Steak Welfare

Reply

+51

#16 - anon (09/21/2015) [-]

Did... did C&H seriously equate a human life to cooking a steak?

Reply

+16

#28 to #16 - Darianvincent (09/21/2015) [-]

Right? Steaks more valuable

Reply

+16

#39 to #16 - alcatronz (09/22/2015) [-]

Its a metaphor
Thats the point of a metaphor
or simile whatever

Reply

+1

#54 to #39 - talpss (09/22/2015) [-]

I'm not sure which one it is... I guess it'd be a simile only because she said "like". **** English...

Reply

+12

#35 - xgolgothax (09/21/2015) [-]

> Abortion is legal because it's "her" body.
> Click it or ticket because I'm not capable of making my own choice about a ******* seat belt.
> School buses have no seat belts.

Conspiracy?

Reply

-1

#46 to #35 - morebuckets (09/22/2015) [-]

What the **** type of school buses do you ride that don't have seat belts?

Normal buses? No belts

School buses? All have them, at least in my corner of america

Reply

+4

#49 to #46 - xgolgothax (09/22/2015) [-]

None of the school buses here have them.

Reply

0

#69 to #46 - zgbgydug ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

The school buses I rode generally had seatbelts, but I was never required to wear them

Reply

0

#66 to #46 - psychedelegate ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

Ours never did, but that was like 15 years ago. I'm sure they do now.

Reply

0

#61 to #46 - xxsikoticxx (09/22/2015) [-]

not here in Texas or Arizona from my experience

Reply

0

#48 to #46 - thelightbringer ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

Over here in PA we don't have em.

Reply

+2

#19 - syntheticdoll (09/21/2015) [-]

Aside from the usual reasons people support abortion, I thought of one more.
You see, the fetus is a parasite. It sucks away nutriets from the mother's body and can't live on it's own.
Now, is it ethically right to force someone to live with a parasite in them that can even risk their health?
If you have a bartholin cyst, should the doctor refuse to remove it "because it has nerve endings" even though you never wanted it? Porbably not.
Some may say "ye, but it's a human" no, it's not, it's a bunch of cells that feeds off another body and dies the moment that body no longer supports it.
If someone would tell you "hey, you have this parasite inside you, it will feed on you, grow in you, **** up your hormones, it can even kill you, but since it has feelings we won't remove it, but don't worry, in some months it will grow to the size of your head and slip out of you while your vagina tears and you're screaming in pain so you can give it to us and we can throw it in an orphanage where it will barely have a chance to have a good life" how would you feel?

Reply

-3

#29 to #19 - citruslord ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

First off, more often than not, especially with modern medicine, it isn't a risk to the mothers health.
Second, I don't believe, except under circumstances of rape, you should be able to use the "but I never wanted it" excuse. You know going into the act of sex that this is the ONE thing that leads to a baby. It's almost like you have to accept a hidden user agreement, that even when you use contraceptive, there is a chance of pregnancy when you have sex. Just because it was unintentional, shouldn't be a reason to get out of the responsibility of it. You get in a wreck, you can't say "well I didn't want to crash" and get out of responsibility for it. It's the reason they advertise condoms as 99% effective, because there is always a chance of pregnancy.
And it's not human at that exact moment, but there is something to say that, if you don't intervene and forcibly remove it, it will grow into a human in a very short span of time. I think it should be given the chance that you basically gave it when the egg was fertilized.

Reply

+1

#26 to #19 - Salzar (09/21/2015) [-]

Makes me feel like wishing you had been aborted.

Reply

0

#76 to #26 - syntheticdoll (09/22/2015) [-]

Well too late.

Reply

+6

#31 to #19 - nudybooty (09/21/2015) [-]

I'm pro- dowhateveryouwant,justdon'tbeanass, but that was retarded.

Babies aren't parasites. They are symbiotic. Yes they require the mother to feed them and all the **** but if the mother organs gets hurt the baby is all like "Yo, mum. I got this **** " and the baby goes to work fixing it faster than it would a human without a baby. Also the mother gets a boost in hormones that makes sex better annnnd your cancer risk is reduced.

Parasites do absolutely nothing beneficial to the host.

Reply

+3

#4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

Did this comic just call letting a child be born and grow up a waste?

Reply

+17

#5 to #4 - someoneforamoment [OP](09/21/2015) [-]

No, it's talking about taking the right to abortion away from a woman and then not not giving a **** if she is able to or willing to care for the child.

