Would you sell liquor to this baby?
(midwest.social)
Brand New SentenceWhat I really want to know: Is Abortionado pronounced like afficianado, and they are an expert in abortions? Or is it like Tornado, and they are a tornado of abortions?
In this thread: people who are going to lose our liquor sales licenses when we're caught in a sting operation by an undecover cop baby.
If there was a fire and you only had time to save one of these, which would you save: a one-month old baby, or a flask containing 100 frozen human embryos.
Is the fire making me uncomfortable? I might just sit there saying "This is fine" until it's too late to save either.
Or scout outside to make sure it is really safer than inside before discovering it's too late to save either.
Or maybe flip the lever between the front wheels and back wheels going over the switch for some multi-track drifting--ah nm, that doesn't work for this version of the trolly problem.
I respect your rejection of the premise.
Objection! They believe that life starts at conception, but not that aging starts at conception! This is why people are not considered 9 months old at birth!
Conceptually, people can also be frozen at any age, which "pauses" or slows their aging (see: Captain America, Han Solo, Dave Lister)
that's a good steelman. but this is why I think the better argument is Hasan's usual hypothetical about this: there's a fire in a hospital and you can only get into one of the rooms in time to save some people. do you go into NICU where you could save a couple babies or to the IVF section where you can save thousands of embryos?
Didn't give them any ideas lol
I'd sell liquor to ANY baby. Drunk babies and toddlers are hilarious.
Yea until you have to argue with a drunk toddler
toddler arguments are belligerent and incoherent enough already, I don't think booze would do more than make it worse
As a libertarian I would advocate selling liquor to all babies who want it.
As a libertarian I would advocate selling ~~liquor to all~~ babies who want it
As a libertarian I would advocate selling liquor to all babies who can afford it.
FTFY
If they want it enough they'll get a good enough job to afford it so that's redundant.
Man, I miss the "As a libertarian" guy on reddit. Dude would start every comment like that before saying something insane.
Praximis_Prime_ARG iirc, the best part was that they'd include a link to a libertarian actually saying that exact thing.
Yeah!!! That's the guy. He's used multiple accounts over the years. Dude was funny as hell.
As a libertarian, I'd also still comment on Reddit.
Hilariously redundant.
As a 19th century physician I can only agree, and suggest pairing it with a spoonful of soothing cocaine syrup for maximum efficacy.
Don’t waste my fucking time, baby beer.
How is this confusing anyone? We count age from date of birth. Anything that happens before that has nothing to do with your legal age any more than whether you were carried for more or less than 9 months. This would only become interesting if someone froze a toddler for 30 years or something.
Yeah, seems like this might be a bad faith argument intended to cause more division. It's a flimsy argument that people who like the point it's trying to make might ignore that big thing that makes it fall apart while those against it won't ignore that and will see the other side ignoring it as dishonest.
I would, but I'd sell liquor to any baby.
Trying not to upvote flawed arguments just because it supports my views challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
This one is silly and a good way to mock the church (big fan of mocking them).
That being said, what if a 5 year old falls into a coma for 16 years? I figure the mental age is still 5, although I think the chances of this happening are very low since a coma doesn't work like they show it in Hollywood.
He can buy it, but maybe he should wait to drink it.
My rule is, if you are dead when brain dead with a beating heart then you are not alive until you are brain alive with a beating heart. Life starts with brain activity, around 16 weeks.
I go by the Jewish rule.
In the Old Testament, God breathed life into Adam, and thus he became a living soul.
So until the infant takes its first breath, it's not an actual soul. It is a lump of tissue with potential.
I hope that there are as few abortions as are absolutely necessary, but I will not begrudge a single person their choice to have an abortion regardless of the stage of the pregnancy at which it happens.
it's not an actual soul. It is a lump of tissue with potential.
It's part of the mother according to Jewish law.
Is this one reason why Jewish doctors were historically the only ones okay with performing abortions?
Yes but abortion procedures are not unique to Jewish doctors. Egypt, China, India, Rome; all of them practiced abortions both medically induced and surgical.
Respiration still occurs through the umbilical. You shouldn't use sky fairy tales for scientific bases.
Internal (diffusion of gases from the bloodstream into the tissues of the body) respiration =/=external respiration (diffusion of atmospheric gases through the alveolus into the bloodstream)
And respiration is only half of breathing, the other half being ventilation.
Don't use science to put someone down when you don't even understand what you're talking about
We're talking about abortion here.
My stance is it's not murder until the infant has actually been alive outside of the womb for more than a nanosecond.
And by the way, fuck all the way off with your anti-religious bullshit. If you're so triggered by the concept of a religious take on any topic whatsoever, you should just get the fuck off the internet because there's dozens of us. You're going to run into us.
Or, at the very least, learn to add something to the conversation in the middle of your edgelord bitch rant.
Logic is typically lost on the feeble-minded. I'm aware you are around us. Believe what you want, but it should play zero role in public policy.
Also, public policy should ensure nobody goes hungry.
More like 32 years.
Never for some...
Waiting to be alive any day now
Oh, you mean I get to have some brain activity soon?
Alas, that's not the legal definition. Another reminder that legal is not necessarily ethical, and vice-versa.
they froze an embryo in 1994, rather than eggs / sperm, so doesn't that count as conception and at least the first half of the IVF process?
either way, congrats to the new family!
It doesn't count as long as someone's argument relies on it not counting.
Which is basically how it always is.
¿Isn't that the point? The embryo formed decades ago but implanted in 2024. By anti-abortion arguments the baby is a legal adult.
This says the embryo was frozen in 1994. An embryo is already fertilized.
That's what embryo means.
A fertilized egg.
Which then becomes an... Say it with us...
You're almost there dude... Just keep working through each step and you'll catch up eventually.
I’m not current on reactionary nonsense, do anti-choicers require something more than a fertilised cell to call it conception?
