Fixed the meme
By - ramune_0
Plants are living beings too though.
We all know eating and yeeting are two different practices
I mean, yes, but everyone knows eating something necessarily kills it, this isnt vore hentai. No one is raising babies on an industrial scale to put in cramped cages and then eat them, the "eating and yeeting are different" ironically makes the eating look worse, at least in the context of modern livestock practices. Don't get me wrong, there are many arguments one can use for being anti-abortion but also not vegan, but "it's just eating" is a weird one.
Like how plant life is also alive so unless we all want to die of starvation we need to eat, so it's basically the only important one
The main argument for not going vegan is 5 minutes of exposure to any vegan.
Honestly, I hope that the vat-grown meat industry reaches financial viability within my lifetime, since the tech's been invented. I hope it reaches the store shelves, because it'll overnight eliminate 95% of the vegan movement's reason to exist. Without the ability to fall back on 'meat is murder', they're just a bunch of prissy weaklings.
That it'll have the side effect of basically blowing the factory farm model insofar as livestock is concerned out of the water is just a bonus. There'll still be a demand for 'natural meat', but that'll become a niche industry once acceptance for vat-grown becomes the norm, and it'll return to the small business and ranch system it was before megacorps started making Olympic sized pools of pig feces all over the heartland.
Comparing a human life to a chickens is incredibly disingenuous.
You're missing the point. The original meme this is in response to only states that embryos are alive and immediately concludes it is wrong to kill them. It completely omits the contentious part of its own argument, namely that embryos are human, and this meme ridicules that fact by assuming embryos being humans must be irrelevant to the argument being made.
What is "disingenuous" about it?
Because there's no way someone unironically believes that chickens are equal to humans. They're merely saying it to create buzz or conflict around an issue or to stirring up people to discuss the topic with, without truly believing it. Thus its disingenuous. Also its a big fancy word and I like it.
So disingenuous is a word you use when you think someone else's beliefs are fake? There is quite a lot of people who unironically believe all life is equal.
Thats literally what disingenuous means, although its more that there insincere or pretending they know less depending on what definition you look at. And I unironically belive those people to be lying to themselves. If given an opportunity to save the life of a human or a chicken they would 100% of the time choose the human. If not they're an absolute psychopath and at that point it's not about what they believe it about there messed up mind.
> If not they're an absolute psychopath and at that point it's not about what they believe it about there messed up mind.
I am not sure that dismissing their values as insanity is very beneficial to strengthening your own rhetoric for defending your values. Some people if given the choice would save their family dog over a stranger.
There values would make them choose the life of a chicken or a human, showing they have no empathy towards another human being. That is textbook psychopathic behavior. Taking a page out of your book, but insanity is not the same as psychopathy. If you going to keep targeting my semantics check your own. Those that would save their family dog over a stranger is more understandable due to the emotional attachment to their animal while the stranger having none. This added emotional weight adds value to the dog over the stranger depending on the level of attachment. Not arguing that its okay or right for this to be the case, just pointing out the why.
It still does mean that someone can regard an animal's life over a human and not be disingenuous. It also means they are not automatically psychopathic.
Psychopathy is "moral" insanity. Insanity is the category for all those things. Yes, I should've used psychopathy.
There are always extremes to things. People don't eat each other. Thats statement by all technicalities is false. But since an overwhelming majority of people don't do it, I really couldn't care less about saying that. Anyone arguing with me about my wording is simply arguing semantics showing they don't have an argument other than to try and tear mine down.
Not sure what "the majority" has to do with the values of an individual.
What is the issue with "semantics"? Accuracy only helps with rhetoric.
I think most people would agree that a member of a species who'd doesn't value its own life over other species is probably insane, and detrimental to that species survival.
All life is equal is different from all life is valuable. Those same people that hold up roads near slaughter plants are the same people that couldn't care less that there stepping on grass, or eating plants. Plants are life too yes? So why do they still eat them if "all life is equal"? Its because they don't think all life is equal, they think all life is valuable but that some is more valuable then others, thus why there okay with eating plants but not animals since animals have a higher cognitive level than plants.
This is a good explanation of vegans, but I think vegans still pull the pro-life card because "if you care about saving unsophisticated life since "all cells are living organisms", why not save both fetal lives and animal lives, because humans are not obligate carnivores after all". And yes there are vegan pro-lifers. This thread gets muddied because I'm criticising the lazier "cells" argument used in the original meme, not saying vegans consider all life equal. You give a good example that they value animal lives but don't consider all life equal. But we have pretty much discussed everything already, this is putting it more for others out there.