Reply

-7

#6 to #5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

So because the child will have a life that isn't perfect then it should die?

Reply

+9

#7 to #6 - solain (09/21/2015) [-]

because a child's life is going to be either completely and utterly awful or dysfunctional (aka plant, severely autistic etc) or full of misery (forcing the mother into poverty and the child into depression)

yes, none of us is asked to be born. but at least leave a choice to be given.
If my child is going to be born brain dead or born into a world where he is going to be in living agony 24\7 I'd rather have him not born at all. it is called having empathy.

Reply

-4

#8 to #7 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

I must say I'm glad that no one decided my life would be too hard for me and killed me in the womb. Do you feel the same way? I feel it's unfair for anyone to make that decision for that child.

And while I agree that some unwanted pregnancies result in child abuse, I fail to see how that's the child's fault. If the child is miserable then is that not the fault of the mother and father who aren't taking care of it? If so then it sounds like the child is killed to prevent a burden on the parents.

But if your motive is to avoid the child suffering then why is no effort being made to prevent the parents from having sex in the first place?

And if you would kill a child that is born malformed then where does the line stop between malformed and just not optimal? Could I kill a child who is going to be so ugly she will surely be miserable and never marry?

Reply

+5

#9 to #8 - solain (09/21/2015) [-]

how is genetics anyone's fault? if a child is going to be born brain dead you think it is the right choice to let him be born? are you mental?

and efforts ARE made to prevents parents having sex in the first place, sex-ed classes, condoms, all of this to prevents teenagers from getting pregnant

don't be a twat, you know what ethics in conventional medicine are.
the line stops when a practiced doctor tells you that your child wouldn't be able to properly grow his brain, and than die at the age of six. that's where the line stop, if the parent can decide to do the abortion you are not the one to do the decisions for him.

Unless you willing to take care for each and every child that is born, sincerely go **** yourself with ******** arguments like "where we draw the line"

Reply

0

#30 to #9 - citruslord ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

Honestly it's shaky moral ground to be deciding anything that severe for someone. It pisses me off enough that my parents/doctors decided that I should have a piece of my dick cut off without my consent. I'm pretty glad that they didn't decide to put me out of my suffering before I was even able to suffer.

There is something to say to allowing for abortion for fetuses that would be born that far gone, but again, minority of cases and not a full defense of abortion if that is what you're going for.

Reply

-6

#10 to #9 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

Haha, are you down voting my messages as we argue?

But if you think condoms prevent sex you are mistaken. But if the goal is to keep unwanted pregnancy from happening then how is giving those same teens an easy out from the repercussions of their actions helping?

And I would say the mental one is the one who thinks they have a right to decide if a child should be born or not. Even a brain dead child is still alive, and who are you to say his or her life is so much more pitiful than yours that they should die?

But six years of life is better than none. Unless you think it's not. But perhaps I think that my child's life will be too much suffering despite being healthy. Why is your opinion on when a life should end right but mine wrong?

And I would be willing to take care of as many as I could. That number is none right now as I'm in no position to support more than myself but give me a few years and I should be able to make a difference. Not all clearly, but we'll see how much I can do. That seems like an different subject entirely though. But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly saying that at the LEAST it would be my tax dollars going into helping these children I need.

Reply

+5

#11 to #10 - solain (09/21/2015) [-]

yes, I am voting you down. because I disagree with you in every way possible.

ah yes, condoms don't help bring teens pregnancy rates down I am indeed mistaken aha flawless logic you trolling man?

let me repeat that for you "brain-dead", aka "he is technically dead but using a bunch of drugs and special costly medical procedures we can keep him alive till the age of six"

no, it isn't. ask a brain dead child how's it going and if he answers with anything else than silence than come back to me ok?

yes, sure you are. just like I would like to fly to Africa and save everyone. it looks very good on the resume

I really hope you are just trolling and not actually that dumb, like I really do hope that you understand what pain and suffering both the child and the parent go through when a brain dead child is born.

Reply

-5

#12 to #11 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

The condom thing is in reference to the some studies that suggest giving condoms to teens simply promotes more sex which leads to more pregnancies when they fail to use condoms every time. It's still up in the air whether this is a significant factor but it's the "seat belts cause accidents" sort of logic.

So you're saying that we shouldn't try to save or keep alive patients that are too far gone? That there is a cut off point where it's just too much hassle to try and keep a person alive? That seems selfish to me honestly.

