あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]GreenishApples 155ポイント156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 438ポイント439ポイント  (88子コメント)

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

[–]emperorsteele 337ポイント338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 34ポイント35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 87ポイント88ポイント  (22子コメント)

That's a very small, nonvocal minority.

[–]Shmeeku 45ポイント46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 36ポイント37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.

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

You can believe that scorpions are people too but anyone with a brain will see how stupid that is.

[–]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 0ポイント1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 -2ポイント-1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 48ポイント49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?

[–]ehsteve87 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Gladly! According to the CDC, about 36% of legal abortions in the US are performed on black women [1]. However, only about 13% of the US population is black. This disproportional rate amounts to one black abortion for every two black births. If you accept that a fetus is a fully-fledged human being, this means that a third of black children are killed in the US every single year.

Now to clarify, I don't think that an early-term fetus is a fully-fledged human being [2]. I do, however, think that an early-term fetus has an aspect of personhood and should therefore be treated with the utmost care (can I use the term reverence? It is not an inherently religious word, but I'm afraid it will be interpreted in a religious way if I say it). In my estimation, the difference between abortion and murder is simply a matter of severity.

This is where we come to the term genocide, or the mass killing of a group of people on ethnic lines. We've already seen that a third of black pregnancies do not come to term because of abortion. Now, if a third of all black newborns were rounded up and killed, I can't think of a single person who would hesitate to use the word genocide. Again, I don't think this scenario exactly describes what is happening to black children in America, but since I think abortion is similar to killing the fact that a third of black fetuses are aborted is horrifying.

I know that black women are not choosing to abort because they're black. They're choosing it more often than not because they're living in crushing poverty and don't want their children to be born into a life where they'll likely be forced into crime and violence in order to survive. I am highly sympathetic to their plight, and as a society we must address these problems in a responsible and sustainable way (contraception, sex ed, public aid for impoverished children, access to inexpensive education and job training, and lowering prison sentences for nonviolent drug use and sale). Abortion does alleviate the symptoms of this sort of problem. However, it does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, which is that for hundreds of years blacks have been marginalized by whites. This is a great tragedy. Because the symptoms are being treated, the underlying causes are left to fester unchecked because all appears well enough on the outside.

EDIT: Formatting


[1] (source)

[2] I therefore have no qualms about provisions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother or baby is in serious jeopardy.

[–]PicopicoEMD 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't agree with the whole thing as is, but i don't fee like unpacking it right now.

However, I do agree with this:

In my estimation, the difference between abortion and murder is simply a matter of severity.

I don't think abortion is as bad as murder. I don't think its nearly as bad. If today I got some random girl pregnant I would probably want to terminate the pregnancy.

But I do think that the later you abort in the pregnancy the closer to murder it is. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line in terms of legislation, but surely the people who say it wouldnt be morally wrong to terminate and 8 month fetus are not being reasonable.

[–]kairos 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

In my estimation, the difference between abortion and murder is simply a matter of severity.

So, 10-25% of pregnancies end up as miscarriages... should these people be judged for some sort of negligent feticide?

[–]ehsteve87 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No more than victims of cancer should be judged for some sort of negligent suicide.

[–]ehsteve87 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Gladly! According to the CDC, about 36% of legal abortions in the US are performed on black women [1]. However, only about 13% of the US population is black. This disproportional rate amounts to one black abortion for every two black births. If you accept that a fetus is a fully-fledged human being, this means that a third of black children are killed in the US every single year.

Now to clarify, I don't think that an early-term fetus is a fully-fledged human being [2]. I do, however, think that an early-term fetus has an aspect of personhood and should therefore be treated with the utmost care (can I use the term reverence? It is not an inherently religious word, but I'm afraid it will be interpreted in a religious way if I say it). In my estimation, the difference between abortion and murder is simply a matter of severity.

This is where we come to the term genocide, or the mass killing of a group of people on ethnic lines. We've already seen that a third of black pregnancies do not come to term because of abortion. Now, if a third of all black newborns were rounded up and killed, I can't think of a single person who would hesitate to use the word genocide. Again, I don't think this scenario exactly describes what is happening to black children in America, but since I think abortion is similar to killing the fact that a third of black fetuses are aborted is horrifying.

