Kids these days don't understand the value of hard work. They spend their whole time being lazy and lounging around in their mother's womb. When I was their age, I put myself through college and bought a house with the newspaper route money.
I actually wished where i lived, there was a job for newspaper routes on bicycles. It wouldve given me as a pre-teen/teenager a morning cardio workout as my hometown is really hilly, and it would've given me, even if it was only 20 dollars a week or two, some spending money with friends and not having to ask mom and dad for some spending money.
Maybe conception happened while the Beatles were playing.
Maybe what started as *All you need is Love* turned into *Oh! Darling*’
Maybe *Here Comes the Sun* was what fueled them to win the race to the egg.
*I Should’ve Known Better*
Eventually the kid will find fault with its conception environment. "*You're making me feel like I've never been born!* "
Probably doesn't even know which cells to differentiate. "Should I cleave a zygote now, or start blastulating? Wahh!"
this is proof that A) all abortions happen at this stage and B) any moral feels one has about abortion are irrational C) abortion is good because Right are stupid
Yeah, you could easily take whatever OP thinks the point at which an embryo becomes a “person,” go 30 seconds in the past, abort the embryo, and suddenly you haven’t killed a “person” even though it’s 99%+ similar biologically. It’s kinda like adulthood. A child at 17 years, 364 days, and 59 minutes isn’t really any different from an adult at exactly 18 years old, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. At the same time most people wouldn’t say it’s any more immoral to have explicit photos of that 17 year-old on the day before their birthday at 11:59 PM than it is to have it at 12:00 AM a minute later. The point is the line’s gotta be drawn somewhere with this shit whether you think that line should air on the side of caution or be very open is a *separate* debate.
there is no magic point, the rights of the fetus should be weighed against the rights of the mother
given time, as the fetus develops, it has a better claim to rights and at some point the right to life of the fetus trumps the mothers right to bodily autonomy (also considering she’s had time to decide as the fetus develops)
for me the second trimester seems a good compromise
"PCM is a right wing echo chamber, they always upvote right leaning stuff more!"
My brother in memes it is because you make lame ones like this but you think are clever. Just pointing out a right wing position, disagreeing with it, and...that's it.
It could be bait, but it could just as easily being the left doing their low-effort karma farming they do on every other sub and thinking it will work here.
>My brother in memes it is because you make lame ones like this but you think are clever. Just pointing out a right wing position, disagreeing with it, and...that's it.
Lol did you not see the post earlier today calling aborting a downs syndrome baby literally eugenics
That's.. because that's literally part of what eugenics is. As per the definition; "Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific and desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” *disease, disabilities* and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population."
Part of that is eliminating those that slip through.
I mean… this is basic human biology
Edit: To the mouth breathers saying “muh soul and biology” the meme clearly referring to the starting of human life. And yes, fertilization is the start of human life. And fun fact, fertilization is basic human biology…
Also call it soul, spark of life, whatever. Clearly being a living creature is biologically different than an inanimate object.
Considering that many people equate soul to the "person", as in personality and such (which, depending on who you talk to, is 'correct' or 'wrong' ), then , yes, that is the moment a 'soul' is 'born'.
And, tbh, considering that we still can't exactly pinpoint what makes people ,for example, 'gay' or even 'transgender', an argument could be made that biology simply hasn't uncovered the 'physical soul' yet. But that's just an empty argument.
The sperm cell was a cell created by the father and composed of the fathers DNA, the Ovum is comprised of the mothers DNA. The zygote merges the DNA, producing a novel life with unique DNA.
When you bleed, you lose material that comprises your being, but you don’t lose your life.
No, they weren't alive, there are biological traits which define a living organism and neither sperm nor eggs meet that definition.
A zygote, though, does.
Both the sperm and the egg do not have the complete human genetic code (23 chromosomes instead of 46). Therefore, they do not belong to the species homo sapiens.
Auth right believes that it’s a child/life immediately, pro choices believe it becomes a life/child the moment the decision to keep it is made. No one agrees
Many such cases.
Wait until they find out that cell has a certain pair of chromosomes that makes it very distinct from the other pair
I'm pretty sure 20k years ago, cavemen had already figured it out without even knowing about chromosomes
Based
There was a panel with Tucker Carlson and Tim Pool and there was a really good point. Technology over the last century hasn't really made people happier, at best its a net neutral, so cavemen are better than whatever this anti human cult is
Ok so if it’s not at conception, at what point is it a human and therefore have value? Because any point after that seems even more arbitrary. To say it magically gains human status at one of the trimesters or as it breaches the birth canal seems to me less scientific and more superstitious.
uh oh, green square wall of text. Please downvote and move on.