And I hope you can understand that the pain and suffering of the parents means nothing. They had the child, it is their responsibility. Yes, that means an end to their autonomy. That's the price you pay when you have a child. You have to care for it and raise it as best you can even if it's not a perfect bouncing baby. And the idea that a parent should be allowed to kill an unwanted child simply because the child would be a burden is sickening. Everyone experiences pain. Life is pain. But it's also happiness and no life is pure suffering. Let the child suffer and let the child learn happiness. And if it can't then let it try before its body gives out. I don't know how you are so knowledgeable as to think death is preferable to a hard life but you very much need to reevaluate yourself if you think you have a right to make that choice for another human being.

Reply

+4

#20 to #12 - anon (09/21/2015) [-]

Teens are going to have sex regardless of whether they have access to birth control or not, at least access to condoms dramatically lower instances of STI's. A problem with abstinence only sex education is that kids don't understand the correct way to use condoms and the importance of appropriate lubrication to prevent tearing.

Reply

+4

#13 to #12 - solain (09/21/2015) [-]

ah yes, that one study... cool. really duper. condoms make teen pregnancies go higher you have heard it here first folks!

why should we keep a child that was born dead, only for it to be "alive for six years and live in absolute agony doing nothing learning nothing and achieving nothing. how backwards is your logic? do you think you are somehow progressive? or smart? what?

jesus christ almighty, allah in the sky, moses and all the other deities please help me.
this is exactly why we have ******* abortions in the first place, in order to stop unwanted pregnancies. or do you think that a fetus is a living organism? because if you think that a fetus is a living organism than you need to go and learn some biology m8

Reply

-5

#14 to #13 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

There's two that match with what I said. Feel free to look up others.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1070786/

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CG8QFjAJahUKEwj41tqQ-YjIAhUCET4KHQuRCZY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeaweb.org%2Faea%2F2015conference%2Fprogram%2Fretrieve.php%3Fpdfid%3D1120&usg=AFQjCNEAuRUT6eqOzK-F2FB6hqEzhQG5dg&sig2=XKZENzrDD34cAzfEFID4-A&bvm=bv.103073922,d.cWw

Because that child is technically alive just as a human vegetable is technically alive. Perhaps a cure for their condition can be found. A continued incubation process, a regenerative method to write what the dna would have written. The point is, why give up on that life? Why kill it just for convenience? Forget that it's an extreme and rare example, why assume that it's a worthless creature?

I only think I am being compassionate. Empathetic even. If I were to get in a car crash that left me utterly unable to do anything but lay there I wouldn't want to be killed. Life is precious and it will end, no need to hurry it along.

And don't misspeak. Abortion doesn't stop unwanted pregnancy, the pregnancy happened, it just ends it part way through. And I've studied it up and down. There's nothing about that fetus that isn't alive. It's a ball of cells but so are you. It's a human in all ways. You were that exact shape at one point as was I. And if left alone it will turn into what you are now. A full grown adult. If you have to take an action to stop it's bodily functions then that is murder my friend.

Reply

+2

#15 to #14 - solain (09/21/2015) [-]

mate, do you actually think that I am going to read up a research that researched a certain type of teens in certain area in a certain type of the world, to conclude specific results about condoms raising teenage pregnancy there and not automatically call it out as flawed? do you not use logic in your daily life? have you actually heard about the term "logic"? there is a whole human species out there yknow.
I want you to say "without condoms and contraceptives teenage pregnancy would go down" and actually mean it you twat.

convenience? I'm going to tell you this: you have no future in biology so let me help you with your future in philosophy; there is a concept that is a called the middle way or the golden road, i'm sure you have heard about it. and if you didn't than read up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_ (Judaism)
you are way way way too optimistic, wanna hear how brain dead people end their lives? at the age of 6-12 doing nothing but eating and ******** themselves.
yes, it is worthless. more so, it lives in pain. literally un-imaginable pain because it can't fathom the concept of "speech" just like you can't fathom the concept of "logic".

you didn't study **** you ******* idiot, it takes one minute of googling and one class of biology to learn the basic rules of determining what a living creature is, a fetus isn't becuase of the very very very simple reason that it can't even support itself.

I'm done talking to you, you are either trolling or actually brain dead.

Reply

-1

#82 to #15 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

If you had read anything I have said to you thus far you would know that I said the evidence for if condoms are useful for stopping teen pregnancy is still up in the air and undetermined. I never told you to just drop you idea and think condoms do nothing but you hear what you want to hear I suppose.

