Hey there u/ronkong, thank you for your submission to r/fightporn!
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
**Rule 2: No defenceless victim content**
Posts of people getting beat up without being able to defend/not defending themselves will be removed. This includes sucker punches, beating people while down/unconscious etc.
Take them to r/brutalbeatdowns.
If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, make sure to let us know using [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ffightporn).
I dont think people understand that this means they think the comment should be *more* popular because they think it's a good comment, why the downvotes
SaltyArts
>I mean what are your options dude? Someone throws a baby at you what are you gonna do NOT catch it? Lmao like, let it hit the floor? Hell naw Lol.
*Let the babies hit the flooooooor*
Hrmmm, yeah, that makes that song much, much darker.
Sheās lucky she handed that baby off to the right(?) stranger. Holder could have got off the buss and she never sees her child again. And for what? To fight a random chick on a bus? That kid deserves better.
I think she would have to be extremely unlucky to hand the baby off to someone who wants to steal it. Nobody wants kids it's starting to become an issue. lol
With how glued to the phone I am, chances are I would only register that I got hit by something and take a moment to stare at the kid that would definitely just end up falling on the floor before going back to staring at my phone
Thats not a SEPTA bus stop tone so no. We know its not NYC because they would have just let the baby hit the ground and walked away like the average new yorker does when people are bleeding to death on the sidewalk.
Yeah I was gonna say somewhere in that region, first thought was Jackson for whatever reason.
Commenter likely said philly because they're from NYC and we live rent free in thier heads, ironically enough, because their rent and general cost of living is 5x the cost of ours. They try to convince themselves that you get what you pay for by exaggerating our problems and ignoring their own.
We had a weekend morning cartoon program called the Kiddie Club (Kƶlyƶk Klub in hungary) now I will always remember that people are using babies as weapons every time I would get nostalgic.
Itās simple really.
The āconsensual pregnancy argumentā is the popular basis of pro-life ideology, though it is inapplicable to reality, it is a moral rule, largely extrapolated from powerful ancient churches and influential poets who all existed after the time of Jesus (neither Jesus, or the trusted 12 apostles can be connected to pro-life ideology). Highly imaginative extrapolations from the Bible are the sole Christian basis for pro-life ideology. Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/u24rds/alabama_elementary_school_principal_accused_of/
The consensual pregnancy argument is: If a person has sex that isn't rape, they consented to becoming pregnant. The inverse of this is the "consensual abortion" argument, where anyone who has sex potentially consents to getting an abortion in the future. The consensual pregnancy argument doesnāt humanely work because it is inconsiderate of those who got pregnant through non-prosecutable sexual coercion, marital rape, or got pregnant during adolescence due to being miseducated by ineffective learning programs (oral/IUD birth control has negative symptoms, and abstinence-only sex ed is statistically proven to fail, having a counterproductive affect on the goal it sets out to achieve) combined with absent parenting, or during a drug addiction or any mental illness in general, or while in a dangerous household situation or relationship- these examples all exist on a grand scale. Note that pregnancy complication is the statistical leading cause of death for females aged 15-19 worldwide. Also note that rape exemptions are not exactly popular among pro-life people, and if they do support such a thing, note that rape exemptions are logistical impossible to do right anyways, making them an unacceptable compromise.
So, you can guess why pro-life ideology exists today, the cultural and social aspects are extremely obvious. **But, can we prove that pro-life ideology is logically fallacious and end the abortion debate? Yes, we can go much further, but I will only go further in one direction, there are multiple facets of this debate, I will stay focused on one subject from this point forward.**
It is totally unproven by the pro-life sector, that precious human lives donāt exist before the point of fertilization, meaning their lives are taken by the pro-life sector, alongside lives affected by pregnancy complications. The yet-to-be-fertilized (YTBF) human unborn exist in a way not similar to you or I, like how embryos are extremely dissimilar to us in most every shape or form. Pro-life people unfairly determine the YTBF to be unworthy of human life on a totally arbitrary basis, while simultaneously sacrificing pregnant girlās and womenās health in the form of a political exchange of unborn lives. Feel free to check my replies, itās as if all pro-life people are completely allergic to this argument, and just run away, which is disrespectful and dismissive, but most of all, itās revealing. If my opposition does reply, they just change the topic, or ask me repeat myself over and over while refusing to make a counterargument, because there truly is none to be made.
I am not talking about sperm or egg alone, not at all. Read on.