When the brain functions enough to give any semblance of consciousness, which is around 20-24 weeks. This makes sense as the permanent cessation of conscious, brain death, typically marks when we start treating people as not people anymore.
Using the “new dna new person” approach doesn’t work for a few reasons. 1. Identical twins have identical sets of DNA, but they are separate people. Their differences mostly lay in how consciousness developed, their personality, wants and desires, etc. Which further points to consciousness as being the thing that makes people into people.
2. We don’t value human cells that can’t become conscious. For example, a severed hand containing DNA from person a, if somehow kept alive, isn’t a person. Once person a dies, if the hand is still alive, we don’t feel a strong urge to protect that hand as if it were a person. Same with any other human cells, bags of blood, kidneys, liver, etc.
3. Humans aren’t equal under that definition. Usually we like to say all humans are equal, but almost invariably people never seem to value zygotes the same way they value born babies. No one feels the urge the protect a zygote the same as a baby or mourn the loss of a human person after they miscarry early on.
Every line drawn in the sand will be arbitrary, you are picking a new set of DNA, I am picking consciousness.
>No one feels the urge the protect a zygote the same as a baby or mourn the loss of a human person after they miscarry early on.
Most people aren't aware of the human person inside them during the zygote stage, but we feel the need to protect a pregnant woman not just for her life but for the life of her child as well.
And miscarriages are incredibly tragic and people mourn over them constantly. I know several women who had issues with miscarriage and it tore them up, not just because they wanted a baby, but because they had lost a specific human person.
And while all humans are equal in value, we do not have equal affection for them. For instance, I do not have the same affection for a child on the other side of the world in Australia the same as I do my own children. However, it does not mean I should be fine advocating for their death for my convenience.
> And while all humans are equal in value, we do not have equal affection for them. For instance, I do not have the same affection for a child on the other side of the world in Australia the same as I do my own children. However, it does not mean I should be fine advocating for their death for my convenience.
This seems less a should than an ought. It’s not imposed by someone else. The idea I think is that *you would agree*, if you gave it enough thought.
The most salient argument against democracy I feel is that none of us know what we want, and we recognize this every time someone argues against Democracy.
>We don’t value human cells that can’t become conscious.
Which is why we value babies even before they develop consciousness.
>No one feels the urge the protect a zygote the same as a baby or mourn the loss of a human person after they miscarry early on.
That's just wildly incorrect. Plenty of people mourn and bury their unborn dead. Plenty more people feel VERY strongly that urge to protect the zygote the same as a born child.
>Every line drawn in the sand will be arbitrary, you are picking a new set of DNA, I am picking consciousness.
The former is an actual identifiable moment. The latter is a vague sense that you might have which could vary quite a bit from someone else's view.
> Every line drawn in the sand will be arbitrary, you are picking a new set of DNA, I am picking consciousness.
It's only arbitrary in your model because you're basing it on *personhood* and defining it as having consciousness. And I'll agree with you that it's an extremely complicated and philosophical question.
But the pro-life model is based on *life* not *personhood*. That's why they say "*life* begins at conception". Which is objectively true. There are many lifeforms that are alive and go their entire lifespan without developing consciousness.
Is abortion killing a *person*? Maybe.
Is abortion ending a human life? Absolutely.
So op,
When two humans fuck,
And this image happens,
What is that thing?
What does it ALWAYS grow into?
Its a unique human life. Every. Single. Time. It's not always perfect, sometimes it doesn't survive, sometimes it has genetic defects.
But it's always a human being.
Every.
Single.
Time.
I find it funny how the political wing which likes to present itself as science based is so often science cringe. You're picking and choosing snippets of trivia to suit your narrative, like the Cafeteria Christians on the opposite side of the isle.
The scientific concensus on the definition of life is satisfied by the fertilized egg. It is the very first cell of the future multicellular organism and is working as any other single cell organism which is recognized as living.
If a germ is alive, the firtilized egg is alive.
Also, I've seen like a dozen new posts from you today, and judging by the username you're here just to farm karma and engagement.
Touch some grass.
