Imgflip Logo Icon

You're a clump of cells.

You're a clump of cells. | If bacteria counts as life on Mars, then cells in the womb count as life as well. | image tagged in memes,change my mind | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
370 views 26 upvotes Made by RIDLEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 1 month ago in politics
93 Comments
8 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Toxic | 53 comments | image tagged in toxic | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
2 ups, 1mo
Hey, at least some of them are genuine discussions
7 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
No no... they'll never admit that. That would put an end to their baby parts industry.
6 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
joe biden what | image tagged in joe biden what | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
4 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Nancy Pelosi No Spending Problem | They'll have to pry my Sanger award from my cold dead hands | image tagged in nancy pelosi no spending problem | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
4 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
5 ups, 1mo
There's a lotta sickos out there, lotta sickos.
4 ups, 1mo
alr bro
5 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
When did he ever say that? Play risky games, win risky prizes. Carry the responsibility of your choices and actions. Nothing justifies murder. NOTHING
0 ups, 1mo
Why wouldn't you have the baby? If you really don't want it, someone else will. Adoption is a thing.
3 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
It's her own fault, mate! Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
1 up, 1mo,
2 replies
So fully grown adults with 5 kids who have unprotected diddly doo are about to have a 6th? It's easier to abort the pregnancy before the baby is truly "alive"
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
If you really can't raise the thing put it up for adoption. I come from a big family and if my mum got pregnant again she would keep it because she loves all her children.
3 ups, 1mo
Only if the woman is guaranteed to die from the childbirth. One of my siblings almost killed my mother coming out but she loved him enough to give birth to him and not abort.
3 ups, 1mo
Life also begins at conception.
2 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
That's a weird way to describe pregnancy. It's a "stupid prize"? It's "her fault"?
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Teen pregnancy in particular is a stupid prize. If you have sex it's your fault if you get pregnant.
3 ups, 1mo
I have experienced adolescent hormones before and it was very intense at times but I learned to control it. I don't know about you but I never had sex as a teen. We must make teens aware of the consequences of their actions. One of the reasons I never let the hormones win was I was terrified of getting a girl pregnant as a kid and ruining my reputation and throwing my education away. We must confirm with our teens that they are able to control their hormones before letting them be alone with someone of the opposite sex who isn't in their family.
2 ups, 1mo
Thank the law...

https://twitter.com/i/status/2079397313299017814
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Remember memes are an ART form. Never settle for a standard template. You have a clever idea. So add a .png pic with a clear background to your meme to make it special.
You're an artist. Present your art in its best light. Making your meme stand out draws more attention to it.
2 ups, 1mo
👍
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
It counts as life – just like any cell – but you probably wouldn’t claim that felling a tree is murder, even though it, too, is alive (because cells).
4 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
Murder is the illegal and/or morally wrong killing of a being. Felling a tree is neither illegal nor morally wrong, so it's not murder, it's killing. Abortion is both morally wrong and illegal in some cases, therefore it is murder. Not to mention it's a human life. So no, felling a tree isn't murder.
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
To clarify: by murder, I did not mean the legal term, but simply killing (I'm sorry for any potential bad wording or misspelling, repetition etc. English isn't my 'main' language).

