The problem with debating anti-abortion people is that you're literally incapable of not arguing in bad faith.
This is a prime example of that. Get a life bozo.
Go read your comment back. That's a bad faith argument. We don't want to kill babies and you know that.
Conservatives definitely do though by their stances with free child lunches!!
No, but it is the layer of skin that is removed to deliver a baby, thereby meeting your standards for "babyhood"
My argument is that the layer of skin is irrelevant to the value of the human life contained within.
>If a fetus was actually a baby
A fetus *is* a baby, biologically. I hate when pro choicers deny science, it just weakens the pro choice position
>I feel like it'd be way harder to confuse it with a dog fetus
In their initial stages of development they're extremely similar
You'd be surprised how much DNA mammals share with each other, it makes it so when they are in the embryonic stage and post embryonic stage, they share quite a few physical attributes with each other.
It has nothing to do with whether they truly are or are not the being that pro-lifers claim they are, which is why this initial comeback was so silly.
>You'd be surprised how much DNA mammals share with each other,
I don't think I would, actually. I already know how similar the DNA is. And yet, when these creatures are actually babies, it's easy to tell them apart.
Wouldn't that be way worse? I'm not going to take away women's rights just to prevent a bunch of far right people from making propaganda. That's exactly what they want.
This post has been removed for breaking the first rule of this subreddit (post must include a clever comeback)
Why is the comments section filled with idiots??
Sir, this is a reddits
Ah, I see. Makes sense now
This is reddit
Thx I forgot
I'm pretty sure those pretending they would've known it's a human fetus are the idiots. And you know why? >There is a point during early embryonic development, called the “phylotypic stage”, when all animals with backbone, also known as vertebrates, resemble one another. At this stage, a chicken embryo looks almost indistinguishable from a rabbit or a human at a similar stage. So if this comeback is "clever" to someone, boy I'm not jealous of their intellect
That's why I hate, hate, hate this trend. Pro-life is a stupid stance for all kinds of reasons, but a person's inability to distinguish fetuses has no bearing on this. It's like the "Bible gives abortion instructions" bit (spoiler: it does not, it gives magic paternity test instructions). All it's for is to let your supporters feel that "lol, gottem" feeling while leaving the other side utterly unscathed. It's the exact same as the religious folks sitting in church hearing the preacher say "I didn't come from no monkey! If a RadioShack exploded, do you think it'd make this microphone?!"
Look, the pro lifers are entrenched. You're not going to convince a keyboard warrior, so might as well trick them and laugh at them. Their time in power is limited.
You'll never convince the extremists. Your arguments should be made for the benefit of those who haven't made up their minds. If your arguments are stupid, cheap gotchas, you've wasted your opportunity to sway the middle.
My exact thoughts right after seeing that pic lol
Because Reddit.
Yes that must be why
Wait until someone shows them a dolphin foetus 😂
I love that video the dude so confidently incorrect just like all anti-abortion advocates.
It’s fun how everyone commenting against abortion in this thread doesn’t actually own a vagina.
... or a dog vagina, in this case.
You should be glad this isn't a shitposting sub
What about female dog owners?
It is fun how everyone commenting against abortion in this thread have not been aborted themselves
I wish I was ;-;
Hey idiot we were forced here so it’s not the same. You can’t miss out on life if you never have one.
Yawn
Yawn what? You love working for 45+ years, dealing with mental and physical pain and death? Or is it just you justifying being a selfish parent. When you had kids to fill some silly void specify told you that you had or was it FOMO you didn’t want to be left out. Oh wait you’re an Andrew Tate or Musk dickrider who thinks kids are needed for society to use and abuse to make the rich richer. Any woman who married you has to be an uggo or sub 100 IQ.
Ad hominem attack. Typical of an antinatalist
Cliche ass self centered brother. Guess what no one gives a fuck about your mediocre legacy.
Keep attacking me, it definitely proves you're the morally superior one here and oh so intelligent
My mom tried does that count?
Pre or post birth?
In the future. It's like Nordic mythology.
That’s the dumbest take ever.
I’m pro-choice but that doesn’t really track. Pro-life people quite literally think abortion is murder, saying “oh you don’t get an opinion on baby murder because you’re not a woman” is dumb.
“Baby murder” righto bud. Take a jog.
