3623
3624

For the logic-impared (i.imgur.com)

tiMMy4190 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
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 →

[–]svengalus 200ポイント201ポイント  (179子コメント)

This is dumb on many levels.

[–]sammyhere 106ポイント107ポイント  (168子コメント)

its sarcasm directed at pro lifers

[–]phailhaus 203ポイント204ポイント  (149子コメント)

It doesn't work, because tapeworms aren't considered as important as humans.

[–]holydude02 60ポイント61ポイント  (115子コメント)

The question in that context is: when does a foetus become human?

[–]lostsemicolon 25ポイント26ポイント  (3子コメント)

When do they become a person is the question. They're definitely already human.

[–]SJHillman 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't know, I've seen some pretty ugly babies. I could believe they're part human. Some kind of human-blobfish hybrid.

[–]al_kohalik 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd say there are more "adult" near-term human blob fish. See also: land whale, more-to-love, "athletic".

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

a better question is how exactly do we define a human?

personally i think wasting even the potential of a human is stupid, but thats just me..

[–]Rulerzed 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fetus is Latin[?] for offspring. If both parents are human beings, what makes you think the offspring is not?

Or, if it is not a human being, what is it, a goat?

Remember, fetus is a label for a stage of life. It's not actually an separate species.

[–]Frostiken 64ポイント65ポイント  (102子コメント)

This is why, while I certainly don't want to outlaw abortion, I sympathize more with pro-lifers than the pro-choicers, especially those that create stupid shit like this image.

If you asked a bunch of pro-choicers if it was ethically okay to abort a baby minutes before it was born, they'd probably say no, that's fucked up.

So even the pro-choice side agrees that there's a line beyond which abortion is or isn't okay.

[–]holydude02 76ポイント77ポイント  (67子コメント)

Sure there is. My personal limit would be the point of development of a nervous system. Before that it is impossible to have any kinds of feelings or thoughts.

[–]tulbot 35ポイント36ポイント  (5子コメント)

Even after that. A certain level brain development is required to have those thoughts and feelings.

[–]johnjfrancis141 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

The only thing is that comes after birth.

[–]bochez 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like it never happens in some people...

[–]Imnotveryfunatpartys 31ポイント32ポイント  (45子コメント)

But when does your nervous system "become" a nervous system? The nervous system is basically the first thing to develop and it slowly changes throughout the whole nine months.

Also does the fact that something has a nervous system make it unethical to kill? Is killing a worm unethical?

The real solution is to not have unprotected sex with someone you don't want to have a child with. Even though sex is fun, it's real purpose is to create babies. Responsible adults can't forget that fact.

[–]alexanderpendragon 16ポイント17ポイント  (16子コメント)

User name checks out.

However, I feel like pro-life arguments fall apart when the Rape question comes into play: should an abortion be legal when rape is involved? A vast majority of people think so, which is kinda hypocritical when you want to play the 'but its murder otherwise!' card.

[–]hippyshade 9ポイント10ポイント  (8子コメント)

did you know abortions in the case of rape make up less than 1% of all abortions?

[–]ProjectKatsu 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

though 1% is still not zero. I'm not against pro life but in my humble opinion in case of rape there too should be a clause dealing with that

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

I do!

— but I think, when you're arguing something about moral subjectivity you want applied to law, you should extend cases to their extremes to get a complete view of the legal validity of them.

[–]LetsHaveTon 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

That really isn't hypocritical at all, though. We allow murder sometimes (self defense, execution) if the murderer has a good reason (self defense, execution). It's not hypocritical if you count rape as a "good reason" for abortion while you don't count irresponsible sex as a "good reason".

[–]alexanderpendragon 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

By definition, it's not murder if it's in self-defense.

In any case, it remains hypocritical unless you're saying the fetus is in some way responsible for the crime/action, which is absurd. "Hey, that baby was made with rapist semen, kill it!"

[–]mechesh 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

We allow homicide sometimes.

Murder is an intentional premeditated homicide.

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

That's like arguing "When does a pile of parts become a ship? Well it lacks a clear answer. Therefore the only logical response is to treat all piles of parts like they're ships".

[–]MyPasswordIsNotTacos 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Easy. When it floats on its own.

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

Ships are constructed modernly out of self-contained sections, which are often floated into place.

[–]5secondstozerotime 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, let's see...

If you have a ship made of n parts, there are n! combinations of parts to put together; this includes each part on its own as well. After a threshold is reached, the parts can be considered a ship. HOWEVER, the numbers are so cocking big! Do you know how quickly the complexity of a factorial equation goes up? It's much faster than saying x2, or 2x even.