I'm merely debunking what this other dudes saying. I have no problem with vegans, they have have their moral code that they stick by, I can respect that. As long as they don't try and force me into their lifestyle all good by me.
I'm curious to hear a secular argument for why fetal life is intrinsically morally superior to a born chicken's life. "Because the fetus can become a human baby, which matters more because it can think and feel in a way chickens can't" is the "potential to become" argument, and I think secular pro-lifers should use that one, not "but it's human cells, it just feels more important" and call it a day.
It's not that it feels more important, its simply that it is more important.
Moral obligations are species-dependent. We as humans share a human nature, we have a common core of virtues to which we are directed in order to fulfill our natures and become as good of a human as possible.
The chicken doesn't share the nature so we have no obligations towards it. Even if both animals were rational, the lion would have no obligations towards the zebra not to eat it. A lion that eats the zebra is flourishing, thus it is a good lion, in the sense that it fulfills its nature.
So the killing of the chicken by itself isn't a reprehensible action, especially if it's done for consumption. After all after consumption we are flourishing and thus doing what is good for us.
However that isn't a free pass. Killing for killings sake or cruelty for cruelties' sake runs counter to our virtues, e.g. mercy. Thus the action is morally reprehensible, not because the chicken has any moral relevance, but because we give in to vices that run counter to our natures.
Human cells will grow into a human, chicken cells will grow into a chicken. A chicken is born, reproduces, and dies to become food for us, other animals, or the earth. Humans follow a same path but with a very important distinction. We have the free will to do whatever we want. We can grow, learn amazing things, do incredible things, the chicken is stuck in a state of beastiality, while humans will always grow to do far more.
Because chicken delicious...baby not delicious.
Humans are the only species on this planet with a chance of colonizing this lifeless galaxy and propagating life. Without humanity life may very well die out on this planet forever.
Humans for that reason are the superior species for the continuation of life it's self and should be made paramount.
Further because we are human, we should value humans more.
Ok, why is a living plants life more important than a living chicken? Also the fact of the matter is if humans didn't eat meat, cows, pigs, and chickens to name a few would be extinct
Vegans still eat plants because people still need to eat sth to live, and they do not believe plants matter above humans. You make a good point about the origins of livestock, but we still eat fish. If you want a good argument for being anti-abortion but not vegan, look around this thread, there'e the "fetuses have potential to become humans which have free will" argument (although that opens up the argument, what about braindead humans, especially if a woman is forced to carry through a pregnancy screened as resulting in a braindead baby anyway?). I just think the original meme's "cells are living organisms" argument is dumb, and tries to simplify pro-life too much to seem straightforward.
There is a simple solution to the brain dead argument on humans having free will. It’s to simply replace the ‘potential humans’ argument with the ‘potential people’ argument. I do not care about animals, because they will never be people, and so nothing we do to them will be consensual, but they are below people and will never fully understand consent. Therefore the only way to value an animal’s life is on how beneficial it is to humans. Farm animals tend to be beneficial as food sources. Dogs and cats tend to be beneficial as social animals and pets. I do not judge Asian cultures where they view dogs as more beneficial as food sources as they are free to make that decision even tho personally I view dogs as being of more utility as pets.
The potential people argument also solves the brain death argument. Someone who is brain dead will never become a person, therefore it is acceptable to end their life. It also makes clear why abortion is wrong except in the case of brain death, or where there is no potential to develop into a person (ie cases where it is highly likely without medical intervention that either the mother or the baby/foetus will die). A baby is not a person, but a potential person. Therefore killing it would violate it’s consent as it currently cannot consent to anything. The arguments in potential people makes it more clear, pain and the development of the nervous system is actually irrelevant to this debate.
Sorry dog this ain’t it.
I get your principal but there is undoubtedly more value in the human potential versus chicken by almost every metric. Productivity invention labor collaboration all of them. Except maybe tastiness.
So from a secular viewpoint a human life is intrinsically more valuable than a chickens. Especially when you factor in how unique humans are when compared to chickens.
Chicken taste better too
That's okay because eating humans will cause several different bone disease and possibly could give you an iron overdose
Only the brain.
Don't eat brains
How else am I supposed to educate myself?
I honestly prefer humans
Secular like objective viewpoint?
Nah from a secular viewpoint the concept of "value" is completely subjective. There is no inherent value to anything. The universe doesn't care about how unique something is. You assign that value yourself. It's all just atoms.
That's not secular, it's nihilistic. Not incompatible, but not the same thing.
