4191
Comments (294)
sorted by:
162
pelosis_liver 162 points ago +162 / -0

Discussed with an uber left friend a couple years back. His belief is that the person in the womb is a person if the mother wants it to be a person. So the real magic isn’t in the birth canal but in the mother’s mind.

127
tom_machine 127 points ago +127 / -0

Human life is a social construct, bigot.

49
JoeNotErotic 49 points ago +49 / -0

Not a human life, yet used to harvest human organs….

27
basedvirginian 27 points ago +27 / -0

I remember when people were saying we should keep abortion up because Muh stem cell research

“Yes, we should be able to slaughter babies in the womb because muh SCIENCE”

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
11
BloodElfSupporter 11 points ago +12 / -1

Which is a moot argument because of the stem cell research done nowadays uses iPSCs (including our lab). There really isn't much need for embryonic stem cell research.

10
ModernKnight 10 points ago +10 / -0

There's no need, embryonic stem cell research has pretty much dead-ended. Untyped stem cells have universally caused horrific problems, with rapid growth of all cell types where they are implanted (almost like it's trying to develop into a whole living being...). Typed stem cell research is showing a lot of promise, and those have absolutely no need for aborted tissue due to doctors discovering how to turn adult cells into typed stem cells. I think it was all the way back in 2012 they got a Nobel Science award for the discovery.

3
emjayt 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds like something a blood elf supporter would say…

3
BloodElfSupporter 3 points ago +3 / -0

;D

9
XxxRDTPRNxxX 9 points ago +11 / -2

Terri Schiavo has entered the chat.

She's not saying anything though.

3
RuleoVicus 3 points ago +4 / -1

😲

3
BlaineBug 3 points ago +3 / -0

Remember when Jesse Jackson came to the defense of Terri Schiavo? Weirdest turn about ever. "Terri Schiavo must survivo!"

3
XxxRDTPRNxxX 3 points ago +3 / -0

lol. I don't remember that.

3
BlaineBug 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah man I was young as heck and remember that. I think someone on the Howard Stern show made up that "Terri Schiavo must survivo!" joke in response, trolling on Jesse Jackson's preacher like speeches.

Anyway, here's for reference; https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/jesse-jackson-in-florida-lends-support-to-terri-schiavo/

1
TownHallBall 1 point ago +1 / -0

Liar! There are no Trump supporters under 40. CNN has made that CRYSTAL clear! So, if you were a child during Sciavo you're a liberal. The "news" said so.

1
BlaineBug 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, I was 15 at the time of this Terri Schiavo debacle and I do remember it somewhat well actually.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TopHat213 1 point ago +3 / -2

That reference is so old she is probably pickled now.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
40
Philhelm 40 points ago +40 / -0

That's an insane standard.

41
Block_Helen 41 points ago +41 / -0

It's the standard though. If it's "wanted" then you congratulate the mother, throw a shower, talk about names and nursery decor and fun real life human shit like that, under the assumption that it will make it to birth.

If it's not wanted it's a clump of human waste product and she's 100% justified in having it vaccumed out of her womb.

That's what they think.

2
MAGAMAN4EVA 2 points ago +10 / -8

You don't congratulate a mother is only a few weeks along. Miscarriages are a thing..

27
Block_Helen 27 points ago +28 / -1

Of course miscarriages are a thing. That's why most responsible pregnant mothers don't tell anyone they're pregnant (beyond closest friends and family) until they're at least twelve weeks along after which the chance of miscarriage is vastly reduced.

Once you tell people you're pregnant, they congratulate you. My comment obviously refers to what happens after the mother announces she's pregnant.

I've had three kids, don't tell me how it works.

2
MAGAMAN4EVA 2 points ago +6 / -4

Not sure why I get downvoted for agreeing with you but whatever lol. I meant the same thing your saying just to be clear.

2
Block_Helen 2 points ago +4 / -2

Okay thanks, sorry if I misread you.

2
TownHallBall 2 points ago +3 / -1

Went back and down voted you. You used the Obama phraseology. We can't allow that on this site. You should go edit that.

1
MAGAMAN4EVA 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're a moron, edit that

4
mateus 4 points ago +4 / -0

You certainly do if she announces it.

3
Frostyfries 3 points ago +4 / -1

Mother's typically don't announce that early.

2
BlaineBug 2 points ago +2 / -0

You forgot the congratulations and partying if it isn't wanted. Still applies for "being brave and stuffs."

-4
President_Elect_Pepe -4 points ago +1 / -5

No.

That’s what they want you to think is their position.

They don’t buy this nonsense.

15
Block_Helen 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yes, some do. Some know it's human life and don't care. There is a range of positions that they hold. I've been pro-life for 35 years, I've had every kind of argument you can have about it.

4
RuleoVicus 4 points ago +4 / -0

Quite a few don't give a shit whether a Life or not.

4
resoluteAction 4 points ago +4 / -0

They are mostly sociopaths. They want the prospect of new organs and eternal life that stem cells represent and the women indoctrinated by lesbian feminazis want to fit in with the working girl career club until their womb is infertile.

1
loric4882 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is the ultimate selfish act.

