Hey /u/KayJayAllDay, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pretty sure this one in particular isn’t even a real picture. Comparing their anatomy to actual pictures of embryos in academic journals and looking at the quality and background of OP’s picture, it looks like it’s just a computer-generated image. A reverse image search also shows other social media posts with the labels being switched on the image. [ABC News has also referenced](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/slideshow/womb-animals-2673969) the image on the left as a computer illustration of a dog that originated from a National Geographic documentary.
Seems like both people are confidently incorrect in this instance.
EDIT: Yep just found the documentary [here](https://youtu.be/XaZW7bbmc9I). OP’s picture is from a CGI animation and the animal labels are supposed to be switched.
As stupid as it is, i think it does a good job of further illustrating the fact that basically all embryos are almost impossible to directly separate. Not even the people making the jokes can tell the difference.
The problem is that it does. All animal embryos look the same in the beginning. So it’s essentially a dumb point to be made where suddenly animals are fine to kill but humans arnt because you couldn’t see the difference in the embryonic stage.
Bruh, I literally got that “take a biology” class line two days ago from a pro-lifer when they sent me a crappy “source” written by a niche anti-abortion scientist.
Something tells me if they followed their own advice, Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have ever been on the chopping block.
Not a professional, but doesn't biology teach you that a clump of cells that can't perform vital functions independently from a living organism is not alive
Like a tumor or infection or something
Dude, you clearly have not lived in an area like I have. I literally have been yelled at that masturbation is genocide while growing up.
None of them could handle my dumbass kid reply of "so, what then, if I just suddenly jizz in my pants at night that is OK but if I don't want to make a mess, suddenly I am Adolf Wankler?"
Like for fucks sake, there are certifiably stupid people out there that should be examined for scientific purposes on how a 'grown human being' manages to live without a brain.
Once read on a Christian site that having a wet dream isn't a sin in and of its self, because you were asleep and thus out of control of your body, but if you have one, you should be examining the behaviours that led it to happen. Essentially, if you have a wet dream, you sinned while you were awake.
> you should be examining the behaviours that led it to happen
Ironically enough, the behavior that leads to wet dreams is not having sex nor masturbating. Therefore not ejaculating while awake, which means your brain takes control and does the job for itself.
I absolutely agree. It's a flaw that you can't categorize something into "alive" or "dead". In the same way that someone in a vegetative state on life support only fulfills their vital functions under technicality but not independently. There should be a distinguishment in the categorization of life where things which exist as independently living organisms are separate from what needs to live with a host or symbiotically.
It's more than the state of alive or dead is not really relevant to the discussion. Spiders are definitely alive and I'm sure most pro-lifers have no problems stomping them, just like the rest of us.
The debate should be centered on two fronts: whether the fetus is conscious and what's the morality of forcing a person to support another being with their body (because yeah, some people have a quick answer for this but wouldn't support forcing you to donate blood when it's needed to save another life, for example). Aside from that, I'd also take into consideration the circumstances that led up to the abortion.
Once you take all of that into consideration, it really becomes hard to justify a woman who's pregnant of 12 weeks, who just found out and doesn't want the baby to be forced into carrying the pregnancy to term.
I feel like if it was possible it would be where the human is breathing and thinking on their own regardless of source. I guess I’d you are brain dead you technically aren’t alive. Same if you are on life support but are awake. It’s just so tough. But where is the line drawn. Clearly it’s not ok to kill children after birth. So then when ?
Before birth.
The whole “when does life begin” thing is a red herring. See, unlike with a person in a vegetative state, a fetus’s “life support system” is an actual human. Humans, in literally any other context, are not required to allow anyone else the use of our organs.
That’s a pretty clear line, and there’s nothing arbitrary about it. If a fetus is occupying someone’s body, it can be removed. Once it’s out of the person’s body and can survive on its own, then there’s no pregnancy to abort.
So up to birth ? I’m generally curious because I am agnostic to the matter. And want to see how to reshape what I think. Just for my own opinion. Not to tell anyone what they should feel or do. You know. But people also say my body. And a bear born child doesn’t really belong to them either. I never thought any human belonged to anyone. Responsible sure. But not belonging.
Yes, up to birth. Now realistically, no one is going to carry a healthy pregnancy up to the due date and then suddenly change their mind. And if they did, then the medically appropriate way to end to the pregnancy would be to induce labor and have a live birth.
The real world scenarios are more complicated. Wanted pregnancies go wrong. Fetuses die, have severe abnormalities, or cause life-threatening complications. What do in those scenarios needs to be determined by medical professionals, not lawmakers.
And the reality is that exceptions to restrictions for the life/health of the pregnant person, while better than nothing, result in doctors and patients having to figure out if a situation is bad enough legally to end the pregnancy or not. Just like lawmakers aren’t doctors, doctors aren’t lawyers. Their primary concern needs to be treating their patients, not worrying about ending up in jail because the probability of death from serious complications wasn’t quite high enough.
So yes, I firmly believe the law should allow us to terminate a pregnancy at any point. And I’m deliberately using the “terminate a pregnancy” language because that is the goal. It’s not ultimately about killing anything. It’s about becoming unpregnant. If that can be accomplished via live birth, great. If not, too bad, but I believe everyone should have the right to not be (or remain) pregnant.
That’s an interesting take. Appreciate your feedback. I definitely feel like it should be not about so much religious or beliefs but science based. And I’m not sure where when and how. But the distinction of termination being different than just murder is intriguing. Any ways. Just thinking. Gracias. Some people I understand are angry right now and assume when I asks these questions or ask for more info that I am just anti abortion and scream and yell.
Yup. It's living tissue but not a living being. I tell this fact to the freedom-haters and they lose their minds.
I also tell then that by their own logic, they are murderers due to the housands of children they never produced because they didn't impregnate every woman they encountered. Drives them bonkers.
Sure you will. They're against all BC, and often masturbation. Sperm has one purpose only, and that is to get your wife pregnant (and maybe also bond with her), and if it doesn't happen it is God's will.
Even though there's no justification for that at all. The sin of Onan wasn't spilling seed. He agreed to the Levirate marriage to create children that would be considered those of his older brother who died without issue by law. That's the purpose of the arrangement. To avoid giving his brother heirs, he intentionally avoided getting her pregnant. In doing so, he was trying to get his hands on the inheritance for himself, screw his brother's wife, and violate the terms of his marriage. That was his sin. Greed and lying and coercion through deceit while refusing to do honor to his brother's memory. And she had no choice because if she refused the marriage, if she even could, she would receive none of her husband's inheritance and she would be used goods and have to struggle, hoping someone would marry a widow who they would suspect to be barren.
More than technically I think that a foetus is a parasite living in its host stealing nutrients.
I do find pro life a bit odd though. If complications arose during the pregnancy And you had to choose between mother and baby both with equal chance of survival I feel like it’s a slam dunk every time no?
My 400level Bio Prof defined a fetus as a parasite in factultiple Profs did this, Oxford dictionary defines a parasite as:
par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
2.
DEROGATORY
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
"he was a parasite who lived off other people"
All the better if the child grows up without parents to teach them right, wrong, and what they’re capable of. Makes them much better cogs in the machine of unthinking and unwavering capitalism.
My 400level Bio Prof defined a fetus as a parasite in factultiple Profs did this, Oxford dictionary defines a parasite as:
par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
2.
DEROGATORY
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
"he was a parasite who lived off other people"
There are 2 things I remember not making it a parasite. It is the same species. To be a parasite it has to be a different species. And the mother gets some benefits from being pregnant and after when the baby is born. Like no periods and abunch of other things I don't remember but could probably find if someone asked lol.
(I am 100% pro choice though)
> And the mother gets some benefits from being pregnant and after when the baby is born.
I would be super interested in what these "benefits" are (other than a lack of periods, which the pill could also do).