It literally isn't. Secular means no religious or spiritual basis. Value is still applicable. Yeah the universes doesn't but guess what I don't care about what the universe think, cause hint, it can't think, it's not alive. I care about the value humans place in things. And naturally a human would value another human over a chicken.
Like I said, you assign that value yourself because the universe doesn't think for you. It's YOUR opinion. That's why it's subjective. Any species will always favor fellow individuals of their own kind. No objective truth comes into play.
So then its not my opinion it's my species' opinion then. That's the objective truth. Humans will value other humans over other species. And since we humans are the most cognitively advance society on earth we get the right to choose the value on our world. Therfore this is objective truth. Its not my personal opinions or beliefs, its human nature.
You're not getting it. Cognitive advancement means absolutely nothing. The only reason you find that important is because you deem it so. And just because something is human nature doesn't make it universally valuable. It's valuable to YOU, and nobody else.
"Says its human nature but also says its only valuable to me." Make up your mind dude. If its human nature to value something, obviously I ain't the only one. Your saying so much fluff with no substance. Its all lingo trying to make yourself sounds smarter. I've dealt with, tried to be civil, but I'm getting sick of it dude.
The universe values cognitive ability, if it didn't, we would not be on top end of story. All we have to do is look at our planet see who's on top and why. Its us, because of our mental ability and technology. Your the one not getting it.
Question, if humans didn't exist. Who would be the most populous and powerful species on earth hmmm? Probally the most cognitively advanced, as thats the most valuable thing you can have in this universe. Without it we wouldn't exist. Human civilization would not exist. The reason we are so spread out and powerful is due to our cognitive ability thus making that more valuable than anything else. Gorillas can tear us apart, sharks can rip us to shreds, yet we can blow up the planet. Thats the power of our mind.
The most populous and longest surviving species on earth are micro-organism (who have hardly any conciousness at all), even in the world where humans live. They'll be here long after we are gone as well. But again, all these factors aren't important in the grand scheme of things because the universe doesn't care about how long species last or how successful a species is in it's spread. This is going to be my last reply because you are visible agitated and simply can't seem to understand my point. Good luck.
Cause your point is nothing matters. Your a nihilistic fool, arguing rings without saying anything. You accomplished nothing. You devalue your own value and im sad for you. You focus on the negative and the void rather than the positive and good. This argument has been a huge waste of time because you bring absolutely nothing to the table. Visibly agitated huh, no im dissapointed that someone can be so deluded into this line of thinking. If I was agitated you'd know. Thanks for wasting both of our times. Hope you get better.
Forgot to put this in,, Micro organisms that do nothing except act as food for everything else, yeah there real successful. Nice example, and nice cop out once you saw that you half-baked nonsense wasn't getting you anywhere.
No thats from a religious viewpoint from a seculer viewpoint humans are more valueble as they have a higher level of concious.
Because they have a higher level of conscious they are able to grow and adapt into unique beings.
Thats literally what I said but with extra steps.
No in the former you used the word intrinsic which would mean humans just are more important for no reason
Humans are naturally more valuable then chickens yes. Intrinsicly doesn't mean for no reason.
Ironically this comment reads like it was written by one of those Chick Fil A cows
Im gonna be honest I have no idea what your talking about im from England so I know nothing about chick fil a
Says the human
I'm anti life
Based and honest-pilled
Fair. My personal favorites are the far-lib "yes i'm killing babies, what about it, i can do that when it's inside me" and the far-right "yes i support abortion, bc abortions are mostly done by the poor and the POCs, and i believe in eugenics".
Haha my meme has a wall of text in it proving you're the soyjack 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Your average left meme
I only care about human lives
No you dont if you're forcing women to give up their body autonomy to have children they can't take care of
A child isn't part of your body
Also what if she got pregnant from rape?
-Every pro choice ever
Would you be fine banning all abortions other than those cause by rape or incest or where the woman's life is in danger?
The problem with doing that is I worry women would just lie about those things in order to get an abortion which i feel women deserve the choice to get an abortion regardless of the circumstances because pregnancy changes your life now I feel I should say im not pro-abortion im pro-choice you don't have to like abortion to understand that its ultimately the woman who is at risk for everything and needs to have the final say in whats happens in that given situation.
Why did you bring up rape then?
Because if we legalized it only for cases of rape people would lie about rape to get access to abortions
What does the child get punished for the crimes of his father?