It's definitely best that we stop arguing seeing how you only want to send insults rather than facts. And no, a fetus can't support itself but neither can most parasites which are indeed living creatures.

Now is a fetus a parasite? Yes, I would definitely say they are and so are babies all the way up until the grow big enough to stop forcing their parents not to let them die. But that doesn't make them not human. In fact abortion is the act of directly killing those cells in order to stop the growth of a human from continuing. There is no other reason a woman gets an abortion that to stop a baby from happening and if you don't see how ending a human life is wrong then I don't know what else to say to you.

Reply

+1

#52 to #14 - anon (09/22/2015) [-]

From what standing is an extremely underdeveloped fetus comparable to a fully developed human being? It doesn't have any form of consciousness or perception whatsoever. By the "its a living ball of cells" argument one would reason that it should be wrong to terminate cancerous tumors because they are living as well, and will continue growing if left unchecked. And selfish? Whats selfish about terminating a fetus which is statistically more likely to lead a life of waste? One might argue that they might become the next Steve Jobs, or MLK, but that is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking, and by that logic you could reason that all blank canvases should be worth the Mona Lisa because they have the potential to house the work of the next Da Vinci.

Reply

0

#81 to #52 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

That fetus is equal to that developed human in "value." I think you have a flawed understanding of what makes a human life valuable. It doesn't matter if they grow up to be the next Tesla or the next cereal killer, they have a right to their life. A fetus is equal to a child is equal to a grown up is equal to an old person on their death bed.

And yes, by my logic all blank canvases are important if we're using that as analogy for human life. It doesn't matter if nothing is ever put on that canvas, it has a right to hold whatever it chooses. There has never been a wasted life.

As for the cancer cells, they will never become a separate entity that is I identifiable as a human being while a fetus is targeted for the very reason that it is a human being.

Reply

0

#71 to #12 - whycanticaps (09/22/2015) [-]

"So you're saying that we shouldn't try to save or keep alive patients that are too far gone? That there is a cut off point where it's just too much hassle to try and keep a person alive? That seems selfish to me honestly."

If I'm in a hospital with something that is going to guarantee my death and have me in some serious pain or some other severe bs, then yes, unplug me, take me off the support, do whatever, I'd rather not sit there and be useless/ waste away. It's not selfish, it just makes sense. Why prolong the suffering

Reply

0

#79 to #71 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

And that's fine for you. Go ahead and write that down so if that happens to you then people know your wishes. But that child never said that. That child never wrote that down or told anyone that it wanted to die. And so who gets to choose for it that we should stop trying to keep it alive? It's going to die anyway.

Reply

0

#84 to #79 - whycanticaps (09/22/2015) [-]

exactly, if it's going to die anyway why the hassle?

Reply

0

#85 to #84 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

Because you and I are going to die anyway too. There's just a time span between now and our deaths that we care about. Sure that child's time spank is shorter but does that give them any less right to it?

Reply

0

#87 to #85 - whycanticaps (09/22/2015) [-]

suppose I should have said death would be preferable to their quality of life, my bad

Reply

0

#86 to #85 - whycanticaps (09/22/2015) [-]

it does when their quality of life would be preferable to death by any sane person

Reply

0

#88 to #86 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

By who? Have you been in their position? Do you know they want to die? People live through some pretty horrible things and keep fighting to stay alive. Maybe you'd just give up like that but I wouldn't. So why exactly do you consider yourself qualified to speak for that child?

Reply

0

#89 to #88 - whycanticaps (09/22/2015) [-]

I can't argue any further, I have nothing to reply back with unfortunately. I can't quite get out what I'm thinking of in a way that makes sense. I apologize.

Reply

0

#90 to #89 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

It's cool. If you work it out do come back and let me know. I'm interested.

Reply

0

#63 to #12 - goddamnwizard (09/22/2015) [-]

Studies done exclusively by Fox News, from the way you talk

Reply

0

#60 to #8 - goddamnwizard (09/22/2015) [-]

Youre equating Unattractiveness with physical and mental disabilities. Are you... Are you retarded?

Reply

0

#80 to #60 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

My point with that comment is to say that why does he, or you, or anyone get to decide such things? Why is his opinion of what kinds of lives aren't worth living right? Is it not just as valid if I were to say I think living as an ugly person and suffering that way is just as bad or worse? It's an opinion and quite relative. My point is that he can't say that. Not that ugly people and disabilities are the same thing.

