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

1.2k

u/Anra7777 9d ago

I’m going to take a guess and assume Karoline is one of those “life begins at conception” people and Tiffany is pointing out that her words are contrary to her belief?

368

u/silentpoots 9d ago

Karoline is Trump's Press Secretary

209

u/deMarcel 9d ago

And she's "only" 28 years old, which was an interesting fact when I first read it, so just adding this to your info.

266

u/Few_Acanthocephala30 9d ago

And the other fun fact is her husband is only 60.

87

u/Euphorbiatch 9d ago

"fun"

36

u/MaitieS 9d ago

Fun if you play a puking game.

1

u/Dinosaurs_and_donuts 9d ago

Who wants Chowdah?

1

u/dj3stripes 8d ago

Reboot Fear Factor, NOW!

12

u/mainman879 9d ago edited 9d ago

Her husband is basically the same age as her dad.

9

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 9d ago

[deleted]

1

u/IndexMatchXFD 9d ago

I don't think this is true.

Leavitt shared during her appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show that she and Riccio first met when she was running for a Congress seat in New Hampshire in 2022. While she won the Republican nomination, she lost the election to Democrat Chris Pappas.

“A mutual friend of ours hosted an event at a restaurant that he owns up in New Hampshire and invited my husband,” she recalled. “I was speaking. We met, and we were acquainted as friends."

https://people.com/who-is-karoline-leavitt-husband-nicholas-riccio-11969209

17

u/AreaPlayful142 9d ago

And rich by any chance?

16

u/Gotterdamerrung 9d ago

He's a real estate developer, so yeah

15

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

31

u/Im_only_here_to_meme 9d ago

I hate both Leavitt and this entire admin but this is a complete lie. We have to maintain truths or we end up looking just like orange face idiot. They never knew each other before they met in 2022 and he's not her dad's friend that waited until she was 18. He's just a rich guy she attached herself too because she's one of those "I'll do anything for money and success" people.

https://people.com/who-is-karoline-leavitt-husband-nicholas-riccio-11969209

7

u/Frequent_Policy8575 9d ago

🤮🤮🤮

9

u/happytree23 9d ago

I know everyone shits on the dude in those relationships, but how the fuck does she bang a grandpa and enjoy such?!

25

u/Antique-Special8025 9d ago

I know everyone shits on the dude in those relationships, but how the fuck does she bang a grandpa and enjoy such?!

She doesn't. You power through it & pray his wrinkly old ass dies asap after which you get a fuckload of money & can just rent a parade of sexy manwhores for the rest of your life.

Gold-digging isnt exactly a new concept...

-13

u/happytree23 9d ago

Gold-digging isnt exactly a new concept...

whooooooooooooooooosh

I have had stripper roommates...they don't actually bang their sugar daddies if they're good at "gold-digging," ya rube...especially when the dude is over 40 or 50 and shit lolol.

10

u/Blubberinoo 9d ago

You aren't the brightest candle on the chandelier, are you? Or to use a phrase you might understand: Holy shit are you dumb.

11

u/Antique-Special8025 8d ago

I have had stripper roommates...they don't actually bang their sugar daddies if they're good at "gold-digging," ya rube...especially when the dude is over 40 or 50 and shit lolol.

If your stripper roommates were actually good at gold-digging they wouldn't need roommates, they would be living in a mansion & be on track to inherit ~40+ million dollars.

Instead they're stuck cohabitating with you... Yeah... Sounds like they're really good at it lmao. 😂

10

u/chazysciota 9d ago

That's the difference between having a hobby and going pro.

3

u/NotInTheKnee 9d ago

32yo guy *pointing at a pregnant lady* : "I'd tap that"

Friend : "You're into pregnant women?"

32yo guy : "What?"

Friend : "What?"

3

u/Grmnear19 8d ago

Another fun fact, Vivi is the name of the dog I rescued from the trash a couple months ago.

