上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 295

[–]SuperTurtle 307ポイント308ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for putting the punchline in the title, OP

[–]Edoneh 168ポイント169ポイント  (37子コメント)

Rather than try and find if this way funny or not, I'm getting more amusement out of these comments. I'm thinking C&H just wanted to rustle some jimmies, and jimmies are fully rustled here.

[–]bruce656 85ポイント86ポイント  (36子コメント)

Using a metaphor when discussing a hot-button topic is a sure fire way to generate lots of stupid, pointless arguments centered on the efficacy of the metaphor, while completely avoiding the topic at hand.

[–]PmMeYourWeeLadGimli 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Especially such a silly metaphor. I immediately assumed it was gonna have something to do with eating the baby!

[–]Ozlin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Huh, cannibals would be pro-life.

[–]IDRINKYOURMILK-SHAKE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, you know what they say: Finding the right analogy is as hard as…Hmm. (pat rothfuss wrote this, not me)

[–]bluthscottgeorge -5ポイント-4ポイント  (32子コメント)

I'll probably get downvoted, not that i give a shit either way, it's not that good a metaphor lol. If i was pro life, could easily argue that it's impossible to know what will happen to a kid who's born.

People have been left on doorsteps, born in the worst conditions, foster homes, war zones etc and managed to be millionaires, presidents, doctors etc, whereas we know the steak will be wasted.

Plus they have a choice not to make the steak, not making the steak would be abstinence or protection, not abortion, as the steak hasn't been made yet, they have a choice not to make it.

So the metaphor is kinda crap, but the way the comic strip does it, the writer obviously seems to believe he/she just owned all the pro lifers, and just said some profound wisdom seems too smug for a shit metaphor with holes in it.

[–]randomdrifter54 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

You don't know cyanide and happiness very well. Think south park mixed with crappy drawings and less build up. They still do a ok job with their humor for some people. The literal point of the joke is to start arguments.

[–]bluthscottgeorge -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah if that's the point, then fair enough, I've seen some of their stuff, never really seen them do controversial topics though, so i assumed they were being a 100 percent serious, if they weren't then, fair play.

I mean it would be totally different if they were debating whether cheesecake is better than carrotcake, but this is a topic that has ruined lives and whatnot.

[–]randomdrifter54 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I assure you only stupid people would use this as a pro abortion argument. It's a hard subject for a silly metaphor.

[–]Photo_Synthetic 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

Should we outlaw all treatments for diseases, infections and injuries that could have been avoided with proper precautions? I suppose if someone is at fault they deserve whatever they get. The joke is that people fight for children's right to be born, but once they're born those same people don't give two shits what kind of life they have. Pro-lifers are usually the same people who are against any social safety nets or government assistance. All the fetus has is a right to life, and deserve no help trying to make that life a good one once they're born.

[–]bluthscottgeorge 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Well I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong I'm saying the metaphor is shit.

[–]ProximaC 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you know the steak will be wasted? They might throw it in the dumpster behind the restaurant, where it's found and consumed by a near starving homeless man. That man, whose life was saved by eating that non-aborted steak, gives up drinking, finds a stable job, and ends up becoming CEO of a multi-billion dollar company that provides abortion services to women for free.

Everybody wins.

[–]Tgg161 51ポイント52ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you came to read the comments, turn back now.

[–]BrojobBrojob 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I came to shitpost, am I in the right place?

[–]Iamsuperimposed 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dumb comments are the only thing that makes me happy. Am I in the right place?

[–]MatmosOfSogo 308ポイント309ポイント  (6子コメント)

Worst C&H I've ever read. Art style isn't even the same.

[–]Sarahthelizard 75ポイント76ポイント  (1子コメント)

WHERE'S THE TIGER?

[–]machzel08 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Panel 9. Gets cut off in Firefox.

[–]PhazonZim 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

Cyanide and Happiness is usually abbreviated to Cy&H to avoid confusion, OP

[–]FoxdieMercury 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only place I've ever seen it abbreviated as Cy&H is in the comments complaining about the title.

[–]CaptainCupcakez -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Only by people such as yourself who hold Calvin & Hobbes to a higher standard.

Let people call it what they want.

[–]PhazonZim 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are welcome to. I was saying there was an alternate abbreviation to differentiate them. Hence "to avoid confusion".

[–]LordScoffington 25ポイント26ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wait a second you mean to tell me a 6 panel comic isn't a good place to get my perspective of the world and social issues?

[–]ChamferedWobble 32ポイント33ポイント  (1子コメント)

Pretty sure the funny part is supposed to be that the woman thinks it's appropriate to make this comparison at dinner while the guy is eating a steak. I don't think C&H was trying to make a profound comparison here. The point was to get to the punchline, which flopped because the issue was too divisive.

[–]samandiriel 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed! The expression on the guy's facing whilst looking at his steak is the real punchline :D

I don't think it's primary goal is to be pithy - that may be a secondary goal, but not the primary one. Cy&H is a fun time ha ha comic, and it's goal is to be funny. Pithiness is just a bonus or makes the humour better, methinks.

