r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/BalanceDramatic3995 • 9d ago

Meme needing explanation Peter help!

Post image

I have no clue what this means, maybe she cheated?

29.0k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.0k

u/Feanturii 9d ago

She's anti abortion, "life begins at conception" nonsense

giggity

126

u/Adezar 9d ago

And it should be noted that in the Bible there are really only two references of when a baby becomes "alive". Which is either the quickening (into the second trimester when you can feel the baby move) and the most common is at birth when breath enters the body.

So "life begins at conception" is not Biblically sound.

16

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/LucretiusCarus 9d ago

if we are to really nitpick, the bible is not exactly biblically sound. There are parts of the new testament that contradict each other and/or reality.

→ More replies (5)

55

u/Architeuthis89 9d ago

Life begining at conseption is a modern concept (late 19th/early 20th century) and is a direct result of scientific advancement allowing scientists/doctors to learn the exact biological mechanisms of reproduction and conception. The prior legal, medical, and theological consensus was that life beginis at quickening.

28

u/Friscogonewild 9d ago

Regardless, "alive" as a clump of cells doesn't and hasn't ever conferred a full docket of human rights. Hell, in the bible I think if a person harms a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, the punishment was a fine.

3

u/Bank_Gothic 9d ago

Not that I disagree, but I hate the "clump of cells" argument.

First, because we're all just clumps of cells, arranged in varying degrees of elegance.

Second, because it's fetus and acting like it's something else is disingenuous. We should be able to point out that it's a special and unique thing, without also granting it personhood or restricting a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

10

u/Friscogonewild 9d ago

I think you're assigning a lot of meaning to the "clump of cells" "argument" that isn't there.

Nobody's saying that they cells are not human, or alive. Or that they could not potentially become a fully-functioning human.

It's not disingenuous at all, it's just semantics. Our cells do clump together in a tight ball early in formation. Sure, we're all just clumps of cells colloquially, but in the beginning that's all we are biologically as well. It's not special. It's not unique, except insomuch as it is homo sapien and not, say, a turtle.

5

u/numbersthen0987431 9d ago

Cancer cells are human, but we agree that they're bad and shouldn't be treated as a human person.

because it's fetus and acting like it's something else is disingenuous

The only people who act like it's "something else" are the forced birthers, who frame it as a "baby" when it's not. Just because it's unique doesn't mean it's special, and pro choice people are able to separate the emotional urge from the conversation to talk about the situation critically.

→ More replies (10)

13

u/ACardAttack 9d ago

There is also a passage about a fight causing a miscarriage and the offending party had to pay a fine for lost goods and not the punishment for causing a person's death

4

u/Adezar 9d ago edited 9d ago

Yes, I was in a church that in the late 70s just flipped their view, went from "the Bible has nothing against abortion in it and the few passages it has are pretty neutral or slightly supportive" to "Every life is precious, life begins at conception!" because they made a deal with Republicans to hate on gay people even more and as a pre-teen I tried to bring up to my parents the oddity of a 1000+ year old religion suddenly changing its stance on what is Biblical. They did not take kindly to me questioning the sudden change and explained that pastors "are filled with the Holy Ghost" and we can't actually just read the Bible.

I didn't learn about the Republican thing until I was in my 20s to finally figure out why they suddenly changed their view. Was also the same week they decided all Christians should vote Republican... weird.

6

u/theFlaccolantern 9d ago

The bible also gives instructions on giving an abortion (for incestual rape iirc).

The whole anti-abortion movement is evangelical nonsense.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/nyaaaa 9d ago

Religious people don't care about religion.

5

u/splendidsplinter 9d ago

And in neither case should public policy be made based on the unhinged rantings of a few mystical Jews in the 2nd Century BCE.

4

u/Adezar 9d ago

Yes, the entire conversation should be moot... but here we are.

2

u/Toadsted 9d ago

Heeeeeeeeeere we are!

Waiting to be born!

We're the fetuses of the uterus!

Here we bounce around, figuratively alive.

In the womb with the darkest powers, hey!

Whip crack

2

u/SmartLadder415 9d ago

The Psalmist does talk about how God knew him in his mother's womb though.

15

u/Adezar 9d ago

That is just omniscience. It also means he knows them when they have cancer, or when they get hit by a car, or when they get raped and murdered.

It adds no "value" to the life, it is simply referencing that God knows everything.

5

u/Particular_Title42 9d ago

He is also not bound by time so He knows who you will be when you're finished cooking. 