Reply

+1

#67 to #6 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

>Abortion is murder

Reply

0

#83 to #67 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

The single purpose of a woman getting an abortion is to stop a human life from happening. The difference between that an other forms of having sex and not getting pregnant is that the life has already started and nothing short of obliterating those cells will stop that life.

Reply

0

#91 to #83 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

***** , every time you jerk it you're killing life by wasting sperm. Sperm are living cells, and you're killing them. If you go by the logic of "muh living cells!!!1!1" then you should never jerk it ever again, because you're purposely destroying human life. The fetus is not alive, it is not capable of thought, it is a clump of cells just like sperm. Abortion is killing those cells. What's the deal?

Reply

0

#92 to #91 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

Sperm will not become a baby. No one is getting the sperm removed from their balls because it is going to grow into a baby. It takes a certain circumstance to make a baby and a sperm by itself does not meet those condition. A fetus, however, does. It is the beginning of a human and unless you destroy it it will become a fully grown human. Now I agree it can't think on a human level yet but that's not what makes it human. It's human because it will be able to if it continues to live.

The difference is that you were never just a sperm cell, nor were you ever just an egg. But when those two came together, you were that once. That's a human being, the very start of one granted, but a human none the less. And just because you are a bigger clump of cells than that little baby clump of cells doesn't make it any less human.

Reply

0

#93 to #92 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

No, the beginning of a human life is when a person is born, before then they're just a clump of unthinking, unfeeling cells being fed by a tube. The combining of a sperm and egg cell doesn't qualify as a human. Nothing qualifies as human until it's actually born, before then, like I said, it's a clump of cells. It can't even qualify as human, because something needs to be independent of a connected food source to be considered living. A fetus isn't alive, it's living cells but it is not alive. Would a beating heart, with living cells, being fed blood through tubes, be considered a living thing? No, because it's an unthinking, unfeeling clump of cells that's merely operating because of an outside source.

Reply

0

#94 to #93 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

Go kill a baby inside a pregnant woman and see if you get convinced of murder or not. I don't know how you don't even consider a baby not alive until it pops out of the mother.

And yes, something can be alive without being autonomous. Examples of this would be parasites that can't live anywhere but inside a host. Other examples are baby animals that would die within days if they didn't have their mother's milk to feed from. Being dependent on a certain food source does not constitute something being alive or not.

Reply

0

#95 to #94 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

There is a point where a fetus can be considered a baby, but there are rules for abortions that make it so past a certain point it can't be aborted, so I don't know what your problem is with that. The difference between a parasite and a fetus is that the parasite responds to change, and is an independently functioning organism. Every living thing needs certain conditions to survive, and for some parasites, that's inside the host. Baby animals aren't compatible to fetuses, because baby animals are autonomous, think, feel, and react to changes in the environment. Something cannot be alive without being autonomous. Sure, some cells can survive on their own, act independently, and react to their environments to find food sources, such as amoeba or bacteria, so they can be considered autonomous, but they are not alive in the way that animals or people are. The clump of cells that makes up a fetus are not even autonomous, because they are not capable of acting independently, which is the whole definition of the word. What thing with life isn't autonomous?

Reply

0

#96 to #95 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

Literally everything. Everything requires something else to live. Humans can't live outside of the Earth without taking a bubble of Earth with them. Neither can animals or anything else. It's all a balance, the gazelle eat the grass and we become the grass when we die, did you not watch the lion king? Your definition of autonomy seems to count everything except the things you want to count.

And a fetus does react. Granted it's reactions are not bold or dynamic but it reacts. It's anchored to a single place but so are plants. It moves around a bit but it doesn't have much to do seeing how its food is provided for it in the body just like any other parasite. And it's not in a phase where it can reproduce yet. You're confusing the fact that it can't move for lack of life but there is very much life. It required nutrients. It is growing constantly. And given time its life cycle is going to bring it into even your definition autonomy. And so yes, ending that life cycle at any point, including the beginning, is killing that organism.

And if you want further proof why don't you take a dna sample form the mother and the fetus. They aren't identical. Why? Because it's not the mother, it's not the father, it's a combination of the two.

Reply

0

#97 to #96 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

The definition of autonomous and being able to independently. A fetus can not act, and is not independent, so therefor does not fit the definition. Everything needs certain conditions to live, and for a parasite that is inside another living things body, but that doesn't make a parasite and fetus comparable. www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

Additionally, a plant is rooted and is a living thing, but that doesn't mean it is alive. It grows, it requires nourishment, but it doesn't have feelings, and has no potential to think. The same thing can be said about a fetus. Living cells=/=alive.