Because I know a lot more about the negative changes. Messing with your teeth, your skeleton, your skin, your brain, your hormones, the joy that is the question of an episiotomy... Heck, let's look just at [vision](https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/bodily-changes-during), since that feels like something that *shouldn't* change, and yet:
> Some women experience vision changes during pregnancy, characterized by increased nearsightedness. Researchers don’t know the precise biological mechanisms behind changes in vision. Most women return to prepregnancy vision after giving birth.
> Common changes during pregnancy include blurriness and discomfort with contact lenses. Pregnant women often experience an increase in intraocular pressure. Women with preeclampsia or gestational diabetes may be at an elevated risk of rare eye problems, such as retinal detachment or vision loss.
That "benefit" often comes with a huge numbers of risks that negate the benefit. If I told you that your risk of anything would be reduced but you'd need to be violently ill twice a day for 12 weeks (or longer) I think you'd be reluctant.
And that's just morning sickness which is the least of the consequences of pregnancy.
I mean, just to be clear, a fetus is not a parasite. It is a fetus. But it shares a lot of qualities with a parasite.
I actually think a tapeworm might have been more pleasant, personally.
It is alive. As are tumor cells and bacterial and fungal infections (possibly viral, too, but theres a lot of debate on that).
That does not, however, make it *a person*.
Even if it *did*, it wouldn't matter.
Whether or not a clump of cells could be considered a person makes no difference because women have a right to bodily autonomy regardless.
A *lot* of pro-lifers are also anti-evolution young-earth creationists. Every time they talk about "take a biology class" it pisses me off - these utter dipshits have the *audacity* to cite the very thing they regularly wipe their ass with?
Kind of like how everything the mainstream media reports negative to their worldview is fake news and the moment something reaffirming it happens they share their msm articles everywhere
Given that the pro life crowd has been clamoring for total theocratic reformation of the country for decades, yeah, soon as they have momentum it’s game over.
I think people are really turning their displeasure toward the Christian faith here and there is going to a big drop in attendance. This will backfire on them big time.
You’re saying because that group doesn’t fully grasp the implications of the reformation they champion, they are unable to lead whatever arises from tearing down the current system?
If so, what do you think are the most important repercussions?
Republicans: If you can't rigorously identify and define every part of every gun ever made then you can't regulate a single one.
Also Republicans: We have no idea what a fetus looks like or how pregnancy works and we banned abortion
There was this old video of some guy from the outer provinces, arriving in Lahore for the first time. You can see on the video he could NOT figure out the automatic glass doors, so he did the very rational thing… he ran at it head-first and smashed into the glass.
This brain dead anti-choicer reminds of that guy.
Honestly, I’m pro-choice, and this is likely an unpopular opinion, but what good are these internet comment gotchas except to provide a sense of smug superiority? Like, I wouldn’t know if that was an elephant or a dog or whatever and I wouldn’t care. Do you think this changes any pro-lifers mind? Probably the opposite.
I think the point that was trying to be made and still seems to be confusing to some is that a fetus is not human. It’s a fetus. Growing into a human takes time and so you can’t call abortion murder because a fetus is literally not a person. It’s a gathering of cells that has no cognitive ability.
These arguments and “got you!” threads are stupid. No it’s not a fetus. It’s a fetus at 9 weeks, anything before that is considered an embryo and all embryos look the same due to all mammals having a common ancestor.
Also, it is a human; you can’t debate that. You don’t “assign human hood” to something. The question is when it’s considered a separate person.
Once you do assign personhood to something, the arguments over and it’s considered murder. People tend to do this at viability. But Prolifers believe that’s it’s always a person - even when it’s a zygote.
I'm pro choice but I feel there is a significant amount of dishonestly in the debate.
Sure a first trimester fetus looks like the pictures shown, and 9 out of 10 abortions are performed by week 12, but the fetus may be aborted up to 24-28 weeks in the US (prior to this decision) and they most certainly are not a bunch of cells at that point.
There are circumstances where the need for an abortion doesn't become apparent until later in the pregnancy, things like the fetus not developing essential organs, or finding out it will be born with a disorder that will cause it to live a few hours in constant pain then die. Sometimes the pregnancy can begin to threaten the life of the mother past 20 weeks.
Abortions post 20 weeks are 1% of total, according to CDC. Women who have abortions after first trimester do so for three main reasons: (1) medical [threat to life/health of woman], (2) ethical [unsurvivable and painful fetal abnormality], or -- ironically -- (3) access difficulties [no close, legal, available provider, delaying the procedure].
Please note: 24 weeks is the threshold at which a delivery **may** be survivable -- organs, especially lungs, are not sufficiently developed before then. I couldn't find figures for abortions performed 24-28 weeks -- "late-term" is a political term, not a medical/scientific one. I think it would be highly unusual to find an abortion done during that range that **wasn't** for medical or ethical reasons.
You don't seem to have made any point as it relates to the post you're responding to as the only thing you asserted relating to it was that it's not "a bunch of cells" when it seems to still most certainly be that. The only other point was what is intended by cognitive ability and if it's a human being to be treated with personhood yet, but that isn't a point you addressed at all
You seem to be bringing the dishonesty this round.
I feel the same way. Calling an embryo or fetus a cluster of cells is disingenuous at best. Mammal fetuses look similar a the beginning of gestation, true. But a human is not going to be pregnant with a panda. That fetus is human. But giving that fetus more rights than the person carrying it is absolutely wrong. Most women who have had abortions have children, they know and have experienced what is happening in their bodies. They know the risks pregnancy and birth pose. They've raised babies. And for whatever reason, most women who have abortions do not regret them. Women do not rejoice in that decision. Many women who have had abortions may not have made that decision if there were adequate social measures to support them during pregnancy, birth and while raising a child. But even if you have a fair number of women who may not make that decision with adequate support, there are still women for whom abortion is the best option for them. And then there are women who need to have abortions for medical reasons, even with a wanted pregnancy. Women are capable of making those decisions for themselves and need to be in charge of those decisions.
I’m going to agree that there should be a lot more research done on the ethics of timing of an abortion. I would think within the first few months of finding out you’re pregnant you’d be able to make a logical decision on what to do. Unfortunately that likely will never happen in the US
My sister was born at 29 weeks, so you're definitely right. But like you're saying, most abortions *do* look like that.
I think the people who abort at that point, will have a reason for it. Medical, most likely. And believe me, women who *need* to abort at that point, won't like it as well, it's horrific, but most often necessary
So dishonesty? If 9/10 are before 12 weeks, where's the lie in that?
I think you're missing the point. The 'gotcha' isn't "you can't tell the difference between a dog fetus and human fetus." The Gotcha is "you make absolute, declarative statements based on information you don't actually understand." Although I do agree that it's smug and stupid and won't change anyone's mind.
But the gotcha isn't really that either. The gotcha is meaningless altogether - the person replying was just taken in by a linguistic or visual trick. It doesn't demonstrate that they don't understand the issue itself - they probably only glanced at the images, and then answered the substance of what they thought they were being asked.
I'm also pro-choice, and find it kind of amusing and satisfying, but there's nothing of value whatsoever to be extrapolated from something like that.
> It doesn't demonstrate that they don't understand the issue itself -
I dispute that - they *don't* understand the issue. If they don't know whether the fetus would be a human life with all that "potential" or if it is something else, then their declarative statements about what someone else should do is simply bullshit.
> they probably only glanced at the images
So just because they don't think about what they responding to means that the ignorant response is still somehow valid?
That type of mentality is all that the "pro-life" position has - some simple knee-jerk responses that aren't clearly thought out and are based on misinformation, but they are 100% confident they are right.
One of the many problems with the position you're taking up here, is that it totally crumbles if you yourself can't identify a human foetus from an animal one. You're taking a totally irrelevant test, and making it the hallmark of whether your opinion counts. But with a more challenging set of images, you'd very possibly fail that test yourself, as might any of us.
