Wait what-

Slavery in disguise

NO

LOL

What the fu-

this meme is so true

slavery in disguize will have to need a fake name.

how 'bout "yaslerv"?

But so is regular family childbirth. And if we did away with children, then you wouldn't be here...
Yeah, okay... let's go with that then! ! !

Ye only difference is we're nut pets

The f-

Iceu, how do you make a meme template? I am making this ^

Also people keep attacking each other with lettuce

I like that

Oh no if someone brings a whip to school I'm out

Really it's like giving them a death sentence by lethal injection

0_0

This is unintentionally political lol

Replying to your previous message...

Cloning is unethical since we do not have technology present to clone a human being without a good chance of it having defects that will significantly stunt or alter its life.
>> That is speculation as no human clone has ever been created; cloning is not banned and it isn't a well-funded area of science. However, Dolly, a sheep had lived to be middle aged before dying of natural causes. Dolly did not die in result to the cloning process. Her DNA was taken from the mammary gland of one sheep and an egg used from a black sheep. (both female)

A sentient human being, [...]birth defects. You [...] thinks cloning is ever so simple.
>> First, no. We simply have no data that proves your claim, it is only theorized. If I thought it was simple, how am I so well informed on it while you are not?

Also, what you're saying is that since there's such a low chance of pregnancy occurring, it's apparently humane to kill the child anyway?
>> You cannot kill a child in this way. I don't think you understand how this works. A child is a human being that has been born of another and has developed past the infancy stage and is before the adolescent stage. I am saying that pregnancy cannot occur if it cannot implant. Would you grieve every time you had sex and failed to get a woman pregnant? Pregnancy isn't 100% batting rate, contrary to popular belief. I am saying your appeal to sentimentality is misplaced.

Ultimately, just because the child is presently not alive nor sentient does not mean that it is fair to kill it,
>> No one is killing anything. Birth Control prevents the embryo from planting in the uterine wall.

as it has a high chance of becoming alive and sentient.
>> If implanted, but that's a different topic entirely.

The biological purpose of insemination WAS to impregnate the female, not to play with the unlikely circumstance that it will never successfully initiate pregnancy. Only us and dolphins seem to do sex for enjoyment.
>> So if this is a natural inclination, you seek to forcefully change this so that this act cannot be performed safer for the intention in which it is done?

Do you take issue with women who choose to "get their tubes tied?" Or men who get vasectomies? Do you see the issue here? It's the same effect - preventing pregnancy. I'd rather people get pregnant on their terms rather than under the terms of someone arbitrarily saying that they should when it occurs au naturale.

*That* is a different kind of preventing pregnancy. The potential child there will never have the possibility of living. But if abortions don't occur, they will. Ultimately I believe adoption should be done instead of receiving a new child instead. If people keep normalizing sex, then we'll just end up with more and more and more children.

So, you see being that it takes an fertilized egg two weeks to reach the wall, banning abortions within two weeks of conception is ridiculous. Those who are opposing it don't understand how the reproductive system works. Or how certain birth controls and abortions work. The Morning after pill is basically an extra strength birth control pill. However, it contains so many hormones that it's not a mild experience.

Sex *is* normalized. We're way past that. "PornHub, a popular site that features people in various stages of undress, saw 33.5 billion visits in 2018. There are currently 7.53 billion people on Earth." That is enough for every man woman and child on this earth to view it four times, with more views left over.

Adoption isn't viable as the financial systems in place don't support it in the way that it needs to be. We also have a societal problem with a backlog of 200,000 kids awaiting adoption. Studies have also shown that milenials cite finances as an a reason to keep them from having kids which correlates to our recent population growth decline. What these three issues have in common is there is a lack of money to support this. However, people will be people.

Don't try to control other people's sex lives, that is extremely authoritarian.

We agree, that within two weeks it's not really abortion, these no exception states are a joke to personal liberty. Where we disagree is the definitions of life, personhood and alive vs life.

I think this wraps up the conversation well.