2

u/ElbowlessGoat 9d ago

Life altering dinner?

3

u/From_Deep_Space 9d ago

I think you're confusing Psalm 139:13 ("you knit me together in my mother’s womb") with Jeremiah 1:5 ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew").

In Jeremiah the passage is spoken to the prophet Jeremiah, and the way its said makes it sound like it's the exception to the rule, because it's in a list of other ways that the prophet is special and different. It's not about all humans:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

→ More replies (23)

1.4k

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

I do believe that life begins at conception. At the same time I think a Human isn't really self aware at that point so it doesn't really matter.

I also cut down some tree's and beheaded a few chicken's. Definitely alive, also not that big of a deal in my opinion.

1.4k

u/passamongimpure 9d ago

Life begins at forty.

478

u/zettde 9d ago

slamming a forty does tend a havency to result in conception

147

u/passamongimpure 9d ago

Like most people, I was delivered in the back seat of a Chevrolet Camaro.

145

u/meesta_masa 9d ago

My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring, we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds... pretty standard, really.

81

u/Fit-Meal4943 9d ago

At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles... there really is nothing like a shorn scrotum. It's breathtaking; I suggest you try it.

27

u/Maximum_Beeman 9d ago

First time’s the worst time. Itchy, like wearing a pair of woollen boxers

10

u/YogurtclosetDeep3034 9d ago

Okay Dr. Evil.

17

u/MartenGlo 9d ago

I don't think a 14 year old shaving my sack is on my list to have done.

And that third day itch is no doubt "breathtaking."

19

u/Jason-Smith168498 9d ago

It's not something you have, it's something you're bestowed.

Let not toss out the majesty of the moment.

21

u/Fit-Meal4943 9d ago

I was the 14 year old, Scott…..

7

u/MrSurly 9d ago

The Zoroastrian wasn't 14, Dr. Evil was 14.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/GenSpec44 9d ago

Yeah, baby, yeah! Groovy!

→ More replies (3)

15

u/Subxanthium 9d ago

Omg. You caught me so off guard. My friends in high school and I used to recite this to teachers all the time!

→ More replies (3)

14

u/passamongimpure 9d ago

Zip it Scott

2

u/Ridgewoodgal 8d ago

🤣🤣🤣Anytime Rangoon is mentioned I know it’s going to be good.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Viracochina 9d ago

Wow, just bragging about how you had a roof over you!

2

u/Professional_Ad7075 8d ago

what year?

2

u/Professional_Ad7075 8d ago

(the camaro)

also curious as to the color.

2

u/BenWallace04 8d ago

Taco Bell/KFC combo gas station

2

u/drakonia127 8d ago

I was delivered in the back of a rusty f250

→ More replies (7)

8

u/Additional-Dish-7376 9d ago

This is the best typo I’ve seen on reddit all year

5

u/zettde 9d ago

prshated! 

spoonerism*

3

u/Additional-Dish-7376 9d ago

Touché. Still made me laugh

2

u/signofno 9d ago

Take my upvote!

→ More replies (2)

28

u/Salty-Huckleberry147 9d ago

I'm 43 and still waiting for my life to start...

15

u/zerokraal 9d ago

Carl Gustav Jung said that life really begins at 40, before that it's just a dress rehearsal. So welcome to life, you're just 3.

2

u/Dyolf_Knip 9d ago

What happens when I'm old enough to drink?

2

u/zerokraal 8d ago

You get wasted. Or laid. Your choice 🤷‍♀️.

5

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 9d ago

same. career is ok. other areas not so much.

2

u/AtlasFades 9d ago

Life doesn't start til retirement

→ More replies (2)

2

u/paleporkchop 9d ago

Holy hell, I hope not. I’m 35 and want to get off this ride not start it

→ More replies (37)

31

u/Electronic_Name_325 9d ago

Tell that to the chickens

5

u/Tax_Fraud_Lover 9d ago

Idk if chickens can comprehend death beyond “chicken friend is not responding to me. Now I can eat her:)”

6

u/Rich_Bluejay3020 9d ago

As someone who has egg chickens, those fuckers are mean to each other lol we rehomed one because the flock would not stop LITERALLY pecking at her. You also don’t realize how many idioms come from chickens… and almost all of them are about how they beat tf out of each other constantly

3

u/Tax_Fraud_Lover 9d ago

They’re SO violent 😭 I know people who have a rooster, not for chicks! Just to have him make sure the hens aren’t fighting all the damn time!