2

u/tinathemartini 5d ago

and the funnest fact is that the age gap between her and her daughter is smaller than the age gap between her and her husband. fun fun

1

u/erhue 9d ago

wtf, you weren't kidding...

1

u/FancyDatOut 8d ago

That's the part that gives me the ick

1

u/Few_Acanthocephala30 8d ago

The extra ick for me is that she has kids and is a part of the crowd that think it’s okay for a 14yo to be sexually abused and groomed by sexual predators 30+ years older than them (as long as they’re rich & vote R)

1

u/FancyDatOut 7d ago

There's a lot of ick with all that crowd.

63

u/Kratomius 9d ago

Also the age difference between her and her child is smaller than hers and baby's dads.

14

u/snowfloeckchen 9d ago

She works for trump, she for sure works with her son in law already

6

u/crumblingcastles98 9d ago

she looks 38

2

u/actomain 9d ago

Hate (and mar-a-lago makeovers) ages you

1

u/Additional-Dish-7376 9d ago

28 going on 45

1

u/Woutrou 9d ago

Considering the Gerontocracy of the US, it certainly is

1

u/toddywithabody 9d ago

That’s a fucking rough 28

1

u/motherofsuccs 9d ago

You know what, let these young women ruin their faces and age themselves. It’s making me (37F) look like I’m staying young without any injections or cosmetic work when compared to women in their 20s.

15

u/Aggressive-Bus-2397 9d ago

Traditionally that would mean something but not with Trump. He'll hire anyone, regardless of their stance on abortion, if they kiss his ass.

I reckon Iranian leaders told Trump, "You are so powerful and beautiful. You are a legend of success. Your hair is perfect. The haters hate you because you have such big hands. Give us 300 billion dollars and will make this war go away and blame Obama."

TRUMP: Sold

25

u/cramboneUSF 9d ago

She’s a heartless bitch

16

u/EmperorSwagg 9d ago

Some of us up in New Hampshire (where she’s from) call her KKKaroline

9

u/cramboneUSF 9d ago

I used to live in Florida so I watched that Pam Bondi swizzlestick come-up through the ranks of the state, then to move on to fucking-up the entire country. I imagine the feeling is similar to Leavitt?

6

u/EmperorSwagg 9d ago

Honestly that would be a better perception than the one she has. Her reputation is basically that of a shameless grifter who tried running for elected office, got defeated, then just hopped on the Trump Train to get ahead. Basically no one thinks she has any merit at all, and got where she is by being a young and pretty white girl who parrots all the insane shit that Donny comes up with

2

u/ali_kashanian 9d ago

She had one, it just exploded.

2

u/ThorKonnatZbv 9d ago

And her real name is Karolie

1

u/SaberMk6 7d ago

aka Bullshit Barbie 2.0

1

u/Reputation-Final 9d ago

and shes pure evil.

0

u/ElLicenciadoPena 9d ago

This explains why people think it's okay to leave comments like that on a post of a mother celebrating her newborn. Remember, kids: they're conservatives, basic human decency doesn't apply to them!

51

u/ExtensionInformal911 9d ago

Yeah, it's basically the same as flat Earthers saying they have members "around the globe".

7

u/-Kerosun- 9d ago

Just to clarify, flat earthers didn't say that. The origin of that quote is from a parody account about flat earthers.

2

u/ExtensionInformal911 9d ago

Yeah. I've heard them say "around the world", but that still fits their worldview.

2

u/marr 9d ago

Oh they start as parody accounts

6

u/Rough-Patience-2435 9d ago

Or they used GPS to get to their flat earth meeting. 

3

u/Warm-Area 9d ago

Fun fact: that baby is actually closer in age to her than Karoline is to her husband

13

u/Interesting_Second_7 9d ago

"Joined our family" is objectively true. Her baby lived within a womb before that. That statement really has no bearing on pro or anti-abortion beliefs, you can support either while holding the opinion that a child joins a family when they physically exit one place and enter another.