Take the cloned Pyrenean Ibex. Another cloned animal created *after* Dolly (this in July 2003), it only lived for several minutes after successfully being cloned and died due to a lung defect. Also, there's no need to clone anything. Why is cloning so important to you?

Cloning shows that there's nothing special about having another set of DNA by the logic of something being a cellular organism as "alive." It certainly is "life" but I don't see personhood in something on the microcellular level. Further, considering abortion murder because it has blood pumping through it doesn't dictate to me that it is "*a*live" it is certainly living tissue. Still, there is no cerebral cortex, no brainstem, no nervous system, there is no imprint of experiences within collective data of all the cells within the zygote/fetus with exception to the cells at the individual level as cells perceive their environment.

So? It WILL be one. I never said that unborn children were sentient.

so long.
straight from google.

What makes you think it's straight from google? Nevermind that google is a search engine, not a knowledge database.

now there is a guiness world record for longest comment...

It really isn't. I've done 6 part comments.

What I *am* saying is that a fertilized egg is just as inconsequential as the next. It's literally a single celled organism. If you want to make an appeal to potential, there are plenty of children who need help and aren't getting it. Children who, are alive right now, and in danger of dying. Yet little is being done to help them. Once we can address those issues. I might be more sympathetic as at that point, we'll have a system in place to take care of disenfranchised children.

your right

it is you're

I never thought of that I should do that instead of having to risk going to jail

Again - no. Because a child is a human who has been born. More accurately: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Paraphrased, a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. People don't always use the technical definition and it's usually not a big deal. Now, in the meme, clearly they were referring to an unborn human being (to some extent). So if we want to get real, then sure, an unborn is not a child. Regardless, abortion is still ending a life.

If you employ an abstract definition on what "a life" is, sure. Either you're technical for both, or you're abstract for both. Otherwise, you're cherry-picking your definitions.

I was not cherry-picking. I wasn't wrong on either term. Life (in this case: human life), no matter what definition you use, happens before birth at conception — it's not just an idea. And abortion is still ending that life. So I wasn't vague or picky enough as others may be. I don't know what you are trying to prove.

So, let's explore this. What's the difference between the moment of conception - and a tumor? A tumor is made of human DNA. Let's walk through this logic so I can understand.

"When the single sperm enters the egg, conception occurs. The combined sperm and egg is called a zygote. The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby. Half the DNA comes from the mother's egg and half from the father's sperm." Simple science. Nothing that was brought up really diminishes what my main and only intended point is, which is that life (specifically an unborn human being) happened before birth and an abortion is intended to terminate that life. People can make whatever choices they think they want, but sugarcoated abortion is still abortion. That should be simple to understand.

i thought this is about adoption not other shit

well SilverIsGold posted a meme on abortion and then it got pretty political I guess

I'm simply replying to another comment that was political. Why're you telling me to stop?

Equally, souring the term "abortion" when instead it is a terminated fertilized egg is not the same as terminating a pregnancy. You can't terminate a pregnancy that hasn't yet transpired. With that said, "science" has proven you don't need a fertilized egg to create life. You *can* use only sperm or eggs. We've known how to clone since the 90s. For reasons I don't understand, it's unethical. But the fact remains that you don't need a woman and a man to reproduce (laws aside.)

What is it about clones that people think they are not lives? If we're going to look at practical definitions within the discipline of biology, we need to be consistent across the spectrum.

STOP IT SHEESH

Cloning is unethical since we do not have technology present to clone a human being without a good chance of it having defects that will significantly stunt or alter its life. A sentient human being, like you or me, would not deserve to live a shortened life filled with multiple birth defects. You seem to part of a crowd that thinks cloning is ever so simple.

Also, what you're saying is that since there's such a low chance of pregnancy occurring, it's apparently humane to kill the child anyway? Ultimately, just because the child is presently not alive nor sentient does not mean that it is fair to kill it, as it has a high chance of becoming alive and sentient. The biological purpose of insemination WAS to impregnate the female, not to play with the unlikely circumstance that it will never successfully initiate pregnancy. Only us and dolphins seem to do sex for enjoyment.