I don't think felling a tree is either killing or immoral; it was just an example to show that it is not ending 'life' that makes abortion morally wrong to you.
I assume your reasoning for why abortion is immoral is that (valuable) human life is being ended. I, too, believe that human life is inherently valuable, though not at every stage.
For example, I don’t believe that a sperm cell is just as valuable as an adult human being, and I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me on that.
On that basis, I would argue that an abortion (up to a certain point) is not very different from felling a tree.
5 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
I do agree that sperm is not nearly as valuable, but life begins at the conception of the fetus, the second that egg gets fertilized and dropped into the uterus lining and begins to develop, that's when life begins. I say it's very different from felling a tree. The difference is that us humans need wood, ergo we need to fell trees. There's no rhyme or reason to abortion at any stage when you can simply either abstain from having sex or put the baby up for adoption. There's no reason ever that abortion is okay. Ever.
0 ups, 1mo,
3 replies
What about overpopulation? Humans breed like rabbits, earth will no longer be big enough to hold it if we, as a species, kept growing at this rate.
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Birth rates are going down, Thanos.
3 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
Not happening in my lifetime or yours.
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
But it would be highly irresponsible and morally wrong to not address problems just because "we are not affected".
And if you argue against abortion on the grounds that human beings are valuable, and include potential human beings (embryos) in your argument, it is hypocritical to then evade any (future) responsibility for those very same potential humans.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
No. It wouldn't be. Future humans the way you describe don't actually exist yet. Embryos do exist and they aren't "future humans," they're already humans the second they're conceived. So it is therefore not hypocritical of me to care about humans in the womb, but not humans who won't even be conceived by the time I've died.
0 ups, 1mo
That's why I talked about "those very same potential humans". You are neglecting your responsibility towards the humans who will outlive you.
3 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
We need to eat cows to live. They were made to be our food source. We don't need to abort babies to live.
0 ups, 1mo
We don't need to eat cows to live, its a kind of luxury. There is a reason we are omnivorous.
1 up, 1mo
What about dogs? Japan used to eat them.
3 ups, 1mo
Dogs were made to be man's best friend. I never once condoned eating dogs or cats.
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
As I've told you liberals a thousand times before, humans are created in God's image, therefore they are more valuable.
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Their cells are still alive and dividing.
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
It's not like you can do anything about it. Murdering babies is not the way.
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
I missed the part where that's my problem. Just like how the Sun will explode one day.
0 ups, 1mo
We still have to try to fix the overpopulation problem. We all know it's coming. You can't shrug it off
3 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
Overpopulation is not a thing. We can grow the world's food in an area slightly larger than Texas. Humans barely cover 0.2% of the earths land (assuming 1/4 acre each). The only places that are overpopulated are cities.
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
Could you give a source for your claims?
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
Basic math.
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
Where did you get the figures you used for your math?
Have you taken into account uninhabitable land, necessary infrastructure, etc.?
Furthermore, overpopulation means that the population is larger than the environment can sustain, and that includes stuff like current infrastructure.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Yes. It takes into account uninhabitable land, infrastructure (that's what the 1/4 acre per person is), the environment can easily sustain the current population but only if we spread out and stop congregating en masses in cities.
0 ups, 1mo
Once again, what is the source for your numbers?
Where did you get the Texas claim from?
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Just because we don't have the resources to feed overpopulation, doesn't mean people are still going to have kids.
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
Please rephrase in a way that makes sense.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Ok, time to speak your native language. Food doesnt restrict sex. We could run out of food and people would still have sex.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
You didn't use "aren't" which made your statement sound like people weren't going to have kids.
No food, people die. They'll have kids but will it be enough to replace the ones that starve?
0 ups, 1mo
I had to dumb it down. People will have kids even if there is or is not going to be food.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
I think this is the wrong way to approach the debate, as Ridley regards abortion as murder; to them, it therefore sounds as though you are claiming that genocide is justified as a solution to overpopulation.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
I'm saying we should use abortion for unwanted unborn children, not killing anyone in sight.
0 ups, 1mo
I’m aware of that and I do agree, but as I’ve already said: for people like Ridley, it amounts to genocide.
We should make the most of moments like this, when people are open to discussion, to perhaps change their minds.

And that argument won’t work very well if they believe that abortion is so morally wrong in itself. We shouldn't jump so much ahead, we need to work with their baseline.
0 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
Is abortion always wrong?
3 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
Yes.
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
What about cases in which the carriers and fetuses life is in danger if no abortion occurs?
0 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
Number 1: Abortion would kill the baby anyways. Number 2: Get a Cesarean Section. It gets the baby out alive, saves the mother, and we have the technology to keep it alive when it's out.
0 ups, 1mo,
2 replies
I am talking about cases in which a C-section isn't a viable option, that's why I wrote "if no abortion occurs".
0 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
And what cases would that be?
0 ups, 2w,
1 reply
Infection, early pregnancy.
0 ups, 2w,
2 replies
Then do what you can to save both and try your absolute hardest before committing a cardinal sin just to save one if you can't save the other.
1 up, 2w
Okay, let's assume that both WILL die if the abortion doesn't take place. Is the person performing the abortion doing something wrong?
0 ups, 2w
The answer is no. It's the trolley problem, kill one human or two humans. Less is better in this case, so we abort.
0 ups, 1mo
When is it realistically not viable for a Cesarean?
0 ups, 3w,
1 reply
And what technology are you talking about?
0 ups, 3w
Incubators. The NICU exists for a reason.
1 up, 1mo,
1 reply
No. Abortion is sometimes medically required. Like when a underage girl gets pregnant. That scenerio means that the girl is not ready for childbirth and the girl undergoes some form of harm to her body if she does give birth, not to mention that a young girl cannot care for a baby.
2 ups, 1mo,
1 reply
That doesn't make an abortion "medically necessary", it makes having a baby when you're a teenager highly inconvenient and somewhat more damaging than having a baby at full maturity.

You know what's worse than the damage that giving birth does to an adolescent? Getting crushed and ripped limb from limb inside your mother's womb.
1 up, 1mo
Show More Comments
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
If bacteria counts as life on Mars, then cells in the womb count as life as well.