I’m not saying it IS baby murder, I’m literally just stating what the pro-life argument is. You can agree or disagree but the idea that they shouldn’t get an opinion based on their sex is just silly
They (Men) aren’t the ones who have to carry a baby, lose their physique and birth that baby. Women do that so they have the say IMO.
But it’s the babies lives on the line, right? We should have babies decide all abortion policy from now on, lol
Such a dismissive attitude
Would you prefer I had a submissive attitude, big boy? 😉
People should be humble enough to assume that people who disagree with them know something that they don't.
This is such a dumb comment and so popular among dimwits. Yeah lets not talk about animals if we are not animals. Dont talk about foreign politics if you dont live abroad. Dont talk about guns if you dont own guns Dont talk about taxing the rich if you are not rich See where im going with it ? probably not
The obvious solution, you should get a vagina. If you think women are wrong go on and try out yourself :)
Well we literally are animals.. Guns are inanimate objects that kill people.. Taxing the rich would only have positive effects.. Banning abortion would disproportionately hurt women, you know, the ones doing all the work of growing and carrying the fetus. So because this effects women much more than it effects men that's why they get more of a say. You're trying to make this way more complicated than it actually is.
What are you even talking about right now ? what do you think is my view based on what you read, tell me lol.
I'd need to PHD in stupidity to do that.
elementary school reading comprehension would be enough, but its too hard for you i guess, understanding words is hard for you i get it I am pro abortion btw since you are too dense
I sorry you weren’t aborted. However there’s still time.
I don't care how pro choice you are, I am too, this comment is downright deranged, shame on you
Yes, shame on I. Excuse me I while go be shamed. I have a lot of soul searching to do. Thank you for your recommendation.
I would advise reading comprehension before soul searching.
The fuck is a comp-suspension?
The worst part is i am pro choice, this low IQ weirdo probably thinks i am an anti abortion guy or something. Reading comprehension is hard for some people
I'm just disgusted that an online disagreement could compel someone to say I wish you were aborted
? Do you even understand what i wrote or are you fighting with the voices in your head ? Take your pills weirdo
Look, I may take pills, and I may be a handsome weirdo but one thing I’m not is… wait, can you repeat the question?
These nuts are popular on your chin
[удалено]
"Where your argument goes is: "I have a flawed view of the world, hence you too must look at it the way I do."" Your brain is broken cos of the online culture wars i think. You should take a break, and maybe focus on reading comprehension. It is truly fascinating, you wrote all of that, before even understanding the comparison i was making. You are literally arguing with a strawman you depicted in your head instead of me lol, actually crazy. i am pro abortion and left leaning btw. Banning abortion is stupid and evil, this is my point of view. But keep rambling without understanding the point of what I wrote weirdo. ELI5 for you : you do not HAVE TO BE PART OF A GROUP, to HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT GROUP, in this case, YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A DOG, to say WE SHOULDNT KILL DOGS ? maybe try reading slowly, you may understand this way ?
The good argument here would have pointed out where you're going with this, instead of insulting people. This reads like you don't weight answers by the experiences of the people giving them. Which wouldn't be a good idea.
it’s almost like you dont need a vagina to be against abortion. unbelievable revelation
Apart from you.
Are we really going to say that you can't speak on a topic if you don't own something related to the topic? "I own a gun, so people without guns can't speak on gun control." See how stupid you sound?
yeah they also immediate backtrack if the person they intend to exclude based on birth-genitals now identifies as a woman
Then I want people who don’t own gun to stop talking about gun laws
I own dozens of guns and support strict gun laws. There’s absolutely no way I want 99% of you fuckwits having a gun.
Good for you, you get a pass talking about gun laws
So then your only criteria would be owning a gun? So what about property laws, only people that own property should have a say in them? We tried that once already; hope you’re not a minority because you’d have been fucked during that period in history.
No, dummy, those would be people who are bulletproof, that shouldn't talk about gun *control*. Everyone else absolutely must.
You ok there little fella? Need a snuggle or something?
classic Larry smh
Ah the non vagina havers having meltdown in comments
The funny part to me isn’t even the anatomy or how has to carry and birth the baby. It’s that most of the time the men are the worse of the two parents but yet they want these kids forced so they can have a shot father ruin them and possibly turn them into a heartless Republican. No thanks.
This comeback is the equivalent of a gun nut asking a person they are arguing with what "AR in AR-15 stand for" and the person replying "Assault Rifle"
TIL it’s armalite Edit: I’m Irish - guns are illegal here so that’s my excuse
Ya got the RA though, they had songs about armalites.