Bodily autonomy is, I think, the best argument for abortion. You cannot, regardless of the circumstances, force the woman to give up her bodies resources for someone else, especially if she never had any say in the pregnancy in the first place
you can put the same logic on born babies, as the mother has to involuntarily raise them, so we should be able to kill all babies
Not really as she's not sacrificing her body to do so
You aren't sacrificing your body to fulfill the only reason our species exists
Pregnancy changes a woman's body and giving birth is painful so if she doesn't want to she shouldn't be forced to
The woman has to give nutrition to the fetus and grow it from her body so it is you can't force people to donate blood or organs why should it be any different for a fetus
This argument is being made in bad faith, but I’ll bite regardless. For a women to give nutrition to the baby inside her she does not have to take any extraordinary actions. Rather, all she has to do is things she would be doing anyway like eating and drinking water. Not the same thing.
Once again, despite leftists repeated attempts to the contrary, comparing humans to animals is extremely silly.
"Cells are living organisms", is shitty in the original meme, which doesnt hold water and misidentifies the best argument behind being pro-life. It's like the whole "fetuses have heartbeats", "can fetuses feel pain" thing. Yeah so can animals, what kind of argument is that?
The real/good argument for pro-life is the "potential" argument. "A fetus has the potential to become a human, which has free will, the capacity to think and feel, the ability to further civilisation" etc, unlike animals. So my bone to pick is that for irreligious pro-lifers, almost every single one of them rest their stance solely on the "potential" argument, but they still meme using the "human cells are living organisms" argument, like ok, and? Use the actual source of your stance is all.
humans literally are animals?
Ok let me slaughter you for meat then.
20 upvotes 80 comments lmao
God this is the most fucking cringe thing. Casual and remorseless murder, and consumption of food for survival are not equivalent. Inb4 “so if we ate the babies it would be ok??” No, that’s an atrocity
There are good pro-life arguments (the "potential to become a human" argument, not the "human cells are living organisms" argument in the lazy original meme) but let's not pretend that people in developed societies need to consume meat to survive. Even muslims say that if you have no option but to eat pork to survive, then it's ok, but ordinarily eating pork is haram.
Religiously, abortion may be argued as murder (taking away a soul). Secularly, the termination of human cells in early trimester does not resemble murder of a born human in any way, so the argument hinges on the potential of those cells, not the fact that they are technically life. Otherwise, animals have life too and a heartbeat and can feel pain, yet you can be vegetarian and healthy.
Gay and mental gymnastics to allow murder pilled
It’s murder, full stop. That said, I understand that it’s the right thing to do in certain situations. It’s still murder though. Accept the weight of the action. Safe legal and rare was horseshit
Ok but then eating animals is murder too because we are taking away life for something not strictly required for survival. Personally though, I do eat meat, even if you tell me it is murder, I won't feel any different. I know how badly livestock are treated in industrial conditions, but I still eat meat.
Practically speaking, pro-choice people think that "murdering" early trimester fetuses is so far removed as a scenario from the murder of born humans, I still doubt that rebranding it as murder will convince them it is super grave and serious. If you won't use the "fetuses have the potential to become a human, and humans have free will and thought and emotions" argument, it's seriously hard to convince people to take the termination of a few human cells as seriously as you would like.
Is murder, to you, ceasing the existence of anything human (and automatically excluding anything non-human), including one human cell? Murder of born humans is immoral because it takes away their capacities (thinking, feeling, etc) and their futures. Early trimester fetuses dont have capacities, ergo the moral imperative lies right in the "potentials" argument.
Yeah we are murdering animals and yeah it’s fine. Killing things that would become human without external stimuli being acted upon it “heh I killed it before it became a human therefore it’s not ackshully murder u chud” is lazy and dishonest.
If I got a bunch of bird eggs and threw them against the wall they’d say I’m killing birds. Ridiculous
To be clear, I can sympathise with the "save fetuses because they can become humans, and humans are of use to society" argument despite being pro-choice. But I also dont feel any emotional attachment to the term murder, so my point is that I doubt that relabelling things as murder will help.
You are right about a certain hypocrisy re: bird eggs, though. If a bunch of people say (about a fetus) that "it's ok bc it doesnt have the capacities of thought and feeling, i dont believe in the argument of its potentials", then bird eggs are ok to eat, because those eggs also dont have capacities, only potentials.