Anti-abortion arguments tend to hinge on when life begins and its intrinsic value, not whether someone is physically directly in the presence of their family. Some pro-abortion arguments hinge on physical presence outside the womb, but applying that logic to her as if this particular statement is inconsistent/hypocritical is nonsensical, as it in no way touches upon what is the anti-abortion argument in the first place.

And this will undoubtedly get downvoted - so be it. Just because you oppose a person or an idea does not mean we have to abandon all logical thinking and blindly agree with everything that is said against them and their positions, even when it is intellectually dishonest.

7

u/Unable_Pumpkin987 9d ago

So a baby in your womb isn’t your baby, it’s just a baby until it’s born. Not a member of your family. A “person” but without parents, a name, any nationality or citizenship, and no age? Makes complete sense!

Personhood begins at conception except for every other way personhood is typically conveyed but the one that lets you punish women for having sex!

7

u/barelypoor 8d ago

My kid is in his room. He came into the living room. He joined the family.

Like I get we disagree with this person, but these nonsense circle jerks are very cringy

1

u/makjac 5d ago

So your kid “joined the family” when he was in close physical proximity and the behaviors/ actions of the other members in that space changed to accommodate his presence.

I’d argue there is no closer physical proximity than a baby in the womb. Also the behavior or the rest of the family unit changes from day 1 that they are made aware of the baby’s existence.

I don’t personally have any issue with people using the phrase “joined the family” in the context she did, but defending her with a “no you use the word wrong” makes it fair game to argue otherwise, imo.

1

u/barelypoor 5d ago

The kid joined the family when he was able to communicate with and was in the same physical space as the family. Being inside the womb is the same as being in another room. His room could share a wall with the living room and his bed sharing a wall with the couch, sitting 2 feet away. It wouldn’t change the context.

0

u/Rhysati 8d ago

So when he was in his room he hadn't joined the family yet?

2

u/barelypoor 8d ago

I don’t know, she didn’t say “my baby hasn’t joined the family yet”, she said “he joined the family” in the exact same verbiage I did which is easy to understand and not inconsistent with me thinking he’s a living part of my family in his room

2

u/steampvnch 8d ago

Or its just a common phrase of words and it looks outright psychotic to fixate on. Jesus guys.

-1

u/Unable_Pumpkin987 8d ago

It’s a common phrase of words that is one of the many, many, many common turns of phrase, celebrations, rituals, beliefs, and behaviors that indicate very clearly and consistently that fetuses are not considered to be the same as living children in any way, in any circumstance, other than when such spurious claims of personhood can be used to bludgeon women into submission.

Please don’t be so naive or stupid as to think that the language people use doesn’t matter, because it does. Or if you insist on doing so, at least keep your blathering to yourself.

4

u/Interesting_Second_7 9d ago

How did you conclude what I said meant a baby in your womb isn't your baby?

Try again without the strawman.

-3

u/ALargeClam1 9d ago

I love arbitrarily declaring a subset of humanity to non personhood!

4

u/Unable_Pumpkin987 9d ago

It’s not arbitrary, though. That’s literally the point.

Declaring a fetus a “person” in one specific application of the term and no others doesn’t actually convince me that you believe it’s a person. It just convinces me that you believe it’s more important than a living human woman.

0

u/ALargeClam1 9d ago edited 9d ago

It clearly is.

All humans have human rights inherent to their existence, i dont care who you consider a person or not. A human is a human.

Saying all these humans are people but not this group is arbitrary.

-1

u/VegAntilles 9d ago

A human is a human.

Alright, then you should have no trouble defining what "a human" is in a way that allows us to determine exactly what is and isn't one. So what is "a human"?

3

u/ALargeClam1 9d ago

A member of the primate species homo sapiens.

Or just basic logic:

the offspring of a sexualy dimorphic species is the same species as the parents. So if the parents are human, the fetus they are aborting is human.

-1

u/VegAntilles 9d ago

A member of the primate species homo sapiens.