[–]Mcsmack 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This makes me sad. The whole abortion debate is just a long string of strawman arguments with neither side actually listening to the other. Both sides seek nothing more than to trivialize and demonize their opponents.

It's not even a very good analogy for what it means to be pro-life.

[–]jlmbsoq 32ポイント33ポイント  (2子コメント)

All ye butthurt people, it's a comic, of course it oversimplifies things.

[–]ew73 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was hoping for no more than 12 panels to completely encapsulate the issue and describe it while making me snicker.

[–]Tuor896 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe if Rob did it but this one was done by kris

[–]GreenishApples 157ポイント158ポイント  (111子コメント)

I don't get it. How does cooking a steak that's not going to get eaten a parallel to the pro life argument.

[–]Zassalis 434ポイント435ポイント  (88子コメント)

It's compared to giving birth to a child no one will raise.

[–]emperorsteele 343ポイント344ポイント  (84子コメント)

I'm going to take this a step further: Many of the same people who want to get rid of abortions also want to get rid of contraception and sex education, so that anyone who has sex is going to have a baby.... and on top of THAT, none of them want to pay extra taxes for welfare, food stamps, or school lunch programs that would benefit all these extra kids.

So in a sense "being cooked" aka letting the baby be born, is "all that matters" and they don't care after that.

[–]VectorLightning 45ポイント46ポイント  (28子コメント)

This -- and the comic -- oversimplifies this tho. What about this group that wants to ban abortion but also promote support for the families that weren't ready?

[–]Xenomech 36ポイント37ポイント  (0子コメント)

the comic -- oversimplifies this tho

That's because it's a comic, not a fully fleshed out argument against the pro-life stance.

[–]Mister_Alucard 88ポイント89ポイント  (22子コメント)

That's a very small, nonvocal minority.

[–]Shmeeku 47ポイント48ポイント  (6子コメント)

How can you know that they're a very small minority if they're nonvocal? A very large group of silent people sounds the same as a very small group of silent people.

[–]piotrmarkovicz 39ポイント40ポイント  (5子コメント)

If there was a large silent group that was supporting families with unwanted children in an organized fashion, I think you would know about it by their actions. Silent doesn't mean without impact.

[–]Shmeeku 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

There are lots of groups that help families that aren't fully able to support their children. Pretty much any food bank, shelter, or charitable thrift store fits that bill. Off the top of my head, Goodwill, The Salvation Army, and Saint Vincent de Paul Societies all do one or more of those things.

Also, I wouldn't read too much into the fact that there are no organizations who say they're around to help families with "unwanted" children - most groups with a goal like that probably wouldn't want to burden any children with the stigma of being called unwanted.

[–]spencer102 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Those aren't pro life organizations though, are they? Well maybe salvation army, idk

[–]Mcsmack 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

You'd be surprised how many churches do charity work like that. Being both pro-life and charitable with helping the poor.

[–]Shmeeku 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know for sure that St. Vincent de Paul is pro-life, but I don't know about the others. Salvation Army wouldn't surprise me.

[–]rdldr 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm one

[–]IWantToBeAProducer 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't doubt people with this position exist, but they certainly aren't the ones running things, passing laws, funding programs, etc.

[–]DoctahCupcakes 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

Is it that hard to believe that some people simply consider a baby in the womb a human life? Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[–]IWantToBeAProducer 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't think anyone doubts that its a human. I think the argument is whether that person has rights. Unfortunately this usually devolves into a fight between religion and big government.

The whole thing is a philosophical graveyard, which is why it is used in political circles to rally people to their side. It's too easy to make an argument in either direction that makes the other side seem evil.

Side note, it is one of my favorite examples of how the Republicans (typically against regulation) want to control people's lives and Democrats want to minimize government influence (typically pro regulation)

[–]DoctahCupcakes 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

My religion has nothing to do with it. I'm a registered democrat and yet I still see a fetus as a life, with rights.

[–]IWantToBeAProducer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm in no way saying that its about religion for everyone. I'm just talking about how arguments about complex issues can be manipulated into these really black and white arguments which obfuscate just how nuanced the issue is.

Of course there are people in the middle, and people who don't fit into the categories presented by the media. I'm one of them, and as such I am frustrated by the whole thing. I guess in my response I was trying to point out that 1. not everyone agrees that a fetus is a rights-deserving human (I'm not one of them), and 2. pointing out that its a human doesn't make the pro-choice argument any less valid.

Its complicated, and people are complicated, and because it is so complicated it is easily manipulated by political factions, which only creates a bigger argument.

[–]BigMax 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think anyone doubts that its a human.

I think that is a big part of the debate, isn't it? Lots of people doubt that the collection of cells the moment the egg is fertilized is a human.

[–]IWantToBeAProducer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I don't think there are very many people who would say it isn't human in a biological sense. I thing people just want to argue whether it has a soul, or its brain is developed enough to be a "person" (whatever that means).

But like I said in another comment, just because it is a human doesn't invalidate a pro-choice stance. I know in my personal life I wouldn't want to have an abortion, but human life is complex, and I think that people need to make that decision for themselves. This issue is really complicated, and any argument for or against abortion that is less than 100 pages long probably doesn't sufficiently cover the topic in its entirety.

