505
Reproductive Fights
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
505 points (90.4% liked)
Comic Strips
12663 readers
2607 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Unsure is /s, but doesn't seem like it.
Reproductive health advocates are not mass murdering children. You're thinking of guns, drugs, and cars if you are in the USA, cancer and other genetic defects if in the UK.
All of those things are mass murdering children
We get it, you don't have any scientific knowledge and only go by what religion "says"
The Bible is pro abortion anyway so they have nothing
Exactly. That's what makes their attempts to argue so ridiculous.
Scientific knowledge shows that a foetus is a life
Scientific knowledge shows that a fetus is a lump of cells with no more consciousness than an amoeba that can't exist without the host which makes it closer to a parasite. That's not a baby or a person. You need to actually be able to understand more than a one sentence statement to grasp the vast majority of scientific knowledge.
Source?
That isn't relevant, though.
The word you are looking for is 'fetuses'.
K. I'm going to get back to work for my company that is mass murdering children by lowering employee reproductive health. (/s)
Your taxes may also go towards murdering kids, whether it be state funded abortions or bombing Gaza
Those two examples are wildly different from eachother. One is a medical procedure involving theoretical children, and the other has real kids getting injured and killed.
Edit: wanted to add that the medical procedure is always to prevent a major health issue when being funded by state taxes.
Whenever the israelis bomb the buildings, they don't know for certain there are kids in there. They are just theoretical kids in the moment to them.
More like, Schrodinger's kids. I genuinely hope you find peace and learn to not let being pro-birth justify letting others suffer and/or die. Red tape and bans kill when it comes to healthcare, without solving anything.
A successful abortion always has at least a 100% fatality rate.
Why does that matter? If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb due to genetic defects, why would I care about that when I could care about the health of the mother?
If you are absolutely certain the foetus cannot survive, and carrying it to term will give the mother a high probability of dying after giving birth due to physical complications, then an abortion is a valid medical procedure. However, this accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so unless we are arguing against that, it's not a valid talking point.
I'm saying that red tape and bans gets in the way of that happening for that specific scenario. By your morals, I hold the, "Let 100 guilty people go free before jailing one innocient" stance, also I'm not ok with the government being in charge of deciding when that is appropriate. Thank you for actually treating this like a discussion. I feel like it's important to have.
Oh, so the mother's die every time?
Even under your bad definition it'd be only 50-60% (accounting for the fact that some mothers do die)
That'll make it 200% if they did
You can't have a higher than 100% death rate, that means more people died than were involved in what happened
By reasonable definition that's 1 death: the mother
By your own poor definition it's 2: mother and fetus
So where are we getting extra from?
The fundamental core issue is: do we count the foetus as a life? If so, there's no such thing as a "safe abortion"
We do not, simple as, because it's not
That wouldn't magically change the death rate, though, which was my point, don't change the subject. If you're not smart enough to understand basic math I'm not sure we should even pretend to respect your opinions on things more complicated than that, like basic science
Science points to a foetus being a life- whether or not we value that life is a philosophical, moral and ethical issue. Biological, Physical and Chemical science isn't the answer to everything.
No, science absolutely does not point to a fetus being "a life"
True, but when you clearly don't understand them at all (as you proved with your laughable statement in that very comment) then you also don't have the answer, as they're relevant to the discussion
So foetus don't have cells, then?
fetus, it's weird that you insist on the incorrect spelling
Something having cells does not make it "a life", or else cancer cells are equally as alive as you and I and also can't be removed without that being murder
Ah, typical yankee scum. Always thinking they are the world police, white supremacists thinking they control morality. Coming up with cruel ideologies like "let's murder unborn children" "Let's have school shootings" "let's make people pay for healthcare." "Let's invade other countries". "Let's fund mass terror campaigns against people we disagree with". Have you seen your clown election? Seems you're even trying to get rid of free school meals. You lot are always expecting the world to think and act in accordance with your ways. Even down to trying to force your own system of spelling on us.
Anyway, cancer cells are a life. But we know it's not a human life. A human doesn't die whenever they are removed either, in fact, a human life is typically prolonged when they're removed.
Yeah, no, it's literally the original Latin without the accent mark, it's the preferred medical spelling regardless of location. But good job outing yourself as an even bigger hateful cunt than you already came across as!
Nope, wrong, not that easy to worm out of your own logic. If they're a life and are human cells, then they're a human life
Same with a fetus
Also same with a fetus
The foetus dies when it's removed, else it's a c-section.
Also, you're trying to justify your "correction" of my spelling even though my spelling was perfectly reasonably correct. Typical yank, unwilling to admit mistakes.
Do you think that abortions cut the person open?
Not really, it shows (along with everything else you've said) that you're incredibly ignorant of the topic at hand. This is a medical topic, so we're using the medical terms and spellings. You refuse to acknowledge medical anything it would seem, including spelling
Cute, but critique of your spelling isn't a mistake on my part and it's clearly you who's been burying their head in the sand. Project harder, it's pathetic
Medical terms are irrelevant as this is a philosophical argument.
Lol, no it's not, you yourself claimed science said something on this topic, pick a lane
Got it I'll just stop paying my taxes that'll fix everything
What about when they carefully aim and shoot a child?