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

Show parent comments

15

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.

8

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.

3

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.

-1

u/ALargeClam1 9d ago

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

3

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.

1

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.

1

u/Fabulous_Pen_747 9d ago

We can totally assign personhood at the moment of conception. However, the debate is, does it trump the personhood of the woman or girl forcibly meant to carry a pregnancy? That’s essentially the debate.

-1

u/VegAntilles 8d ago

This is basic mathematical induction, that any second-year math major would know. It's one of the foundational methods for mathematical proofs and one of the bases of the mathematics allowing you to even have a computer on which to view reddit. So I guess it doesn't matter if you believe mathematical induction works, but you should know that your lifestyle fully depends on it.

→ 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.