32
Scipio_Americanus 32 points ago +34 / -2

White, liberal women have the most mental health issues.

https://youtu.be/TLcfAeyySzk

6
BlaineBug 6 points ago +6 / -0

Are white liberal men #2?

6
Scipio_Americanus 6 points ago +6 / -0

I don't know, but that would be my guess. White liberals are the only ones with what's called "outgroup preference."

2
Karma_Bus_Route_20 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's more that their ingroup/outgroup identification is political and the specific demographics don't matter. Their outgroup is loosely "conservatives," not various other groups that they're simply not a member of. White liberals rarely identify with being white, American, middle class, etc. so none of those are their true ingroup; they do identify with "liberal" and even more with "anti-conservative." So they consider almost anyone who is also anti-conservative to be their ingroup.

1
Scipio_Americanus 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't really agree with that. Liberals all tend to have outgroup preference where their country of origin is considered - which makes sense because tearing down a system would be harder if they had national pride.

When it comes to demographics, only white liberals have outgroup preference - all other liberals have in-group preference. Black liberals have no problem championing black causes, etc. But white liberals are imbued with a special degree of self-hatred, unequalled by any other group I've come across. They will never support any agenda if white people are the primary beneficiaries.

16
Block_Helen 16 points ago +16 / -0

That is exactly what most abortion supporters think.

Only "wanted" people are human.

No slippery slope there.

4
Rtsands45 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well nobody wants them... We must abort by their standards. Those subhuman trash.

2
BlaineBug 2 points ago +3 / -1

To be honest I don't want any bacteria and mars. Therefore it isn't a life, let's stop wasting billions of dollars to research mars bacteria.

1
Guruchild 1 point ago +1 / -0

Mars is a ahithole, that’s why life on earth originated from what happened on mars billions of years ago.

0
BlaineBug 0 points ago +1 / -1

What fiction does that theory arise from?

1
Guruchild 1 point ago +1 / -0

Transpermia

1
BlaineBug 1 point ago +1 / -0

What in the hell is that?

1
Guruchild 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your clue to do a basic internet search. Christ almighty, it’s like I’m sitting here playing cards with my brother’s kids or something.

6
TanfoglioStock2 6 points ago +6 / -0

I encountered this in a real debate in college. Mental gymnastics is real.

74
hillaryforprison 74 points ago +76 / -2

If you step on an eagle egg you can be jailed and fined, but kill a person at 9 months and it's just "health care". Evil people on earth have more respect for unborn birds and insects than humans.

51
Block_Helen 51 points ago +51 / -0

Far more. The person I know who's had the most abortions is also a HARDCORE vegetarian and won't even eat a tiny shrimp because muh animal rights.

11
kakuretatsumi 11 points ago +11 / -0

Would she eat the fetus? I mean its not human right?

11
Fenianlad 11 points ago +11 / -0

I went to one of those childbirth class things with my wife when she was pregnant with our first. The woman doing the class was this far out leftist weirdo freak. There was a book on the shelf titled Orgasmic Childbirth. I was miserable and wanted to entertain myself, so when the topic of placenta came up, and people were discussing what people do with it, I said I wanted to keep it to make Placenta Soup after she got home from the hospital. I got evil eyes from most, and some chuckles from other miserable husbands.

2
CucksForTheDonald 2 points ago +2 / -0

People do actually keep and eat placentas. The Mayo Clinic has an article about it:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/labor-and-delivery/expert-answers/eating-the-placenta/faq-20380880

"People have also been known to eat the placenta raw, cooked, or in smoothies or liquid extracts."

2
Fenianlad 2 points ago +2 / -0

That was the basis for my joke. I knew it was a thing. And I made a mockery of her session

1
loric4882 1 point ago +1 / -0

sounds yummy

10
BlaineBug 10 points ago +10 / -0

No other species known to man comes close to the stupidity of homosapiens and mankind.

7
cal5583 7 points ago +7 / -0

honestly its not just stupidity its hubris. these people are proud of their opinions.

2
BlaineBug 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not just focusing solely on this subject - but in general.

4
Mitschu 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Man is the only animal that blushes -- or ever has occasion to."

2
BlaineBug 2 points ago +2 / -0

Other animals can be shy or anti-social, though.

-16
10MeV -16 points ago +9 / -25

No one has to pay child support for an eagle.

29
hillaryforprison 29 points ago +32 / -3

No one has to murder a baby, if you have too much hate and evil in you to care for and love the baby then let a LOVING FAMILY ADOPT. You don't have to pay child support and you don't have to commit murder- win/win, right? Also, if you're too stupid to use protection and don't have money to support a baby then maybe you shouldn't be having sex with random people. There is no excuse to kill a baby or anyone. Those who claim you have no choice but to hack a baby to pieces is a total lie. It could have been you.

2
10MeV 2 points ago +2 / -0

You are so right.

1
CucksForTheDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

if you have too much hate and evil in you to care for and love the baby then let a LOVING FAMILY ADOPT.

I 100% support loving families who want to adopt embryos or fetuses, as long as they arrange for immediate transfer of the embryo or fetus, so as to host it in their own facilities, and at their own expense.