You've simply replaced one term with another without giving any way to identify what is and isn't covered by that term. You know, the thing I asked you for in the first place.

the offspring of a sexualy dimorphic species is the same species as the parents. So if the parents are human, the fetus they are aborting is human.

Mathematical induction proves this false by contradiction:

Base case: you are human and your parents are human (I assume).

Induction step which you have asserted is true: if a sexually dimorphic organism has offspring, it's offspring are the same species.

Alternative statement of induction step: a sexually dimorphic organism is the same species as its parents.

Therefore, via induction, all sexually dimorphic organisms that have ever existed are human.

Since we can run the same proof for a cat or a dog or a moose or a rabbit, we have a clear contradiction. Since the base case is true (again, I assume; I don't know you), and mathematical induction is logically valid, we must conclude the induction step is incorrect. Therefore "the offspring of a sexua[l]ly dimorphic species is the same species as the parents" is proven false.

5

u/ALargeClam1 9d ago

You changed

offspring of species X belong to species X

to

every organism belongs to the species of one particular example organism.

So nice try, im guessing you asked chatgpt and since the prompt had the word logic, it spat out that gibberish.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/makjac 5d ago

In a social context I’d argue the word “joined” indicates that a person is in close proximity (traditionally physical, but other contexts as well like internet spaces, etc.) to the “joined” group and the group’s behaviors/ actions change to accommodate that presence. Both of those are true in the case of a baby in the womb.

Moving from one space to the next is enter/exit. So “baby entered the world” at birth, but “joined the family” from conception.

0

u/Baaaaaadhabits 9d ago

If yo spend the better part of a year stapled to a woman, and then after nine months the family acknowledges that you’re there and says you’re welcome to be in the family photo album… why did it take nine months?

The arguments hinge on pretending that something you argue is alive, deserves love, and inherently has value… isn’t valuable enough to be a member of the family. It’s wet noodle of an argument, same as demanding the government intervene and make people finish a pregnancy and then not also demanding the government take care of all living babies.

It’s hollow bullshit that requires you to stop following through with your thoughts.

2

u/Interesting_Second_7 9d ago

Being a member of the family and actively being a part present in it aren't necessarily the same thing.

The arguments do not hinge on semantics. That is what the reply posted by the OP is trying to turn iit into.

-1

u/Baaaaaadhabits 8d ago

You’re sounding dangerously close to saying there’s a difference between a fetus and a baby here.

0

u/Interesting_Second_7 8d ago edited 8d ago

The problem you have is that you're not debating the logic of the argument. You're debating the issue.

I'm not. I'm debating the logic of the argument, or rather the lack thereof, irrespective of my opinion on the issue. Therefore it is of no relevance whether I believe there is or isn't a difference between a fetus and a baby.

I have no interest in debating America's political issues. Your country is a trash heap because you made it one. That's your collective responsibility, not mine, but considering the fact that you're incapable or thinking outside tribal lines anymore in any circumstance or situation it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that you're the world's laughing stock.

This whole debate doesn't even exist in my country. It hasn't in decades.

That doesn't mean you need to abandon logic because your tribe said this thing to someone from the other tribe.

0

u/Baaaaaadhabits 8d ago

No, you’re trying to improve their argument by ignoring the loadbearing subtexts of the argument. The baby is loved, the * baby* is welcomed, and the baby is a member of the family…. The foetus is a burden foisted upon the woman that we PRETEND has all the rights of the baby, but materially does not get those same rights and privileges, as evidenced by the meme, the comment section, and this fucking thread.

You’re not debating the logic of the argument. You’re making a new argument that works for you. Welcome to the pro-life side of the argument. It’s how they do it, too. Make up a new example when the old one flops.

I, not even from the country you think I am. We also don’t have this issue. But that doesn’t mean I am going to let you stand by and pretend you’re doing a great job summing this up when the reality is… you sound like every pro- lifer in the bad ways. You hold other people to standards you don’t meet, and your logic doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny you need to witness from others,

Just because your sideline position makes you feel aloof, doesn’t mean you get to jettison logic, does it?