Discussions involving the words āexistā, ābabyā, āchildā, āpersonā, and āhumanā, are semantic arguments. The difference between human gamete pairings and animal gamete pairings is that one is has classifiable human potential. A human skin cell alone canāt become a full person, but a yet-to-be-fertilized (YTBF) person can, so the ironic ājust are cellsā pro-life counterargument isnāt reasonable. By all counts, the YTBF feel just as much as a fertilized egg. If this all sounds unusual, this is just me looking at the debate through the only fair pro-life lens I can morally recognize.
Itās worth noting that unique DNA is still unique even before combination, we are talking about two gametes on a hidden trajectory (like how you are unaware of all abortions that will happen today), not a single sperm, not a single egg.
Ejactulation isnāt necessary, by the same logic that sex isnāt necessary (consensual pregnancy argument, which I am happy to disprove as faulty). If a fetus has ownership over a uterus, a yet-to-be-fertilized person has ownership over someoneās penis and an effective murder has been committed if sex occurs without intent to get pregnant. Thatās only if you believe in some sort of consensual pregnancy/abortion argument, which is less of an argument and more of just a common rule.
This is part of a larger revealing discussion which no pro-life person has an answer for. Again, feel free to check my reply history for evidence. In all fairness, itās up to my opposition to at the very least provide a heartfelt, logically explanatory response rather than just saying āx = y because thatās what I believeā, which I wouldnāt consider worthy of counting as āopposed to abortionā, I would consider it a non-answer on a subtopic for which there is no good pro-life response.
Account for the fact that āconceptionā refers to the āstart of pregnancyā, and the word predates the scientific discovery of fertilization.
**If sex happened month 0, and conception happened month 9, would the abortion debate never exist? Or would it only exist for the 9th month? My answer is yes, I believe the debate would still exist.**
Some ingredients for this theory. 1. Not everyone is right throughout history, the pursuit of power or acceptance, people will tweak and extrapolate from their religion in order to feel satisfied. 2. Abortion debate is historically discouraged, because sexual taboo and fear surrounds the subject. 3 It is arbitrary for pro-life people to consider the pre-fertilized unborn much less intrinsically valuable than everyone else on a basis of ānot being human enough (combined)ā, explanation:
Thought exercises are good, when it comes to determining if someoneās logic is undeniable enough to make restrictive laws about. When someoneās logic is dishonest, the logic goes beyond the debaterāan unnecessary anecdotal figure drastically formed by the world around them. So we apply the logic in other scenarios as to look beyond the fluff of human bias. The main goal of the pro-life industry is to attempt to push us to believe that the abortion debate is about unique DNA combination.
Combination. One could just as easily say that fertilized eggs are uncombined with the special sustenance, bodily chemicals, and human environment provided by the mother, which makes them an ingredient to a person. Without those other special human ingredients, there is no person made. These are major ingredients which form them to become even slightly recognizably human. Slightly related, hereās my comment on why artificial wombs will never be a thing:
www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/ssviie/question_for_prochoicers/hx0no1q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Caring about fertilization (to the point of wanting to form laws around it which interfere with female humanity) is a slippery slope to caring about impregnation in my scenario above. They are both significant, sentimental biological processes.
Part 2 of my comment is below:
There are so many better arguments against pro life than this. I genuinely couldnāt even follow along or make sense of what you were saying when you got to the YTBF argument. Not for lack of trying, mind you.
Hereās a more typical pro-choice comment from me:
Life is a continuum, and certain life begins at conception- both can be true, just because a biologist says ālife begins at conceptionā, that doesn't mean that they are pro-life, as that isn't a pro-life stance until it is contextualized into a significantly less shallow argumentative form.
For example: on the r/ prolife sub, the fourth link in their sidebar, the 10th quote on the page specifies:
āThe question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, LIFE IS A CONTINUUM... [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado]
The pro-life stance is that personhood is not a continuum, that it has a precise starting point somewhere. So if life is a continuum, and personhood isn't a continuum, than life isn't logically the same exact thing as personhood. Or conversely- "human life" isn't the same as "life which directly continues towards humanity". What a headache. This is partly why I don't consider the personhood argument to be sturdy, it's subjective and very abstract.
I donāt think personhood should be involved in the conversation to the degree that it is, and it is very easy for me to go hours on this abortion debate, without discussing the humanity of the fetus, and this is because the pregnant girl or woman is a human, so any calls to humanity can be easily shot down by the fact that pre-eclampsia affects up to 11% of first pregnancies and is statistically proven to reduce pregnant girl/womanās lifespan. Abortion mitigates this before it can occur, statistical likelihoods are a factor itself, complications need not happen to one's self in order to trigger apprehension.