[–]mccreative -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

You sound misinformed.

[–]Mister_Alucard 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ms. Informed.

[–]rabidnarwhals 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

But... But... Mister_Alucard...

[–]skydivingbear 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why would you outright ban a procedure that could potentially save the life of the mother?

[–]VectorLightning -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who said it's that strict? Nobody. Well, okay I could've worded it better.

Depends on who you ask. In my opinion: Definitely, but only, use abortion when it's a life-or-death question.

I'm getting a lot of downvotes. Is this flawed or do people just hate this? Criticize me before you downvote.

[–]bluthscottgeorge 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but not cooking the steak is abstinence or protection.

If he was in the MIDDLE of cooking the steak, and realized no one would eat it, and then threw it out, THAT would be abortion, or if he carried on cooking it regardless, THAT would be pro life.

[–]fractalGateway 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not common in America, for some reason, but in my country there are plenty of pro-lifers that are left wing.

[–]otiac1 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Many of the same people who want to get rid of abortions also want to get rid of contraception and sex education, so that anyone who has sex is going to have a baby

The link between contraception and "lower rates of abortion" is murky at best. The better argument is that pro-life legislation impacts abortions, not contraception use.

...and, there are other means of "family planning" beyond abortion (which is the literal opposite of family planing) that are 100% natural, don't include massive doses of chemicals and hormones for women, and have paved the way for fertility care beyond "take the pill/don't take the pill" that net positive gains for women suffering from health issues the pill masks - such as endometrial cysts.

and on top of THAT, none of them want to pay extra taxes for welfare, food stamps, or school lunch programs that would benefit all these extra kids.

Ha Ha, no.

Extra taxes? No thanks. My property taxes jumped $2400 this year alone. That's a significant portion of my paycheck. I get no additional services for it. Higher taxes will push me - and my minority neighbors currently in ESOL classes - out of this neighborhood and out of the middle class. Why are taxes always the answer for people? It's as if "the government" is seen as the only means to aid people. It's the least effective means that comes with the highest overhead.

Donating money and time to a charity dedicated to helping pregnant mothers and the mothers of newborns in need is the best way. And that happens. All over the country. This stupid "hurr durr they only care about life 'til birth then they abandon the mother!" argument is such lazy, straw-man hogwash.

Which is why the only way the comic makes sense is if the punch-line is the pro-abortion argument.

[–]Indon_Dasani 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

...and, there are other means of "family planning" beyond abortion (which is the literal opposite of family planing) that are 100% natural, don't include massive doses of chemicals and hormones for women, and have paved the way for fertility care beyond "take the pill/don't take the pill" that net positive gains for women suffering from health issues the pill masks - such as endometrial cysts.

The effectiveness of these methods are why Catholic families are known for being small.

[–]otiac1 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Catholic families are large because we welcome children as blessings and joy not shun them as financial burdens. The methods of natural family planning employed today are superior to chemical contraceptives for a number of reasons, not least of which is their overall effectiveness, but also the respect for the natural fertility of the female body - something apparently considered problematic for so-called "modern feminists."

[–]Indon_Dasani 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Catholic families are large because we welcome children as blessings and joy not shun them as financial burdens.

Oh my god, you actually believe that.

The rhythm method is medically known to be a poor contraception method. You are simply wrong. 1 in 4 women using it will get pregnant in a year. That's more than average - not proper - condom use which is 1 in 5 and of course, literally magnitudes less effective than the birth control pill, which is 1 in 1,000.

And it seems like the reason you're wrong is because you have a religious obligation to believe that wrong thing.

[–]ehsteve87 4ポイント5ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'd retort that just because "many of the same people" hold both of those beliefs (i.e. pro-life and anti-welfare), it is wrong to say that one necessarily follows the other. In my case, I'm pro-life but I'm also quite socially liberal. I'm all for comprehensive sex ed, readily available contraception, and publicly-funded programs to take care of unwanted children. I am pro-life because I believe that a fetus is more like a person than it is like a body part, and abortion in my country (USA) has thus far amounted to elective auto-genocide against minority populations.

[–]oh_noes 51ポイント52ポイント  (9子コメント)

Wait... elective auto-genocide? That... that doesn't even make sense. Let's break this down:

Elective: choosing to do something, i.e. not forced.

auto: Performing such action yourself.

genocide: Mass killing or murder of a group of people, generally pertaining to ethnic or gender groups.

So you are saying that abortion in the USA has so far amounted to minority populations choosing to kill themselves? I don't understand what you mean.

You were making sense up until that last sentence. Care to explain?

[–]frellingaround 17ポイント18ポイント  (8子コメント)

This isn't really a controversial opinion. Very few people are actually pro-abortion. You can call the two camps pro-life and pro-choice, but it would be incorrect to label them anti-choice and pro-death. It's their priorities. Pro-lifers believe that a fetus' life is the most important thing, while pro-choicers believe it's reproductive health and freedom.

I understand that you personally don't fit the norm, but the first two things you listed, comprehensive sex ed and readily available contraception, are much more in keeping with pro-choice ways of thinking. Unfortunately we don't have those things (or good programs for unwanted or impoverished children) everywhere in the US, and it's unrealistic to believe that abortions should stop until things change in those ways - to dictate other people's current behavior based on how things should be, ideally.