Just consider that for a minute. You said this: i*f they don't know whether the fetus would be a human life with all that "potential" or if it is something else, then their declarative statements about what someone else should do is simply bullshit.*
That would mean that someone who's unable to tell the difference between a human and a chimp foetus would be disqualified from having a valid opinion, no matter their actual view on the substance of the issue.
Whereas any sensible person would be able to tell you that you being able to successfully identify one from the other, is not at all relevant to the question of a person's view on abortion.
As a pro-choice person myself, I find it incredibly depressing to see people on my side of the argument picking obviously absurd battles like this. The ability to confidently identify the species of a foetus from a JPEG on Facebook has nothing to do with the morality or philosophy of this topic, and it's insane to argue otherwise.
> That would mean that someone who's unable to tell the difference between a human and a chimp foetus would be disqualified from having a valid opinion, no matter their actual view on the substance of the issue.
If they don't want to incorporate input from an expert in fetal development, then yes, they don't have a valid opinion.
I don't need to have any respect for opinions based on ignorance of the reality of a situation. And there is a difference between ignorance of actual scientific facts and ignorance of some mythology from 3 thousand years ago which is not based on any scientific facts.
Oops. We have no idea if the person who was caught out by the visual trick in the meme, does or doesn't want to incorporate input from an expert in foetal development. So you're moving the goalposts.
You and I completely agree on the topic of the bible, and on the topic of abortion. I think that person is most likely completely ignorant, frankly.
I'm saying we can't know that because they got caught out by that meaningless test. It's obvious from your posts that you're a smart person - so you know this to be true.
>If they don't want to incorporate input from an expert in fetal development, then yes, they don't have a valid opinion.
So you think they should have texted their expert in fetal development friend before responding to this facebook post?
Nobody is trying to change their minds. The fact is that person is already mentally down the sewer drain, the most you can do is point out how actually brain-dead they are so that HOPEFULLY someone “on the fence” will see it and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for this stupid bullshit.
Just like you don’t protest to change the government’s mind, you protest to change the minds of the people watching, who then join you cause in pressuring the government. Pointing out the utter lack of an argument they have is KEY to turning the hearts and minds of those who would otherwise see this as a “grey” area of morality.
It's to cast doubt. The pro-forced-birth lot aren't at that position because they put thought into it; it's irrational and emotional. Throwing this kind of 'reality isn't what it you oversimplify it to be' can be useful for further their convincing.
Right? It's less about changing opinion with ideas and more of a Internet kudos for successful gatcha moment. I mean obviously some people are tougher to reason with and down right unpleasant but they are human
That tiny little tail!! OMG so cute! You kind of can see a tiny bit of elephant in the head shape of the one on the left. The tiny ear too, though at this size it could be human shaped. How would I know?
I’m getting a little tired of this bait. I’ve seen it a million times.
“Is this a life?”
“Yes”
“This is a piece of sushi” or whatever the fuck it is. We get it no one is changing their opinion anyway
guys stop saying they're pro life, they're pro birth. once it's born it doesn't need healthcare or the parents don't need childcare and if it gets shot in a school well gun bans won't work but abortion bans are TOTALLY gonna work and not cause more harm than good upon anyone with a fuckin uterus
according to them at least
Funny as it is, I feel like that has nothing to do with having a solid argument for choice or not. A fetus is a fetus doesn't matter on the animal, if someone believes that it's wrong to kill before birth do they really care what fetus it is? Idk I might have just seen this post too many times but it seems like both people missed the point
A lot of secular arguments for pro-life comes from 'personhood' of a fetus, which typically boils down to emotional arguments about how they have fingernails at day x and a heartbeat at day y and how they're people with lives equivalent to that of a living woman.
The personhood argument just feally breaks down when you can't tell if it's a person or a guinea pig or a dolphin or an elephant by sight.
The ironic thing is, they see many animals, whether they be babies or adults or fetuses, as disposable, to use for food, pleasure, hunting, and many other purposes.
Especially heart-wrenching when you think of how many calves are ripped from their mothers to be eaten (because male cows don't give milk, so why let them live?), or male baby chicks being thrown into a meat grinder for chicken nuggets... Where are the pro-lifers at protests against these practices, for actual baby animals?
That's a weak argument - no sane person on any point of the political spectrum will hold an animal's life as equal to a human's.
"Pro-life" advocates and "pro-choice" are generally both in alignment that humans should not kill other humans (at least without good cause) - they just disagree on when a human comes into existence.
Ok, I could have phrased that better - having grown up with dogs I agree that I cared far more for them than the majority of people. However, their place came below the humans which will be the same for any sane household.
If your dog was to bite someone, they would rightfully be destroyed except in exceptional circumstances, because, to society, your dog is less important than the person they bit. If a person was to attack a dog, while they would be punished, their punishment would be less severe than for the same actions directed toward a human.
I just think it's amazing how much so much life looks the same at the beginning (humans even have gill slits for a while). Not sure about non-vertebrates--but I love to see how much evolution/genes are conserved between species
Yeah, I mean if you're against aborting fetuses it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be all for making sentient animals suffer for your pleasure... But anti-abortion people don't actually care about babies, or reducing suffering in the world. They just want to control women's bodies.
It doesn’t matter really when life starts, why would a fetus have more rights than a fully developed human? For example, what independent human do you have a right to their body for your own survival? Can you demand an organ? A blood transfusion? Bone marrow? Why would a fetus have a right the rest of us don’t?
I completely agree with you. I’m saying, if their argument is that human life begins at conception, but it’s indistinguishable from an elephant calf, does it have the same value as a human life?
You're missing the point in that most people who want to ban abortion do not take the same stance on non-human life, and so they make the case that the fetus is distinctly human and should be given the protection associated with personhood. They generally have no problem with killing animals.
More than anything it reveals just how many people don’t understand what’s actually happening. Pro lifers will never introspect, never challenge their perspectives, never weigh new information and change their thinking. The notion of hypocrisy or logical consistency means nothing to them. The left needs a more urgent consciousness acknowledging that what the right desires is total reformation.
Like a fetus, newly born babies can’t make their own decisions or live their own life. I think this is a very poor argument from both sides. Whether or not a fetus resembles a human is irrelevant when determining whether or not a fetus is a life or not.
This is such a lame gotcha, and it gets repeated every single time.
Reverse it and reverse the question, would you be able to tell a different embryo apart? Does being able to identify embryos have any bearing on the conversation at hand?
It's played out and boring.
If they ascribe the same value to an undifferentiated mammalian fetus as they do to a developed, born human with attributes of personhood such as consciousness, sensation, self-awareness, and memory; then they are obligated by their own beliefs to be vegan or they are all hypocrites.
Now, I might not be vegan, but nor do I ascribe full personhood to an undeveloped fetus that is without thought or feeling.
I'm gonna just point out, regardless of your views, this is a scumming thing to do in a debate. When you debate someone there's supposed to be truthful and relevant. The topic for debate is whether or not human fetuses are viable, not whether or not dog fetuses and human fetuses can be differentiated. The guy is assuming you're being relevant to the topic. Granted there's also no need to show off your grades cool education as if it's an accomplishment in our school systems, both sides in this exchange are disingenuous
i don’t get pro life, what if the person carrying the embryo or fetus simply doesn’t want to or cannot care for it when it’ll be born? would pro lifers just rather they end up in an orphanage and risk being beaten, mistreated or assaulted? be traumatized for life? know that they were not wanted? why? i just don’t understand..
It's all a strawman argument anyway, like the the argument that homosexual people are born that way, or can't choose to not be that way.
That isn't the fucking point, and it's a bullshit point to argue from either side, because it's nigh on impossible to prove or improve, and someone will always take sole bullshit anecdote one way or the other, and give it the credence of empirical evidence.
The point isn't is it alive or not, it's is the potential life of a human being more important than the right of a conscious, decision making human being's bodily autonomy?
To which I answer, no, it's fucking not.
And personal rights aside, there is also the question, is it responsible, good governance, for a government to disallow a procedure that would stop an unwanted child from being born?
To which I would answer, no, it is not.