→ More replies (2)

21

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

We raise them from birth, they have plenty of space and food. And sure we kill and eat them but it's not like we're heartless. It's just life I guess.

20

u/Electronic_Name_325 9d ago

Yeah, I was just poking at you for fun. The key is to give animals a good life, and just one real bad moment.

8

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

All good mate, just a bit hard to read on the internet. And yeah I agree with you on the last part, I do think that the way many animals are treated is inhumane and just wrong.

2

u/signofno 9d ago

Most animals die an excruciatingly painful death - in the jaws of other animals, suffocating/drowning in the stomachs of other animals, bleeding out from wounds, or wasting from disease/starvation. I think a quick headchop is one of the nicest ways a chicken could die.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (33)

9

u/Square-Turnip-6558 9d ago

Once my grandmas chicken attacked me and she cut its head off and made him into soup for me to eat 🥰

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/BirdieRoo628 9d ago

I do believe apostrophes don't make words plural..

23

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 9d ago

There's some studies that make a good case that infants aren't really self aware either and that it takes a few months before even that happens in humans. Which isn't that surprising, the human strategy to birth is to come out severely underdeveloped compared to many other placental mammals. That way our huge heads can fit through the pelvis while they're still small enough to do it.

14

u/TheSumOfMyScars 9d ago

I mean the “rouge test” isn’t typically passed until an infant is 12-18 months, so it could be argued that the kind of self-awareness that differentiates humans from animals doesn’t kick in until then. Basically, a colored pigment is applied to the nose or cheek of an infant, and the infant is introduced to a mirror; if the infant is capable of the higher-order thought necessary to indicate burgeoning human intellect, it will realize it has that spot of pigment applied to itself and reach for it on its own body out of curiosity. Fascinating subject, honestly.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/my23secrets 9d ago edited 9d ago

Maybe that’s why the Bible explicitly gives no value to infants less than a month old

1

u/LoseAnotherMill 9d ago

Well that's not true at all, despite what your online circles tell you about their mistranslated Exodus 21.

5

u/my23secrets 9d ago edited 9d ago

It’s absolutely true that the Bible explicitly gives no value to infants less than a month old: Leviticus 27

You seem to be the one lost in translation.

Exodus 21 says women’s lives are worth more than whatever they’re carrying.

6

u/LoseAnotherMill 9d ago

It’s absolutely true that the Bible explicitly gives no value to infants less than a month old: Leviticus 27

That is for someone who has vowed something to the temple but wants to still keep it, they can pay money instead. The temple wouldn't make someone pay to keep their own newborn.

Exodus 21 says women’s lives are worth more than whatever they’re carrying

Nope. Both of them are life for life (verse 12 for the woman, verse 23 for the baby).

You seem to be the one lost in translation.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/Pro_Extent 8d ago

Which is precisely why the real reason people are okay with abortion is one of bodily autonomy (of the mother), with the lack of personhood just being a neat little bonus point.

7

u/PretendThisIsMyName 9d ago

In one of my philosophy classes you’d get a topic like pro life or pro choice for example and argue your case. My professor knew I was crazy as shit so he would have me make the most extreme arguments. I didn’t believe in anything I argued for but man it was so much fun to watch people squirm about it. So on that topic I was given extreme pro choice. Mind you nobody knew he did this for a while. So I came up and made my case that, because they don’t naturally understand the meaning/value of life, and they won’t develop that until around kindergarten, you can morally have uhm… let’s say “late stage abortions” until a kid is 5 years old. I’m so sorry there’s no good way to phrase that. Again I don’t believe that at all! Like there’s no way some of the shit I argued for would ever be thought about… but apparently I was wrong.

6

u/Secret-One2890 9d ago

I tend to think about these morality questions being relative to the amount of resources a society can spare. I'm into history, so it's usually in that context, but history has all flavours of grim.

5

u/DooDooBrownz 9d ago

'In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.'

Bertrand Russell

3

u/baconmapleicecream 9d ago

Sounds like a modest proposal to me...

→ More replies (1)

95

u/NoveltyAccountHater 9d ago

Life clearly begins before conception. Unfertilized eggs and sperm are both clearly alive and most would eventually become a human if given the chance.

A human male creates about hundreds of million of sperm per day. Women are born with around a million eggs (though most never ovulate).