1
hillaryforprison 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sound self entitled and demented like most leftists.

1
CucksForTheDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sound a judgmental prick like most pro-lifers.

-7
barronwin -7 points ago +1 / -8

who...cares? They will just grow up to be a democrat

2
pizzlestickREEEE2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

LOL But let's not con-(D)em anyone before they commit such a crime!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
hillaryforprison 0 points ago +1 / -1

like you?

-22
Hendrixdan57 -22 points ago +4 / -26

Hahaha all the loving families out there waiting for the stork delivery. Stop being niave. The kid will most likely go into foster care where statistically it will be sexually assaulted and develop psychological disorders from having to one to love it. Better off putting it down if you arent gonna take responsibility for it.

10
mateus 10 points ago +12 / -2

There you go, folks. The typical liberal line. Because everyone knows there are NO choices before that one. 🙄

4
pizzlestickREEEE2020 4 points ago +5 / -1

Lately, with TX news, I've seen so much liberal/left think on this topic it's sad and not MAGA.

From defending satanism to claiming abortion was the best decision of their life, you can look at my comments and see the absent conviction.

I'm not sure why people like this are even here. At least learn from the wealth of what's being said here and ask yourself why it's MAGA. We all have to learn.

But, no. Instead it's the typical, historically evil husk-of-a-human logic:

Um, can't come up with an real answer to ____ problem. Just kill them. Until someone fixes ____ problem, which we will illogically fight, keep killing them or we will come for you.

7
Tanmantime 7 points ago +8 / -1

So say a child is 6 months and needs to go into foster care (in your scenario). Should the child be “put down”?

3
RussianBotButNot 3 points ago +3 / -0

He's just looking for someone to green-light his hunting trip to the inner city playgrounds.

2
thisguy883 2 points ago +2 / -0

You do realize that foster care and adoption are 2 different things, right?

Usually when a child is put into foster care, it's because the parents are unfit to be parents by a court. These kids are the ones who are usually abused and already fucked beyond repair.

An adopted child, especially a newborn, almost always goes to parents who actually give a fuck about them because for what ever reason, they can't have children themselves. Adoption is expensive and the gaining parents usually spend lots of money to adopt, whereas foster parents are paid by the state to take care of abused children.

I know this because my sister was a foster parent for a few years until she couldn't handle the stress of dealing with fucked up kids anymore.

1
Hendrixdan57 1 point ago +1 / -0

Kids dont get adopted unless they are new born. Usualy with the foster family until they are adopted or turn 18.Look up what it does to a persons brain when they are neglected from the mother as a child. They do not know how to give or receive love.

1
thisguy883 1 point ago +1 / -0

Kids in foster care rarely get adopted by strangers, but almost always get adopted by family, like an aunt or grandparents.

Newborns always get adopted and rarely go into foster care.

1
BloodDe 1 point ago +4 / -3

It’s killing a person but who cares if liberals kill themselves. It’ll just grow up to be another purple haired detriment to American society. Let them have it

0
RussianBotButNot 0 points ago +1 / -1

Attainder is unconstitutional for a reason.

1
pizzlestickREEEE2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

The leftist ignorance lingers on.

2
10MeV 2 points ago +3 / -1

So many downvotes! Wow. I can see how this may have been unclear. I am against abortion. My point was that self-interest is a big motivator for abortions. That's why eagles are so valued, and human babies are shredded for convenience.

Eagles impose no burden.

2
RussianBotButNot 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's right! Eagles are monogamous, and the male sticks around and helps care for the young! He doesn't even have to be sued into doing it, doesn't up and leave, and doesn't bitch and complain about how he didn't consent to have these eggs.

If your argument was that eagles are more morally upright than human beings, you've done well.

2
10MeV 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, that is a big part of it.

The lefties in favor of abortion don't want to be "punished with a baby", as Preezy BO put it, for sexual immorality. So it relieves the lefties of responsibility, makes their life easier, to kill the baby.

Eagles impose no burden on anyone. I'm not sure they're "morally" upright, but they are far better at the whole mating and child-rearing thing than a typical leftist!

1
cal5583 1 point ago +1 / -0

yeah women dont pay child support either. theres really no accountablility there because of the state.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
48
heightnoise 48 points ago +48 / -0

This needs to be on a t-shirt and shown everywhere. It is one of the strongest logic-based arguments in favor of the pro-life stance.

24
KickingPugilist 24 points ago +24 / -0

It's on Tom Macdonald's "People so stupid"

https://youtu.be/I6FmwBPDT-w

8
Aries_cz 8 points ago +8 / -0

I am not really into rap, but damn, that was spot on...

4
RuleoVicus 4 points ago +4 / -0

Tom actually got me into a lot more rap. Being a metal guy and metal being shit fit 10+ years. Bryson Grey is good, not sure how you'll feel about Loza Alexander.

2
Aries_cz 2 points ago +2 / -0

Some modern metal is still pretty great (Sabaton, Beast in Black, Brothers of Metal, Powerwolf, etc.)

I will give Loza a shot though

1
ArshWar 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for the intro to Loza. Any good rock you know of with this type of message?