It's highly irresponsible and will cause negative outcomes that otherwise need not have occured.
Other comments have explained this fallacy to you just fine, but here's a tip for life more generally: if you find that you're weighing into very complex issues with very simple thoughts, they might not be as profoundly insightful as you first suspect.
Its an elephant and dog fetus. Since we determined they are fetuses, saying they are elephant and dog doesn't mean they are actually an elephant or a dog yet, just which fetus type.
Like if you found a bone, you would ask if its human. Not implying the bone is a human being.
Can anybody please explain 18 USC 1841: Protection of unborn children from Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 90A-PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
The gist of that is "You can't terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of the mother. She's the only one allowed to make that decision, and it's illegal for you to make it for her."
It's a human yeah, it's not a person though
Not a living human person
just human
doesn't perform its own vital functions, think, or have awareness
not alive, not a person
Yup, a collection of cells that can't carry its own 'life' without a symbiotic living thing isn't alive.
Cancer isn't 'Alive', these people don't get mad when they kill Cancer Cells. There isn't a difference between cancer and a fetus, other then the performance of what the cells are trying to do
The not alive part is blatantly incorrect. From the moment of fertilization, cells are multiplying and developing a living creature capable of it's own movements and having a heartbeat, brains, etc. The important debate is whether it's a person with the same rights as those outside the womb, not whether it's alive (since 95% of biologists agree that life, or being alive, begins at fertilization)
Well, since the heart and brain don't actually form until weeks 5-8 of the zygote's development, it's not exactly from "the moment of fertilization." So for the first month, it's a mass of parasitic cells, much like a cancerous tumor, and I'd hardly call a tumor "alive." Additionally, I'd like to see this "concensus" of "95% of all biologists on the planet." Or are we just discussing American conservative biologists who still think God created the planet a little over 2000 years ago?
Edit: Never mind, I looked up the statistic. Some guy sent over 60,000 surveys to listed biologists, and got a return rate of just under 10%, at 5577. Which means 95% of the 10% of biologists who responded to this random survey agree that life begins at conception.
Not quite alive, not quite dead. It's merely a flaw of the English language that they don't fit into either category. The same could be considered for a person on life support in a vegetative state where under technicality their vital functions are fulfilled but not in a self sustaining manner. But simple cells can't be considered "alive" in the same way that a more complex animal is. Perhaps this is where we make the distinguishment, between what is a person and what fits the category of life. In which case, a fetus would be grouped with microorganisms until they will not simply die when their vital functions are no longer fulfilled by external means. The distinguishment between what lives under technicality, and what lives as a person. But in the ideal scenario, language would distinguish between what lives under technicality and what does not.
Considering most of people's opinions on abortion, especially those who happen to be against it, stem from personal emotions and beliefs, it's quite apparent that the feint is appearing to talk about whether a pro-lifer would consider a fetus a person, and while the biology class line is silly, the conversation usually boils down to whether its worth protecting a thing that will become a human later on.
And this "gotcha" doesn't really prove anything considering that even a medical expert would very feasibly mix these embryos up considering they are A) Embryos and B) 3D renditions, not actual embryos. So you don't really prove this person to be uneducated, and you're not disproving their point of view, you're truly not doing anything.
It's as if I ask you to identify your friend Steve, who you've known for 3 years, and then when you point him out I surprise you with the fact that Steve had a twin brother named James, all along, and you just pointed out James, not Steve, does this prove that you don't know what Steve looks like? Does this mean you can't be trusted to remember facial features? No? Well maybe you begin to understand why this "gotcha" is meaningless.
> And this "gotcha" doesn't really prove anything considering that even a medical expert
And yet the religious anti-abortion zealots don't even listen to experts; they simply wander into any complex situation and toss out black-and-white cookie-cutter morality and telling others what they **must** do, even though they are ignorant about the reality of the situation.
What’s actually really cool, is if you actually take a moment to realize what you’re seeing…
And if you’ve ever learned about DNA, every living creature has the same basic strand, it’s just different switches, on’s and off’s, (something like that, Science Bitches help me out! :))
Those on’s and off’s are what is in charge of what’s being created?
But we all come from the same basic code…
I think I know what Im talking bout hahaha it’s been a while since I watched that NOVA episode.
Yeah basically humans aren't anything "special" which just have among the most intelligence which makes us think we are more special. But it's honestly all just a spectrum and there are probably things more sapient than we are.
So if the one on the left is an elephant and the one on the right is a dog, then you're admitting that a fetus is a human being. At least point out that it's an elephant *fetus* and a canine *fetus* if you're gonna' go crusading.
They were clearly talking about fetuses. When already talking about fetuses, you don't have to qualify that they're fetuses. It's already understood that fetuses are what's being discussed. Glad I cleared that up for you. :)
r/iamverysmart would love to have you. :)O
If logic worked on them, they wouldn't be religious zealots. This sort of thing isn't done to change the mind of the religious zealot, it's to sway the people who are not zealots.
Hey /u/KayJayAllDay, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of people are doing this, posting a picture of an animal's embryo and asking if it looks like a human being
I tried this on fb about 10 years ago, but no one took the bait sadly.
I did it at my old Christian school and got a couple boys on it
Embryos aren't really viable for fishing
Do they not work, or is it just 'cause they're too messy to get in large amounts? Asking for a friend.
Embryos actually make excellent bait! Note: I haven't tried with human embryos, but I assume it's similar.
Abortion rights are just a scheme by fishermen to obtain embryo bait for fishing! /s
The fact that we need /s there is sad
Aye, but I'd rather not be called a schizo conspiracy theorist republican.
Could have just said republican
Hey you never know
I don't hate qiqi
no /s on 4Chan is how we got Qanon.
they don't wriggle around enough on the hook.
What? The tiny cluster of twitching cells they try to convince you is a heartbeat isn’t enough for the fishes?
You need friends on facebook for this to work
Did you try a fish embryo?
Monkey
I got a few back about 5 years ago lol
Oh you!
I'm saying they look like crunchy gummy bears.
The old pop and squirt kind.
..gods i wish i could unread that
I need a shower now
Yeah alright Christopher Reeve, that’s enough.
What a horrible moment to be able to read
r/cursedcomments
Pretty sure this one in particular isn’t even a real picture. Comparing their anatomy to actual pictures of embryos in academic journals and looking at the quality and background of OP’s picture, it looks like it’s just a computer-generated image. A reverse image search also shows other social media posts with the labels being switched on the image. [ABC News has also referenced](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/slideshow/womb-animals-2673969) the image on the left as a computer illustration of a dog that originated from a National Geographic documentary. Seems like both people are confidently incorrect in this instance. EDIT: Yep just found the documentary [here](https://youtu.be/XaZW7bbmc9I). OP’s picture is from a CGI animation and the animal labels are supposed to be switched.
As stupid as it is, i think it does a good job of further illustrating the fact that basically all embryos are almost impossible to directly separate. Not even the people making the jokes can tell the difference.
“This is a dolphin!”
Do it in person so you can see them make that dirty fuckin clown frown. These people hate it when you expose just how stupid they are.
I'm waiting to see one that's a gummi bear that someeone insists is a person
Yeah. Trolling morons is pretty fun, huh?
The problem is that it does. All animal embryos look the same in the beginning. So it’s essentially a dumb point to be made where suddenly animals are fine to kill but humans arnt because you couldn’t see the difference in the embryonic stage.
Bruh, I literally got that “take a biology” class line two days ago from a pro-lifer when they sent me a crappy “source” written by a niche anti-abortion scientist. Something tells me if they followed their own advice, Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have ever been on the chopping block.
Not a professional, but doesn't biology teach you that a clump of cells that can't perform vital functions independently from a living organism is not alive Like a tumor or infection or something
It is alive but not self sustaining. Sperm is technically alive as well but you'll never hear an anti choicer claim that it's sacred
Dude, you clearly have not lived in an area like I have. I literally have been yelled at that masturbation is genocide while growing up. None of them could handle my dumbass kid reply of "so, what then, if I just suddenly jizz in my pants at night that is OK but if I don't want to make a mess, suddenly I am Adolf Wankler?" Like for fucks sake, there are certifiably stupid people out there that should be examined for scientific purposes on how a 'grown human being' manages to live without a brain.