No no, as for bird eggs I mean like robin eggs or goose eggs, fertilized and would become animals if we don’t crush them. Chicken eggs etc for consumption are all unfertilized and will never become animals if we leave them alone. We don’t eat eggs that have a potential. But if I crushed eggs that had potential pro-choicers would cry
Not really, even most pro-choicers are not vegans. Vegans are rare on both sides, even though most vegans are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice and would eat that fertilised duck egg in the philippines, why not, I already eat duck meat. But I do agree it is hypocritical to refuse fertilised animal eggs and cite a potentials argument, but fail to apply that same argument to fetuses.
God you’re so fucking pedantic and droll. There’s no arguing with you people
You asked if we would cry over the potential of a fertilised animal egg. I just said, no most of us wont. Lol. How is that pedantic? Hand it over, I'd eat it.
"That's not the point!" Ok what point am I missing? You said we need to accept "the weight of our actions". Ok, sure, we dont feel any weight, "murder" of early fetuses doesnt emotionally feel like much because we dont emphasize potentials (but I do personally recognize the argument there). Then that's it. Bird eggs wont help you.
Sorry I like using "facts n logic" and this was all rather unexciting for you.
We physically evolved to eat animals, not kill babies
Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants or offspring. Now mostly illegal (apart from some countries[where?]), infanticide was a widespread practice throughout human history that was mainly used to dispose of unwanted children.: 61 Its main purposes saving resources from being spent on weak or disabled offspring. Unwanted infants were normally abandoned to die of exposure, but in some societies they were manually killed. Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans.
It’s almost like society has evolved to the point where we don’t have to kill one kid so the other 6 can survive. We also don’t worship gods that require child sacrifice. Personally I think it’s good that we’ve advanced in such a way but apparently there’s some people who would like to go back to it while calling it “progressive.”
lol, I hope you never hear of China.
When you are so woke you try to make an argument for infanticide lmao
I'm not making an argument supporting infanticide, I'm proving the statement you made was wrong. Please grow some wrinkles on your brain.
That is societal adaptation, not physical evolution. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand the difference.
I see part of your point, but a particular problem is also that modern livestock practices are much more cruel than the hunting/game of much older times. And we aren't obligate carnivores like cats, there are many enduring vegetarian traditional cuisines that have been around for centuries, e.g. in India.
Now I'm gonna go full wack and point out that we physically evolved to find teenagers attractive because they are seen as having a longer fertility window ahead of them, but isn't it that the modern age of consent bans adults getting with teenagers due to concerns over power dynamics and emotional maturity gaps?
Livestock practices have never been as nice to the future meat as hunting. It is however much more efficient and part of the reason society has been able to advance to this point, because meat is much more nutrient dense than plants.
That's a good point, you're right. I was more addressing the "we physically evolved to eat animals" original point, which, ok, but there's a lot we physically evolved to do too like being attracted to teenagers. I'm not a vegan or vegetarian myself, but at this point in developed society, it is feasible to be vegetarian. Or failing that, to at least support livestock practices which are less cruel. But I do acknowledge your point, even when we compare family farm livestock practices vs industrialised farming, the latter is worse for animals but drives down prices further. I just find the "physically evolved to" argument weird, especially when women were findings ways not to have babies centuries ago. Arguably, living by the coast or at least a body of water greatly helped the development of civilisation, for example, but now it is way less crucial as a factor in establishing a city.
I agree the factory farms can be a bit more cruel, I have a 1/4 cow in my deep freeze from my wife’s grandfather. He bought the calf and raised the cow. Family farms also produce better tasting meat because the animals have more chance to forage, or in the case of cows graze.
The reason we are attracted to teenagers is the same reason two 30yo people can try for two years to have a kid, but a girl can lose her virginity on prom night and get pregnant. Men and women are more fertile as teenagers, and we have a biological urge to procreate. But as a society we recognize that teenagers aren’t really capable of providing for kids, and large age differences lead to an unhealthy power dynamic which is why a 40yo dating an 18yo is highly frowned upon even if it’s not illegal. At the same time we don’t stop people from acting on their biological urges, just as a society we decided to enforce certain rules, spoken and unspoken. People like meat, and it’s a biological need for protein and other nutrients that are either exclusive to meat (which may be a regional thing since some plants like quinoa may not be available everywhere) or much more prevalent in meat.
None of this works as an argument for abortion though since we also have a biological urge towards self preservation, preservation of our species, and specifically the safety of children. There are plenty of cases of people going into harms way to save children they don’t even know. Killing babies is against our instinct and against our nature in all but the most deranged. That’s why so much effort has been put into redefining pregnancy to “just a clump of cells” and perverting the different parts of human development into something less than human. Because if people thought of abortion as killing a baby, only the most deranged would support it.