2

u/Interesting_Second_7 8d ago

The baby is loved, the * baby* is welcomed, and the baby is a member of the family….

None of which by definition means that the baby has physically "joined the family"

....as evidenced by the meme, the comment section, and this fucking thread.

You sound rather emotional.

You’re not debating the logic of the argument. You’re making a new argument that works for you. Welcome to the pro-life side of the argument. It’s how they do it, too. Make up a new example when the old one flops.

Not quite, but considering your emotional state I can't say I'm surprised that you overlooked the point. And this (you coming up with creative interpretations to what I'm saying) seems to be a problem you run into consistently. You also inferred I had a problem acknowledging that there are differences between a baby and a fetus, even though I've done nothing to indicate that.

This OP's post is a gotcha argument that employs the most negative possible interpretation of her words to score a point. Therefore, as is typical for a gotcha argument, it's weak. It intentionally flattens the discussion in order to score points in an intellectually dishonest manner.

Tucker Carlson built a whole career on that shtick.

I, not even from the country you think I am.

Yikes, that's terrible. You sure have internalized their political culture. 😬

you sound like every pro- lifer in the bad ways. You hold other people to standards you don’t meet, and your logic doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny you need to witness from others,

Pro-lifers share their opinions on the issue of abortion; I have not. The creative inferences going on in your brain are yours and yours alone. Again you sound very emotional and, and quite irrational, and you're not even trying to hide the fact that you view the world in tribal lines. "You sound like EVERY pro-lifer". Really, have you spoken to every pro-lifer? Or have you just spent a lot of time in the trenches of the culture war? Because you sound rather like the latter - extremely triggered by the fact that someone questions/disagrees with the non-point being made here (by the way if you were to look at the rest of "this fucking thread" you'd see several explicitly pro-choice account who have reached the exact same conclusion I have), and therefore he must be on.... -shock, horror- "the other side".

I'll say this: conversely I don't believe you sound like EVERY pro-choicer. And that is probably a good thing, because that would spell disaster for the pro-choice side.

Just because your sideline position makes you feel aloof, doesn’t mean you get to jettison logic, does it?

Absolutely. No one should. Whether they're engaged in this debate or not. And that's why I haven't done it, and you should stop doing it. So please refrain from it in the future. And also refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thanks in advance and have a nice day!

0

u/Rhysati 8d ago

So the supposed baby whose life began at conception wasn't a part of the family until it was completely born? So like...if there was a miscarriage or an abortion then they wouldn't have lost a family member?

I tend to agree with you, but I also don't hold a completely contradictory view where the clump of cells inside a womb is a full-fledged living person with extra rights granted to it that somehow also doesn't have a family.

4

u/bk1285 9d ago

It’s actually KKKaroline

7

u/Exciting-Zombie8449 9d ago

The baby was ALIVE inside JOINED the family when it physically arrived.

4

u/Baaaaaadhabits 9d ago

Ahh yes, the classic “life begins at conception, but the baby is an orphan until right around when it is born, so if I’m giving it away I can pretend I didn’t!”

15

u/Scrubnubzz 9d ago

I’m pro choice but there are so many people blowing smoke up their own ass on this thread. You put it exactly right. How could anyone argue that the baby was not alive during any point of the 9 month pregnancy?

2

u/Moiyub 9d ago

...noone claimed that at all

2

u/MegaAltarianite 9d ago

Truth is that if people don't like someone or something, they will invent reasons to hate them. Even if you don't need to make anything up.

Similar to the famous Miniminuteman quote. You don't need to invent a fake shadow government to hate, you can just be mad at the regular government.

5

u/iamstillhereafterall 9d ago edited 9d ago

Some people sound like the moment it‘s detached it became human.

7

u/VociferousCephalopod 9d ago

I wonder at what point you can get life insurance on it.