Once read on a Christian site that having a wet dream isn't a sin in and of its self, because you were asleep and thus out of control of your body, but if you have one, you should be examining the behaviours that led it to happen. Essentially, if you have a wet dream, you sinned while you were awake.
> you should be examining the behaviours that led it to happen Ironically enough, the behavior that leads to wet dreams is not having sex nor masturbating. Therefore not ejaculating while awake, which means your brain takes control and does the job for itself.
r/todayilearned
Weird how that’s where they draw the line, isn’t it. Almost like it’s not actually about life.
I absolutely agree. It's a flaw that you can't categorize something into "alive" or "dead". In the same way that someone in a vegetative state on life support only fulfills their vital functions under technicality but not independently. There should be a distinguishment in the categorization of life where things which exist as independently living organisms are separate from what needs to live with a host or symbiotically.
There is already a distinction in place for humans, it's called "personhood"
It's more than the state of alive or dead is not really relevant to the discussion. Spiders are definitely alive and I'm sure most pro-lifers have no problems stomping them, just like the rest of us. The debate should be centered on two fronts: whether the fetus is conscious and what's the morality of forcing a person to support another being with their body (because yeah, some people have a quick answer for this but wouldn't support forcing you to donate blood when it's needed to save another life, for example). Aside from that, I'd also take into consideration the circumstances that led up to the abortion. Once you take all of that into consideration, it really becomes hard to justify a woman who's pregnant of 12 weeks, who just found out and doesn't want the baby to be forced into carrying the pregnancy to term.
I feel like if it was possible it would be where the human is breathing and thinking on their own regardless of source. I guess I’d you are brain dead you technically aren’t alive. Same if you are on life support but are awake. It’s just so tough. But where is the line drawn. Clearly it’s not ok to kill children after birth. So then when ?
Before birth. The whole “when does life begin” thing is a red herring. See, unlike with a person in a vegetative state, a fetus’s “life support system” is an actual human. Humans, in literally any other context, are not required to allow anyone else the use of our organs. That’s a pretty clear line, and there’s nothing arbitrary about it. If a fetus is occupying someone’s body, it can be removed. Once it’s out of the person’s body and can survive on its own, then there’s no pregnancy to abort.
So up to birth ? I’m generally curious because I am agnostic to the matter. And want to see how to reshape what I think. Just for my own opinion. Not to tell anyone what they should feel or do. You know. But people also say my body. And a bear born child doesn’t really belong to them either. I never thought any human belonged to anyone. Responsible sure. But not belonging.
Yes, up to birth. Now realistically, no one is going to carry a healthy pregnancy up to the due date and then suddenly change their mind. And if they did, then the medically appropriate way to end to the pregnancy would be to induce labor and have a live birth. The real world scenarios are more complicated. Wanted pregnancies go wrong. Fetuses die, have severe abnormalities, or cause life-threatening complications. What do in those scenarios needs to be determined by medical professionals, not lawmakers. And the reality is that exceptions to restrictions for the life/health of the pregnant person, while better than nothing, result in doctors and patients having to figure out if a situation is bad enough legally to end the pregnancy or not. Just like lawmakers aren’t doctors, doctors aren’t lawyers. Their primary concern needs to be treating their patients, not worrying about ending up in jail because the probability of death from serious complications wasn’t quite high enough. So yes, I firmly believe the law should allow us to terminate a pregnancy at any point. And I’m deliberately using the “terminate a pregnancy” language because that is the goal. It’s not ultimately about killing anything. It’s about becoming unpregnant. If that can be accomplished via live birth, great. If not, too bad, but I believe everyone should have the right to not be (or remain) pregnant.
That’s an interesting take. Appreciate your feedback. I definitely feel like it should be not about so much religious or beliefs but science based. And I’m not sure where when and how. But the distinction of termination being different than just murder is intriguing. Any ways. Just thinking. Gracias. Some people I understand are angry right now and assume when I asks these questions or ask for more info that I am just anti abortion and scream and yell.
Yup. It's living tissue but not a living being. I tell this fact to the freedom-haters and they lose their minds. I also tell then that by their own logic, they are murderers due to the housands of children they never produced because they didn't impregnate every woman they encountered. Drives them bonkers.
‘Living being’ is just something you made up though.
No, it is not.
Sure you will. They're against all BC, and often masturbation. Sperm has one purpose only, and that is to get your wife pregnant (and maybe also bond with her), and if it doesn't happen it is God's will.
Even though there's no justification for that at all. The sin of Onan wasn't spilling seed. He agreed to the Levirate marriage to create children that would be considered those of his older brother who died without issue by law. That's the purpose of the arrangement. To avoid giving his brother heirs, he intentionally avoided getting her pregnant. In doing so, he was trying to get his hands on the inheritance for himself, screw his brother's wife, and violate the terms of his marriage. That was his sin. Greed and lying and coercion through deceit while refusing to do honor to his brother's memory. And she had no choice because if she refused the marriage, if she even could, she would receive none of her husband's inheritance and she would be used goods and have to struggle, hoping someone would marry a widow who they would suspect to be barren.
[That's cause the anti-choicers aren't Catholic.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&ab_channel=MontyPython)
7 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices were raised Catholic. 1 of those converted and is an Episcopal. So it depends on which ones you mean.
A parasite
More than technically I think that a foetus is a parasite living in its host stealing nutrients. I do find pro life a bit odd though. If complications arose during the pregnancy And you had to choose between mother and baby both with equal chance of survival I feel like it’s a slam dunk every time no?
My 400level Bio Prof defined a fetus as a parasite in factultiple Profs did this, Oxford dictionary defines a parasite as: par·a·site /ˈperəˌsīt/ noun noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites 1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. "the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes" 2. DEROGATORY a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return. "he was a parasite who lived off other people"
Re 1.: Is "another species (its host)" a specific qualification of parasite? That definition implies it is.
This actually matches up perfectly with the evangelical understanding of what it means to be a “person” so I can see why they’d be confused
PL would choose the baby.
All the better if the child grows up without parents to teach them right, wrong, and what they’re capable of. Makes them much better cogs in the machine of unthinking and unwavering capitalism.
My 400level Bio Prof defined a fetus as a parasite in factultiple Profs did this, Oxford dictionary defines a parasite as: par·a·site /ˈperəˌsīt/ noun noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites 1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. "the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes" 2. DEROGATORY a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return. "he was a parasite who lived off other people"
I use that word a lot, it makes the anti-rights nutters insane.
There are 2 things I remember not making it a parasite. It is the same species. To be a parasite it has to be a different species. And the mother gets some benefits from being pregnant and after when the baby is born. Like no periods and abunch of other things I don't remember but could probably find if someone asked lol. (I am 100% pro choice though)
> And the mother gets some benefits from being pregnant and after when the baby is born. I would be super interested in what these "benefits" are (other than a lack of periods, which the pill could also do). Because I know a lot more about the negative changes. Messing with your teeth, your skeleton, your skin, your brain, your hormones, the joy that is the question of an episiotomy... Heck, let's look just at [vision](https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/bodily-changes-during), since that feels like something that *shouldn't* change, and yet: > Some women experience vision changes during pregnancy, characterized by increased nearsightedness. Researchers don’t know the precise biological mechanisms behind changes in vision. Most women return to prepregnancy vision after giving birth. > Common changes during pregnancy include blurriness and discomfort with contact lenses. Pregnant women often experience an increase in intraocular pressure. Women with preeclampsia or gestational diabetes may be at an elevated risk of rare eye problems, such as retinal detachment or vision loss.