I see nothing wrong with personally not undergoing an abortion, if someone feels strongly about it as a loss of human life and/or human potential, they should get support for going through the pregnancy as they wish. People shouldnt let being pro-choice equal removing those supports. There should be still be better adoption options, basic financial support for teen mothers and single mothers, etc.
I'm more concerned by women being forced to undergo pregnancy. A lot of pro-choice people talk about back alley illegal coat hanger abortions that kill women too, women can also be desperate because they lack the means to take care of a child, which clearly overrides what you say if they go to those extremes. And many women are still bad mothers to their kids and never bonded with them, the flipside of the women you speak of who save children they don't know. To me, it shows that the biological urges are not as strong and universal as is discussed here. Of course, it is a different thing if you argue "all women who fall pregnant, regardless of their personal feelings on the fetus and on having a child, should be forced to undergo pregnancy because I am imposing a duty that we continue our species at all costs, and duty can conflict with their own desires".
Can we stop pretending that a human life is equal to life of an animal?
Protection of an offspring is imperative, humans don't care if they kill animals so they can feed it or make warm clothes for it.
We didn't spend thousands of years on being hunters just to have cognitive dissonance when we want to have a BBQ.
Just ask vegans why animal life is more precious than plant life, why do you protect animals but happily kill innocent vegetables.
Because they think vegetables are not superior to humans, they would have to consider the vegetables the highest lifeform if they chose to starve to death by eating neither animals nor vegetables, simple as that. They inherently still think humans > animals > plants, but since consuming animals is not strictly necessary for survival, they think it can save those lives where possible. I'm not vegan, but their arguments arent hard to understand.
Humans are superior.
Maybe we need to re-brand as pro-human. It's pretty well agreed upon among pro-lifers that human life is uniquely valuable and deserving of protection.
I agree. Should be Pro-human-life then (to be more precise).
OMG no one cares about your fucking animals, you stupid fucking vegans. Human > Chicken, how fucking hard is it to grasp.
Then say Fetus > Chicken because fetuses have the potential to become humans. Simple as that. Not because "Cells are living organisms", which is a shitty original meme which doesnt hold water and misidentifies the best argument behind being pro-life. It's like the whole "fetuses have heartbeats", "can fetuses feel pain" thing. Yeah so can animals, what kind of argument is that? The real/good argument for pro-life is the "potential" argument.
Fetus=Human. Once bitches start queefing out Human-Dog hybrids after fucking their dogs, I'll change my tune. I've yet to see a woman queef out anything but a human. If they do start birthing human-animal hybrids, I'll be pro-hybrid abortion. Just like if these bitches start fucking angels again, I'll be pro Nephilim abortion.
I'll expand, usually the "potential to become a human" argument is more accurately "a fetus has the potential to become a human, which has free will, the capacity to think and feel, the ability to further civilisation" etc. A fetus can do none of those things at that moment, so the argument is hinged on the fetus's potential. If you reject that argument, you need another reason for why a human fetus matters, but I've never seen a secular argument which wasnt based on "because it can become a human that can do all those things".
If I take a cell from a fetus and give it to my geneticist friend and tell him to analyze it, it will come back as Homo Sapien 100% of the time. It is human.
Yes, those are human cells. My point is, if we forcing living women to go through pregnancies, and we are finding a justification for that, what makes it inherently wrong to terminate human cells (especially in early trimester)? Because of the cells' potential to become humans that contribute to civilisation? Because God said fetuses have souls? "It is wrong to terminate human cells, because they are human cells, and human cells matter" still doesnt form a full argument for the core of why this all matters. Heck, from a lib perspective, if we are using the NAP (that the laws should just be there to ensure the NAP, that is, preventing aggression against an individual and/or their property), does a few human cells constitute an individual? We would have to return to "but the cells have the potential to become an individual".
Fetus=Human. Killing the innocent human is wrong. It is that simple. Now, politically, I'm okay with compromising and making abortion legal up until birth, I'm even okay with the government paying for it, but I want something in return. That being no CHIP, WIC, TANF, etc. Which, I'm not shocked that no one will make compromise.
It's not simple, I still dont see, in this context of our discussion, a reason that the termination of human cells is intrinsically morally wrong (putting aside the "potential" argument you have since rejected). It is wrong to kill a born human because it is seen as robbing the human of its existing capacity to think and feel, and/or robbing the human of its future/potential. Most people think it is ok to kill animals, by the reasoning that animals have a diminished capacities and diminished futures. I do have a moral problem with late trimester abortions and even many left-leaning do.