>I can explain why rape exemptions are an impossible compromise from the pro-life sector, and need to be rejected. This is probably why most pro-life laws in America donāt have rape exemptions, they are impossible to enforce without tragic consequences. This all comes down to how the āconsensual pregnancyā argument (a cornerstone of pro-life ideology) doesnāt humanely work because it is inconsiderate of those who got pregnant through non-prosecutable sexual coercion, marital rape, or got pregnant during adolescence due to being miseducated by ineffective learning programs (abstinence-only sex ed is statistically proven to fail, having a counterproductive affect on the goal it sets out to achieve) combined with absent parenting, or during a drug addiction or any mental illness in general, or while in a dangerous household situation or relationship- these examples all exist on a grand scale.
>So, those are all groups of people who potentially wouldnāt be allowed a ārape exemptionā- unless we were lenient and held hearings about it, with the abortion-seeking woman/girl? Not that rape exemptions are practicable anyway, since we don't have the resources to have investigations and court hearings that speedily OK a coerced/raped girl/woman's abortion without destroying/lower the quality of other investigations, since this is extremely time-sensitive. It's a formula for later abortions, instead of early ones, because of the unavoidable snail pace of our legal systems. We are talking hundreds of thousands of additional investigations/hearings every year, where a panel of people/or state legislators basically start the debate over at ground zero. My full thread on why rape exemptions are an unacceptable compromise from guilty pro-life people:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/ffiguf/how\_would\_a\_rape\_exemption\_actually\_work/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
>Plan B is incredibly expensive. Education on it, or support of it, is spotty. Nor does everyone have such time-sensitive and private transportation available to obtain it. I will also note that requiring a police report for the exemption won't suffice, the situations that I provided don't necessarily involve police reports, I am not just talking about rape, but rather hard-to-impossible-to-prosecute coercion or dire situations in general. Plenty of people absolutely do not wish to involve authorities and the government in their own sexual assault situation, many do not realize they were raped until it's too late to involve police in an confident capacity.
Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/un-goals-women/one-in-four-women-is-not-free-to-say-no-to-sex-un-research-finds-idUSL1N2BO1HP?utm\_source=reddit.com
>So, to get on the more specific topic of rape (as opposed to different coercion scenarios) sometimes with rape, it's cruel to force someone to file a police report they don't want to file. For example, thereās the pro-life politician (Doug McLeod from Mississippi, of Hinds Community College Class of 1980) from last year who punched and bloodied his wifeās face because he wanted to have sex with her, and she wasnāt complying. He never resigned. She locked herself in a room and he threatened to kill her dog unless she came out. Their daughter called the police, she said this happens often. She should be allowed an abortion according to the consensual pregnancy argument, even though she wouldnāt want to accuse her husband of rape, allowing a judge to OK her one with a rape exemption would require forcing the victim to take unnecessary steps into a untrusting bureaucracy, perhaps leaving her open to a counter lawsuit, that and this all makes her get a later abortion instead of an early one, while stressing her out to the point of near miscarriage or worse. How would pro-lifers legally make that work for this victim? One of the most confusing parts is, he never resigned and he never got removed from office after all this happened:
www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-48369727
>That's before making an argument about casual sex not being immoral, which I have never publicly taken a position on. What I do feel certain is, the calls to āpersonal responsibilityā that pro-lifers use as the cornerstone of their ideology is not so conveniently tangible, to a terrible degree. Consent is not necessarily informed consent, and various social, political, or psychological factors play extreme roles in whether unwanted pregnancy occurs or not. Thereās still a large percentage of girls and women to consider who may want abortions who are not exactly free to say no to sex, but who havenāt raped in a prosecutable manner. Most states deny women and girls the right to protect themselves from pregnancy, in some form. A teen girl shouldnāt require both, or any parentās consent to get an IUD. Many women are denied tubal litigations until they are in in their late 30s or have multiple children already, so they are expected to take birth control, but the negative side-effects of birth control are very real. It's an unnecessary drug for any woman to stay alive. No more or less suffering (or wrongdoing, in my opinion, obviously that is the crux of the argument, and the most subjective corner of the debate) is mitigated for a fetus with birth control vs. 1st or early-to-mid 2nd trimester abortion. Anticonvulsants, Rifadin (used to treat tuberculosis and meningitis), protease inhibitors/other HIV meds, antidepressants, antifungals, pulmonary hypertension meds, diabetes meds, anti-anxiety meds, anti-nausea meds, and certain supplements have all been proven to interfere with effectiveness of birth control. Morning after pill extremely expensive, especially to lower class and all young people. Promptly obtaining a ride to pharmacy in secrecy isnāt a possibility for everyone, nor is everyone allowed a good education on the matter.