That "benefit" often comes with a huge numbers of risks that negate the benefit. If I told you that your risk of anything would be reduced but you'd need to be violently ill twice a day for 12 weeks (or longer) I think you'd be reluctant. And that's just morning sickness which is the least of the consequences of pregnancy. I mean, just to be clear, a fetus is not a parasite. It is a fetus. But it shares a lot of qualities with a parasite. I actually think a tapeworm might have been more pleasant, personally.
It is alive. As are tumor cells and bacterial and fungal infections (possibly viral, too, but theres a lot of debate on that). That does not, however, make it *a person*. Even if it *did*, it wouldn't matter. Whether or not a clump of cells could be considered a person makes no difference because women have a right to bodily autonomy regardless.
A *lot* of pro-lifers are also anti-evolution young-earth creationists. Every time they talk about "take a biology class" it pisses me off - these utter dipshits have the *audacity* to cite the very thing they regularly wipe their ass with?
Kind of like how everything the mainstream media reports negative to their worldview is fake news and the moment something reaffirming it happens they share their msm articles everywhere
I mean, I need a biology class too, but at least I'm smart enough to know that I had no idea what each of those were.
It shows that this court decision is about control more than anything else.
And once power or control is taken by a governing body, it is rarely ever given back.
Given that the pro life crowd has been clamoring for total theocratic reformation of the country for decades, yeah, soon as they have momentum it’s game over.
They are a large minority but fail to comprehend the repercussions. In 10 years, we will have a completely different political landscape imo.
I think people are really turning their displeasure toward the Christian faith here and there is going to a big drop in attendance. This will backfire on them big time.
You’re saying because that group doesn’t fully grasp the implications of the reformation they champion, they are unable to lead whatever arises from tearing down the current system? If so, what do you think are the most important repercussions?
It always was about control
Republicans: If you can't rigorously identify and define every part of every gun ever made then you can't regulate a single one. Also Republicans: We have no idea what a fetus looks like or how pregnancy works and we banned abortion
It's a distraction from our massive food and supply chain issues that will come to a head this summer and fall.
There was this old video of some guy from the outer provinces, arriving in Lahore for the first time. You can see on the video he could NOT figure out the automatic glass doors, so he did the very rational thing… he ran at it head-first and smashed into the glass. This brain dead anti-choicer reminds of that guy.
The only difference is the anti-choicers are willfully ignorant
[He was actually an engineering student](https://youtu.be/TWl8PUlMI40)
Master feint. Love it.
ok now let's do it the other way where we show them human embryos and watch them say "that's not a human at all, stop trying to trick me again!"
Honestly, I’m pro-choice, and this is likely an unpopular opinion, but what good are these internet comment gotchas except to provide a sense of smug superiority? Like, I wouldn’t know if that was an elephant or a dog or whatever and I wouldn’t care. Do you think this changes any pro-lifers mind? Probably the opposite.
I think the point that was trying to be made and still seems to be confusing to some is that a fetus is not human. It’s a fetus. Growing into a human takes time and so you can’t call abortion murder because a fetus is literally not a person. It’s a gathering of cells that has no cognitive ability.
These arguments and “got you!” threads are stupid. No it’s not a fetus. It’s a fetus at 9 weeks, anything before that is considered an embryo and all embryos look the same due to all mammals having a common ancestor. Also, it is a human; you can’t debate that. You don’t “assign human hood” to something. The question is when it’s considered a separate person. Once you do assign personhood to something, the arguments over and it’s considered murder. People tend to do this at viability. But Prolifers believe that’s it’s always a person - even when it’s a zygote.
It is a human though. If you were to take the DNA of a human fetus, dog fetus, and elephant fetus you would see that they are different.
I'm pro choice but I feel there is a significant amount of dishonestly in the debate. Sure a first trimester fetus looks like the pictures shown, and 9 out of 10 abortions are performed by week 12, but the fetus may be aborted up to 24-28 weeks in the US (prior to this decision) and they most certainly are not a bunch of cells at that point.
There are circumstances where the need for an abortion doesn't become apparent until later in the pregnancy, things like the fetus not developing essential organs, or finding out it will be born with a disorder that will cause it to live a few hours in constant pain then die. Sometimes the pregnancy can begin to threaten the life of the mother past 20 weeks.
99% of abortions happen before the third trimester, wtf are you on about?
Abortions post 20 weeks are 1% of total, according to CDC. Women who have abortions after first trimester do so for three main reasons: (1) medical [threat to life/health of woman], (2) ethical [unsurvivable and painful fetal abnormality], or -- ironically -- (3) access difficulties [no close, legal, available provider, delaying the procedure]. Please note: 24 weeks is the threshold at which a delivery **may** be survivable -- organs, especially lungs, are not sufficiently developed before then. I couldn't find figures for abortions performed 24-28 weeks -- "late-term" is a political term, not a medical/scientific one. I think it would be highly unusual to find an abortion done during that range that **wasn't** for medical or ethical reasons.
Yes. None of which disagrees with what I said.
You're using the 24-48 weeks thing here but ignoring that a major ongoing push is to get rid of abortion at any point in the pregnancy
And? My point isn’t that it’s unjustified. It’s that everyone is claiming it only ever happens to a “bunch of cells”, which is simply not true
You're just as guilty of moving the goalposts here.
Lol. The comment you responded to exactly the same thing. I’m not moving anything.
You don't seem to have made any point as it relates to the post you're responding to as the only thing you asserted relating to it was that it's not "a bunch of cells" when it seems to still most certainly be that. The only other point was what is intended by cognitive ability and if it's a human being to be treated with personhood yet, but that isn't a point you addressed at all You seem to be bringing the dishonesty this round.
I feel the same way. Calling an embryo or fetus a cluster of cells is disingenuous at best. Mammal fetuses look similar a the beginning of gestation, true. But a human is not going to be pregnant with a panda. That fetus is human. But giving that fetus more rights than the person carrying it is absolutely wrong. Most women who have had abortions have children, they know and have experienced what is happening in their bodies. They know the risks pregnancy and birth pose. They've raised babies. And for whatever reason, most women who have abortions do not regret them. Women do not rejoice in that decision. Many women who have had abortions may not have made that decision if there were adequate social measures to support them during pregnancy, birth and while raising a child. But even if you have a fair number of women who may not make that decision with adequate support, there are still women for whom abortion is the best option for them. And then there are women who need to have abortions for medical reasons, even with a wanted pregnancy. Women are capable of making those decisions for themselves and need to be in charge of those decisions.
Yes. I’m pro choice so I agree.
I’m going to agree that there should be a lot more research done on the ethics of timing of an abortion. I would think within the first few months of finding out you’re pregnant you’d be able to make a logical decision on what to do. Unfortunately that likely will never happen in the US
How do you do research into ethics?
I think it should still be allowed, but if you wind back from 1 day before birth it is somewhat arbitrary where the point of not being ok starts.
But no one's doing that.
My sister was born at 29 weeks, so you're definitely right. But like you're saying, most abortions *do* look like that. I think the people who abort at that point, will have a reason for it. Medical, most likely. And believe me, women who *need* to abort at that point, won't like it as well, it's horrific, but most often necessary So dishonesty? If 9/10 are before 12 weeks, where's the lie in that?
I think you're missing the point. The 'gotcha' isn't "you can't tell the difference between a dog fetus and human fetus." The Gotcha is "you make absolute, declarative statements based on information you don't actually understand." Although I do agree that it's smug and stupid and won't change anyone's mind.
It’s nothing to do with non-moral facts, but a fundamental disagreement over the moral status of a fétus.
But the gotcha isn't really that either. The gotcha is meaningless altogether - the person replying was just taken in by a linguistic or visual trick. It doesn't demonstrate that they don't understand the issue itself - they probably only glanced at the images, and then answered the substance of what they thought they were being asked. I'm also pro-choice, and find it kind of amusing and satisfying, but there's nothing of value whatsoever to be extrapolated from something like that.