People wont make compromises because for those who believe abortion is murder, or who strongly believe in the gravity of taking away a fetus's potential, they think any compromise is too far, especially for those who see abortion as state-sanctioned murder.
I don't care about killing dangerous animals or killing animals for food. You apparently do care, at least about killing animals for food, that is fine. I am not people, I am me and provided my political compromise. I also provided my moral stance on abortion.
That's fair, I'm glad we had a civil discussion and I'll acknowledge that it is valid to believe in intrinsic morality, regardless of whether I agree upon it as the basis for ethics.
I’m not forcing anyone to do anything. But if you have sex you know the risks. If you’re not prepared to live with the consequences make better choices.
That's a totally different argument from why/whether the termination of human cells is morally wrong (unless you accidentally replied to the wrong comment). The consequences argument is interesting, I don't agree with it, but I don't spam want to spam text walls, you can take a look at where it was discussed elsewhere in the thread:
On another note, if you are LibRight and your argument is that women should be forced to go through pregnancies as a punishment for their prior actions, doesnt that violate the NAP? Unless you do think fetuses count as individuals protected by the NAP, then that's your main argument, and the consequence thing is just an addendum.
I think babies are individuals, also I’m not a NAP zealot. I think it’s a good goal, but ultimately unrealistic as a societal model. It’s another, arguably better, utopian concept. Utopias are nice logical experiments, but the one thing they all fail to account for is children. Children aren’t rational actors and therefore don’t work in any utopian model.
That's fair, pursuing ideological purity always ends up getting weird, and I can think of a few other ways that I make exceptions for children (albeit in terms of born children) which technically violate the NAP.
I just think we should end as little human life as possible. This includes fetuses, because they are human and have the potential to become a fully functional being, which other cell clumps cannot. Unless in extreme circumstances, I don’t think women should be able to get abortions on demand.
I was almost aborted, but when my mother heard my heartbeat, she kept me. And I am glad to be here today.
I'm sympathetic to the "potentials" argument, really. I just find the "cells are living organisms" basis of the original popular meme weird, it opens the floor up to vegans asking what about animals. It's just generally a bad argument, like animals have life and a heartbeat and sensation of pain too. The better pro-life argument is the "potentials" argument you mentioned.
On another note, I think a lot of pro-choice people say that it's completely ok to have a strong personal belief about keeping one's baby, and to follow through on that belief. They believe women should have the ability to choose either way, and yes I know you might disagree with that. But I'm just clarifying because some people think it means being pro-abortion, and thinking certain moms like teen moms shouldnt keep the baby.
Jokes on you I'm pro life and vegan. All babies should be protected and loved.
Based and consistency pilled
u/JudenKaisar is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
What about plants?
I'm not a vegan, but actually vegans/vegetarians do still believe humans > animals > plants. It is just that animals do not have to be consumed necessarily for human survival, so for them, it is a matter of saving lives where you can (which is also why they are ok w alaskan natives or rural canadian natives eating meat, those hunt for survival as plants can barely grow there).
I'm sympathetic to the "fetuses have potential to become humans, and humans have complex thought, feeling, free will, a lot of use to society" argument, really. I just find the "cells are living organisms" basis of the original popular meme weird and shitty, it opens the floor up to vegans asking what about animals. It's just generally a bad argument, like animals have life and a heartbeat and sensation of pain too, so why arent we trying to save those too, since being vegetarian is feasible for many in developed societies.
I just think humans > animals > plants is kinda... based on what? Plants are cool as fuck and (mostly fitoplancton, but) give us oxigen
Human lives are worth more than that of an animal
Lib left again making straw man comparisons
Boy, this fight's been going on for a while.
Calling it a fight is disingenuous. From what I've seen everyone is plainly telling each other their beliefs and vice versa. Some mild disagreements and discussions, but definitely no fighting.
Oh looks like I maybe spoke too soon.
This isn't a jab at you, just a general rant. But man this sub isn't even funny anymore, downvote me or whatever but it has been getting worse over the past year but it has just tanked recently. I get this is inherently a political sub, but it's also a funny haha sub, and a lot of the shit on this sub recently just lacks any comedy for me.
Nah I hear you, and I know this post was part of that problem. Imo it's just that there's like, no respect for each other across the quadrants anymore. That's why the comedy goes away and just becomes pwning each other. Like you can photoshop some really extreme article headline no one wrote, simply remembered to slap a "falsified text" flair on it, and then strawman one of the quadrants to mock them. Funniness is when you can poke fun but everyone knows it's in good humor.