"Equally, souring the term abortion when instead it is a terminated fertilized egg is not the same as terminating a pregnancy...You can't terminate a pregnancy that hasn't yet transpired." It's worse to sugarcoat it than sour it. A termination is still a termination (still technically AN ABORTing) — causing either a lose of life or a potential life lost. Before you bring up other animals, remember that humans are the most conscious species and usually have more moral ability — so it's more complicated. Can I ask if you're saying it's okay to terminate an unborn 'human' as long as it's really early enough?

"With that said, "science" has proven you don't need a fertilized egg to create life...But the fact remains that you don't need a woman and a man to reproduce." That's not really the argument or the point.

As for "knowing how to clone since the 90s", cloning mammals generally has a success rate of about 10% to 20% but okay.

"What is it about clones that people think they are not lives?" I don't know how many think that — but the reasons are mostly because of it being very strange and/or afraid the child would undergo some type of harm. Well there is more to human life than just living cells. Regardless, the answer isn't really about morality. There is little to no reason to do it anyway. Then again, there's various types of cloning and you may be meaning something more specific. We were talking about termination though, not a twinning or recreation or replication.

"If we're going to look at practical definitions within the discipline of biology, we need to be consistent across the spectrum." I agree. The world would be a better place if there was more consistency. But one important thing to know is: just because we humans can do something, doesn't mean we should.

And

aand yea

Would you rather have a trump soccer

what's trump soccer

I do not know

Oops auto correct,

Dude it just depends on what the abortion is intended for. I'm surprised there isn't a huge crowd of "abortion is only for mandatory circumstances" people

I'm sure there are those people. I do admittedly pick peoples brains and get sunk into the definition of life debate too easily. However, the fact remains that the procedure of a planned miscarriage rests on the woman. Abortion is practiced in the animal kingdom below our species as well. Most predatory animals will eat their young if they can't support them. This is so that the breeder can survive to make the attempt again under more favorable circumstances. THat's on an instinctual level.

However, our bodies don't recognize immoral acts of violence upon our body, nor do they recognize financial distress, nor can they foresee physical problems with birth the way we can now. So, in order to function as nature intended, we need a more humane method of self-preservation. Bottom line? It's the woman's choice.

No one from the pro-life group is offering programs to take care of the mother while she is going through a pregnancy she doesn't want. As with the anti-vaxx crowd who's won nearly all of their battles for "government cannot mandate my body" we need to apply that equally. The gov't cannot force a woman to undergo medical procedures that she has to pay for.

Unless we want to socialize health care for families, but as I said, no one is suggesting anything from the pro-life crowd.

You must love the strawman fallacy.

To make a strawman fallacy, I have to make up an argument that you didn't make and then seek to debunk it; this has not happened.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it. That is exactly what you did when you basically claimed pro-life don't actually care about the mother. Either you did that on purpose or was mistaken. I was simply pointing it out since you seem to get political fast (despite it being a meme website). (For the record, in case you decide to make more attacks, I am not an anti-vaxxer or far-right).

1) Saying a miscarriage is negligence or involuntary manslaughter along the basis of abortion being murder is not a strawman, it's following the logic of the claimant. At best, it's a false equivalence, but it needs to be false first.
The claim "abortion is murder." (false equivalence) is itself logically fallacious where it follows the equally fallacious claim that "life begins at pregnancy." (omission of fact) because "human life" can be said to begin at the egg/spermatazoa stage. However, the pregnancy doesn't begin until the fertilizated egg is implanted in the uterine wall - which birth control prevents. That's a lot of "abortions."
2) Where have I attacked you personally? If I did, that wasn't by design and I apologize. If you'll look over the posts I've made, I am reasonably sure there were no directed personal attacks.
3) Why are you complaining about me commenting politics on a meme that happens to be political? Do you equate the notion of pro-life/choice a matter of meme instead of policy? Your meme is political, I happened to comment on it. If you don't want political discussion, don't post political memes on open forums?

really

1) I wasn't talking about miscarriages and that delves into more subtopics — but an abortion is (birth control pills too) on purpose, miscarriages aren't.