I never disputed that a fetus was a combination of the dna of two people, so I don't really know why you brought that up.

Reply

0

#98 to #97 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

I never said the fetus was a real parasite, only that it is comparable to one.

You don't think know what constitutes life if you don't think a plant is alive. You might want to go look up the definition in a scientific light. A fetus definitely exhibits all of these things and while it doesn't "think" neither do most living things.

The reason I bring it up is because the only possible way that you might say it's not life is that it is part of the mother. But I guess that, the most logical and common argument for pro choice, isn't even your argument.

Reply

0

#99 to #98 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

Like I had previously said, it is living, it is not alive, alive meaning capable of thought, emotion, and feelings pain like animals and humans are. Back to my 2nd comment of how sperm is alive but is not living. Legal abortion is killing living cells, but that does not mean it is murder in any sense of the word. It's like pulling out a flower, or jerking off. I say legal abortion because after a certain point, a fetus will actually feel pain, but that's at a very late stage.

Reply

0

#100 to #99 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

And that's not the definition of alive. No one's definition except yours maybe. What you are describing is conscious. As in capable of higher thought, which most animals aren't.

And sperm does not fill all the requirements of life because sperm does not reproduce. It is part of reproduction but alone it is not a species nor does it grow. It's is produced but it does no replace itself or get bigger or have any real life cycle. An embryo does, the human life cycle.

Bugs do not feel pain. They lack the nerves and brain power to do so. Does that mean you can't kill a bug?

Reply

0

#101 to #100 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

By alive I mean conscious, so yeah. I wasn't saying that sperm is an organism, I was saying that it is a type of living cell that is not capable of consciousness, like a plant or a fetus, but you seemed to have skipped that part entirely.

You last statement proves my point though, because we kill bugs which are not capable of pain, exactly like a fetus in the stages that it can be aborted.

Reply

0

#102 to #101 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

Yes we kill bugs but how does it prove your point? If it's ok to kill a bug then how is it ok to kill a human being still in the womb? A human is above a bug, always.

And your comment was that "sperm is alive but not living" which is rather nonsensical.

Reply

0

#103 to #102 - mrsexmuffins ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

"Bugs do not feel pain"-you "Fetuses do not feel pain"-me. You're alright with killing a bug because it has no feelings, because it is not capable of having them, and I compared that to how a fetus is not capable of feeling anything either. And it's not a human being, "hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."
Man, woman, or child. A fetus is none of those things. It is a clump of cells that has the potential to become human. Every sperm or egg cell has potential to become human, a fetus is just further along in the reproduction process.

"It is living but not alive"-me "By alive I mean conscious"-also me. That makes complete sense

I'm pretty done with this though, since you seem to be completely ignoring everything I'm saying, and just saying whatever comes to mind to defend yourself instead of responding to what I put on the table. So have a nice time, and have fun being having a mindset on abortion that's dying out as we speak.

Reply

-1

#104 to #103 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/23/2015) [-]

The logic was that you can indeed kill something that doesn't feel pain. Earlier you said that you cannot kill something that does not feel pain because that means it's not alive. So the bug being kill-able but not alive was merely to show the flaw in your logic. There is no reason to think that that means it's ok to kill everything that is alive but doesn't feel pain.

And I agree, a fetus isn't a grown human being yet. But as you said, it has the potential to become one unless one single thing happens. And that thing is that it is killed. So if you kill a fetus you are ending the life of a human. It's really that simple.

Then you really need to say what you mean because alive and conscious do not mean the same thing.

As far as not listening I don't see how I'm not. I'm directly quoting you and asking you to define your words so I can better understand. If that's not listening to your arguments then I don't know what is.

And I agree, morality is starting to die out in this part of the world. It's sad really when a bay can be killed to keep it from inconveniencing someone else.

Reply

+1

#18 to #6 - syntheticdoll (09/21/2015) [-]

it's not "not perceft" it's a life with parents who never wanted him and probably can't even afford raising him. Do you really want a kid to grow up like that?

Reply

0

#78 to #18 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

I'd rather a child grow up with a crappy life than be killed instead, yes. I'm no saying I'd want that life if I could choose. But if my life ever ends up with me sleeping in a box and not sure where my next meal will come from please no one decide to come up and "put me out of my misery" to save me from suffering it.