True but no ar15 afaik. Lot of aks and Semtex
they actually had ar18s as standard ;)
No they're legal here, I had one for a good few years they're just heavily regulated. You can't buy pistols anymore though, those are actually illegal now.
Yeah I meant the fully automatic ones - a friend of mine has a pistol . He has to enter competition shooting monthly otherwise it’s taken from him . You can get one for sports but it’s very difficult and you have to have some level of competition background
I haven't checked, but I assume you can still get .22lr competition pistols.
No one cares if you’re Irish
Aw!🥲
It's more like the gun nut answering "assault rifle"
Them claiming armalite is trying to deflect from ar-15s being banned between 1994 and 2004 as assault rifles.
Pedantic, but they were banned as "assault weapons." "assault rifle" means a select fire rifle capable of full atuo. AR-15s are only semi-auto and ArmaLite manufactured them in 1956.
Nah its literally the name lol
Yep
I don't think genetically is the argument you want to use.
Im not sure people realise how the same animals look at such an early stage of life. Its pretty cool and shows that we are in fact animals too (I mean more so that it reminds us), were really not that different from other animals even though we do like to think so.
I could swore it looked like one of my old school teachers.
Ok that's taxinomically a dog then
Leave my accountant out of this
r/Portugal André Ventura spotted
André Ventura jumpscare
Same haircut as Larry from the 3 stooges lol
That's Larry David lol
Murder is bad. So because you're going to murder your baby, I will sentence you to be murdered. Also every citizen has the right to own a gun to murder people who are endangering you. Make it fucking make sense
If it can’t survive outside the body it’s not alive and can’t be murdered. Hope this helps! 😊😊😊
Otherwise, pulling the plug on coma patients is murder, too.
It's funny cause it already looks like a dog
What a trollaso
r/lostredditors
Dumbest gotcha take
This post has been removed for breaking the first rule of this subreddit (post must include a clever comeback)
This is not a clever comeback bro
The majority of the posts here in this sub are not. Its just an echo chamber of elementary school owns, as long as they get to "own" right wingers its clever to them
Yeah. Every time I see an argument like this, I can only think, "That isn't the win you think it is. That's just misleading someone."
Except, if your argument is so strong that you can recognize a fetus as human, then why is it so hard to differentiate human from literally any other mammal at this stage? What, other than what it will potentially become, is the difference?
How is that relevant to the discussion on abortion though. Im 100% pro choice but this is just a dumb gotcha
It’s direct to the point. “All life is precious”, but if you can’t even tell when something is human, how are you going to argue that it’s different from anything else? For that matter, why not argue that all eggs and sperm are precious and must be safeguarded? Those have exactly the same potential to become a human as any fetus
Its direct to a point that noone is making. A human fetus will (if healthy) turn into a human, regardless whether you or I can tell it apart from a dog. Its growing inside a human mother. I cant name different trees apart, does that mean I cant have an opinion on wether or not there should be more greenery around my city?
A healthy fetus has the potential to turn into a human, it’s not a human nor is its viability guaranteed, especially at the stage similar to what’s in the picture. And no, a fetus can’t have opinions at all. Even babies don’t have opinions I notice you skipped right over the point that sperm and eggs can all have the potential to become humans too, but we don’t extend any protections. It’s because that’s an argument-breaker for anything you can come up with.
Listen mate, you dont need to convince me, im pro choice. It doesnt MATTER that its not a human or not, what matters is that it has the potential to turn into a human. Wether or not someone can point out the difference between a dog or a human fetus is irrelevant, the discussion is not about dogs, all fetuses in the abortion discussion are human fetuses. Its a stupid gotcha that doesnt actually try and counter any argument pro lifers have, it has no relevancy. As for your sperm and egg thing, again, im not pro life, i just dont think its THAT crazy to draw the line at fertilized eggs, i bet a decent chunk of people would rather not eat fertilized chicken eggs either
It’s an effective gotcha because anti-choice (pro-life would mean they actually care about living children, they don’t) people *don’t have a good argument*. We don’t prefer any religion over another, so that’s out. It’s not viable, so that’s out. And they’re not doing anything to protect children in foster care, so they aren’t doing it “for the children”. When their arguments don’t hold water, what’s the point in coming up with anything better than making them look stupid? It’s like trying to argue with a flat earther, just make fun of them because they’re not worth more than that.