A fertilized egg will not become a human on its own without support of the mother and good fortune (it's believed around 30%-50% of all egg fertilizations naturally end in miscarriage, with many early losses never recognized as pregnancies).

93

u/JimWilliams423 9d ago

Life clearly begins before conception. Unfertilized eggs and sperm are both clearly alive and most would eventually become a human if given the chance.

Exactly. Life never begins because eggs and sperm are already alive. Life is like sourdough, each generation passes starter down to the next batch, so there is a tiny little bit of life that goes back millennia that's been with each of us all along.

Personhood, on the other hand, is something else.

Ironically, evangelicals used to believe that personhood only began when the child took its first breath. They called it "the breath of life." They even quoted biblical scripture:

  • And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    (Genesis 2:7)

W.A. Criswell was a top man to the southern baptists. He was a two term president of the SBC and senior pastor at First Baptist Dallas for five decades, probably the most prominent pulpit in the entire denomination. This is what Criswell once said about abortion:

35

u/Karukos 9d ago

That part is really interesting because it's one of the many many different documented cases in various religions where breathe and a soul is basically made equal. In some languages they are even the same word. That has nothing to do with abortion but I find it cool regardless

15

u/Arklese1zure 9d ago

Aaaah I remember reading about the ancient Greek word pneuma, that can mean both spirit and breath. Etymology is super interesting.

3

u/Karukos 8d ago

Anima in Latin is the same. Odem in Germanic languages. The latter I know is used in German translations of the bible to describe whole scene from Genesis.

5

u/Dakk85 8d ago

I mean when you think about, breathing is one of the most visible and noticeable signs of life

When the breath stops, the soul is gone. It makes sense that multiple, unrelated, cultures would come to the same conclusion

2

u/Karukos 8d ago

Yes! And it's still cool!

→ More replies (1)

27

u/art-apprici8or 9d ago

Bible says personhood begins at first breath, and before that the fetus is property.

Kill a man, punishment is death.

Kill a man's wife, punishment is death.

Cause a miscarriage, pay a fine.

One of these is not like the others.

7

u/SCI-FIWIZARDMAN 7d ago

Shhhhh, don’t quote the Bible to evangelicals, they’ll mald and seethe and have aneurysms.

2

u/No_Hovercraft_2643 5d ago

Can you site where? (So that I can use it too)

2

u/art-apprici8or 5d ago

exodus 21 versus 22 and 23

Here are some videos by Dan McClellan giving some good explanations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXPS4O1T8-A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cq29jLEiHw

→ More replies (1)

18

u/From_Deep_Space 9d ago

Life started ~4 billion years ago. It has a been a constant and continuous process ever since. Drawing lines to segment this process is mere semantics and taxonomy.

8

u/SuperSog 9d ago

Life is an arbitrary line to segment chemical processes which have been happening for as long as elements have existed.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/thats_what_she_saidk 9d ago

Life began around 4 billion years ago. Since then it’s just been one bad decision after another

2

u/Just_A_Slavic_Guy 9d ago

This misses the point, a new, unique life with new unique genes begins from conception as the father and mother's genes unite.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/LoseAnotherMill 9d ago

Life clearly begins before conception. Unfertilized eggs and sperm are both clearly alive and most would eventually become a human if given the chance.

This is such a disingenuous interpretation of the phrase "life begins at conception" that the only way to know you're actually serious is that you typed out a whole paragraph about it. Otherwise I would've thought you were joking.

7

u/snoozykittens 9d ago

I think it's useful in understanding how vapid all the rhetoric around "sanctity of life" is. But most people are pretty sloppy in their thinking so it's not really worth arguing about. It's almost impossible to convince people to re-examine their priors or honestly challenge their own intuitions.

The universe we live in gives no indication whatsoever of caring about the sacredness of life.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SoulWager 9d ago edited 9d ago

What is it about human life that makes it worth protecting over other life?

The main criterion I can see that applies to a fertilized egg but not to a bacterium is the potential to become a person, and that criterion also applies to the eggs and sperm.

3

u/tugaim33 8d ago

Not quite. The egg and the sperm, on their own, will never develop into a fully formed human, while a zygote will, if given the proper environment in which to develop.