2
Guruchild 2 points ago +2 / -0

What Tom Macdonald does with rap is way beyond a music genre.

2
KickingPugilist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Check out his song brainwashed

https://youtu.be/zCBNwGHPZ2M

3
Aries_cz 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hm, spitting some serious truths there...

4
RuleoVicus 4 points ago +4 / -0

Damn, I Commented that too before reading down. Credit to you good sir.

2
RegularAmerican 2 points ago +2 / -0

I heard all this based stuff in reggae songs that are 30 years old. https://youtu.be/5L45toPpEv0

3
KickingPugilist 3 points ago +3 / -0

The message is as old as time. You kill a pregnant mother it's a double homicide. Mother kills a baby and it's reproductive rights.

3
RegularAmerican 3 points ago +3 / -0

I always said that about Scott Peterson. His case was really famous And I lived in California at the time. So it was on the news every night. That's back in my atheist almost looked into being pro choice era of my life. (I never felt right about abortion) I even doubted God in an atheist phase of my life then I also looked into other religions and my morality always told me abortion was wrong.

But that hypocrisy stood out. I said how can this man be guilty of double murder for killing his pregnant fiance when if she decided to go kill it at planned Parenthood she'd have been celebrated by the left and Merrick Garland himself would have seen to it Scott Peterson got cast down with the sodomites like the warden of Shawshank.

2
mateus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pregnant fiancé? It might have been on the news every night, but someone wasn't listening lol.

1
RegularAmerican 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're right they were married. Idk why I had the image in my head they were about to be married to maybe it's some other case I got confused with. It was almost 20 years ago now I was still in high school!

0
finalstraw 0 points ago +3 / -3

it's really not a good argument though. it already starts with the difference between "a life" and "alive". even the meme uses those terms. the bacteria are not "a life" , everyone agrees, but they are "alive". fetus can be "alive" but not "a life" depending on viewpoint/definition of "a life". if you say there should be no difference between bacteria and fetus then you would have to defend all sorts of other life as well. like sperm cells. killing millions every time you fap. but already then "life" is not regarded as holy by you. so that is hypocritical then, if you say that pro-choice should not see a difference between bacteria and fetus.

-1
heightnoise -1 points ago +2 / -3

My definition of "life" constitutes a unique sequence of DNA, irrespective of any religious or philosophical definitions of life. By my definition, a mass of cells taken from the body of a multicellular organism is not a new life, but a hosted lifeform with unique DNA from the host would be, such as a fetus. I believe this addresses you on-point, by my definition a separated sperm cell or unfertilized egg is no more a unique lifeform than a severed finger.

1
CucksForTheDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

Cells don't have 100% exact copies of DNA. This is obvious in cancer, but in lots of other cases the mistakes in copying are harmless.

According to your rule, cancers and tumors are human (they have human DNA), they are a separate person (they are cancerous because of a mutation which makes their DNA different from yours), and you are a murderer if you remove them.

1
finalstraw 1 point ago +2 / -1

yeah thats not too bad actually. you're even more correct when you realize sperm/egg do not have dna, but that would be an accidental exception then. the point is that you do not worry at all about many things that are clearly alive, like some bacteria or a mosquito. things get strange though. so sperm is not alive because no dna? a banana is alive because it has dna? ok fine, the parent plant then I guess. identical twins are a single life? the problem with the meme is that the next step is that you have to defend literally all life because life is sacred. it pushes the discussion to a place you don't want to go, since obviously you mean human life specifically but then the meme equates humans with random other life. you can kill the mosquito so why not the fetus.

1
loonygecko 1 point ago +2 / -1

Do you kill ants if they get in your kitchen? Do you eat meat? But what if ants were discovered on mars? People would probably be interested in ants on mars, yet still kill them in their kitchen. THere is a huge difference between potential human life and any old life. It's disingenuous to compare them. This comic is fine of your goal is to drum up an excuse to make fun of dems but there is no actual valid argument there. If you want to argue that dems should consider microbial life in the same way as fetuses, then I can say you should consider a cow's life in the same way as a fetus. But both arguments are in fact quite ridiculous.

40
foxhound 40 points ago +40 / -0

Aborting liberals age 18+ should be legal.

18
DontArkancideMeBro 18 points ago +18 / -0

You mean like commies?

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
11
bavarianpesant 11 points ago +11 / -0

getting thrown out of a helicopter is probably still more humane than what happens by an abortion

2
RussianBotButNot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nah, just the pro-abort ones.

36
Supplyjackal3002 36 points ago +36 / -0

Even when I was a teenager this never made sense to me. If a person shoots and kills a pregnant woman it’s a double homicide, but if a woman gets an abortion it’s not killing a child.

6
BlaineBug 6 points ago +6 / -0

I wonder what a woke jury would do if a woke defense claimed that double homicide didn't pertain to the unborn? Would they be conflicted?

6
RussianBotButNot 6 points ago +6 / -0

I don't know. What color is the defendant's skin?

2
BlaineBug 2 points ago +2 / -0

lulz.

4
Mitschu 4 points ago +4 / -0

No, because that's what feticide laws are for. Where they exist under law as a distinction from regular homicide, it's ALWAYS, without fail, phrased as "except in the case of abortion."