Reply

0

#43 to #5 - oxymoronking (09/22/2015) [-]

i think the right to life should outweigh that

Reply

+1

#53 to #43 - colossusshadow ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

You can think that all you want
But bodily autonomy is the most important human beings have so much that you can't even save someone's life with the organs of someone who is already dead without prior consent for that dead person to donate organs.
So I don't know why a living person can't choose what imposes on their body.

Reply

-5

#24 to #5 - lulzdealer ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

>abortion
>a right

Reply

+17

#23 - lulzdealer ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

>implying abortion isn't just whores not wanting to take responsibility for being whores

Reply

-2

#57 to #23 - platinumaltaria ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]

Surely if you're going to whore you take precautions. ******* noob...

Reply

+2

#27 to #23 - Salzar (09/21/2015) [-]

I honestly think this is true in almost all cases but rape. Another possibility could potential be when there are worries about either the baby or the mother dying during birth.

Reply

+2

#41 to #23 - someoneforamoment [OP](09/22/2015) [-]

It also seems to be that unwanted teen pregnancy is rampant in places where the only sex ed in schools consists of "abstinence only or your crotch will die off."

While there will always be people who find that their kid will be deathly ill and die at the age of six, the majority of the number of abortions done can be resolved by simply teaching proper education so that teens (and the adults the eventually become) have an understanding of what they're actually getting into.

Reply

-2

#58 to #41 - goddamnwizard (09/22/2015) [-]

Because Conservatives are afraid that their imaginary friend will hate them for teaching their kids to not be stupid with their sexual behavior.

Reply

+22

#32 to #23 - bronywiseman (09/21/2015) [-]

Well, if she's that much of a whore, do you really think she's fit to raise a child?

Reply

-3

#33 to #32 - lulzdealer ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]

adoption

Reply

+11

#38 to #33 - letting

(09/22/2015) [-]

Yeah, let's fill our already-full orphanages and foster-homes with more unwanted children, that's a great use of resources.

Let's face it, abortion isn't going anywhere. Make it illegal and it will go underground and become much less safe and sterile, but it will still occur. You might not agree with it, but that's how it is.

Reply

0

#42 to #38 - oxymoronking (09/22/2015) [-]

murder still happens, but that dosent mean it should be legal

Reply

+2

#45 to #42 - anon (09/22/2015) [-]

Murder is illegal because your killing an already developed human being with a fully developed personality. All abortion does is undo insemination and remove the earliest stages of a fetus.

Reply

-2

#47 to #45 - oxymoronking (09/22/2015) [-]

does that mean its okay to murder a newborn beacuse they do not have fully developed personalities
im not saying fetuses are equal to babies, but just because id rather a staring african child die than my mother does not mean i want the child to die.

Reply

-1

#56 to #47 - anon (09/22/2015) [-]

at the earliest stages of a fetus they dont even have brains
babies already do
this isnt a fair analogy.

Reply

0

#59 to #56 - oxymoronking (09/22/2015) [-]

but most abortions happen after 2 weeks, after the brain has started to develop

Reply

+5

#34 to #33 - bronywiseman (09/21/2015) [-]

Jesus Christ YFW.

Reply

0

#64 to #32 - douthit (09/22/2015) [-]

There are plenty of mothers with toddlers who aren't perfect parents.

But that doesn't mean homicide is a moral choice.

Reply

-3

#70 to #64 - bronywiseman (09/22/2015) [-]

It doesn't matter what you think.
It's not your kid.
Until that child is out of the womb, it is not a human.
It is a piece of the mother.
A piece of her body, that she may do with as she wishes.
A very emotion-centric, semi-sentient part of her body, but a part of her body nonetheless.

If I had a child, that I didn't plan, I would never, ever get an abortion.
But it's not up to me to decide for the entirety of women.
Her body, her choice.

And riddle me this, what is better, to die, wishing you had lived? Or to live, wishing you had died?
Surely, the first is not pleasant,
but you don't have to care.
You're dead.
You literally won't know what you're missing.
It's sad, but it's a short decisive sad.

But the alternative?
Destructive.
Horrible.
Imagine if your mother wanted to abort you, but couldn't.
Imagine living your life, as an unwanted husk of a human. Only pitied by a faceless law. Unloved, a mistake. A little nothing.
A living, breathing, inconvenience to the world.
It wouldn't be long until he took his life, I'm rather sure.

Unwanted children, as unfortunate and cold and heartlessly cynical as it may seem, must be disposed of.
So when would you rather they die?
A faceless fetus, missed by four at most?
Or a full grow man, leaving friends and family and an entire life behind, hollow and ruined?