Due to the sheer complexity of what we call a ship, we cannot define the point at which it floats. For example... If you took one screw out of the ship, would it sink? Maybe. What about if you filled the ship with water? It sinks, right? Well it's still a ship.

Welcome to the universe, population 1085 ! particle combinations.

[–]balamory[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

kids

[–]TheDayTrader 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

it's real purpose

We are social animals, we use it more for bonding than anything else. Babies are just one of the purposes.

[–]margethemouse 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

We do use it for bonding, yeah. But isn't furthering of the species the primary purpose of all reproduction, sexual or asexual?

[–]TheDayTrader 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Primary, if you only want to consider the physical biological standpoint yeah. For some animals it even is the only purpose. But those animals don't rely on groups for evolutionary advantages. And they don't have brains that require that bonding to not slip into depression.

Calling reproduction the real purpose completely ignores all of society and everything that sets us apart as a species. It's saying that other standpoints have no real value. Where i'd say that the two kids we make per couple in a lifetime, those two lucky hits, is maybe 1% of what making love means to us as a species.

It's asinine.

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

Intercourse != reproduction.

Reproduction is a... side effect.

[–]spank859 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

There is also condoms breaking, birth control failing, and probably several other ways to accidentally get pregnant. Even beyond that there are circumstances that may change which cause people to decide they don't want a kid. Pro lifers want to outlaw abortion period black and white while pro choicers realize there is a gray area but aren't condoning abortion. It shouldn't be used as a form of birth control but no one should be forced to have a kid either.

[–]GhostGlide 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

The only time someone is forced to become pregnant without their consent is when they are raped. Everyone knows that condoms can break, birth control can fail, etc. Even though the risk of that happening is very small, it's still a risk they decide to take when they have sex. Ultimately, it's not an accident if the people involved are aware that birth control methods can fail.

[–]spank859 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

So if you are driving down the road and your tire blows causing you to hit someone head on and kill them it wasn't an accident it was murder because you knew when you got in the car and started driving that could happen.

[–]damage3245 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Accepting that there is a risk does not mean having to accept pregnancy; as women can get abortions.

[–]ledivin 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Anyone who is killed in a car crash chose to die. After all, don't you choose to drive a car, take the bus, ride a bike, or walk on sidewalks? It's not an accident if the people involved are aware that roads are dangerous.

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

There is also condoms breaking, birth control failing, and probably several other ways to accidentally get pregnant.

wow we all had no idea

[–]IM_A_WOMAN -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Problem with that is, the irresponsible ones are the ones doing it like jack rabbits.

[–]BCRE8TVE 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even though sex is fun, it's real purpose is to create babies.

The fact that there are animals who have gay sex proves that the statement "the real purpose of sex is to create babies" is not true.

There is no single monolithic "real" purpose to have sex. I'm presuming when someone has sex with their spouse, it's not to get pregnant every single time.

Sex does create babies, yes, but it's also a stress release, it creates bonding and stronger bonds between partners, and it feels fucking good.

Responsible adults can't ignore the reality that sex doesn't have just one "real" purpose either.

[–]ryanmonroe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even though sex is fun, its real purpose is to create babies.

Sex does not have a "purpose" other than the reason people choose to engage in it. Creating babies is a possible consequence, but, unless you're appealing to religion, the claim that the "purpose" of sex is babies is meaningless. And if you are appealing to religion, you shouldn't, because that's not how laws should be made.

[–]hunterofbears 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's not the fact that the tiny ball of fleshy goo that could potentially be a human one day is feeling or thinking anything, it's that you're stopping a life from ever happening. Like trying to start a fire but then dumping water on the tinder before you light it. It's the principal that pro-lifers care about.

[–]holydude02 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I understand it that way. It's just my personal feeling about the matter.

If I'd care about every potential life I'd have to consider myself mass murderer because of all the times I jerked off.

[–]Srs_Businesss 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's not really a good conclusion to logically come to since semen, specifically sperm, won't turn into a human without an egg, and statistically, even if you are intentionally impregnating someone, tons of semen are going to die in the process, so by that logic you're a mass murderer no matter what.

Furthermore, girls would be murderers every time they have a period.

This is obviously a pretty shitty line of reasoning. Because taking it a step further, you're a murderer no matter what you do because semen and eggs die all the time regardless as your body exchanges them for future batches.