[–]krispwnsu 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like your comment the best so far. It's a great explanation of both sides in a very unbiased way.

[–]aselbst 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't believe it's wrong to call "pro-life" people anti-choice, because they are in a way that is not symmetric to pro-choicers being pro-death.

[–]yurnotsoeviltwin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

the first two things you listed, comprehensive sex ed and readily available contraception, are much more in keeping with pro-choice ways of thinking.

They fit quite well within either camp. Nothing about comprehensive sex ed or contraception threatens a human life.

[–]ehsteve87 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I agree that the monickers are misleading. I say pro-life when what I really mean is anti-abortion. I know full well that comprehensive sex ed and readily available contraception are not the reality in the US right now, and our social programs for impoverished children are depressingly poor. However, if the solution to these problems is abortion then the cure is worse than the disease. If you accept that abortion is similar to killing (as I do), then you have to accept that the "cure" to these societal problems is something similar to killing hundreds of thousands of children each year. I cannot stand for that.

[–]Call_Me_Clark 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

You might want to consider that the human body spontaneously aborts at an alarming(to some) rate - up to fifty percent of conceptions result in a spontaneous abortion or stillbirth. Nature doesn't have any qualms about terminating a potential life if it's chances of survival are slim.

Source: The Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynecology and Obstetrics (4 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2012. pp. 438–439. ISBN 9781451148015.

[–]ehsteve87 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not concerned with the morality of natural phenomena. Nature isn't good or evil - nature is. My concern are the would-be healthy children who are terminated in utero by human intervention.

Incidentally, I have no qualms about terminating a pregnancy when it's clear the child won't survive long past birth.

[–]Call_Me_Clark 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wasn't trying to apply morality to nature. My point was that mechanisms already exist to prevent the birth of children who have poor chances of survival. What I'm asking is, if it makes sense for a child whose limbs or organs do not develop, or with chromosomal disorders that will cripple them for life to be aborted, then does it not also make sense for a child who will grow up unwanted and neglected? I'm talking about a child who would be born to a victim of rape, or to a teen parent, or to an otherwise disadvantaged person - whether it be in an urban environment or a third-world country.

Most people wouldn't see too much wrong with a child who will never breathe on their own being aborted. You can see the kindness in it, in that they will never know life as we know it. But what about the children who will never know a parent's love? The child who will always remind the mother of her rapist? The child who took away their parent's dreams of an education and a profession? The child who will be born to nothing but pain and despair, drug abuse and violence, and will never receive an education, or fall in love, or build something for themselves that they can be proud of? The one who will live a short, brutal life?

I think that there is a parallel there. We disagree, fundamentally, on this, and I don't expect someone on the internet to change your mind. The point that I'm trying to make is that the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy is not about entitlement or laziness. I don't deny that some of the people who get abortions are entitled and lazy, but that's not the issue. It's about having some humanity, and seeing that these aborted children are not going to experience a pleasant life, with the opportunities that (I assume) you and I enjoy.

Your posts are being downvoted, and I'm sure that some of that is because you have an unpopular opinion in this corner of the internet. But I think you need to consider that you want to inflict hundreds of thousands more pregnancies on mothers who do not want to have them, and cannot provide for their children. The right to an abortion is a human rights issue - for both mothers and children.

[–]ehsteve87 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for your thorough and courteous reply. I'm at work now so I can't spend too long on this, but I do agree that there should be provisions for abortion in the case of rape or incest, where the mother did not consent to sex but is still pregnant.

In brief, I would love to see many more unwanted but healthy children placed up for adoption. There are a staggering number of happy families who desperately want to adopt children, but can't because no children are available. I have family members who fall into this category.

My opinion is much more nuanced, but I don't have time to elaborate right now. Suffice to say I don't accept the dichotomy of "abort the baby" or "this child will live a meaningless life of suffering."

EDIT: As for my comment about downvoting, I really shouldn't have mentioned it. More serious subs like /r/philosophy discourage downvoting posts because you disagree with them, but I was wrong to expect that standard to apply here in /r/comics.

[–]Malor 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

So in a sense "being cooked" aka letting the baby be born, is "all that matters" and they don't care after that.

Right, the goal is not to protect babies, it's to punish sluts.

If you look at the pro-life agenda, this is always the case: any policy that would make sex safer for women is not acceptable, where any policy that makes sex more dangerous is something they're enthusiastic about.

The actual impact on abortion? It doesn't seem to be related. The correlation is just about perfect on 'dangerous or risky sex', but effect on abortion rates doesn't seem to be linked.

[–]xiann 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Or: No one ordered the steak (the baby), so there's no point in making the chef (women) cook it (carry the baby full-term).

[–]timoumd 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is the pro choice argument though. The comic just assumes away the real pro life argument, that the "steak" is person, by making it an object.

[–]PmMeYourWeeLadGimli 26ポイント27ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why make a baby if you aren't going to eat it, duh.

[–]Haephestus 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because, you know, people are basically steaks.

[–]FlakJackson 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

They certainly are once you've butchered them and tossed a flank on the grill.