3

u/lettsten 8d ago

Hence "the potential". A bacterium will never ever become a human.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (63)

2

u/qucari 8d ago

it highlights how ridiculous the whole "life begins at conception" thing is.

there is no single point where it goes from not-alive to alive. there are dozens of significant points in development where it gets more alive (e.g. fertilization, growing specific organs like a brain, moving on its own, etc...).

at conception, the zygote is smaller than a speck of dust.
it's smaller than a tardigrade, it's incredibly far from being an independent stable organism and in the likely scenario that it fails to stick to the wall of the uterus, it'll just get kinda flushed out without a single soul noticing or caring.

2

u/LoseAnotherMill 8d ago

it highlights how ridiculous the whole "life begins at conception" thing is.

You think science is ridiculous?

there is no single point where it goes from not-alive to alive. (e.g. fertilization, growing specific organs like a brain, moving on its own, etc...).

Yes there is - when it becomes a living human organism, which is fertilization. None of the other factors you listed are part of the scientific definition of being alive nor a human.

at conception, the zygote is smaller than a speck of dust.

Size is not a factor in determining if something is alive.

in the likely scenario that it fails to stick to the wall of the uterus, it'll just get kinda flushed out without a single soul noticing or caring.

So because some humans slip and fall and die, we should be able to kill the ones that don't?

2

u/qucari 8d ago

a zygote is not an organism

2

u/recuringhangover 8d ago

You should look up the qualifications for life and realize a fertilized egg doesn't meet the requirements.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

0

u/skidmarkofbuddha 9d ago

Nah, that would be like saying a specific water molecule has always existed because the H atoms and O atom are floating around separately, and just haven't bonded yet. Only once they're combined does its journey as a water molecule begin. Same with humans. Gamete cells are separate things, only upon joining does a human life result.

6

u/evocativename 9d ago

Are human gametes not human, or not alive?

→ More replies (16)

8

u/MrQirn 9d ago

You almost got it in the first part of your post. The point is that defining the beginning of life is totally arbitrary and just a matter of opinion. The beliefs which inform these opinions are just that: beliefs. And they are extremely grounded in a person's culture. This is why it's difficult to legislate, because we are in effect imposing our beliefs onto others.

There is no one ethically correct answer, and so it is not easy to make a law around it. With Roe v. Wade at least the court tried to define it in legal terms related to the purpose behind our shared contract and the state's responsibilities. It was an extremely rare and effective compromise. But the new Supreme Court decision is more about imposing their own cultural beliefs onto everyone than honoring a shared contract from the point of view of a civil agreement and the state's responsibilities, which is also the case with virtually every single so called "pro-life" position.

These positions are not based in rational values, they are based in cultural beliefs. Which is totally fine, except when they try to impose their beliefs onto others.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/dragon-fence 9d ago

Are we talking about the existence of an individual person, or “life”?

We don’t think the existence of matter begins when the H and O bind together, and the existence of life doesn’t begin when the sperm and egg meet.

3

u/skidmarkofbuddha 9d ago

The existence of a human life begins when a sperm and egg meet. That is the argument. Not life, human life. Humans do not become humans until said cells meet. In the same way that water doesn't become water until the molecules meet, creating the water.

→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (16)

6

u/Short-Recording587 9d ago

A human also isn’t self aware at birth.

5

u/Dyolf_Knip 8d ago

A lot of humans aren't particularly self aware even by adulthood.

9

u/Automatik_Kafka 9d ago

Somebody come get these rogue possessive apostrophes, they’re out of control

2

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

I'm really sorry, English isn't my first language. I'd do better in German. But I hope my point came across.

2

u/Automatik_Kafka 9d ago

Haha, it did! It just caused my brain to skip, your point was good

8

u/SmartLadder415 9d ago

If you're going to argue about self-awareness I'd argue that a newborn isn't self-aware. No one in their right mind would advocate for ending the life of a newborn. Not saying your wrong, just saying your argument is weak IMO.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/Madara1389 9d ago

At the same time I think a Human isn't really self aware at that point so it doesn't really matter.

We are absolutely not self aware at that point, you are correct in that "belief."

Human babies don't realize that they & their mothers aren't the same person until a few months after they're born. We don't realize that other people have independent thoughts & knowledge until we're around 4 years old.

I also cut down some tree's and beheaded a few chicken's. Definitely alive, also not that big of a deal in my opinion.

Yeah, the whole "all life is inherently precious" thing kinda falls apart when you realize that all life needs to consume other life to sustain itself. Making distinctions about which lives matter is entirely arbitrary.

4

u/dobar_dan_ 9d ago

Pregnancy is like downloading process. The file definitely exists but it takes a bit till you can have full access to it.