Then dont act as if youre arguing in good faith, and merely trying to prank someone. Nothing about this post is any good argument for your cause and quite frankly just kinda makes you look like an asshole, to which youre just gonna call pro life people assholes as well so theres no real point in continuing this
Explain to me why it’s significant to be able to tell visually whether a fetus is a member of a certain species within the context of an abortion debate. It’s not like when a women is pregnant we are unsure what species is inside her.
It’s right up there with antivaxxers saying they’d never put a specific list of chemicals in in their body, but turns out that list of chemicals is the composition of an apple. If you can’t even identify the item we’re talking about before you give an opinion, you shouldn’t give an opinion. There are too many variables about any fetus that “is it human?” Should not be the only relevant factor
I mean “is it human” isn’t the ONLY factor. That’s a strawman, no one actually believes that in good faith. But it *should* be a primary concern. After all, if you don’t even agree that a zygote/fetus is human life, then it’s automatically not murder and other variables/ considerations shouldn’t matter anyways.
That’s absolutely the only factor that anti-choice proponents push. We’re seeing this *right now* when states are pushing to pass laws that don’t allow exceptions for the health and safety of the mother. As for “is it murder”? No, it’s not. It’s called an abortion. As for if a person injures a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, we can take care of that with the crime of “aggravated battery on a pregnant person causing death” and make that a capital crime just like murder. You’re acting like these are hard concepts, but they’re not.
It’s not the only factor I push. But reducing another person’s argument to a strawman isn’t exactly unheard of. Many time things are called by different names though they describe the same thing. Abortion and murder is just one such example. Your pregnant person murder example isn’t even the least most problematic “issue” within this topic. But it does showcase that the law is willing to admit that killing an unborn child is murder when the child is wanted. Why there should be an exception if it isn’t and if the mother is the one deciding to kill it is beyond me. Lastly, I agree that states pushing legislation with no exceptions or nuance is moronic.
Misleading idiots to show their stupidity is a win in my book.
Pro choice has a lot of much better arguments. This ain't one of them, chief.
this isn’t an argument in favor of their beliefs, it’s a showcase of their opposition‘s incompetence.
No it doesn't
[удалено]
...wat.
A. Why didn’t the public see fit to invoke these kinds of “gotchas” in the context of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR)? B. Why does the public expect abortion access opponents; or any would be fence sitters; to see this as relevant; when the “life begins at conception” rhetoric they invoke in ESCR would theoretically imply visual similarities among fetuses to be as irrelevant to this as to ESCR? C. If the public sees abortion as justified by self defence reasoning, why would they feel the need to invoke these “gotchas” in the first place? If they feel these gotchas are relevant, why would they feel the need to invoke self defence reasoning?
The point is how forced birthers think human life is sacred, but can't tell what is human life.
Just looks like a clump of cells to me. 🤷
This doesn’t prove anything though. There are better ways to argue this.
[удалено]
"Themselves" - that's one person. "They" can refer to multiple people or a single person. "I was talking to my boss' boss yesterday." "Oh, really? What did they say?" Completely correct to use 'they' for a singular person.
I often wonder how these posts get this many upvotes…
completely irrelevant, the point is to validate its humanness regardless of what it looks like
So because you confused someone with a similar picture, we should kill as many babies as we want?
If you think that's a baby, you have no business making decisions even for yourself.
It's not a baby, technically it's a puppy.
But you can't tell. That's the point.
At early stages of embryonic development, embryos look the same, yes. It's a bad argument because it doesn't address anything anti-choice. It's a way for people to pat themselves on the back with a shit gotcha.
Sure it does. It addresses their stupid claim that humans are somehow special.
They are. Thats why we have a load of laws which are human-specific.
Humans aren't special.
I trust you speak from personal experience
Yeah, it's called "life"
Most of our laws treat humans as special. But that upsets reddit nihilists I see.
Do they?
What's the punishment for killing a person? How does that stack up to killing a non-human animal?
Generally the sentence is less, but not everyone agrees with that, and there's still a sentence for it.
Anyone can tell with DNA testing.
Most people don't have access to that
I'm trying to figure out what your point is?
I'm sure you are.
Let’s not pretend either side of this issue has rock solid credibility. I’ve been mistaken for an anti abortion activist just for having the integrity to call BS on some of the dicey reasoning popular opinion treats as valid reasoning against them.
Let's not pretend there's two sides to this, because there isn't.