[–]rincewind4x2 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

the analogy isn't the joke, the joke is that in saying so she put him off his steak

at least that's what i took it to mean

[–]Indigoh 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

If a baby isn't wanted, there's no reason not to kill it.

[–]googolplexbyte -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the idea is that the comic makes zero fucking sense just like prolife arguments

[–]someguyupnorth 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is the humor supposed to be that the people in the last panel do not understand the pro-life position?

[–]hankjw1 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Every steak is sacred

[–]stenrude 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Every stake is good.

[–]FlakJackson 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Every steak is needed.

[–]Call_Me_Clark 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In your neighborhood BUM BUM BUM

[–]EasternEuropeSlave 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If a steak get's wasted...

[–]cowinabadplace 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm on the side that's in favour of killing infants after they're born. Goddamn pests. Always drinking all the milk and asking for me to save up for college.

[–]DoubtfulCritic 87ポイント88ポイント  (44子コメント)

Kinda funny, but the key difference is the child will eventually grow up and the steak is going to rot.

Basically it oversimplifies the issue to the point that it's no longer relevant.

[–]clydeshadow 46ポイント47ポイント  (1子コメント)

"Basically it oversimplifies the issue to the point that it's no longer relevant."

aka political opinions on reddit.

[–]samandiriel 123ポイント124ポイント  (32子コメント)

You are being way, way too literal there.

[–]thekonny 96ポイント97ポイント  (29子コメント)

, but the key difference is the child will eventually grow up and the steak is going to

He does make a point. The point of a child isn't to be raised, its to live his/her life, even in the absence of a good parent the kid can still grow up fine, whereas a wasted steak is a wasted steak

[–]Sarahthelizard 25ポイント26ポイント  (27子コメント)

Yeah, but the odds are against a child in foster or state care.

[–]thekonny 29ポイント30ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'm pro abortion, I'm just saying why the parallel is invalid

[–]thelerk 33ポイント34ポイント  (18子コメント)

Pro abortion! ABORT ALL BABIES

[–]PmMeYourWeeLadGimli 14ポイント15ポイント  (15子コメント)

No joke, had a classmate in high school say he thought there should be a third option, pro abortion. Abortions are legal but there's no "choice." When a woman is pregnant the government decided whether the child should be born or not and whether she should raise it or put it up for adoption. He said some women don't deserve the choice. I hated him more than any radical pro lifer or radical pro choicer.

[–]FlakJackson 20ポイント21ポイント  (11子コメント)

To play devil's advocate (remember reddit, that means that I don't agree with this stance, but have decided to defend it regardless, for the sake of debate) for a moment...

There are many parents who should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to have a child. Ignoring pesky rights such as free will it can be argued that society could benefit if procreation required an...aptitude test of sorts. While this would never be allowed to fly and is incredibly open to abuse, the idea could work.

That said, this classmate of yours clearly had other motives behind his stance.

[–]PmMeYourWeeLadGimli 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

I disagree. My sister when impregnated by date rape at 17 would have failed that test. She was a high school drop out, she wasn't the smartest tool in the shed, she was unemployed and while I wouldn't call her an addict she was on a path that could easily have led to drug addiction later.

My nephew, now 10 or 11, has a better childhood, is going to great schools, already has a good college fund, my sister finished high school and is in college and is gainfully employed at a decent job. She got married to a really good guy who loves her and my nephew. This all happened because she didn't want her child to have the childhood her and I had. Not only is the child's life good but her quality of life is better than it would have been because of her pregnancy. So there's no way to really tell. Even my mother who failed entirely with my sister and I got her shit together for my two younger brothers, for the most part. She had crippling debt and health issues from drug and alcohol abuse but she really did try and did turn her life around. That being said obviously there are people that just make bad parents but I don't think that's something any kind of test or judgement can tell. I don't think you can tell a good or bad parent until the kid is already there.

Additionally there are plenty of parents who on paper should be amazing but have secrets like pedophilia, or even just neglect issues.

No, there's no way this could ever work.

[–]FlakJackson 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

As I, the devil's advocate, said, I don't endorse this. No matter what there's bound to be shortcomings that let the wrong people slip through the cracks while detaining the right ones.

With an extremely comprehensive and invasive analysis of every aspect of one's lifestyle, history, friends and acquaintances and so on a somewhat reliable result might be gained and it could improve things in such a halfway functioning state, but it really wouldn't be worth it unless there were god-like powers of prescience at work.

And at that point we'd have greater things to worry about.

[–]oogaboogacaveman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

On the flipside of that, there's my ex's mom who was fine at the beginning but fell into drug addiction and became extremely abusive. Just goes to show you can't tell how a person will change over the course of even a year

[–]karl2025 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with this stance is it assumes people can tell the future, that they know who will be good parents and who will be bad parents and what effect that parentage will have on their children and whether or not that effect will be beneficial for generations down the line. We can't do that, we're just incapable. We can make guesses, but all that is is a guess.

And we can imagine the effects of this guess if we imagine it retroactively. Which previous generation would you trust with your reproductive rights? The ones that thought non-whites were literally subhumans? The ones that viewed homosexuality as a mental illness? The ones that actually worked to sterilize people because they were poor? What's the next generation going to think about your choices?