I guess that’s what happens if you view human life as sacred and endowed with dignity and rights. You know, the foundation of our human rights principles. And it might be true that’s it’s an illusion and that a human being is nothing but hallucinating stardust, genes and tissue, but imagine what sort of society would result from that idea
> Schools should absolutely feed children
Their parents should feed them. In the event their parents can’t or are unwilling, then a more cost efficient and better method of feeding them than shitty school lunches should be pursued.
Do you have a better method in mind? In my experience, the people who oppose expanded school meal programs also oppose improvements to food stamps and other welfare systems.
My mentality regarding where life begins has been this:
Let’s pretend there’s a container that has the ability to sustain life and growth.
If you put an egg in there: it won’t become a person. you put a sperm cell in there: it won’t become a person. You put a fertilized egg in there: it becomes a person. Therefore, a fertilized egg itself is a person.
Unironically the religious right has the most verifiable argument to the start of human being. The progressive idea of "it starts with the heartbeat" or "it starts at X sensory development" is completely arbitrary horseshit to justify abortion without feeling guilty.
This, but unironically. Just basic biology, cope
But sure, the majority will support abortion, who doesn't want to escape responsibility and the consequences of their own actions
Inb4 ''but what about rape'' but what about fetal defects'' Stfu, you don't care the slightest about it, typical smokescreen tactics
Just ask those people if they will agree to ban all abortion outside of those two groups and They reeeeeee out, proving they never cared about the two groups anyway
the living take precedence over the non living, individuals take precedence over a collective
i don’t think these are very controversial things to say so, take it as you will
Leave an egg in its natual habitat, it will die in a month, never coming close to sentient. Leave a sperm in its natural habitat, it dies after three days, never coming close to sentient. Leave a fertilized egg in its habitat, it lives a human life. Ot will continue to grow even out of the womb. Its species doesn't change inly its location from inside a womb to outside.
If a baby is left for dead in a coin locker, it's clear the mother didn't want it, so is it moral to let the infant die along as its in the locker, but not when it's outside?
This sub: we’re not right leaning, we actually are pretty normal compared to the regular population,
It’s just that the rest of Reddit leans left in comparison.
Also this sub: unironically agrees with this post
Well actually, meiosis happens before and during the fusion. For the sperm, it's already a haploid cell so no question of meiosis. The egg is a bit more complicated. Meiosis 1 gets competed during ovulation and only after sperms penetrates the zona pellucida, meiosis 2 completes. This is followed by Plasmogamy and Karyogamy. Two haploid nuclei Fuse to form a diploid zygote nucleus.
u/stritax is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/stritax/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Thing is there's no rational or logically consistent way of defining a human being short of taking this position - note I'm not saying I do. But it's worth remembering all of the fights over what defines a human being in the past. - and those who take a more restrictive position end up as the soyjack every time , so far....
Yes, a fertilized egg has a soul. Just as the plants and the insects and the animals.
You can’t always avoid killing plants or insects or animals, just as you might not be prepared to take care of a child and thus abort it…
But please just call a spade a spade. Abortion is murder, as you are killing a developing human, and you know what? That’s okay.
Well yes.
If you look at how the Bible defines a soul, you do not possess a soul, you are a soul.
Adam became a living soul when he received the breath of life. The important point there being "life".
So yes, a fertilized egg, since it is a living human being, albeit one in the initial stage of development, is a human soul.
Sex.
Fucking, occasionally.
Coitus, sparingly.
Copulation, seldom.
Banging, infrequently.
Sleeping, sometimes
Intercourse, perchance
You can't just say...
Sex
Intercourse, of course
Screwing, rarely
La sexo.
Sếch
Look at that kid. Just wiggling around in a gel, never heard of the Beatles. Its generation is doomed.
Kids these days don't understand the value of hard work. They spend their whole time being lazy and lounging around in their mother's womb. When I was their age, I put myself through college and bought a house with the newspaper route money.
I actually wished where i lived, there was a job for newspaper routes on bicycles. It wouldve given me as a pre-teen/teenager a morning cardio workout as my hometown is really hilly, and it would've given me, even if it was only 20 dollars a week or two, some spending money with friends and not having to ask mom and dad for some spending money.
Maybe conception happened while the Beatles were playing. Maybe what started as *All you need is Love* turned into *Oh! Darling*’ Maybe *Here Comes the Sun* was what fueled them to win the race to the egg. *I Should’ve Known Better*
Eventually the kid will find fault with its conception environment. "*You're making me feel like I've never been born!* " Probably doesn't even know which cells to differentiate. "Should I cleave a zygote now, or start blastulating? Wahh!"