I know that black women are not choosing to abort because they're black. They're choosing it more often than not because they're living in crushing poverty and don't want their children to be born into a life where they'll likely be forced into crime and violence in order to survive. I am highly sympathetic to their plight, and as a society we must address these problems in a responsible and sustainable way (contraception, sex ed, public aid for impoverished children, access to inexpensive education and job training, and lowering prison sentences for nonviolent drug use and sale). Abortion does alleviate the symptoms of this sort of problem. However, it does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, which is that for hundreds of years blacks have been marginalized by whites. This is a great tragedy. Because the symptoms are being treated, the underlying causes are left to fester unchecked because all appears well enough on the outside.


[1] (source)

[2] I therefore have no qualms about provisions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother or baby is in serious jeopardy.

EDIT: Formatting

[–]spencer102 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Your entire argument depends on people considering abortion to be murder. Obviously, most people who are pro choice don't believe abortion is murder.

[–]ehsteve87 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Obviously. That's why I couched my response with terms such as "In my estimation" and "I think." I've been around long enough to know that nobody's gonna change their point of view because of something I wrote on the Internet. I'm just sharing my opinion.

Here's another opinion. It's unfortunate that so many in the reddit community are so afraid of dissenting opinions that they'll downvote any post they disagree with, no matter how thoughtfully stated.

[–]Call_Me_Clark 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some people are downvoting because they disagree, but a lot of people are downvoting because your argument is bad, especially your point about "minorities committing genocide against themselves but it's really white people killing them". Just my two cents.

[–]frellingaround 18ポイント19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 10ポイント11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 2ポイント3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.

[–]lolmonger -3ポイント-2ポイント  (10子コメント)

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.

Then again, they also have the viewpoint that the correct thing to do is then to not have sex unless one can afford a baby.

They're old-fashioned/sometimes assholes, but they're not being hypocritical or inconsistent.

They're just being oldschool.

Also, there are plenty of pro-life, religious and non-religious resources that are dedicated to childcare and family assistance.

[–]bmw940 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also, there are plenty of pro-life, religious and non-religious resources that are dedicated to childcare and family assistance.

Oh okay then guess there's no problem here.

[–]lolmonger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not one they're involved in creating.

[–]JustJonny 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Also, there are plenty of pro-life, religious and non-religious resources that are dedicated to childcare and family assistance.

They ought to get their shit together and do something about all the child poverty, then.

[–]lolmonger 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You realize they do?

Like that a massive amount of poverty intervention is done by private charity all the time?

[–]hmbmelly 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Usually with religious strings attached though.

[–]lolmonger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure - - I'm not religious, but I don't have a problem with religious people who believe life is sacred who believe they are personally required to support families in need in order to be worth of God's love (or whatever) doing so.

[–]Likes_Shiny_Things -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

You realise how exceedingly hard it is to deal with poverty right? This cannot be the job of one group.

[–]JustJonny -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm well aware, my point was that most of the pro-life organizations are exacerbating poverty, and given what a horribly common problem it is, the implication that abortion is unnecessary because there are so many organizations dedicated to childcare and family assistance is frankly offensive.

[–]lolmonger 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

my point was that most of the pro-life organizations are exacerbating poverty

No, employment conditions exacerbate poverty. Poor education exacerbates poverty. The ministries and secular groups that advocate not killing developing humans but which also provide significant support to new families don't exacerbate poverty.

implication that abortion is unnecessary because there are so many organizations dedicated to childcare and family assistance is frankly offensive.

The implication that people should choose to kill a developing child instead of attempting to support it and their family isn't though, right?

[–]JustJonny 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No one said anything about killing a child. Children have thoughts and feelings. An embryo doesn't.

Poor employment conditions and education are encouraged by the largest anti-abortion group in America, directly, and also by any other group who donates to them indirectly. That's what I was referring to.

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

So in a sense "being cooked" aka letting the baby be born

Thanks, for some reason I needed someone to spell this one out for me. I'm sure that reason can't be my stupidity, so this must just be a really horribly orchestrated joke.

[–]Phoxxent 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It kind of is, really. I'd say it would be more apt if you had some young and fickle person order the steak, and then when they get the notice it's being made, they say "nah, I changed my mind, I'll have a cake instead".

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

so that anyone who has sex is going to have a baby

Have.......have you ever known a couple who tried to have a kid.....or taken any sex-ed class? Sex is not 100% pregnency.

[–]xiann 10ポイント11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 9ポイント10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 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

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

[–]DanishHoax -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I suppose it would be okay for someone to kill you now if you aren't wanted?

[–]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