And then do you trust the government to decide fairly and accurately, within the bounds of the law to all people regardless of social status?

[–]rainbowplethora[🍰] 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Edgy teens: Advocating eugenics since 1945.

[–]PmMeYourWeeLadGimli 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have him on facebook. He argues about the Confederate flag not being about racism or hate, and that posts about how gays are a sin but then posts "hot lesbian memes". Dude is a piece of work.

[–]tilsitforthenommage 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow, does he recreationally eating laundry powder?

[–]jaypeeps 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

that's right! this is pro abortion, not amateur abortion

[–]xsvfan 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only good fetus, is an aborted fetus

[–]bryanvickersband 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

So you're saying kids in those programs would be better off dead?

[–]Greeny720 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think there's a big difference between dead and never existed, but I guess that's the whole argument here.

[–]bryanvickersband 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah that's really what it comes down to. What constitutes a life? Because obviously once a person exists we can all agree they should continue to do so.

[–]FlakJackson 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It could be argued that some of them have been through things that no child should have to endure and will stay with them their entire lives.

It could be argued that some of those children have taken their own lives because of what they suffered in the system. Were such lives even worth living at that point?

Personally I'd rather see a fetus aborted than raped repeatedly while their age can still be counted on one hand.

Of course there's no way to know which fetus is going to be the "lucky" one ahead of time, but such abuses of the system are one very good reason abortion should remain legal.

[–]bryanvickersband 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or perhaps a less reactive approach would be to focus on improving these systems and the quality of life for everyone on this planet.

Just because life is filled with as much pain as it is beauty, doesn't justify negating it.

[–]a01chtra 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Odds are against deaf kids, blind kids, stupid kids, kids whose parents divorce, kids with lazy parents, kids born to parents with heritable mental illness, kids with parents in jail, kids in poverty - doesn't mean they should never have been born, surely?

I don't have a strong feeling on life vs choice but this seems like it is not the argument at the heart of it.

[–]LordGrey 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The point of a child isn't to be raised, its to live his/her life,

If that was what was important when it comes to human reproduction, shouldn't we all be having as many kids as possible so that can live their lives?

[–]DoubtfulCritic 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well of course I am. I realize its just a joke, but I feel some people will look at this and think to themselves "This makes sense". When in the end it's a joke and not a good metaphor

[–]kabukistar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can be literal with political comics.

[–]ToThePint 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's such a complicated issue, and it doesn't do to vilify/mock the other side. It's a sincere debate that weighs a potential child's right to live against the quality of its potential life and the changes in quality of the lives of its potential family.

I personally side with pro choice. I think that there are circumstances in which abortion serves a purpose. It's not something to take lightly, but also not something to abolish altogether. I don't think poorly of those who fight for the fetus, though.

[–]kabukistar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's also the difference that, if they didn't cook the steak now, it would probably be cooked and eaten by somebody later.

[–]adaminc 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

The point of the comic isn't about the child, or the steak.

The point is about the pro-lifer/waiter, their inaction after they get what they want. That they don't care what happens after abortion-prevention/cooking, just that it what they want to the steak to be cooked, and for the abortion to be prevented. Then they are on to the next one.

[–]JumpJax -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I thought the comic was a woman explaining her metaphor that the waiter was a pro-choicer, and that abortion was like wasting food. Outrageous metaphor either way.

[–]adaminc 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope. A common question asked of pro-life people is if they will adopt a child to prevent it from being aborted. They usually say no, or the conversation ends there.

[–]CallMeFierce 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean if you want to take the comments point further, the steak will rot and in a sense the child will "rot" too.

[–]gerbs -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Children who grow up unloved, unwanted, and in shitty conditions tend to be "rot"-ten people. RIPOSTE

[–]gamer_6 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Careful, or you'll upset the idealistic masses with your rational views.

Remember, most people delude themselves into thinking they are purely psychological beings. If you take away their notions of self determination, they can't make themselves feel superior by demonizing other people.

[–]John_Barleycorn 27ポイント28ポイント  (5子コメント)

Does anyone actually think this metaphor accurately defines a complicated political issue? I hope not.

[–]akjax 34ポイント35ポイント  (4子コメント)

Does anyone actually expect comic strips to accurately define a complicated political issue? I hope not.

[–]honc 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I wouldn't normally expect a Cy & H comic to do this, there's nothing about the art form that precludes this. Nonetheless, you're probably right that, in general, people don't actually expect it to.

[–]PaperScale 54ポイント55ポイント  (5子コメント)

This.. is just stupid.

[–]professionalevilstar 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

this is what happens when C&H tries to get edgy

[–]Nortslayer 38ポイント39ポイント  (0子コメント)

They get edgy all the time and offend everyone. This was meant to be a political cartoon, which is not normal for c&h

[–]Dracosage 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is the least edgy C&H

[–]manufactureconsent 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Does this mean being pro choice is throwing away good steak because the cook isn't hungry?

[–]BrojobBrojob 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would mean not cooking the steak in the first place and waiting until someone orders one.