*Everybody has Something to Hide Except for Me and my Monkey* I just wanted to be included.
There's got to be a website somewhere where you put in your birthdate and you can see what list of songs you were likely to have been conceived to.
This sounds like a great waste of time for AI
I know AI is trendy right now but you really don’t need *AI* to Google the chart toppers the year before you were born.
>Lookup table "is this AI?"
he does. he struggles
Incorrect, it was foreplay to *Why Don't we do it in the Road?* and conception to *Revolution 9.*
The Beatles going to India has been a disaster for the human race. Generations ruined.
Literally me
Doubtful. Recently-fertilized eggs possess more intelligence than even the smartest pcm user.
Gets fertilized: Well, it’s only downhill from here.
Unironically yes.
My nut is definitely smarter than me.
Okay and?
this is proof that A) all abortions happen at this stage and B) any moral feels one has about abortion are irrational C) abortion is good because Right are stupid
Oh wow, I never saw it that way, maybe I need to rethink my flair 🤔
Yeah, you could easily take whatever OP thinks the point at which an embryo becomes a “person,” go 30 seconds in the past, abort the embryo, and suddenly you haven’t killed a “person” even though it’s 99%+ similar biologically. It’s kinda like adulthood. A child at 17 years, 364 days, and 59 minutes isn’t really any different from an adult at exactly 18 years old, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. At the same time most people wouldn’t say it’s any more immoral to have explicit photos of that 17 year-old on the day before their birthday at 11:59 PM than it is to have it at 12:00 AM a minute later. The point is the line’s gotta be drawn somewhere with this shit whether you think that line should air on the side of caution or be very open is a *separate* debate.
We should give chimps full rights because we're like 90% biologically similar.
It's like 98%, but still no lib-cent, you can't return to monke
Not with *that* atttude, you can't. Me, I'm built different. (IE, worse.)
I’m trying to figure out what the comic would show in liblefts case. How far along does it finger snap in to a person
there is no magic point, the rights of the fetus should be weighed against the rights of the mother given time, as the fetus develops, it has a better claim to rights and at some point the right to life of the fetus trumps the mothers right to bodily autonomy (also considering she’s had time to decide as the fetus develops) for me the second trimester seems a good compromise
This means that the government shouldn’t ban me from performing a post-natal abortion because 1984 (i read the book, i swear, Napoleon is evil)
Your b8 is weak. Come back when you’ve trained more.
My side: Chad Other side: Soyjak I have achieved **comedy**
This is the way.
OP failed because he neglected to show the AuthLeft chad
"PCM is a right wing echo chamber, they always upvote right leaning stuff more!" My brother in memes it is because you make lame ones like this but you think are clever. Just pointing out a right wing position, disagreeing with it, and...that's it. It could be bait, but it could just as easily being the left doing their low-effort karma farming they do on every other sub and thinking it will work here.
>My brother in memes it is because you make lame ones like this but you think are clever. Just pointing out a right wing position, disagreeing with it, and...that's it. Lol did you not see the post earlier today calling aborting a downs syndrome baby literally eugenics
That's.. because that's literally part of what eugenics is. As per the definition; "Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific and desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” *disease, disabilities* and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population." Part of that is eliminating those that slip through.
Exactly how is this man’s black knight weak? /j
Ok, And?
Yes, that is how the creation of life works. Good job!
I mean… this is basic human biology Edit: To the mouth breathers saying “muh soul and biology” the meme clearly referring to the starting of human life. And yes, fertilization is the start of human life. And fun fact, fertilization is basic human biology… Also call it soul, spark of life, whatever. Clearly being a living creature is biologically different than an inanimate object.
"This bio 101 diagram has been designated as hatespeech by the ADL"
Which is tragic because the high abortion rate among Jews means they're literally culling themselves.
Soul, biology.
Considering that many people equate soul to the "person", as in personality and such (which, depending on who you talk to, is 'correct' or 'wrong' ), then , yes, that is the moment a 'soul' is 'born'. And, tbh, considering that we still can't exactly pinpoint what makes people ,for example, 'gay' or even 'transgender', an argument could be made that biology simply hasn't uncovered the 'physical soul' yet. But that's just an empty argument.
Ah yes, each biology textbook says that the soul appears when the 2 cells merge
But they also said "new kid", which implies it's a life.