However, once an egg and sperm have combined they produce a zygote. A zygote has all of the necessary dna to produce a baby. And if nature takes its course, it would develop into an embryo,baby, infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly, and die. At this point, logically both people's DNA have meshed to create a new entity. This is the furthest you could probably suppose that you are killing something if you abort it.

Regardless, the point isn't about "carrying about every potential life" but rather "legally protecting human life once it has formed" which is very very different. And honestly, considering that few people would be willing to give their life in defense of abortion, I think it's pretty easy to have empathy towards the idea that if you wouldn't have wanted to be aborted, it's fair to extend that to others.

[–]Thamanizer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Besides, your body eats any surplus semen so you'd be a murderer anyway if that counted.

[–]BCRE8TVE 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

A zygote has all of the necessary dna to produce a baby.

And so does every single cell in your body. Especially stem cells.

And if nature takes its course, it would develop into an embryo,baby, infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly, and die.

I think it's kind of odd that people make this argument of letting nature take its course here, where if we had let nature take its course, likely 50 to 75% of our children would die due to disease or death in childbirth. So, do we want to let nature take its course or not?

At this point, logically both people's DNA have meshed to create a new entity.

At some point, logically a single person's DNA has mutated to create a new entity. This entity we call cancer.

You will tell me there is a difference between cancer and babies. I agree with you, there is a difference. I just don't see why magically having the DNA of two people fuse makes it so different from cancer. If I stick my DNA in one of your cells to make cancer, would that be considered a baby as well?

"legally protecting human life once it has formed" which is very very different.

And from the standpoint of the law, that is already the case, once the baby is born. Before the baby is born, it's more a medical condition of the mother than its own person.

And honestly, considering that few people would be willing to give their life in defense of abortion, I think it's pretty easy to have empathy towards the idea that if you wouldn't have wanted to be aborted, it's fair to extend that to others.

Except that these "others" don't exist yet, and they exist solely as clumps of cells rapidly dividing. Yes, one day it will make a full independent body, but at the stage before which 98% of abortions take place (before 20 weeks) the fetus is less conscious than a worm. Its brain is not anywhere close to start working. It's a mindless flesh puppet.

Yes it will develop, and yes it will become like us, but at that point it isn't.

[–]BCRE8TVE 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do we have an obligation to care for all life at all costs, no matter the cost to society, the individuals, and the environment?

[–]hunterofbears 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah

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

That's a choice for each of us to make as an individual.

But in the case of the United States government, yes. One of its main purposes is the protection of life.

[–]Pakislav 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nervous system develops quite early. Let's just agree on first trimester.

[–]BCRE8TVE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

20 weeks at the earliest, before that there is no possibility of even feeling pain, let alone have any kind of mental activity.

Let's also remember that some 98% of abortions happen before this point.

[–]JackBond1234 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

So if you found a sleeping adult, gave them anesthetic and administered a lethal injection, you would be completely morally absolved because you inflicted no pain?

[–]BCRE8TVE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You did inflict pain, if not on them then on everyone they cared about and everyone that cared about them.

This is certainly not the case with a fetus.

[–]jzimms -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I argue that drawing a line is messing up the debate. The way I see it, there are two paths: abort the pregnancy, or don't. One will certainly not produce a baby, one certainly will. When "life" starts is irrelevant, making arbitrary lines as to when you think it can feel or whatever is just a feel good tactic. For me it's simple, stopping a human from being alive, at any point, is wrong. But that's just my opinion.

[–]erythro 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are different pro choice camps, I don't think people realise this. Some argue the foetus isn't a person. Others argue it's not relevant whether it's a person or not, because the mother has a right to do what she wants with her body.

[–]CarmineFields 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

The problem is, many "pro-lifers" have gone so far that they want to kill innocent women.

In the first republican debate, both Marco Rubio and Scott Walker (the only two asked), both said they wanted to ban lifesaving abortion.

It shows that "life" isn't what's actually important to a reasonable percentage of the anti-choice movement.

Edit, citation: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/scott-walker-marco-rubio-abortion-republican-party

[–]Srs_Businesss 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Which is obviously just as bad as saying you should be able to chop a baby up as it comes out of the womb, but arguments for either side shouldn't be compared at their most extreme (and at that point almost illogical) but rather charitably what logically follows.

If a fetus is going to kill the mother, it should be treated like anything attempting murder, and the person should have the right to defend themselves.

But that is such an extreme case, that shouldn't be what you base your whole argument around, but rather a caveat to be examined.

Edit: because yes, killing someone else, even if you do it in the most innocent of ways, is murder.