[–]---CitationNeeded--- 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

Damnit C+H, just stick to being hilariously offensive to everyone. This was just stupid.

[–]FiskFisk33 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

hilariously offensive

This thread makes me think they did a pretty good job!

[–]intravenus_de_milo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

being hilariously offensive to everyone.

I've never found any of their comics offensive.

[–]Teekoo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Same, but I don't really have strong opinions about anything.

[–]MajorSquiggles 12ポイント13ポイント  (27子コメント)

I'm pretty much torn down the middle on the issue, and to be honest both sides have points and both of them act like idiots. I find it annoying more than anything when someone says that their side is right.

People act shocked that abortion isn't fully legalized. "We live in 2015 and abortion still isn't legal." Yeah I can't imagine why killing an unborn infant isn't legal. From my view the prevention of a life is the same as murder. I feel this is a clearer answer to the whole "when does life begin" debate but again just my view. And what really bothers me is women who say "My body my rights." Well it partly your body. But if you weren't prepared or were not willing to take reponsibility for your actions, then maybe next time wear a condom.

And of course on the other side you have insane evangelists trying to tell you it's an offense to god, or aborted babies go to hell. I don't know but it's its own kind of crazy. It also doesn't account for legitimate reasons for abortion like saving the mother's life, rape victims, etc. If anything I feel like the only answer is it's legal in some instances and others its not. But no someone's got to be right.

C&H I know you're always offensive and don't really give a shit but maybe stick to jokes that are at least funny. This didn't read like a joke, it just felt a bit preachy. Almost like it was trying to make a joke by strawmanning.

[–]anal_andy 31ポイント32ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think the difference in my thinking is that a fertilised egg is not an unborn child in my view. I have absolutely no problem with setting limits and saying like no third trimester abortions, but until it is formed and there is brain activity going on, it pretty much is a little cut of meat, no harm done.

[–]MajorSquiggles 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I don't agree I will admit that an egg is hardly the equivelant of an infant.

[–]Shock900 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

The problem stems (no pun intended) from the idea that there's really no exact point in time when a fetus "becomes a person," though it's quite obvious that it happens before birth. A lot of people who take the pro-life stance simply think that since there's no clear point where human life is initially defined, then it's better to not kill the fetus at all, rather than taking the chance of murdering a baby.

[–]LordGrey 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

though it's quite obvious that it happens before birth.

I'm curious, can you explain why/how we know this?

[–]MajorSquiggles 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

A fetus will eventually show activity while inside the womb. They don't suddenly become alive and moving once they exit the womb. They move, have brain activity, breathe and eat to an extent I suppose. It's easy to monitor what's going on inside the womb. It's actually a very important part of pregnancy, monitoring the child to ensure it's health.

[–]WedgeTalon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would say preterm birth is a good indication. We've seen a baby delivered as early as just under 6 months (21 weeks) and survive. That's barely over halfway through gestation - a normal term is 40 weeks.

[–]thepicto 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

The point may not be exact, but we can narrow it down better than "some time during the 9 months". For example, at any point before the brain has formed it isn't a person.

[–]WedgeTalon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

FYI, the brain begins to develop as early as week 5, and week 6 through 7 the brain will form distinct regions and we can detect cranial nerves. And counting weeks begins from the end of the woman's previous menstruation, not conception. Typically week 5 would be about 3 weeks after conception and about 1 to 2 weeks after a pregnancy test would be used.

So, it really depends on what you mean by "formed".

[–]FlakJackson 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

But if you weren't prepared or were not willing to take reponsibility for your actions, then maybe next time wear a condom.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the major problems with pro-lifers. You all act as though anyone who doesn't want a baby is a filthy slut wasn't taking any precautions. Every method of birth control has a failure rate. Even abstinence has proven to be ineffective because it's so damn hard to ignore those raging hormones. It is, arguably, one of the least effective methods.

Let's look at your suggestion. According to the CDC condoms have an average failure rate of 12% (which is significantly higher than what most people are led to believe). The pill has a 9% failure rate. Hormone shots have 6% and implants have .08%. In each case this is small enough that anyone using one has no reasonable expectation to get pregnant (especially if they bought into the "foolproof" message everyone bandies about regarding the pill and condoms), but it's there nonetheless, and the use of these methods displays responsibility.

Vasectomies and tubal ligation (the truly permanent and most reliable options for each gender) both have a failure rate of less than one percent, but they can reverse themselves years after the confirmation of sterility.

Many people do, in fact, take responsible actions to prevent pregnancies. They should not have to "suck it up" and "deal with it" when these precautions fail through no fault of their own.

[–]WedgeTalon 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

To play devil's advocate:

First, you made a mistake, the diaphragm is 12%, the male condom is 18%.

Second, it should also be noted that these numbers measure the "typical use", which includes accounting for inconsistent and incorrect usage. If always used correctly and consistently, these numbers would be much lower.

So to continue with the devil's advocate - if you truly cannot risk pregnancy and abstinence is ignored, then presumably you would use two forms of birth control.

So to calculate the chance of two things happening together, you multiply their respective chances. So if you are using the two worst forms of birth control - condoms, 18%, and the pill, 9% - then you would have a chance of only 1.62%.