When the act is so heinous they don't even bother pretending it's any different from a serious crime, and instead just argue that it's okay, women have special permission so it's totally not the same, how do you even argue with that?

3
BlaineBug 3 points ago +3 / -0

You don't argue with that - you simply give them the nudge out of the helicopter door.

1
loonygecko 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did the dems make the double homicide law? I don't know myself actually but a lot of laws are contradictory depending on which influences were present when the law was made.

19
Scipio_Americanus 19 points ago +20 / -1

Gotta change mother to "birthing person" to keep up with their mental nonsense.

17
bubadmt 17 points ago +17 / -0

No, don’t play their fucked up game and start using their own vocabulary. It’s unacceptable and you should make it clear that only a woman can give birth.

10
Scipio_Americanus 10 points ago +10 / -0

I agree, but the NPC in the meme should accurately reflect how bat-guano crazy they've become.

6
DontArkancideMeBro 6 points ago +7 / -1

Sarcasm my dude

7
bubadmt 7 points ago +7 / -0

I’m not your dude, chief.

6
DontArkancideMeBro 6 points ago +6 / -0

I’m not your chief, guy!

7
bubadmt 7 points ago +7 / -0

I’m not your guy, sport!

5
DontArkancideMeBro 5 points ago +5 / -0

IM NOT YOUR SPORT, BUDDY!

7
bubadmt 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY, FAT!

4
Long_time_lurker 4 points ago +4 / -0

The problem with sarcasm is that people are unironically thinking crazy things now.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
15
Rose111234 15 points ago +15 / -0

I’m gonna print this

12
deleted 12 points ago +13 / -1
6
GaTechGrad 6 points ago +6 / -0

More people have been killed by abortion in the United States than killed in all American wars combined.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
10
bubadmt 10 points ago +10 / -0

White bacteria will not count, only brown bacteria.

9
beta-detector 9 points ago +9 / -0

Mars didn't have Margaret Sanger to take care of that.

4
War_Hamster 4 points ago +4 / -0

The Martian version of Margaret Sanger and the Eugenicists actually succeeded and wiped out their whole population. We'll be there soon enough.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
8
stopfeminazis [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

kek

9
PissJuggernaut 9 points ago +9 / -0

So good

8
stopfeminazis [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

yeesssss

9
Assassin47 9 points ago +9 / -0

You can find the same inconsistency when people talk about animal "torture" like docking a dog's tail. Ask someone crying about how painful it must be for the puppy if they know when babies in the womb can feel pain, and if they care.

8
Quality 8 points ago +8 / -0

I'm sure having your tail docked is a walk in the park after getting your balls chopped off.

1
RuleoVicus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Or having your brains sucked out 4 months after exiting the Cosmos to experience Life

1
loric4882 1 point ago +1 / -0

Babies can't feel pain if their mother doesn't want them. Trust the Science.

1
DarkDrai 1 point ago +1 / -0

You must have never cut a horse's balls off.

8
MetallicOpeth 8 points ago +8 / -0

does the crux of their stupid fucking mentality really just fall under the mother's choice? like is that it with this?

2
RussianBotButNot 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, they "think" in bumper-sticker slogans. It's why, whenever you make any sort of nuanced argument that contradicts theirs, they will pause for a second, and then angrily repeat the one-liner that they issued when they joined the discussion in the first place.

"My body, my choice" sounds catchy and clever, so they will just revert to that even while conceding that another person's body is being killed.

8
Organist1022 8 points ago +8 / -0

It's a baby if you want it, a fetus if you don't.

8
FreedomFromGovt 8 points ago +9 / -1

...a parasite if you don't.

These "people" are truly appalling, aren't they?

8
JudicialDredd 8 points ago +8 / -0

Wait until that bacteria meets communism....

7
Weallseethetruth 7 points ago +7 / -0

Good TOM MACDONALD reference!! ...

7
ExposeElites 7 points ago +7 / -0

Another idea would be photoshop embryos all over Mars but a caption that says no life discovered... or something like that

-1
Amaroq64 -1 points ago +1 / -2

I'm pro-choice (maga patriotic atheist) and I would actually get a good chuckle out of that.

6
KDogg 6 points ago +6 / -0

Tom Macdonald has a verse with this very saying…. Check out “People so Stupid”….. good song

5
pikX 5 points ago +5 / -0

While there's no defending these people, I will say that "life" on mars is just referring to anything with biological function, whereas "life" of a fetus to them is if it's a """person""". So, yes, both are alive. the standards for extraterrestrial stuff is just a lot lower because you're looking for anything at all.

-2
loveshock -2 points ago +2 / -4

I like the meme because it's got some logic and great shock value.

But of course it misses context in the actual debate. Many pro abortion admit that the developing tissues inside the mother (fetus, embryo, baby, etc- that covers all stages) is "alive" and "human". Their threshold for whether or not it has rights is based on personhood and development.