[–]CarmineFields 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's worse than that.

If the fetus is non-viable, it will die when you abandon mommy. If it's viable, it can be removed via c-section. This policy will not save embryos or fetuses, it will just kill innocent women.

Also, this is hardly some crazy extremist. Rubio is now been praised as the next republican candidate. The republican-lead house PASSED a similar law in 2011 that would have allowed doctors and hospitals the right to abandon women to die.

This isn't some extremist, this is the mainstream "pro-life" movement at work.

This same party is happy to cut all social programs including health care and let that precious life die a number of different ways to save themselves tax dollars.

There comes a point where you start to realize that "life" isn't precious, beating up on women is precious.

[–]xereeto 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with you, but using the word murder like that makes your point sound retarded. Murder is the intentional killing of another person; a fetus cannot commit nor attempt murder.

[–]CochinBrahmaLover 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

You don't think pro lifers make stupid images..?

[–]aykcak 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I support the idea that abortion is wrong but killing babies should be OK.

[–]sherminnater 18ポイント19ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'm pro choice but if I was ever in the position to abort a child I wouldn't because that's my choice. Now that's my opinion. Should I be able to force my opinion on someone else? No because its there fucking life and they know a hell of a lot more about there life so I'm not going to make a big decision like an abortion for them. So its there choice. That's what pro choice means.

If I don't agree with something it shouldn't mean regulate it. You know freedoms or something or another....

[–]TheFlying 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

This is a bad argument and in general a bad thought process. EVERYTHING is a choice. It doesn't change the fact that certain choices are illegal (e.g. murder, theft, abuse etc.). It also smells of the bystander effect, i.e. that an atrocity can happen amongst a large group of people and no one will step out to stop it. It IS your responsibility to stop things you think are wrong even if they don't concern you (as a general rule of course). Note that I'm not commenting on the specific topic at hand but rather this notion that just because something does not directly concern you, you should not intervene.

[–]Elephant454 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

The problem is very much where to draw the line. Many people who insist on discriminating against homosexuals follow the same mentality. When does someone's personal opinion become invalid for the greater good?

[–]TheFlying 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Once it directly impacts someone else in a negative way. Hence the abortion debate, do fetuses qualify as a "someone else". But the thinking of sherminator is at best unhelpful in resolving that question and it's one I've encountered many times

[–]Elephant454 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being able to distinguish when to get involved aside, you're right in the sense that a mentality of trying to sweep this problem under the rug isn't going to make it go away.

[–]CarmineFields 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you (or they) willing to pay taxes to ensure this life is born safely? Doesn't starve? Doesn't die of preventable disease?

You don't get to call all the shots and go skipping off with your tax savings while that precious life suffers and dies.

You don't get to dump your crappy morals on some of the weakest and most desparate in society and walk away free and clear.

[–]LooneyDubs -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

*their

[–]_lilPoundcake 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

... yes that's why there's a legal limit for voluntary abortion

I don't know why American legislators forget about involuntary abortion. late abortions are done because there's something horribly wrong with the baby

imagine telling a woman "yeah your baby is half dead, you'll have to carry its corpse for weeks and then deliver it"

[–]LooneyDubs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you're implying that you're not pro choice but also that you're fine with aborting a baby as long as it won't be able to survive outside of the womb.

[–]BCRE8TVE 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We all agree that there's a line. It's just where we place that line.

Most people wouldn't be okay with killing babies once they are born. Most pro-choicers wouldn't be okay with killing babies just before they are born.

Beyond that though, it's all shades of grey. There is no single stage where you can draw the line and have it be objectively true or moral.

I would draw the line at 20 weeks, because beyond that point the fetus is able to feel pain. If an abortion is performed before that, I'd have no problem, after that it becomes far more morally debatable and more medically risky.

From what I have experienced of pro-lifers, many don't like ambiguity and not knowing, so they draw the line as early as possible to completely avoid any moral quandary. Many pro-lifers draw the line at contraception even, because it's killing sperm or eggs that could become babies, or worse, believe that contraceptives cause abortions.

We all agree there is a line. We just don't agree on where that line should be.

[–]RocKiNRanen 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I do agree this image is in poor taste and not very witty, and many "pro-choice memes" often portray fetuses as less than human which is unfair because even though there are stages where a baby will exist as a mere bundle of cells and won't be completely conscious of its surroundings, unless those cells naturally abort, the fetus will eventually become a baby which (hopefully) will become a full grown adult.