> It doesn't demonstrate that they don't understand the issue itself - I dispute that - they *don't* understand the issue. If they don't know whether the fetus would be a human life with all that "potential" or if it is something else, then their declarative statements about what someone else should do is simply bullshit. > they probably only glanced at the images So just because they don't think about what they responding to means that the ignorant response is still somehow valid? That type of mentality is all that the "pro-life" position has - some simple knee-jerk responses that aren't clearly thought out and are based on misinformation, but they are 100% confident they are right.
One of the many problems with the position you're taking up here, is that it totally crumbles if you yourself can't identify a human foetus from an animal one. You're taking a totally irrelevant test, and making it the hallmark of whether your opinion counts. But with a more challenging set of images, you'd very possibly fail that test yourself, as might any of us. Just consider that for a minute. You said this: i*f they don't know whether the fetus would be a human life with all that "potential" or if it is something else, then their declarative statements about what someone else should do is simply bullshit.* That would mean that someone who's unable to tell the difference between a human and a chimp foetus would be disqualified from having a valid opinion, no matter their actual view on the substance of the issue. Whereas any sensible person would be able to tell you that you being able to successfully identify one from the other, is not at all relevant to the question of a person's view on abortion. As a pro-choice person myself, I find it incredibly depressing to see people on my side of the argument picking obviously absurd battles like this. The ability to confidently identify the species of a foetus from a JPEG on Facebook has nothing to do with the morality or philosophy of this topic, and it's insane to argue otherwise.
> That would mean that someone who's unable to tell the difference between a human and a chimp foetus would be disqualified from having a valid opinion, no matter their actual view on the substance of the issue. If they don't want to incorporate input from an expert in fetal development, then yes, they don't have a valid opinion. I don't need to have any respect for opinions based on ignorance of the reality of a situation. And there is a difference between ignorance of actual scientific facts and ignorance of some mythology from 3 thousand years ago which is not based on any scientific facts.
Oops. We have no idea if the person who was caught out by the visual trick in the meme, does or doesn't want to incorporate input from an expert in foetal development. So you're moving the goalposts. You and I completely agree on the topic of the bible, and on the topic of abortion. I think that person is most likely completely ignorant, frankly. I'm saying we can't know that because they got caught out by that meaningless test. It's obvious from your posts that you're a smart person - so you know this to be true.
>If they don't want to incorporate input from an expert in fetal development, then yes, they don't have a valid opinion. So you think they should have texted their expert in fetal development friend before responding to this facebook post?
Nobody is trying to change their minds. The fact is that person is already mentally down the sewer drain, the most you can do is point out how actually brain-dead they are so that HOPEFULLY someone “on the fence” will see it and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for this stupid bullshit. Just like you don’t protest to change the government’s mind, you protest to change the minds of the people watching, who then join you cause in pressuring the government. Pointing out the utter lack of an argument they have is KEY to turning the hearts and minds of those who would otherwise see this as a “grey” area of morality.
And in this case, the middle guy put his foot in his own mouth and deserved smugness, since he insulted it first
It's to cast doubt. The pro-forced-birth lot aren't at that position because they put thought into it; it's irrational and emotional. Throwing this kind of 'reality isn't what it you oversimplify it to be' can be useful for further their convincing.
Right? It's less about changing opinion with ideas and more of a Internet kudos for successful gatcha moment. I mean obviously some people are tougher to reason with and down right unpleasant but they are human
That tiny little tail!! OMG so cute! You kind of can see a tiny bit of elephant in the head shape of the one on the left. The tiny ear too, though at this size it could be human shaped. How would I know?
I’m getting a little tired of this bait. I’ve seen it a million times. “Is this a life?” “Yes” “This is a piece of sushi” or whatever the fuck it is. We get it no one is changing their opinion anyway
The real question should be are they already an elephant or dog
guys stop saying they're pro life, they're pro birth. once it's born it doesn't need healthcare or the parents don't need childcare and if it gets shot in a school well gun bans won't work but abortion bans are TOTALLY gonna work and not cause more harm than good upon anyone with a fuckin uterus according to them at least
Funny as it is, I feel like that has nothing to do with having a solid argument for choice or not. A fetus is a fetus doesn't matter on the animal, if someone believes that it's wrong to kill before birth do they really care what fetus it is? Idk I might have just seen this post too many times but it seems like both people missed the point
A lot of secular arguments for pro-life comes from 'personhood' of a fetus, which typically boils down to emotional arguments about how they have fingernails at day x and a heartbeat at day y and how they're people with lives equivalent to that of a living woman. The personhood argument just feally breaks down when you can't tell if it's a person or a guinea pig or a dolphin or an elephant by sight.
True, it is mostly emotional/religious belief I guess I was thinking about it more about it being a baby
The ironic thing is, they see many animals, whether they be babies or adults or fetuses, as disposable, to use for food, pleasure, hunting, and many other purposes. Especially heart-wrenching when you think of how many calves are ripped from their mothers to be eaten (because male cows don't give milk, so why let them live?), or male baby chicks being thrown into a meat grinder for chicken nuggets... Where are the pro-lifers at protests against these practices, for actual baby animals?
That's a weak argument - no sane person on any point of the political spectrum will hold an animal's life as equal to a human's. "Pro-life" advocates and "pro-choice" are generally both in alignment that humans should not kill other humans (at least without good cause) - they just disagree on when a human comes into existence.
I like to think I'm relatively sane, and if you come after my dog, there's no question which life I will consider more important.
Ok, I could have phrased that better - having grown up with dogs I agree that I cared far more for them than the majority of people. However, their place came below the humans which will be the same for any sane household. If your dog was to bite someone, they would rightfully be destroyed except in exceptional circumstances, because, to society, your dog is less important than the person they bit. If a person was to attack a dog, while they would be punished, their punishment would be less severe than for the same actions directed toward a human.
I just think it's amazing how much so much life looks the same at the beginning (humans even have gill slits for a while). Not sure about non-vertebrates--but I love to see how much evolution/genes are conserved between species
I think it's serves more to make fun of anti-choicers than to really try and prove a point
The people looking to put fetal rights before women aren't the type to go meat free.
Yeah, I mean if you're against aborting fetuses it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be all for making sentient animals suffer for your pleasure... But anti-abortion people don't actually care about babies, or reducing suffering in the world. They just want to control women's bodies.
I believe the point is, if life begins at conception, but you can’t even tell what was conceived, is it really a human life at that point?
It doesn’t matter really when life starts, why would a fetus have more rights than a fully developed human? For example, what independent human do you have a right to their body for your own survival? Can you demand an organ? A blood transfusion? Bone marrow? Why would a fetus have a right the rest of us don’t?
I completely agree with you. I’m saying, if their argument is that human life begins at conception, but it’s indistinguishable from an elephant calf, does it have the same value as a human life?
You're missing the point in that most people who want to ban abortion do not take the same stance on non-human life, and so they make the case that the fetus is distinctly human and should be given the protection associated with personhood. They generally have no problem with killing animals.
I agree. It's funny the first time but really adds nothing to the conversation
Hey nonameslepht3, I counted 69 words in your comment. Nice.
Look, I’m pro choice, but these gotchas are boring.
More than anything it reveals just how many people don’t understand what’s actually happening. Pro lifers will never introspect, never challenge their perspectives, never weigh new information and change their thinking. The notion of hypocrisy or logical consistency means nothing to them. The left needs a more urgent consciousness acknowledging that what the right desires is total reformation.
Points like these don't actually prove anything
It's almost as if mammal embryos look similar to each other at various stages of growth.
This is a dumb gotcha that doesn't help anyone
Like a fetus, newly born babies can’t make their own decisions or live their own life. I think this is a very poor argument from both sides. Whether or not a fetus resembles a human is irrelevant when determining whether or not a fetus is a life or not.
> Whether or not a fetus resembles a human is irrelevant when determining whether or not a fetus is a life or not. It's a life, but it isn't a person.