I'm of the opinion that even though it may have rights, if the women is in serious danger then it's okay to terminate the pregnancy. Same as you may be a person, but if I am hanging on to the edge of a cliff and you are hanging onto my leg, and I can't hold both of us up, it's not "murder" to shake you off of me. Hell it's possible you may hit the ground and survive, just not likely. And in the same regard, I don't agree with the process of abortion where they kill the fetus inside the mother to extract it, I think it should be a C-section and then they give the fetus a chance to live outside the womb. Then it's up to the new life to make it on its own.

2
RussianBotButNot 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would be more agreeable to this statement if I could see the proof of it happening. I hear a lot of stories about it; but I also hear a lot of stories where the mother was told this, said she couldn't kill her child to save herself, and then gave birth safely and now the child is doing well in school.

(Though the problem with statistics is, of course, that they're basically on an honor system with those doing the reporting--like COVID. How many of those abortions were actually "she is dying on the table and we have to do something" versus "I figured this was bad for her mental health so we went ahead"?)

0
loveshock 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm not saying how many times this happens, I'm just commenting that when it happens, even though it is killing a person, it is the right thing to do in my opinion. Saving the mother instead of dooming both only makes sense.

But the point was, that this meme misses the mark in that many proabortion people agree it is human and life, they just think there are other valid reasons to end it. I gave an example of one I agreed with, so it's not like it's impossible to cross that mark as it can be done in certain circumstances in my view.

0
RussianBotButNot 0 points ago +1 / -1

My problem with these arguments is that they propose hypotheticals, to soften people to the idea that a principle can and should be bent. It's like the Runaway Train Hypothetical--you know, the one with people on the tracks and you're at the switch so what do? I take issue with this one because it admits of no alternatives; everything is a given from the get-go and there is NO OTHER WAY just choose who dies already.

On an intellectual level, maybe there's no problem with the hypothetical, but we're not purely intellectual creatures. We're emotional creatures, and egotistical creatures, so we want to believe that we did the right and good thing, that we chose right. And thus, the resistance to killing innocents is lessened, and we feel good about it.

I'm aware that "life of the mother" could happen, but resistant to the idea that it happens often enough that we need to carve out stated exceptions for it--and tempt people to abuse them.

1
loveshock 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unlike the trolley problem hypothetical, people die because of complications of pregnancy all the time. This is a real event. And a subset of those situations, removing the fetus can be a solution to the emergency. Many emergency C-sections are done each year in which the baby is saved (wooohoo!) but this is not always an achievable outcome. Life is full of suffering and terrible things.

The proposition that the government could force a mother to die with no access to medical treatment is the height of tyranny. The idea that you think mothers should die so that pro-abortion proponents don't use this situation for their own propaganda is an evil you should reflect on. You don't seem to care about these people? You seem to care about fetus's lives a lot, why not the mother's? Can you put yourself into their shoes and imagine what that would feel like? "Sorry, there's nothing we can do...well there is, but we're not allowed to. It would be wrong to cause the death of your fetus so we're going to let both of you die, it's for the greater good"

0
RussianBotButNot 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's a lot of emotional argument and few facts. Got some sources for me on how often it is literally medically necessary to kill an unborn child to save the mother, in America? Or are you just high on your own mighty?

1
loveshock 1 point ago +1 / -0

You:

That's a lot of emotional argument and few facts.

Unlike the trolley problem hypothetical, people die because of complications of pregnancy all the time.

Fact.

This is a real event.

Fact.

And a subset of those situations, removing the fetus can be a solution to the emergency.

Fact.

Many emergency C-sections are done each year in which the baby is saved (wooohoo!) but this is not always an achievable outcome.

Fact.

Life is full of suffering and terrible things.

Fact.

The proposition that the government could force a mother to die with no access to medical treatment is the height of tyranny.

Fact.

The idea that you think mothers should die so that pro-abortion proponents don't use this situation for their own propaganda is an evil you should reflect on.

Suggestion.

You don't seem to care about these people?

Rhetorical question. You don't seem to.

You seem to care about fetus's lives a lot, why not the mother's?

No response from you other than smugness.

Can you put yourself into their shoes and imagine what that would feel like?

I guess not.

Or are you just high on your own mighty?

If you're just going to accuse me of highhorse sitting while actually being a smug asshole, there's little need to respond further.

Got some sources for me on how often it is literally medically necessary to kill an unborn child to save the mother, in America?

As I said before, I don't care how often it comes up. IF it comes up, it's the right thing to do.

1
mateus 1 point ago +2 / -1

Give me a break. Is that supposed to be profound? The issue is elective abortions, not therapeutic ones.

0
loveshock 0 points ago +1 / -1

I just gave an example of why "even though it's a person" doesn't mean you can't legally kill them. Another example is prisoners who have been convicted of serious enough crimes...which is completely off topic...but it still relates to the only point I'm making...that sometimes it's okay to kill people.

I didn't comment on elective abortions whatsoever. I responded to the meme, that misses the point that pro-abortionists agree it is human and life, but think there are reasons for killing it. I gave one reason I agreed with. They have other reasons that they think justifies other circumstances.

The debate on personhood is endless and futile, but the fact is this meme completely misses that point in favor of a huge oversimplification and missing the opponent's views. It looks like "the left can't meme" to me, though it's coming from the right.