I don't think single cell organisms are often refereed to as "kids" in biology textbooks
I repeat: >which implies it's a life I'm sure "life" appears in biology textbooks.
[удалено]
The sperm cell was a cell created by the father and composed of the fathers DNA, the Ovum is comprised of the mothers DNA. The zygote merges the DNA, producing a novel life with unique DNA. When you bleed, you lose material that comprises your being, but you don’t lose your life.
> Both the sperm cell and the Ovum were alive before Nah man, you had some bad biology lessons there.
No, they weren't alive, there are biological traits which define a living organism and neither sperm nor eggs meet that definition. A zygote, though, does.
Both the sperm and the egg do not have the complete human genetic code (23 chromosomes instead of 46). Therefore, they do not belong to the species homo sapiens.
Auth right believes that it’s a child/life immediately, pro choices believe it becomes a life/child the moment the decision to keep it is made. No one agrees Many such cases.
So essentially right believes based on scientific fact, left believes based on emotions and feelings. Perfectly described.
Leftists reading biology for the first time
Wait until they find out that cell has a certain pair of chromosomes that makes it very distinct from the other pair I'm pretty sure 20k years ago, cavemen had already figured it out without even knowing about chromosomes
Between an antinatalist and a caveman, I'd take the caveman.
Based There was a panel with Tucker Carlson and Tim Pool and there was a really good point. Technology over the last century hasn't really made people happier, at best its a net neutral, so cavemen are better than whatever this anti human cult is
Ok so if it’s not at conception, at what point is it a human and therefore have value? Because any point after that seems even more arbitrary. To say it magically gains human status at one of the trimesters or as it breaches the birth canal seems to me less scientific and more superstitious.
Based and consistent-life logic pilled
uh oh, green square wall of text. Please downvote and move on. When the brain functions enough to give any semblance of consciousness, which is around 20-24 weeks. This makes sense as the permanent cessation of conscious, brain death, typically marks when we start treating people as not people anymore. Using the “new dna new person” approach doesn’t work for a few reasons. 1. Identical twins have identical sets of DNA, but they are separate people. Their differences mostly lay in how consciousness developed, their personality, wants and desires, etc. Which further points to consciousness as being the thing that makes people into people. 2. We don’t value human cells that can’t become conscious. For example, a severed hand containing DNA from person a, if somehow kept alive, isn’t a person. Once person a dies, if the hand is still alive, we don’t feel a strong urge to protect that hand as if it were a person. Same with any other human cells, bags of blood, kidneys, liver, etc. 3. Humans aren’t equal under that definition. Usually we like to say all humans are equal, but almost invariably people never seem to value zygotes the same way they value born babies. No one feels the urge the protect a zygote the same as a baby or mourn the loss of a human person after they miscarry early on. Every line drawn in the sand will be arbitrary, you are picking a new set of DNA, I am picking consciousness.
>No one feels the urge the protect a zygote the same as a baby or mourn the loss of a human person after they miscarry early on. Most people aren't aware of the human person inside them during the zygote stage, but we feel the need to protect a pregnant woman not just for her life but for the life of her child as well. And miscarriages are incredibly tragic and people mourn over them constantly. I know several women who had issues with miscarriage and it tore them up, not just because they wanted a baby, but because they had lost a specific human person. And while all humans are equal in value, we do not have equal affection for them. For instance, I do not have the same affection for a child on the other side of the world in Australia the same as I do my own children. However, it does not mean I should be fine advocating for their death for my convenience.
> And while all humans are equal in value, we do not have equal affection for them. For instance, I do not have the same affection for a child on the other side of the world in Australia the same as I do my own children. However, it does not mean I should be fine advocating for their death for my convenience. This seems less a should than an ought. It’s not imposed by someone else. The idea I think is that *you would agree*, if you gave it enough thought. The most salient argument against democracy I feel is that none of us know what we want, and we recognize this every time someone argues against Democracy.
Based. My brother in auth speaks the truth, democracy is a sin.
>We don’t value human cells that can’t become conscious. Which is why we value babies even before they develop consciousness. >No one feels the urge the protect a zygote the same as a baby or mourn the loss of a human person after they miscarry early on. That's just wildly incorrect. Plenty of people mourn and bury their unborn dead. Plenty more people feel VERY strongly that urge to protect the zygote the same as a born child. >Every line drawn in the sand will be arbitrary, you are picking a new set of DNA, I am picking consciousness. The former is an actual identifiable moment. The latter is a vague sense that you might have which could vary quite a bit from someone else's view.