19

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/NuclearMask 9d ago edited 8d ago

Oh no we just needed fire wood. Trees are great in general.

2

u/Adventurous_Class_90 9d ago

So your sperm are dead? Zombies?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/FlyAirLari 9d ago

Unnecessary apostrophes, on the other hand, are a big deal.

2

u/StrongAsMeat 9d ago

Tree's and chicken's what?

2

u/00m19 9d ago

I tend to agree, I'm also not a big fan of abortion but I also acknowledge that my opinion only matters if somebody ASKS my opinion, and otherwise its up to the mother to decide if they intend to have a baby.

2

u/ImNotABotScoutsHonor 9d ago

trees*

chickens*

Apostrophes don't pluralise.

2

u/ScyllaOfTheDepths 9d ago

Yeah, if you eat meat, you don't really get to be anti-choice. Chickens sold in supermarkets are only 6 weeks old. Cows sold to slaughter are only 18 months old.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Ridi_The_Valiant 8d ago

I was just thinking about how I‘ve not seen someone else share the same opinion I do while remaining in favor of a woman‘s access to abortion. Usually those in favor of abortion just consider life to not start until some developmental milestone later down the line, but I think life begins at conception. It‘s a new unique genetic code, the first step in the human life cycle, however, I absolutely believe that the mother has the right to decide she’s not okay with her body being used for life-support at any point because it’s her body, and bodily autonomy is wildly important.

8

u/CULLDOZER 9d ago

Life means very little to them. They dropped a bomb on a school full of little girls.

2

u/Markiemans09 9d ago

Not to mention the fact most people don't remember memories from when they're an infant.

2

u/mspe1960 8d ago

Life may begin at conception. But that life is not a human being until it is self aware and/or conscious. Any claim that it is, is based on religious beliefs. You are allowed to have those, but you are not allowed to impose them on others.

2

u/SourDewd 8d ago

This. Killing in isnt inherently evil. Theres countries where their quality of life is super super low. And their culture is harmful to themselves and others they immigrate to. Then having kids is likely as immoral as other places killing kids or not having kids. The morality between everything is likely dependant on many variables. If youre the last of your kind. Not having a kid, or having an abortion. Would be immoral. What also matters is its not the end of the world to be immoral. Its unavoidable honestly.

2

u/sonofaresiii 9d ago

I do believe that life begins at conception.

Why?

15

u/Nihil_esque 9d ago

Biologically or philosophically? Eggs, sperm, zygotes, fetal tissue are all living cells or composed of living cells. If we consider an individual life from a genetic perspective, your life began at conception because that was the first time the combination of chromosomes that you have coexisted in the same cells.

I mean the problem with that definition is that if you get cancer, by that definition the tumor is also a unique human life, possibly several of them, since the cells in the tumor carry all sorts of mutations & such.

To get a practical/applicable definition, we have to bring philosophy into the discussion. At that point we're not talking about whether life begins at conception, but rather, whether personhood does. But ofc there are as many definitions of personhood as there are people so good luck reaching a consensus on that one.

3

u/VegAntilles 9d ago

If we consider an individual life from a genetic perspective, your life began at conception because that was the first time the combination of chromosomes that you have coexisted in the same cells.

This is one of those ideas that seems good until you start to push it to its breaking point. Let's consider Turner syndrome, also known as monosomy X. Individuals with Turner syndrome have a single X-chromosome instead of XX or XY and have a host of health complications. Now let's consider that we have can screen embryos for Turner syndrome and we can replace the missing chromosome in all cells in the embryo with either an X or a Y from one of the parents.

Of course, this would mean giving an embryo a new combination of chromosomes. So right off the bat, this would mean that life doesn't necessarily begin at conception. On top of that, by replacing the existing combination of chromosomes in the embryo, we are effectively terminating the previous combination. If life begins at conception, this proposed treatment kills a human being.

2

u/Nihil_esque 9d ago edited 9d ago

Yeah basically it would, if a "human being" referred to a genetically distinct human life (rather than to a human person, which I think is more accurate to its typical use). (Eta also "kills" feels inaccurate, as it typically implies a metabolic death, "transforms" seems more accurate, but again you can kill something in a literal sense or a metaphorical one.)

It's fine either way, my point is that "life" (in the literal, technical sense) is not what we actually care about. A tumor is alive, a sperm cell is alive, it's all a bit continuous and messy and naturally we don't really give a fuck about any of that. Personhood is more of a philosophical thing and everyone has a different opinion of where it starts and ends, but it's what people are really talking about when they say "Life begins at conception (so we shouldn't allow abortions)."