-1
pikX -1 points ago +3 / -4

I agree, if the mother is at risk, the mother's life is more important. A fetus is a life, and should be protected as much as possible, but isn't a person yet. The mother is already a person, and while that's a tough situation, you're betting on chance if you go with the child. The world can be cold and cruel, but thats how things are...

1
RuleoVicus 1 point ago +2 / -1

A corporation is considered a 'person'....

5
DemiCod 5 points ago +5 / -0

I use this argument all the time. The fact is, if we witnessed cell division of an organism on Mars, the party here on earth would be so Έρις it would alter our orbit.

But....

That's not alive...LOL.

5
MSHEE-KHAA-YAA 5 points ago +5 / -0

btw, nobody has as of yet found any bacteria on mars.

5
MAGAMAN4EVA 5 points ago +7 / -2

I'm actually pro abortion but this is funny.

4
Mega_MAGA 4 points ago +4 / -0

We must immediately destroy Mars.

4
Awan-CIA-Car-Lot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lulz 😂. Saw this on Gab yesterday. Carry on 👍

4
Kinestron 4 points ago +4 / -0

Somebody has been listening to Tom MacDonald.

4
Hexagon 4 points ago +5 / -1

They didn’t. They only found life spewed from earth. There is a real desperation. Evolution can’t be true if life is only on earth. The odds too great.

4
Block_Helen 4 points ago +5 / -1

Maybe evolution isn't true, then.

0
RuleoVicus 0 points ago +3 / -3

Evolution, genetic adaptation of you will, it a real thing.

Life suddenly existing through random abiogenesis? No.

1
RussianBotButNot 1 point ago +1 / -0

We have a great deal of proof of selective breeding. We eat selectively-bred life forms three times a day, after all, and a lot of us take selectively-bred life forms for walkies.

Maximizing the appearance of recessive traits, however, is not the same as a mutation that materially alters the DNA, making it impossible for the dominant traits to re-emerge.

4
minotaurbeach 4 points ago +4 / -0

I always loved this one.

Have an upvoot

4
BlackKat 4 points ago +5 / -1

Stop this "life on mars' bull crap. They didn't even find life on mars, only naturally forming molecules that make up amino acids and crap like that.

6
HiddenDekuScrub 6 points ago +7 / -1

Er....um, I'm pretty sure that's part of the joke.

4
BlackKat 4 points ago +4 / -0

i know but people keep thinking they found dead cells or something and everyone repeats it. What they found was dirt.

3
RussianBotButNot 3 points ago +3 / -0

That makes their crowing about it all the more amusing, in this context. "It's life!" if it's just chemicals, but "it's not life" if it's an actual person they want to kill.

It's almost like they decide what they want, and then try to redefine reality to justify it.

4
jamesjk1234 4 points ago +5 / -1

literally, this is one of my go-to arguments in battling pro-abortionists. they cannot refute this

4
RuleoVicus 4 points ago +4 / -0

https://youtu.be/I6FmwBPDT-w

Right from TOM MACDONALD! Top comment too!

3
TheironToaster 3 points ago +3 / -0

Bacteria is on Mars but a heartbeat isn't life on earth, weird! People are so stupid, why are they so stupid. Get better issues before we run out of tissues it's so dumb.

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
5
RuleoVicus 5 points ago +6 / -1

But it's, not their body, it's that unique individual human that's getting is brain sucked out or spinal cord severed.

Spez: spelling

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
0
RussianBotButNot 0 points ago +2 / -2

It does not make the government more powerful to direct it to carry out the duties you formed it to carry out. "Deter and prosecute murder" is part of those duties.

0
ufkyflflfguio 0 points ago +1 / -1

They are trespassing. Rights come with responsibilities.

1
RussianBotButNot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you against government agents deterring people from murdering you in your sleep?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
RussianBotButNot 0 points ago +1 / -1

So your position is, because dur gobment lol isn't doing its duty to you, you demand it also not do its duty to others.

Because that will fix it doing things it's not supposed to be doing instead of doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
RussianBotButNot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you ever hire people to do work for you?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
RussianBotButNot 0 points ago +1 / -1

This is the sort of super-serious answer I've come to expect from anarchists.

1
progun_prochoice 1 point ago +3 / -2

agreed. if what a person does with they body does not directly affect you, the government should not be involved. same goes for the vax, drugs, alcohol, and yes, abortion too. body autonomy is protected by the constitution, even after death...which is why if you are not an organ donor, they can't use your organs after you die, no matter how many people it may save.

3
slowmotrin 3 points ago +3 / -0

"It's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven" from a Seinfeld episode that actually made this issue funny for either side.

3
Flipakademsarepedos 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep!!!!!

3
FloppyDisks 3 points ago +3 / -0

Also a Tom Macdonald lyric

2
TopHat213 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are also silent when men kill pregnant women and are charged with 2 counts of murder.

2
BlaineBug 2 points ago +2 / -0

I honestly can't stand the NASA lovers who encourage the delusional behavior of spending billions of dollars to send people to space to float around in a space station and take pictures to send back to earth to tell us how important their space careers are.

2
yurimodin 2 points ago +2 / -0

What's the sauce of the angry commie cartoon ppl?