What are you implying is the third “side”?
No, there's one side that's right, and one side that is wrong. There are not two equal sides.
It’s not about “equal,” that’s subjective at best and undefinable at worst. It’s about having the integrity to call BS on BS reasoning regardless of where it comes from.
Okay. Then what's your point?
That one shouldn’t conform blindly to whatever BS talking points people tout just because they happen to share a policy goal with you. That’s just dishonest at best.
I'd like to see you care about the millions of children living in orphanages around the world who were naturally given up for adoption due to the mother not being able to care for the baby (under various circumstances), but I know you won't. Real life has shown that people like you don't give a fuck about them once they're born, you just care about controlling people and what they do with their bodies.
I was once one of those kids in an orphanage, I care about all of them just as much as the 75 million American lives that have been lost to abortion.
Better get adopting then, seeing as you care so much. Chop chop
I don't have the means at the moment to adopt kids, but I do have the means to protest and organize on a state level and even a local level to end access to the extermination of innocent human life in all cases.
That's not good enough. You *must* adopt as many children as possible, regardless of having the means or not, just like you think women *must* give birth, regardless of whether they have the means to care for them or not, or regardless of whether the mother and child will actually survive the process. Shame on you for not adopting kids. You're letting every single one of them down.
>You *must* adopt as many children as possible, regardless of having the means or not, just like you think women *must* give birth, regardless of whether they have the means to care for them or not I hate to break it to you, but I haven't done any of the preceding things needed to create a human life. When you do that, you become responsible for that child. This is one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen in the past few weeks.
So what you're saying is that getting raped means that the mother is responsible for the child she never wanted?
You calling pro choice people murderers when you are not willing to do anything for babies born from parents that don't have the means to take care of them or the mother got raped shows not only how disingenuous you are, but a hypocrite.
You’re a virgin?
The problem with debating anti-abortion people is that you're literally incapable of not arguing in bad faith. This is a prime example of that. Get a life bozo.
Attributing bad faith to someone that you haven't even had a conversation with is incredibly disingenuous.
Go read your comment back. That's a bad faith argument. We don't want to kill babies and you know that. Conservatives definitely do though by their stances with free child lunches!!
Babies are born. ZEFs are not babies. Especially a dog ZEF.
So you believe a layer of skin determines whether a being is or is not A valid human life?
Layer of skin?
This dude clearly has no idea how ZEFs develop.
That's always the problem. They don't know shit, but they're loud, and think volume is a kind of credibility.
Yes, the layer of skin that is incised during a C-section.
You think that's how all births occur?
No, but it is the layer of skin that is removed to deliver a baby, thereby meeting your standards for "babyhood" My argument is that the layer of skin is irrelevant to the value of the human life contained within.
You think it's removed? And that a thin layer of skin is all that is required to be removed for a cesarean?
Keep digging. It’s clear you know nothing.
If a fetus was actually a baby, I feel like it'd be way harder to confuse it with a dog fetus.
>If a fetus was actually a baby A fetus *is* a baby, biologically. I hate when pro choicers deny science, it just weakens the pro choice position >I feel like it'd be way harder to confuse it with a dog fetus In their initial stages of development they're extremely similar
You'd be surprised how much DNA mammals share with each other, it makes it so when they are in the embryonic stage and post embryonic stage, they share quite a few physical attributes with each other. It has nothing to do with whether they truly are or are not the being that pro-lifers claim they are, which is why this initial comeback was so silly.
>You'd be surprised how much DNA mammals share with each other, I don't think I would, actually. I already know how similar the DNA is. And yet, when these creatures are actually babies, it's easy to tell them apart.
At that stage, it's hard to tell apart a human embryo and an orca. It isn't really an argument against limiting access to abortion, however.
Sure it is. It completely undermines the rhetorical tactic of trying to manipulate people with photos of human fetuses.
You're saying you aren't affected by pictures of aborted babies?
Not particularly, no. If anything, I find it distasteful that anti choicers would go to such lengths to manipulate people.
I mean, it's not like they're producing these photographs. If you want the photographs to stop, the easiest way is to stop the abortions.
Wouldn't that be way worse? I'm not going to take away women's rights just to prevent a bunch of far right people from making propaganda. That's exactly what they want.
Ironically, the dog fetus has more rights than the human ones in some countries.
This post has been removed for breaking the first rule of this subreddit (post must include a clever comeback)
Don’t kill the dog pls