But, if you add in abstinence during fertile days, 24% typical use failure rate, then your chance of pregnancy is reduced to 0.39%.

But we can do better! If instead of the pill the woman gets an INg IUD, the chance of pregnancy is 0.2%. If then combined with fertility aware abstinence and condom use, the chance of pregnancy would be 0.00864%!

Ok, that's pretty good but can we do better? Yes! Let's give this hypothetical couple a good sex ed and now assume that they will always use birth control methods consistently and correctly. Condoms drop from 18% to an astonishing 2% (source: planned parenthood). But even more impressive, if the couple is educated in the STM method of fertility awareness and use it perfectly, the chance of pregnancy is 0.43% (source). So combining all three methods now gives us 0.0000172%.

(By the way, the imperfect use of that STM fertility awareness method was about 2%, so that itself would be a large improvement over generalised fertility awareness.)

[–]FlakJackson 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow, very nicely done. They'd like you over at /r/theydidthemath.

To tell the truth this only strengthens my argument, but I did choose to use the typical use numbers for a reason: they more accurately reflect real-life conditions.

[–]Zelaphas 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

You go from telling a lady to put a condom on to acknowledging pregnancy can sometimes be the result of rape.

I mean did you know some women in the United States are starting to be prosecuted or even thrown in jail over having miscarriages? Under the presumption that a natural bodily function is still somehow the fault of the woman suffering from it.

That's the world we're heading into if we keep letting legislation get in the way of what's already been proven a safe and often medically necessary procedure.

Crazies deciding what women can and can't do and when the loss of a fetus is their fault.

[–]frtox 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

as a father who felt the kicks from my wife's stomach, yes the fetus is alive, and abortion ends their life. however it is a worse outcome to have an unwanted child in this world. if the parent really does not want to raise the child, that is their choice and very presumptuous to say you know better than them. it is your responsibility to wear a condom, but it is not your responsibility to tell other people to wear a condom.

[–]sunrype1 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think its presumptuous to assume that an unwanted child's life isn't worth living. I consider myself pro-choice but I don't think that particular argument is a very good one.

[–]intravenus_de_milo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Philosophically that might be what you want to believe, but there's a pretty clear demarcation between violent, impoverished societies, and upwardly mobile progressive ones. . .access to family planning.

There is no surer way to screw a person up for the rest of their lives than to be unwanted by their parents, and it has real systemic ramifications for society.

It's easily the strongest argument for family planning, which includes not just contraception but also abortion and medical services.

[–]frtox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think there's 2 sides to pro choice, individuals (mothers) right to her body, and the wellbeing of the children. you shouldn't be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do to herself. and you shouldn't be able to force a negative, neglected, life on to a child. as the comment next to this has pointed out it really has a terrible impact on their life.

[–]a01chtra -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't have strong feelings either way on this but that seems a strange view. Not to be facetious, but does that "better a terminated x than an unwanted x" change immediately after birth? Or a year or so?

Or what if the baby was wanted before birth, but then the parents split and the mum resented the baby for it?

Is the best solution really just to get rid of the baby vs to improve state care of children? If the problem is the standard of care, it seems to me that's a problem that can be practically solved, albeit it needs a willing and able government and a fucktonne of money and manpower.

[–]Rain_On 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This should have been posted when the Americans where asleap.

[–]kijib 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

this is seriously one of their best ever

[–]acatholicpriest 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is pretty good if the point is that it is a stupid metaphor being told by the clueless woman in the last frame. She thinks she has an unanswerable argument, but it makes no sense.

[–]-nyx- 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree, it makes perfect sense. You may disagree with what the metaphor is trying to say but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

It's saying the obvious fact that "pro-life" people care more about the child being born at any cost than that the parents are actually able to take good care of it.

[–]EasternEuropeSlave 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Low hanging fruit, but the jimmies rustled in this thread are so worth it.

[–]I_AM_INTERFACED 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like this isn't really a sound argument, since you could basically use this argument to support firing squads for unattended children

Not saying I'm pro-life, I'm just saying this is fucking dumb

[–]frog_gurl22 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is more of an argument for abstinence than pro-choice/pro-life. If it were about pro-life/pro-choice, the chef would go through all the motions of making the steak and then hope that a steak wasn't made because no one wanted it, then if one happened to be made, he would throw it away. Abstinence is not going through the "cooking process" at all. Unless the server taking the order is supposed to be sex and then the cook is the uterus? In which case, the server would just start throwing orders in and the cook would sit around and maybe one day actually throw a steak on the grill, but the customer would come to the back and throw out the steak before it was on the grill too long. And in that case, birth control would be locking the door to the kitchen and not letting the server back there in the first place.

I can't make this metaphor fit very well....

[–]partiallypro -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pro-choice (with some exceptions, such as late term)...but this is so forced and nonsensical.

[–]lobsterwithcrabs -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is bullshit - you're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion.

[–]PublicFriendemy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's ok, I got that reference. It's a timely one.

[–]slowfreq 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

wow explosm.net looks like shit

[–]FlacidPanda -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is he making fun of bad metaphors here? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Please be true.