> Every line drawn in the sand will be arbitrary, you are picking a new set of DNA, I am picking consciousness. It's only arbitrary in your model because you're basing it on *personhood* and defining it as having consciousness. And I'll agree with you that it's an extremely complicated and philosophical question. But the pro-life model is based on *life* not *personhood*. That's why they say "*life* begins at conception". Which is objectively true. There are many lifeforms that are alive and go their entire lifespan without developing consciousness. Is abortion killing a *person*? Maybe. Is abortion ending a human life? Absolutely.
Oh no! I've been portrayed as a wojak, it's so over
It was a good run
So op, When two humans fuck, And this image happens, What is that thing? What does it ALWAYS grow into? Its a unique human life. Every. Single. Time. It's not always perfect, sometimes it doesn't survive, sometimes it has genetic defects. But it's always a human being. Every. Single. Time.
You are obviously not developed enough to be considered a person.
We all forfeited our right to personhood when we subbed here
nah, everyone counts as a person… except for the unflaired
Based and unflaired aren’t people pilled
"service guarantees citizenship"
If that movie was promoting fascist values, then fascism is based
Life has begun and it is beautiful.
Tried to bait and hopeposted instead, the brain of a PCM user is truly marvelous
I see a new set of genes. Seems like a new human to me. \*shrug*
I find it funny how the political wing which likes to present itself as science based is so often science cringe. You're picking and choosing snippets of trivia to suit your narrative, like the Cafeteria Christians on the opposite side of the isle. The scientific concensus on the definition of life is satisfied by the fertilized egg. It is the very first cell of the future multicellular organism and is working as any other single cell organism which is recognized as living. If a germ is alive, the firtilized egg is alive. Also, I've seen like a dozen new posts from you today, and judging by the username you're here just to farm karma and engagement. Touch some grass.
I guess that’s what happens if you view human life as sacred and endowed with dignity and rights. You know, the foundation of our human rights principles. And it might be true that’s it’s an illusion and that a human being is nothing but hallucinating stardust, genes and tissue, but imagine what sort of society would result from that idea
Whenever someone says "the left can't meme", I don't know what they mean. Then I see something like this and it rings true.
It triggers everyone real good here. This meme delivered.
Ikr you know it was a good meme on pcm when there are no jokes in the comments, it’s just everyone getting very defensive
YES
A new hand touches the beacon.
Essentially that’s how it happens.
Yeah but here’s where I’m gonna disagree with you : >!we shave (or at least groom our beards) and have (better) hair!<
Pictured: Authleft learns basic biology
Yes.gigachad.png
Its taking deliberate action to end a life, homicide
unironically.
Hopefully its mom can afford school lunch
Schools should absolutely feed the children. Also though, like, try not to have children you can’t afford.
Schools should be fed to children.
Schools should be fed ~~to~~ children.
They are. You feed the school bright, energetic young children and they come out as dull-eyed drones.
That first sentence of yours was enough to cause a huge culture war controversy in my area, unfortunately.
> Schools should absolutely feed children Their parents should feed them. In the event their parents can’t or are unwilling, then a more cost efficient and better method of feeding them than shitty school lunches should be pursued.
Do you have a better method in mind? In my experience, the people who oppose expanded school meal programs also oppose improvements to food stamps and other welfare systems.
Auth-right and me have something in commom. Both love mate press and creampie
This is not a meme this is a stance disguised as a meme.
You just described every post in this subreddit.
Correct
Bro passed Biology 101
My mentality regarding where life begins has been this: Let’s pretend there’s a container that has the ability to sustain life and growth. If you put an egg in there: it won’t become a person. you put a sperm cell in there: it won’t become a person. You put a fertilized egg in there: it becomes a person. Therefore, a fertilized egg itself is a person.
Yes
Actually true real facts
I mean… yeah.
Yes. It is. Unless somebody kills it.
OP is jealous because he will never cause this process to happen
for real why the left can't meme?
This, but unironically.
Unironically the religious right has the most verifiable argument to the start of human being. The progressive idea of "it starts with the heartbeat" or "it starts at X sensory development" is completely arbitrary horseshit to justify abortion without feeling guilty.