2) "Where have I attacked you personally?" I apologize I jumped to that conclusion. It was more based on comments like "no one from the pro-life group is offering programs" and "no one is suggesting anything from the pro-life crowd".

3) "Why are you complaining about me commenting politics on a meme that happens to be political? Do you equate the notion of pro-life/choice a matter of meme instead of policy?" No, just that the line between when it was a meme thread and a political thread was too blurred and it would have been better if we were prepared enough for the more serious part. If that didn't make sense, then never mind.
"Your meme is political, I happened to comment on it. If you don't want political discussion, don't post political memes on open forums?" Well an unintentionally political meme was posted, you replied to it with an opposite, and then I happened to comment to you with the opposite — and then you went into explaining. Let me give more context, I was trying to add in that you seem ... let's say ... more interested in talking about politics (considering the multiple comments you made on this page not just to me and the memes you make). That easily comes off as negative but I don't really want it to go that way — just was making an observation that you seem more likely to talk about political matters. I'm not against political discussions, if they are decently done.

1) Indeed, they're a controlled miscarriage. We live in an age where we have more control over our bodies than ever through various of medication that handle a plethora of body systems ranging from gastrointestinal, circulatory, neurologic and yes, reproductive. There is no need to neglect to take advantage of this level of control over our bodies as they do not understand bills, rape (in all degrees), and sexual assault.

2) Of course, they weren't personal, but more an observation of the legislature of the pro-life group. In fact, in most cases, we see those individuals most often voting along the lines of removing welfare as much as possible, while restricting reproductive health. One would wonder what their motives are for that kind of voting pattern.

3) You're right. When it comes to sensitive topics like this that are placed in a website that teenagers are known to frequent, where there is propaganda (jokes are a form of propaganda), my aim is to balance the scales on issues where I feel strongly. In politicsTOO I am more extreme in commenting (which isn't much) but on certain hot button issues, I am there.

I did not argue with this. You completely neglected my "abortion is only for mandatory circumstances" argument and instance thought that I was one of those conservatives who have no care whatsoever for the mother and only for the child.

It's indeed a popular tactic among pro-choice.

Except, that isn't what's happening here.

There was no argument. There was a declaration, but no argument. I said nothing about you, either. I was talking about the people from the pro-life group. I said that specifically, why have you included yourself in the demographic?

You replied to me. Therefore I'll assume what you were saying was directed towards me. That's why I included myself in that demographic. Also, saying smart words doesn't necessarily mean you're the smartest.

Smart words? Which ones are the smart ones?
Speaking in the general sense about a topic does not inherently make the topic about you. I can't help you if you internalize that. If that's what you're doing, I would advise some deep reflection. Put your phone/laptop/keyboard down, put on some music, and think about what's bothering you about what I said that caused you to become on the defensive -- thinking that I was talking about you. Do that, and get back to me.

??????????????????????

zzz

But really the question of "when life begins" obfuscates from the real issue. Because this might surprise you...

Pregnancy begins at implantation. Not at conception.

Human life *does* have to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begin when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo.

Fertilized eggs take between six to 12 days to implant in the uterine lining. There simply is no pregnancy until this happens, which is why any method that prevents fertilization or implantation can not cause an abortion.

Imagine that.

A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully impant and end in spontaneous miscarriage (and before a woman even knows she is pregnant) because of insufficient hormone levels or an non-viable egg or for some other reason.

We're all murderers.

Sure, life begins at conception, but pregnancy does not. You're free to put up posters of babies saying 'mommy don't kill me' or whatever and use inflammatory language like "murder" but that in itself is a logical fallacy by appeal to emotion.

How the turn tables.

BO-RING -_-

If it's so boring, why are you continuing to read it?

That's not us being a murderer. That's life.

It actually isn't life, it is life failing to take place.

No, I'm saying it's life in a different sense. Like how life's unfair and there's nothing we can do about it.

So, you're speaking on the philosophical construct of life?

What the heck happened here?

bruh...

True

that is true