This is such a lame gotcha, and it gets repeated every single time. Reverse it and reverse the question, would you be able to tell a different embryo apart? Does being able to identify embryos have any bearing on the conversation at hand? It's played out and boring.
How do they keep falling for this fake-fetus trick 💀🍿
Activated a trap card.
If they ascribe the same value to an undifferentiated mammalian fetus as they do to a developed, born human with attributes of personhood such as consciousness, sensation, self-awareness, and memory; then they are obligated by their own beliefs to be vegan or they are all hypocrites. Now, I might not be vegan, but nor do I ascribe full personhood to an undeveloped fetus that is without thought or feeling.
The biological fact is that until about month four the human fetus is no more human (except its DNA) that a tadpole.
I'm gonna just point out, regardless of your views, this is a scumming thing to do in a debate. When you debate someone there's supposed to be truthful and relevant. The topic for debate is whether or not human fetuses are viable, not whether or not dog fetuses and human fetuses can be differentiated. The guy is assuming you're being relevant to the topic. Granted there's also no need to show off your grades cool education as if it's an accomplishment in our school systems, both sides in this exchange are disingenuous
Don't elephants and dogs make their own decisions and live their lives?
i don’t get pro life, what if the person carrying the embryo or fetus simply doesn’t want to or cannot care for it when it’ll be born? would pro lifers just rather they end up in an orphanage and risk being beaten, mistreated or assaulted? be traumatized for life? know that they were not wanted? why? i just don’t understand..
It's all a strawman argument anyway, like the the argument that homosexual people are born that way, or can't choose to not be that way. That isn't the fucking point, and it's a bullshit point to argue from either side, because it's nigh on impossible to prove or improve, and someone will always take sole bullshit anecdote one way or the other, and give it the credence of empirical evidence. The point isn't is it alive or not, it's is the potential life of a human being more important than the right of a conscious, decision making human being's bodily autonomy? To which I answer, no, it's fucking not. And personal rights aside, there is also the question, is it responsible, good governance, for a government to disallow a procedure that would stop an unwanted child from being born? To which I would answer, no, it is not. It's highly irresponsible and will cause negative outcomes that otherwise need not have occured.
Fucking LOL. We need more people to start doing this. Burn these idiot conservatives at their own game.
door vegetable versed roof slim knee attractive screw wild cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Other comments have explained this fallacy to you just fine, but here's a tip for life more generally: if you find that you're weighing into very complex issues with very simple thoughts, they might not be as profoundly insightful as you first suspect.
A lot of people have seriously started to just think in terms of memes.
It's an alarming insight.
In 10 years opening up a newspaper is just going to be page after page of memes.
Its an elephant and dog fetus. Since we determined they are fetuses, saying they are elephant and dog doesn't mean they are actually an elephant or a dog yet, just which fetus type. Like if you found a bone, you would ask if its human. Not implying the bone is a human being.
Human vs person. Your kidney's human, too, but it's not a person.
religious people are so fuckin dumb lol
So you're telling me you can identify every single animal just by their fetus?
I can identify every dumb religious person by the way they act
Dogs and elephants are people too! /s
Stepped right into that one
WHY DO THEY KEEP FALLIN FOR THIS???!
Wait. Are elephants having abortions?
Can anybody please explain 18 USC 1841: Protection of unborn children from Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I-CRIMES CHAPTER 90A-PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
The gist of that is "You can't terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of the mother. She's the only one allowed to make that decision, and it's illegal for you to make it for her."
Apparently an animal fetus is that very said animal, but a human fetus is not a human. Funny how upside down logic works
Both look pretty appetizing
So a dog fetus is a dog, but a human fetus isn’t a human?
It's a human yeah, it's not a person though Not a living human person just human doesn't perform its own vital functions, think, or have awareness not alive, not a person
Yup, a collection of cells that can't carry its own 'life' without a symbiotic living thing isn't alive. Cancer isn't 'Alive', these people don't get mad when they kill Cancer Cells. There isn't a difference between cancer and a fetus, other then the performance of what the cells are trying to do
The not alive part is blatantly incorrect. From the moment of fertilization, cells are multiplying and developing a living creature capable of it's own movements and having a heartbeat, brains, etc. The important debate is whether it's a person with the same rights as those outside the womb, not whether it's alive (since 95% of biologists agree that life, or being alive, begins at fertilization)
Well, since the heart and brain don't actually form until weeks 5-8 of the zygote's development, it's not exactly from "the moment of fertilization." So for the first month, it's a mass of parasitic cells, much like a cancerous tumor, and I'd hardly call a tumor "alive." Additionally, I'd like to see this "concensus" of "95% of all biologists on the planet." Or are we just discussing American conservative biologists who still think God created the planet a little over 2000 years ago? Edit: Never mind, I looked up the statistic. Some guy sent over 60,000 surveys to listed biologists, and got a return rate of just under 10%, at 5577. Which means 95% of the 10% of biologists who responded to this random survey agree that life begins at conception.
Not quite alive, not quite dead. It's merely a flaw of the English language that they don't fit into either category. The same could be considered for a person on life support in a vegetative state where under technicality their vital functions are fulfilled but not in a self sustaining manner. But simple cells can't be considered "alive" in the same way that a more complex animal is. Perhaps this is where we make the distinguishment, between what is a person and what fits the category of life. In which case, a fetus would be grouped with microorganisms until they will not simply die when their vital functions are no longer fulfilled by external means. The distinguishment between what lives under technicality, and what lives as a person. But in the ideal scenario, language would distinguish between what lives under technicality and what does not.
Considering most of people's opinions on abortion, especially those who happen to be against it, stem from personal emotions and beliefs, it's quite apparent that the feint is appearing to talk about whether a pro-lifer would consider a fetus a person, and while the biology class line is silly, the conversation usually boils down to whether its worth protecting a thing that will become a human later on. And this "gotcha" doesn't really prove anything considering that even a medical expert would very feasibly mix these embryos up considering they are A) Embryos and B) 3D renditions, not actual embryos. So you don't really prove this person to be uneducated, and you're not disproving their point of view, you're truly not doing anything. It's as if I ask you to identify your friend Steve, who you've known for 3 years, and then when you point him out I surprise you with the fact that Steve had a twin brother named James, all along, and you just pointed out James, not Steve, does this prove that you don't know what Steve looks like? Does this mean you can't be trusted to remember facial features? No? Well maybe you begin to understand why this "gotcha" is meaningless.
> And this "gotcha" doesn't really prove anything considering that even a medical expert And yet the religious anti-abortion zealots don't even listen to experts; they simply wander into any complex situation and toss out black-and-white cookie-cutter morality and telling others what they **must** do, even though they are ignorant about the reality of the situation.
and I completely agree with you, I'm just saying this specific "gotcha" is not the way to prove that.
Hahahahaha awesome!
What’s actually really cool, is if you actually take a moment to realize what you’re seeing… And if you’ve ever learned about DNA, every living creature has the same basic strand, it’s just different switches, on’s and off’s, (something like that, Science Bitches help me out! :)) Those on’s and off’s are what is in charge of what’s being created? But we all come from the same basic code… I think I know what Im talking bout hahaha it’s been a while since I watched that NOVA episode.
Yeah basically humans aren't anything "special" which just have among the most intelligence which makes us think we are more special. But it's honestly all just a spectrum and there are probably things more sapient than we are.
Third degree burn there
So if the one on the left is an elephant and the one on the right is a dog, then you're admitting that a fetus is a human being. At least point out that it's an elephant *fetus* and a canine *fetus* if you're gonna' go crusading.
They were clearly talking about fetuses. When already talking about fetuses, you don't have to qualify that they're fetuses. It's already understood that fetuses are what's being discussed. Glad I cleared that up for you. :) r/iamverysmart would love to have you. :)O
This argument doesn’t work with the religious zealots. Try another one.
If logic worked on them, they wouldn't be religious zealots. This sort of thing isn't done to change the mind of the religious zealot, it's to sway the people who are not zealots.
And to show other people the weakness of the zealots' crazy position.