I read that cut-off sign as saying
“YAY!
IT’S
TRANSFEM”
and all I could think was “imagine knowing that early AND having supportive parents”
The baby's 30 so it's not that early /s
Wave, pray... ? transform? is that what her shirt says?
at least homie's not knee deep in debts at 30. practically dodged a bullet
Isnt it called birth day for a reason?
What if baby was born in Asia?
He seems like he'll be a chill drinking buddy lol🤣
I’m very confused and too buzzed to scroll the comments.
I'm buzzed enough to just imagine what went on, and in my possibly professional opinion it's aliens.
Hahaha relatable.
Jokes on you: the kid can't pay for liquor!
No. But life beginning at conception is the only logical line to draw. Every other is arbitrary. And having arbitrary set lines for who is human and who isn't is not something we should want. But banning abortion also doesn't work and is cruel. Life is complicated.
No. But life beginning at conception is the only logical line to draw.
No it's not, conception is just as arbitrary. Just because it's the logic you adopted doesn't mean it's the only logical choice.
At the point of conception all you are is a small group of cells that are forming something. There is no brain, there is no heart, there is no anything that would be described as human other than the DNA. At some point during the endless splitting of those cells a heart is created to push blood around the body that has developed, a body I might add looks entirely the same no matter what species you're looking at at this stage. And then, sometime long after that, a brain emerges but it's nothing like what we have when we're born. The human brain of a baby takes a long time to form. The question of "At what point does Life Begin?", is not "At what point is something alive?", it's "At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?"
Anti-abortion groups are not pro-life as they like to claim. For one, more than a few of them are pro death penalty. And for two, they don't actually care about children who are born because more than half of them actively work towards taking assistance away from single mothers and children and adoption services and Foster Care programs. Even if all they do is vote for the wrong party, they are guilty of this.
I really liked your first paragraph. I can't argue with you regarding the second because I'm not USAian and thus live in completley different socio-political landscape.
At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?
This is intelectually stimulating position. But this same line of thought can be traced further into extremes such as eugenics and scientific racism. Because of these historical aberrations that stem from this same principle, I reject this position and thus adopt position that life begins at conception. And trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
Instead of trying to define a point where something is a human based on how much it has developed, because of the associated risks and historical failings, your standpoint is that life begins at conception.
Did I understand correctly?
And trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
By that logic, cancer treatments should be illegal.
I do not find much logic in your reply. But fear not, to me you are still human! Have a great day!
Cancer is made of a living human cells growing to its own means. Killing it is killing a human by your logic.
trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
People who eat meat and eggs already make this distinction. You want to get rough and stupid? Then let's get rough and stupid.
Cue running to an anti-abortion with a ball of human hair and screaming, "BEHOLD, A MAN!"
The question of "when does life begin?" is deceptive. Life does not begin at conception with each life. Life began some 3.5 billion years ago and has never stopped. Each life continues unbroken from other lives. If the complaint is that any point we choose is arbitrary, well this is what nature gave us. The only logical point to begin from is when the new life separates from the old.
And frankly, nature eats way more babies than adults.
life beginning at conception is the only logical line to draw
What if the question of life or non-life is irrelevant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion_and_euthanasia
puts on devil's advocate hat
No, because liquor laws don't care about when life began. They care about date of birth. Life beginning at conception does not erase date of birth as a valid type of data.
removes hat because I'm not pro-life
We should not rely on "pro-lifers are too stupid to understand how to refute this" when deciding our views.
Will I sell booze to this baby? Absolutely.
Will I extend this baby booze on credit? Not in this economy.
I dunno, how big a 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.
I don't have kids and do you have any idea what one of those smoothies costs. I choose 100 horse sized human embryos
If we were to actually treat this as a moral dilemma, without external factors or trying to challenge the premise:
One of these is sentient. The other hundred are not. Much as my heart might bleed for the potential humans that will never be realised, my priority would be the living, feeling, crying one.
Actually, the crying might be an issue. I tend to be sensitive to some sounds, and particularly in a stressful situation, a wailing baby might be a detriment...
Still, I'm susceptible to emotional bias. I don't like babies or small children, but I won't pretend to be immune to the kind of protective reflex they tend to evoke in (sane) adults. So on top of the above reasoning, I would most likely save the baby, headache be damned.
And then I'd go and find whoever set up this cruel choice in the first place. Why would I be in such a clinic in the first place? Why would it catch on fire? Why does God hate us?
Why would I be in such a clinic in the first place?
You are visiting your partner at the their place of work, which happens to be a lab, with your newborn baby and an accident happens and a fire breaks out. ^/s^
I believe I would save the baby simply because I can emotionally relate to it and not a flask with some frozen content.
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)
Your age is defined by your birth Thus your age before birth is negative. And an estimate. Quod erat ipsum dolor et maximus.
I struggle to parse the Latin. My first reading would be "That's why it was pain and the greatest..."
What does the maximus refer to? Is it an attribute to dolor, and if so, what does the et refer to?
Or am I supposed to read it as an implied duplication or retroactive emphasis? "pain, the greatest (pain) even."
Or is there something I'm missing between morning brain and rusted skills?
Or is it not actually sound Latin and I'm trying way harder than I should?
Let me help you a bit since you got morning brain
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi ac ultricies ipsum, nec fermentum quam. Ut gravida nisl purus, et interdum risus porttitor a. Aenean euismod tellus ante, viverra fermentum tortor commodo a. Praesent lacus mauris, efficitur eget odio a, mollis fringilla eros. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis bibendum euismod mi id maximus. Vestibulum lacinia tincidunt sapien vel lobortis. Curabitur consectetur iaculis iaculis. Mauris tincidunt elit ac quam finibus, id dapibus leo sodales.
I suspected that, but couldn't find the specific bit in the Lorem Ipsum text, nor in the original its fragments were lifted from, so I assumed it was a genuine quote or self-constructed sentence.
I'll file it under "went way too hard on a throwaway blurb" then, thanks.
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?
As a libertarian I would advocate selling liquor to all babies who want it.
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.