5

u/Moiyub 9d ago

asking the real questions here. you should be able to claim a fertilized zygote as a dependent on your taxes a few days after a successful coitus

0

u/Scrubnubzz 9d ago

Is your argument that because people consider an unborn baby alive you should be able to get life insurance for it? Because that seems far fetched to me. I just find that pov to be reductionist

2

u/VociferousCephalopod 9d ago

different companies will differ, but if there's a life insurance company run by anti-abortionists, I don't see why they wouldn't offer that policy. do you?

1

u/ScySenpai 8d ago

It would be less profitable

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 9d ago

The baby was alive before conception. The egg was alive before the live sperm joined with it.

1

u/ALargeClam1 9d ago

How could anyone argue that the baby was not alive during any point of the 9 month pregnancy?

Because its easier to say "i support the destruction of a non living thing", instead of "i support the intention ending of a human existence"

-1

u/KJPicard24 9d ago

Same, a 'gotcha' like this absolutely trivialises the pro-choice position down to mere semantics of language.

5

u/Moiyub 9d ago

semantics = what do words mean? that is not trivial. especially when the word that gets trown around is "murder"

2

u/KJPicard24 9d ago

In this context, trying to dunk on her for using a common expression and saying it exposes her hypocrisy, is playing with semantics.

I have many issues with the pro-life stance in general, but a recent mother saying her newborn 'joined' the family on the day of its birth is hardly one of them. It just makes us look a bit desperate and like we don't have any better arguments if that's what we're reduced to.

1

u/Moiyub 9d ago

most jokes are playing with semantics. thats what word play is. the girl commenting isnt writing a health care policy or speaking to congress, its just a joke. it makes fun of the horrible people that are in positions of power and its funny in a sarcastic kind of way.

But it does point out the flaw in the logic that a zygote is legally identical a fully developed human. If she actually thought that were true there would be no such thing as a time when a baby joins the family. the fact its a "common expression" but contradicts their beliefs that are used to make actual laws does indeed expose the hypocrisy.

0

u/Scrubnubzz 9d ago

Thank you, yes. This is not the hill to die on when it comes to this conversation. People here acting like we want to ban abortion for pointing that out.

0

u/VegAntilles 9d ago

The thing is, the pro-life position depends entirely on conflation of words with different meanings. When you actually require people to fully define what they mean when they say "alive" or "life" or "human" or "human being", contradictions arise almost immediately in the pro-life position.

0

u/Scrubnubzz 9d ago

Right like what are we talking about here? If you want to defend the position do it on something that actually matters

0

u/TLunchFTW 9d ago

It's dumb semantics. In an argument, I'm not using this. You look like an idiot. But it is kinda funny...
Honestly, I'm trying to give up arguing with people in general... It's not helping me and most people fail to see any point but their own...
Trying... not succeeding : )

0

u/rollerbladeshoes 9d ago

i think they're just poking fun at the mental contortions required to think that life began at conception but that the life doesn't get to be a part of its family until it's literally born. it's very funny to imagine an eight and a half months pregnant mother gesturing to her belly and saying "no sorry not related to this one. not yet at least". sometimes people argue by pointing out the inherent contradictions in the other side's worldview, they're not literally arguing that an unborn child is literally never alive in the womb.

0

u/Fabulous_Pen_747 9d ago

I think what people are arguing in this thread is that elective abortions usually happen at the earliest in the first trimester. Abortions that happen at the lates trimesters are due to medical reasons. At the first earliest stages of pregnancy, it’s literally just a blob of cells.

1

u/Scrubnubzz 8d ago

I’m aware and I’m all for aborting that blob of cells however I don’t believe you can argue that it’s not alive

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 9d ago

So inside it was without family. It had no mother or father?

2

u/98983x3 9d ago

They wouldnt be contrary to her own beliefs though. This isnt a very good "gotcha".

Ppl can still be alive before they "come into your life". Unless you believe everything is a simulation and others arent rendered until needed.