1
Amaroq64 1 point ago +1 / -0

I just duckduckgo searched "pointing wojacks" and it came up.

"Two Soyjaks Pointing"

2
yurimodin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks

2
colers 2 points ago +2 / -0

At the end of the day it's simple. Viability is mostly arbitrary and vague (and doesn't account for cognizance). Everyone's definition of when it ceases to be "a clump of cells" and becomes a person, is mostly arbitrary and vague. Any vague will inevitably be undermined by subversion, so it's best we DONT rely on vague and arbitrary concept to protect our moral character over a matter most reasonable people will agree will result in the legalization of an unambiguous act of infanticide if not patrolled with adequate rigor.

Heartbeat is simply the most meaningful metric as it is one of the primary indicators of life; anything which has a heartbeat has a life in some fashion. Viability doesn't work because viability proves literally dick in the moral department as it only demonstrates inadequate physiological development and doesn't amount to cognizance; a fetus might only survive outside the womb for 15 minutes but that doesn't mean it isn't spending those 15 minutes in pure agony if it's brain is already evolved enough to register pain, even if it's motor control, vocal cords and musculature aren't developed enough to express it and it seemingly just passive wastes away. We presently don't know when low-level cognizance starts and it's best we don't fuck around with that like we did with baby surgery anesthesia up to 1996

2
iSignedUpForThis 2 points ago +2 / -0

Humanity has a special seed vault in Svalbard Sweden to protect seeds! Why? Because scientists know that seeds can only become plants. But somehow liberals think a "fetus" can become nothing...?

It's not just illogical, it's evil. They know what they are doing.

2
Goldlight 2 points ago +2 / -0

free abortions but you're sterilized if you take it

2
DrHavick 2 points ago +2 / -0

Also if you're a democrat.

1
RussianBotButNot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why stop there? Just shoot them.

1
Goldlight 1 point ago +1 / -0

let them be consumerist serfs

1
ikeepforgettingname 1 point ago +2 / -1

Biological Definitions Vs Liberal Feels Definitions.

I won't deny I am pro-choice, but as a Biologist I will not deny that a fertilized egg meets the definition of living cells "life".

Don't get me started on Lib feels definition of Sex and whether or not it is synonymous with gender.

1
3_cheers 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Heartbeat Bill doesn't ban abortion, just stops abortion after the baby's heartbeat is detected. Late term and Full term aborted babies are what they are fighting to kill. These little ones are what they are after.

1
rossiFan 1 point ago +1 / -0

And yet when you say you won't take the jab because "my body, my choice", it's no longer valid and they REEEEEEEE all the way home. And yet, it's STILL VALID because the body in your body is not yours to kill.

-2
ufkyflflfguio -2 points ago +1 / -3

They aren't killing it. They are ejecting a trespasser. If it can't survive on its own outside the womb, it should have thought of that before trespassing.

Oh, a fetus can't consciously engage in the crime of trespassing? That's exactly why it's not a person.

3
mateus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Bullbleep. They couldn't care less if a fetus can survive outside of the womb, hence their push for abortion at even end stages of gestation--and the "Born Alive" bill always being DOA (no pun intended) where Dems are concerned. 🤔 But they do use the term "it," as you do.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm using the term "it" because it has ambiguous gender, duh.

And if it is a person, then it is trespassing. It needs to be ejected like any other trespasser.

1
Block_Helen 1 point ago +1 / -0

Babies outside the womb can't survive on their own, either. And an unwanted baby could be described as "unconsciously" trespassing in its mother's house - that doesn't mean she gets to legally kill it.

0
ufkyflflfguio 0 points ago +1 / -1

Babies outside the womb can't survive on their own, either.

Yes, and?

And an unwanted baby could be described as "unconsciously" trespassing in its mother's house - that doesn't mean she gets to legally kill it.

You have no problem killing an ant that trespasses in your home. Ants are life.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
krepoisbest 1 point ago +1 / -0

hi tom

1
RiceCrackerUnited 1 point ago +1 / -0

If a mustard seed can grow a huge tree, maybe we should eat the babies? Blood transfusions using young peoples blood is an actual thing, imagine being a kidnapped or orphan blood bag for ultra powerful evil. And maybe all this chemical and clothes holder baby killing is a type of child sacrifice to false gods.

1
canuckspionage 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we don't let blacks abort all their children then they'll give birth to the little criminals though.

1
shill273 1 point ago +1 / -0

funny..they actually value amoeba in the universe over their fellow man.

1
DarkDrai 1 point ago +1 / -0

In response to that one long comment about pod babies that is apparently deleted:

Pod babies are the same as putting a kid up for adoption, only you aren't pregnant for as long (if at all). A mother still needs to choose whether to put their baby in a pod or not. They also give transhumanists a new tool for growing organs, which I might be okay with, since at this point they just steal (mostly foreign) babies and lie about it. It could also lead to the globalists banning sex because they can just raise babies in pods (which is a horrifying idea).

I also think that if you care at all about how the child will be educated and raised, the hardcore pro-life arguments start to fall apart, because you care more about it simply being alive than giving it a good life or raising it as a good person.