But this image does incite in me a question that spans more areas of life than abortion. When a person burdens another persons life (in a similar manner to that of a parasite) does the "host" have the right to take the life of the "parasite"? In situations where both parties are fully capable and conscience and one person endangers the life or livelihood of another person or entity, whether intentional or not, and the "host" who is endangered attempts to take the life of the "parasite", the so-called parasite at least will usually have the ability to defend itself. In that situation it may become a matter of coming to a compromise or of simply the strongest person winning. The issue with abortion is that the target doesn't have the ability to defend itself, thus pro-lifers feel the need to defend the fetus. But since the fetus is burdening the mother, does her have the right to remove the fetus outweigh the fetus' right to live?

Fuck it's late and I'm too tired to move from the couch to the bed and my roommate bruised his Achilles and keeps bitching and moaning about it.

[–]phailhaus 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh, is that what the image is getting at? Saying a fetus is just like a tapeworm? That's not a very good analogy, because a fetus is capable of becoming a human. That's the whole point behind pro-life. A tapeworm isn't analogous to a fetus because a tapeworm will not eventually become a human.

[–]holydude02 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was my tired head's interpretation. I guess it's a lame joke first and foremost, but if I was too assert a meaning into it, I guess that would be it, yeah ;-)

[–]awake4o4 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

the fetus is like a parasite in that it requires another's body to live and function. eventually the fetus wont need the mother's body to survive but at that point we generally stop referring to it as a fetus.

[–]phailhaus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but the crux of the pro life argument is that a fetus is as important as a human because it will eventually become one.

[–]JackBond1234 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

When it's got human DNA

[–]Shardic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

NO! That's not the question. That's the place where the argument goes wrong! The question is WHY are human lifes important and tapeworm lives aren't.

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

The question in that context is: when does a foetus become human?

This is already well defined, both mathematically, and scientifically. Why do people keep bringing this up? It's roughly 10 weeks that a fetus develops a working but not fully developed brain. There is the argument that that does not qualify it as a human being, because it's not fully developed, but as some may know the brain continually develops and grows until you're in your 30s.

Or if you reject that offer, we can do it mathematically. If something is more than 50% made, the sum of its parts are greater than the sum of what does not exist. This makes it a valid being, which would be around the 18 week mark.

However, according to law, it can be as late as 24 weeks. The reasoning for this length is based on the survival rate of a fetus outside of the womb. At 24 weeks a baby (fetus) has about a 50% survival rate.

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

Also killing tapeworms is in fact murdering tapeworms.

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

It doesn't work, because tapeworms aren't considered as important as humans.

Maybe not by you, a human. But a tapeworm would consider tapeworms more important.

Humans are so self important.

[–]phailhaus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But like I said in another comment, humans are the guys in charge. Of course we put human lives as most important. So do you: you think it's more okay to kill a tapeworm than to kill a kid.

The picture really doesn't work, because if your argument is that "tapeworms consider tapeworms important.", then the image should be of a tapeworm with a tapeworm inside of them!

[–]ElBobo 4ポイント5ポイント  (16子コメント)

Are humans important?

[–]Sleep_Tight 49ポイント50ポイント  (9子コメント)

To other humans yea.

[–]k_rol -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm not saying there is a good or bad answer but, why is it that humans are important to other humans more than other animals are to humans? We are so many, why do we care?

[–]euxneks 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Humans as a group are stronger when we work together - nature has selected for humans that want to work together over humans that don't. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it is better to have diversity and work together with other humans. There is still the driving need to pass on your own genes however, so perhaps that is why a lot of humans still feel the need to denigrate humanity.

[–]k_rol 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like your thought on this. It's probably evolutionary, it makes sense. This reminds me of an article I remember seeing that cheating is probably genetic as well.

[–]coolsox3 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

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

Because we're not tapeworms. We're humans.

[–]phantuba 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

To other tapeworms yea.

[–]phailhaus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

To humans they are, and they happen to be the ones in charge.

[–]logonbump -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Better question: is the spirit which would animate one human body important or so easily discarded?

[–]gaffney2010 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

It doubly doesn't work because killing a tapeworm is murdering that thing. This image suggests that abortion is in fact akin to murder.

[–]TheChance 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

No it doesn't. That's predicated on the premise that killing a tapeworm is tapeworm-murder.

The image's point, though it's in poor taste, is that, especially early on, the fetus is more akin to a parasite than a person. The question is why it's acceptable to kill one parasite, but not another.