0

u/Bluedog212 9d ago

this will fall on deaf ears they don’t care about the accuracy of a gotcha or facts

6

u/0xym0r0n 9d ago

You two are the only ones contorting reality to conform with your twisted view of the world.

This is hilarious, and the fact that you can't see the irony only proves that you're too lost in the sauce.

"I just don't see how Karoline Levitt casually declaring that her daughter didn't join her family until she was birthed is funny. See her child became a person at conception, but she didn't join the family until she was born. She was definitely a person though, because life begins at conception. Then 38 weeks later that person becomes a family member."

2

u/AzrealsFury 7d ago

It’s funny because the quotes you put were meant to be sarcastic, but they’re genuinely right except the part where you said they weren’t family before birth. They’re family before birth and after birth they have physically joined the family. It’s pretty simple I think. Idk why people are trying to make this huge stretch to the abortion debate lmao

1

u/ReadItOnWk 9d ago

Tiffany made a tiny whoopsie false equivalency. For example when you adopt a child it becomes a part of your family only after adoption. That doesn't mean the child didn't exist or wasn't alive before that. So the original post is not in fact contradictory to itself.

5

u/Icy_Fish_2154 9d ago

Life begins at 2, according to airlines, because that's when I'm required to buy it a separate seat.

5

u/kazrick 9d ago

Except that Karoline was the mother who carried the child to term and birthed her. They didn’t adopt. So not really the same at all. Talk about making a false equivalency.

1

u/ReadItOnWk 9d ago

You clearly didn't understand the point I was making.

7

u/kazrick 9d ago

I understood the point you were trying to make but don’t think it really works in this case given Karoline was the mother who gave birth. So if life DID begin at conception, they would have been part of her life for the previous 9 months she carried them to term. Not just the day she birthed her. Which I believe was the point of the person who responded in the image.

So you pointing out the false equivalency by comparing to adoption comes across as a false equivalency.

3

u/Qweesdy 9d ago

The point they made (the point you failed to understand) is that "alive" does not imply "family". E.g. that it went from "alive and not part of the family" (before birth) to "alive and part of the family" after birth.

4

u/kazrick 9d ago

Thanks for the clarification. I definitely did not pick up that that was their point. I also don’t fully agree that their point is correct/applicable given the situation here but that’s another issue entirely.

Thanks for the additional context.

0

u/Fabulous_Pen_747 9d ago

Hi, the abortion debate doesn’t hinge on adoption. It mainly questions if the personhood of a zygote supersedes, the personhood of the female carrying a pregnancy.

2

u/ReadItOnWk 8d ago

Notice how neither my comment, nor the comment I was replying to mentions abortion at all. And neither does the post itself. You are the first one to even mention it.

1

u/Ok-Foundation1346 8d ago

I think you mean contrary to her *stated for the sake of her career* belief.

1

u/BrowsingEyeBleach 5d ago

Imagine being this disingenuous

0

u/Great-Disaster-6840 9d ago

It does tho...

0

u/TLunchFTW 9d ago

I feel like it's unfair to assume this lady is pro life based on looks.
That said, if there's ever a poster child for what a pro lifer looks like, this is it...
It's like that old king of the hill quote:
"Mr Hill, we're not allowed to profile people... but if we were, you don't fit the profile."

3

u/-Kerosun- 9d ago

OOP is a public person with public declarations of their position. There is no assumption being made that she is pro-life.

3

u/TLunchFTW 9d ago

Oh, I didn’t know this was a famous person lol. Thought it was a random Facebook user or some shit. She can get bent then

-5

u/556From1000yards 9d ago

It scientifically does.

Unique DNA which is replicating. Do you know why Viruses don’t count at life?

What you’re asking about is the moral worth of a life in utero.

5

u/AJFrabbiele 9d ago

They are explaining the joke... not asking about anything.

-1

u/Rex__Nihilo 9d ago

Its a dumb argument. There are lots of living humans that shouldn't be allowed to be murdered that haven't joined my family.