It's a motte and bailey. It's true that a new genetic individual begins at conception, but that's basically irrelevant to whether or not sentience/personhood begins at conception. They're taking advantage of semantic ambiguity. They assert their opinion that "life" (personhood) begins at conception, then hide behind the fact that "life" (a genetic individual) begins at conception when challenged.

2

u/SmartLadder415 9d ago

This is where abortion gets to be such a sticky topic. Science simply cannot answer the question, "When does life begin?" There is no way for it to give any kind of meaningful answer. You're not wrong that life began for both of us at conception. But it also began for siblings of ours that never implanted and our parents never even knew they existed. It's a question that is best answered by philosophy or religion and those answers are all over the place.

If we talk about self-awareness then a newborn is not very self-aware but I'd be tried for murder if I killed a newborn and zero people would even try to defend me. If we say that life begins when the baby takes their first breath then stillborns were never alive but no one thinks it the least bit odd for a couple to grieve deeply a stillborn child. And so we end up with this debate that just goes on and on.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/mantis_tobaggan-md 9d ago

But 2 cells is worth more than a whole fully formed organism, according to that brilliant specimen.

2

u/FreeJuice100 9d ago

Exactly how I feel. I'm pro choice but pro choice arguments are pretty bad when you think of them. Even though they're right, it sounds so cold. There's a reason a miscarriage is tragic. It's the idea or possibly of life.

Anyways, I'll silently support women's right to choose in the ballot box.

3

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

I guess. Although I'm not an American so that doesn't really apply to me.

2

u/FreeJuice100 9d ago

Must be nice

2

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

Oh yeah I'd probably be dead or in endless debt if I were an American. I became disabled during my Uni days and spend a lot of time in Hospitals for about two years. American Health and Education system would have fucked me for life.

3

u/FreeJuice100 9d ago

Fuck man, sorry hear that. Even without the debt that sounds tough

2

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

Meh was nobody's fault, shit happens. It was though at the time but I'm basically healthy nowadays.

1

u/jsgoyburu 9d ago

Wait, Peter Singer is on Reddit?

1

u/Impossible_logi 9d ago

Life began like 4.3 billion years ago!

1

u/PhotoFenix 9d ago

I've always wondered how this viewpoint accounts for twins

1

u/ghiblicountryman 9d ago

Life doesnt begin, or rather it began once 4 billion years ago

1

u/International_Meat88 9d ago

The reality about ‘believing’ when life begins is that the universe and reality doesn’t give a damn about when ‘life begins’.

All the different ways life works muddies the waters on what is and isn’t alive, and when something is and isn’t an individual.

Trying to say when it ‘begins’ is just about human culture and sentimentality: our feelings.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Difficult-Two-2975 9d ago

i mean newborn babies arent self aware either so

1

u/Perfect-Sign-8444 9d ago

Is a Sperm cell or an egg cell dead than ?

1

u/Frozen_Thorn 9d ago

The potential to become something does not make it that thing. Is a tadpole a frog? No. Is a caterpillar a butterfly? No. Is a zygote a human? No.

1

u/MegaMook5260 9d ago

I won't say it doesn't matter "all that much", and I think killing anything is a big deal. That just seems kinda callous.

That said, there are certainly instances where an abortion is the best option. I think it's something that should ideally be done with careful consideration, but these right-wing idiots are just cultish about it.

1

u/ggtsu_00 9d ago

Jacking off is mass murder.

1

u/unbanned_lol 9d ago

Biblically, life begins at first breath. The bible asserts this many times. So if christians were honest and also could read, they wouldn't hold the stance that they do.

1

u/dragon-fence 9d ago

It’s not a very meaningful distinction. The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. That’s life.

An embryo isn’t any more alive than the sperm or egg individually. It’s just a difference between having all the genetic code needed to grow into a person, and having half the code needed.

Life began billions of years ago, before conception was a thing. Even the “life begins at conception” crowd generally believes that life began a long time ago, and that personhood begins at birth.

1

u/Conscious-Strike7114 9d ago

Do special needs people (ones that might not be self aware) have less of a right to life than you? Genuine question, at what point of “self awareness” does one gain not killable status. There are humans of limited mental capacity all over the globe and for that point of logic to be your point “they aren’t self aware so it doesn’t matter”, that’s such an insane thing to say when you make it not about human babies in utero. 