Of course, we all know the answer to that question, but the abortion debate is nowhere near as simple as stupid-ass image macros make it out to be. It's about what constitutes a human, and that's a heavy question.

For me, the line is ever-shifting, because I draw the line where the fetus is viable outside the womb, with or without medical intervention. There is a point before which no amount of medical intervention will enable the fetus to survive, and I posit that it's not a person yet if there is nothing we can do to make its birth successful.

That's me. Everybody else will have their own line, and for many people - especially deeply religious people - the line is at conception.

Trying to boil the debate down to a referendum on the value of a fetus is asinine, and so is equating deinfestation with murder. Shame.

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

It is akin to murder, its just one of the 'acceptable' forms of it, like the death penalty.

[–]jesuriah 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You know, it may be an unpopular opinion, but I think you're right, depending on what you mean.

If we're talking about aborting a baby that can think and feel, I totally agree.

If we're talking about a mass of cells, then I disagree.

A lot of people see the world in this "right or wrong" mentality. However, everything they see as "wrong" can be justified. They can say stealing is wrong, but if you steal from someone who has more than they need, in order to ensure your family doesn't starve to death, is that really wrong?

If we define murder as killing a defenseless person, is murdering always wrong? What if that person had plans and the means to commit genocide? What if that person indiscriminately destroyed the lives of millions of people? Is life in solitary confinement really better than being murdered?

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

Honestly, I'm pro-life, but also pro-eugenics and a utilitarian. You can't determine whether or not someone is going to kill people before they're born, but you can determine whether or not they will grow to be a functional person.

[–]jesuriah 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, I'm pro-life, but also pro-eugenics and a utilitarian.

Thanks for being honest. Serious questions inbound.

Do you think the practice of abortion should be outlawed, or do you see your pro-life stance as more of a personal choice kind of thing?

By eugenics, do you mean selective breeding or engineering future generations?

I'm not sure what you mean by utilitarian(I often describe myself as this, preferring function over form, but I want to know what you mean by it).

You can't determine whether or not someone is going to kill people before they're born, but you can determine whether or not they will grow to be a functional person.

Another unpopular opinion, but I agree, in some situations. It's a tough stance for me to take too, since I have friends who have children with crippling disabilities. Should we use resources to raise children with Down Syndrome? What about Fragile X? Harlequins? I'm not saying we should make it law to abort/kill these individuals, and I believe the parents should have the ultimate choice, but we would be better off, objectively, as a species, to do away with these defects. The other side of this argument, of course, is when does genetic engineering go too far? Is it alright to eliminate homosexuality when we have the ability to? Should we work towards our idea of the perfect human, or is it possible that what we think humanity should be is removed from reality? I don't know anyone smart enough to give convincing answers either way.

[–]gaffney2010 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Somebody who would want to make fun of a pro-lifer would want to not make that analogy. Because they accidentally did, it's ineffective satire.

[–]Doctor_Red 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not only that, but tapeworms actively try to kill people.

[–]Rispetto 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"as important"

read: sentient

[–]I_HaveAHat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It still make a great point

[–]BCRE8TVE 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then it shouldn't be pro-life, shouldn't it?

Matter of fact, wouldn't it be kind of hypocritical to be pro-life, but not vegetarian? Or even worse, pro-life, but also pro-gun?

[–]phailhaus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really... "pro life" refers specifically to the life of the unborn child, not animals. And as for guns, the argument is one of self defense.

[–]kallexander 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The thing is: humanity doesn't need more humans.

[–]RelaxedAxe 28ポイント29ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's still dumb

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

Which is retarded, because women don't become pregnant with a human embryo in their stomach after eating under cooked meat or drinking dirty water.

[–]Shonoun 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Satire is a form of humour used to expose or bring attention to someone's stupidity or morals.

[–]roninjedi -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

explain the sarcasm then becasue im missing it. Othe than tapeworms not being sapient or human.

[–]ElBobo -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But most of them won't get it.

[–]eskim01 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's a joke. Lighten up.

[–]m1ster_coco 32ポイント33ポイント  (1子コメント)

Lighten up? LIGHTEN UP!?!?! AHHRUALFDIONSBCMKASFALLAHUAKBAR!

[–]kynmites 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you implying I need to lose weight shitlord? /s

[–]Qegixar 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, why else would you put tapeworms inside you?

[–]reverends3rvo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know a good way to lose about two pounds...

[–]SesamePete 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which levels?

[–]simjanes2k -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

That statement applies to both sides of the abortion argument, too!

In the meantime, this is a joke. Ha ha, and whatnot.