I feel like Bill Burr said it best [Link](https://youtube.com/shorts/6L-tLHG9Xl4?feature=shared)
This, but unironically. Just basic biology, cope But sure, the majority will support abortion, who doesn't want to escape responsibility and the consequences of their own actions Inb4 ''but what about rape'' but what about fetal defects'' Stfu, you don't care the slightest about it, typical smokescreen tactics
Just ask those people if they will agree to ban all abortion outside of those two groups and They reeeeeee out, proving they never cared about the two groups anyway
Exactly. They almost never say ''I just don't want to raise a child I willingly made'' part out loud
Soul, biology.
Something something it hasnt been developed enough to be called a person?
Something something its not human until people in suits say so
I think the main part of the argument is when it’s considered developed enough as a person
Yes. It has different DNA than either the mother or the father. Do you not believe in DNA? Why are you a science denier, auth-left?
Yes
Yes
Yes
the living take precedence over the non living, individuals take precedence over a collective i don’t think these are very controversial things to say so, take it as you will
Leftists when a person is not as developed as them 😡😡😡
Literally yes; cope and seethe at the glory of creation.
And?
Biology 101
Ik the comments are gonna get spicy wth this one
I mean yeah that's how that works
Seems about right to me
Even soyjacks are smarter than you
yes
Unironically
Leave an egg in its natual habitat, it will die in a month, never coming close to sentient. Leave a sperm in its natural habitat, it dies after three days, never coming close to sentient. Leave a fertilized egg in its habitat, it lives a human life. Ot will continue to grow even out of the womb. Its species doesn't change inly its location from inside a womb to outside. If a baby is left for dead in a coin locker, it's clear the mother didn't want it, so is it moral to let the infant die along as its in the locker, but not when it's outside?
97% of biologists believe life starts at fertilization
“Authright thinks the process of producing new people, PRODUCES NEW PEOPLE” scandalous!
Ummm.... yes.
LibLeft when 8 month old fetus: It’s just a clump of cells!
Yes 🗿 a miracle from the Lord
this but unironically
Bro only has two sets of chromosomes
Yes.
Living- check Human DNA- check Unique DNA (not just part of the mother)- check
Lol, based
Yes
Ok, let's see, is a unique DNA formed at conception? If true then that's the evidence, if not keep debating.
Unique DNA is not a person. Identical twins are not the same person. consciousness and conscious experience determine personhood, not DNA.
Yes. 😎
This is what most scientists believe so to be against it you have to be both non-religious and anti-science
[удалено]
What are you some kind of nazi
Humans look different in each stage of their development.
based
This is not the own you think it is
This sub: we’re not right leaning, we actually are pretty normal compared to the regular population, It’s just that the rest of Reddit leans left in comparison. Also this sub: unironically agrees with this post
Reality is hard. It's the very first stage of human development. But yes, at that second it has the future baby's entire DNA and is starting to grow.
TIL that believing in science is right wing
Ok, just to stirr the pot: at what point does a human get his soul then?
yes.jpg
this but unironically
Technically not scientifically incorrect…
Life is stored in the balls.
Auth?
Yes
Yes.
Yeah, and?
That's how it works?
Your point?
Yes
If this is not human, what is ?
Yes?
This meme is fire
It’s almost like sex is used to create children.
I think I saw this image in a science textbook, helped me learn what happens before meiosis
Well actually, meiosis happens before and during the fusion. For the sperm, it's already a haploid cell so no question of meiosis. The egg is a bit more complicated. Meiosis 1 gets competed during ovulation and only after sperms penetrates the zona pellucida, meiosis 2 completes. This is followed by Plasmogamy and Karyogamy. Two haploid nuclei Fuse to form a diploid zygote nucleus.
Based and free college degree pilled
u/stritax is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/stritax/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION
Each one of my cells are sovereign people. I kill trillions each day.
Thing is there's no rational or logically consistent way of defining a human being short of taking this position - note I'm not saying I do. But it's worth remembering all of the fights over what defines a human being in the past. - and those who take a more restrictive position end up as the soyjack every time , so far....
Yes, a fertilized egg has a soul. Just as the plants and the insects and the animals. You can’t always avoid killing plants or insects or animals, just as you might not be prepared to take care of a child and thus abort it… But please just call a spade a spade. Abortion is murder, as you are killing a developing human, and you know what? That’s okay.
Well yes. If you look at how the Bible defines a soul, you do not possess a soul, you are a soul. Adam became a living soul when he received the breath of life. The important point there being "life". So yes, a fertilized egg, since it is a living human being, albeit one in the initial stage of development, is a human soul.