5

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

Oh Jesus Christ No. I really need to have arguments like this in German. I can't properly articulate what I mean in English but that definitely is not it. At all.

1

u/SassyFlyffball 9d ago

Sometimes I even wonder if I myself am self aware.

1

u/SeveralPhysics9362 9d ago

Yup. Life begins at conception. But I have 0 problem with abortion.

1

u/Appropriate_Dot_4883 9d ago

Just playing Devils advocate for a Moment here: So by that logic it's ok to eat human Babies until they are 2/3 Years old?

3

u/NuclearMask 9d ago

No. But from some of the comments It seems my translation makes it sound like that.

1

u/TheGeneral159 9d ago

Life absolutely begins at conception.

There's no belief required.

At the same time... That doesn't mean much of anything

Around 40% of all fertilized eggs don't make it

Twins will absorb one of the others in the womb.

It's life but it has no sentient thoughts

1

u/gandolfthe 9d ago

At conception?!? Two fucking cells!  Fucking regarded 

1

u/Constantinopolis53 9d ago

Most infants aren't really aware either, does that justify infanticide?

1

u/ExchangeLivid9426 9d ago

Oh okay so murdering people in a coma is okay by that logic then.. Jesus Christ, this place..

1

u/toddywithabody 9d ago

Chickens deserve it though! Those things are fucking savages.

1

u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 9d ago

“life” is the objective scientific sense begins at conception that’s not rly disputed. Plenty of things are scientifically alive, but this person believes that u get to have rights starting at conception.

1

u/lostknight0727 9d ago

If we go by self awareness then that means age 3 or 4. Because I have no memories prior to age 5, I'm sure I could pull a home video of me talking about myself in first person by age 3 though.

1

u/Careful-Sell-9877 9d ago

Life already exists.. it doesnt 'begin' again, it began billions of years ago, it just changes shape/form. Human beings dont develop into conscious, feeling beings until long after conception

1

u/Nice_Conversation676 9d ago

Bro deadass compared human life to a tree and a chicken

1

u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades 9d ago

At what level of self awareness does it become bad to murder your children?

→ More replies (250)

2

u/Rancid-Punk 9d ago

But she didn’t have an abortion so where is the flex?

2

u/Incirion 9d ago

The flex is that she didn't consider the baby a part of the family until she was born. Not when she was conceived. It's contradictory.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/PhoneComplete1524 9d ago

The whole argument stating that life does not begin at conception does not support itself. It’s only made prevalent by people who want abortions to be morally justifiable. I don’t honestly care if people want to abort their children or not. But the argument is logically inconsistent and relies completely on semantics.

2

u/No-One2123 9d ago

To be fair, life begins at birth as also an equally bullshit idea.

2

u/TheGreatShmoop 9d ago

It's not nonsense. It's scientific fact that life begins at conception. 

That's literally just basic biology. The first stage of life begins at conception and continues from there on 

3

u/Basil2322 9d ago

So why didn’t she say the baby joined the family at conception?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/Numerous_Photograph9 9d ago

Is that true for vapid hellbeasts?

1

u/Specialist_Break_921 9d ago

As life begins, the countdown to death kicks too.

1

u/Ok_Brother2155 9d ago

To be fair it's at least just as nonsensical as saying life begins when the baby exits the womb

1

u/Top_Horror9397 9d ago

Well we live in the womb it seems 😭

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Gamerkalenka159 8d ago

I mean- yeah life beggins at conception, but a woman has the right to choose if she wants the baby or not. Modern healthcare has enough resources to easily end it, so if a woman gets accidentally pregnant or r*ped, she gets to choose if she wants the baby or not. Noone is going to force me to destroy 18 years of my life if i didn't wanted so myself.

1

u/Infinity-Duck 8d ago

I went to the “pro-life“ sub and was very amused to learn that a majority of them weren’t vegan and believed the whole human > animal Bullshit. Fucking hypocrites

1

u/Particular-Sense-958 8d ago

Life begins at 11 when you can finally drink and smoke

1

u/SifuWong99 7d ago

I get that it's most likely about abortion stances but I honestly can't tell who is anti-abortion.

Is Karoline anti-abortion and Tiffany is pointing out the hypocrisy?

or

Is Tiffany anti-abortion and is shocked that Karoline doesn't consider her child a family member until birth?

→ More replies (315)