God made animals so we can eat them
Fair and christianpilled, I was seeking more to discuss secular arguments (there are still secular pro-life arguments as this thread can attest).
Ok, I'm personally Christian but I have some Secular Pro-Life arguments, want to hear about them?
Then why would a benevolent god design animals to feel pain if they were made for us to kill and eat them
As a Challenge
That’s good way to turn a conservatives opinion around if he/she has never read the Bible before
nah... the requirement just becomes to eat any fetus you abort.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I'm curious, in what way? I didnt make the meme with any religious arguments in mind, only secular ones. I know there are biblical verses which make a pretty strong argument for making abortion morally wrong and for making the consumption of animals moral. I dont tend to touch religious arguments, because if someone said their God said so, that's that. There is still diversity in opinion among Christians which can be interesting, there are arguments as well for being both vegan and pro-life at the same time.
Memeing aside, I know pro-lifers still have the "potential to life" argument, aka "a fetus has the potential to become an born adult human, which is a more complex lifeform than a born animal". But if that's what you believe, use that one. "Cells are living organisms" is intellectually lazy jeez.
I believe human life is Divine and therefore must be protected in all forms.
Based and divine-pilled
u/D-L-N's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/D-L-N! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: corrupt, little-trolling, selfish, divine
That's actually ok in my books, I fully agree to disagree with religious pro-lifers, because to me, their arguments can hold water by having scriptural basis, just that I am a freethinker. There are verses can that be interpreted to say there is a divinity and superiority afforded to humans which is not afforded to animals. I'm talking more about secular arguments (there is also an issue of hypocrisy when it comes to certain religious pro-lifers especially in america who are not very loving and are quite judgmental of born humans, which doesnt vibe with the whole pro-life and save the unborn thing, but that's only a specific bone I have with a % of pro-lifers).
I'm Catholic and it's often misinterpreted that people have Dominion over animals. All creatures and all creation belongs to God and it's is to our benefit. However humans are prideful and exploit animals. Killing an animal to eat it is alright. Testing chemicals on animals is evil. Killing animals for sport is also evil. Destroying ecosystems is evil. Who are we to destroy something that's not ours?
Modern sport hunting in the United States was invented as a measure to protect populations of wild animals that were formally culled by natural predators that we hunted nearly to extinction to protect livestock. This game hunting and its Bag Limits are to ensure enough of the population is killed that they don't eat their own food sources away and die from starvation, and was created by the Sierra Club, who were poets and artists who wanted to conserve nature.
Fair point. As long as it's not used as an excuse to overhunt.
Well... humans are flawed... so I can't guarantee that.
Even African big game hunting sanctioned by conservation groups is used to fund rangers and other protections for the larger groups, but you still have POS dentists luring protected members of groups out of protected zones in order to make them "legal" kills.
Perhaps humans should live with nature not off of it. "The light of reason is placed by nature [and thus by God] in every man to guide him in his acts."
do you happen to buy meat from a large/medium sized grocery chain?
Hell no what little meat I get is usually from fish which I catch. The meat from grocery stores is rarely humanely butchered. There are a few farmers markets around where I live where I also get meat.
oh that's cool
Embryos are not humans.
Not all embryos are human, some are cows or chickens or dogs.
Animals aren’t human?
Fuck it I am eating the baby aborted or not
Heh seeing the authrights coming out of woodwork made me realise they took the first meme seriously.
What didcha expect, most of this sub in general is authright lol. But really, there are much better authright pro-life arguments than the one in the original meme. That they are defending it unironically, is not even defending the good arguments.
That chicken will never be as intelligent as opposed to an embryo
A chicken is more intelligent than an embryo unless it's late stage
Will never become as intelligent.
Its all about rooting for your own team. Unless you trillionaire, then you are supposed to kill your team for their own good.
If you care about facts, the only moraly, environmentally and economically correct position is to be vegan.
I however, will continue to eat meat because I am not about to sacrifice my access to it and make zero difference when society hasn't figured ^^that out yet.
ending human life that ends up turning into a living human being vs. ending a small chicken made to be killed; literally bred to have the most meat possible and to be stupid.
Human life =/= animal life
They still have yet to explain what species it is if it's not human.
I’m pro life, but plants are alive too, so why not just eat whatever, it’s for our survival
Pro human life 😎😎
Only human life is protected by law you shallow brained Twat.
I am firmly in this chick's camp.
It definitely gives more power to my pro-life stance when I couch it to women with the fact that I'm also a vegetarian.
It makes them put up with my wrong-think and be more prone to touch penus.