It's not life or death.
It's pain, or agony.
Dejection, or depression.
Physical scars, or mental ones.

Reply

0

#73 to #70 - Ruspanic (09/22/2015) [-]

A fetus is objectively not a part of the mother's body. It's a distinct organism. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, don't muddle the facts.

Reply

+2

#17 - jimkid (09/21/2015) [-]

that's not how the analogy would go

ordering it would be the procreation, paying for it would be the raising it not eating it

if you cant pay for it don't order it (im well aware there are circumstances to everything im not here to start a debate im just disagreeing with the metaphor)

Reply

+2

#21 to #17 - darrenblackfox (09/21/2015) [-]

I feel it would be more like aborting would equate to canceling the order. That's the waste. A perfectly good steak, and because of whatever reasons, you decide you don't want it and it's not for you, so instead, you cancel your order after it's started to be cooked.

Reply

0

#55 to #21 - goddamnwizard (09/22/2015) [-]

Maybe. But that's like having half of everyone in the restaurant cancel their order. Sure, a couple of those steaks might be eaten by someone else but the majority will go to the trash.
If you're gonna argue that all fostered children will be immediately adopted you're very wrong. Most of them never will be. Especially if abortion is made illegal. That would make the crowding even worse.

Reply

0

#77 to #55 - darrenblackfox (09/22/2015) [-]

I agree with that, which is why I ended my analogy where I did. If the answer were so cut and dry like the steaks we're using as an analogy, we'd have come to a solution as a country. The problem is the pro choice people ignore the downside of making abortions illegal, but they're stubborn enough to keep it going. If they had some sort of solution then they'd have an argument, but right now, all it is is people fighting without an alternative solution to the problem.

Reply

+3

#22 - ridivey (09/21/2015) [-]

thank you based C&H

Reply

-1

#36 - severepwner (09/21/2015) [-]

Oh yes because Pro-Life endorses you to create babies you don't want.

Also this analogy is ******* dumb. It would be more appropriate if Pro-Life opposed you discarding the perfectly good steak because no one really wanted it. Even though you're the dumbass that cooked it.

Don't ******* cook steaks you don't want, and don't get mad when someone tries to prevent you from throwing out an entire cooked steak just because you accidentally cooked a steak you didn't want.

Reply

0

#44 to #36 - injin (09/22/2015) [-]

Yeah i think the analogy works better to say, I'm a customer and i order a steak then half way through it being made i decide i don't want it anymore and demand they throw it out. at that point it would be a waste and could still be valuable to another person (adoption)

Reply

-1

#25 - anon (09/21/2015) [-]

******* liberals, comparing steak to human lives. You make me sick. You all are going to rot in hell hippies

Reply

-2

#40 to #25 - thelegitman (09/22/2015) [-]

you'll probably get red-thumbed to **** but i feel you fam, this b.s. propaganda is absolutely disgusting, people have forgotten the value of human life, we don't realize that it could've be us getting aborted, all the memories and dreams we create, all fading away. who wants that?

Reply

-1

#1 - lathyrusvii (09/21/2015) [-]

Heheh. Ahahahah...

hahahAHAHahahah... oh... man. But that's really acurate.

Reply

-1

#2 to #1 - lathyrusvii (09/21/2015) [-]

OH GOD ACCURATE* OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH GOD... DAMMIT, HOW CAN I **** UP SUCH A SIMPLE ******* WORD.

THAT'S IT. I'M COMMITTING BED-SUICIDE.

THE WHOLE BED, YOU GUYS. GOOD ******* NIGHT.

Talk to you tomorrow after a whole bed-suicide is complete. Maybe. If I ******* even care to talk to you plebians.

Reply

-1

#3 - eatwaffles (09/21/2015) [-]

**eatwaffles used "*roll picture*"**
**eatwaffles rolled image** Thats.....! Thats....! .....pretty spot on. I wonder if the comment section will explode later?

Reply

0

#74 - anon (09/22/2015) [-]

I don't agree with abortion. Show me your worst

Reply

0

#75 to #74 - thatlaxguy (09/22/2015) [-]

forgot to log in

Reply

0

#72 - anon (09/22/2015) [-]

This is a pretty poor analogy. More accurately, being pro-life is like seeing a bunch of people ordering steaks when they aren't hungry and then saying they don't want them once they've already started cooking.

Reply

0

#68 - themastertroller ONLINE (09/22/2015) [-]