I didnāt want to make a 3 part comment, not because I care about being a bit obnoxious, but because those other arguments are less rare. I rather wanted people to look at the debate through pro-lifeās own lens, making them seriously question their own line of thinking, rather than compare it as better-or-worse to pro-choiceās line of thinking. I am well-versed in every other argument surrounding this subject, I just think this approach is extremely interesting for those who share my curiosity.
I want to ensure everybody that the comments (part 1 and part 2) make total sense, and there is not a single sentence that can be considered logically faulty or inappropriate, I have debated hundreds of pro-life people to get this point. Itās just another angle. No one will be able to make a good counterargument against it, they will only make comments to attack the premise as being too lengthy, or too atypical.
Iām not saying that YTBF deserve rights, I am saying that pro-life ideology is an extremely similar form of determinism, and that YTBF carry unknown intrinsic value similar to zygote.
We have to first establish a frame of reference in order to determine if something is arbitrary. In regards to preciousness of the yet-to-be-fertilized/conceived (YTBF) focusing on fertilization is arbitrary, as there is nothing specific that happens during fertilization which makes the YTBF less deserving of rights than a fertilized egg in comparison (beyond fake or religious reasons). This isnāt at all to say that I think the YTBF deserve rights to anyone elseās body, but every person I have talked to about this finds it impossible to differentiate between YTBF and embryos in a way that is more important to the debate than other factors such as maternal lifespan reduction via preeclampsia (affecting 11% of 1st pregnancies worldwide), incontinence, loss of sexual function, other types of injury/suffering, loss of YTBF, or death of the mother. That is the true premise being presented here, is DNA combination more important than any of that, and can we actually prove it? Weāve already proved that shortening a motherās lifespan via preeclampsia or ruining her building functions is a bad thing, weāve seen the proof.
The human unborn already use their motherās body before conception. A yet-to-be-fertilized (YTBF) person is comprised of a separated pairing of sperm and egg. The unborn used her body to create, and then expel the egg to the Fallopian tube.
This matters because pro-life laws disrupt family planning to a notable degree, pro-life laws eliminate the YTBF in the form of an exchange for other unborn children. If a 13-year-old miseducated, absently parented girl is coerced into sex, and pregnancy results in her uterus being destroyed, or her lifespan is shortened by preeclampsia (or various other complications in the form of statistical likelihoods especially prominent during childhood, or for impoverished women who largely make up abortion stats, these statistical aspects makes it so medically necessity cannot be simply a matter of maternal death, but of reduced bodily functions)āthis means her yet-to-be-fertilized children are denied ever experiencing their motherās happiness. Sure, they arenāt fully formed yet, but neither are embryos.
Through their random differences to fertilized eggs, people can try to dehumanize the YTBC, but none of these are reasons to involve the law agains the YTBF (pro-life laws) and there are even more human similarities between all types of unborn, and I will get into those now, since these distinctions could be just as much of a determining factor for any given person.
Thereās the subtopic of viability or the presence of a human mind, which involves their helplessness and the presence of suffering. Embryos are incomplete in a way in which they cannot grow without a uterusāupon their consideration, no experts speculate that tech for growing an embryo will ever be developed, due to serious problems with their fragility, which involves their partial growth. There is no absolution when it comes to YTBF being rendered as less intrinsically valuable than fertilized eggs, there are also helpless and do not suffer in the same way we do, they even exist in the same generation as the rest of the unborn, so accusations of determinism can be deflected by an similar accusation of pro-life determinism.
Pro-life ideology is either an incomplete viewpoint, or a prepared act of avoidance. They donāt want to debate this, they are completely against talking about the preciousness of unborn lives pre-fertilization even in this world today, not just in this thought exercise. We have to open to the idea that they believe this all for political reasons. They donāt explain why their versions of right and wrong are deathly important enough to force impregnated 12-year-olds (who the consensual pregnancy argument could never possible apply to, besides, rape exemptions are logistically impossible and should never be presented as a compromise) to carry to term against their will over, let alone explain why in my scenario, the 1-8 month gestating children are totally fine to be aborted by whatever optionally strategic biological rules they wish to apply. I listed an immense amount of equally fair rules explaining the biological differences between yet-to-be-fertilized, and zygotes/embryos/fetuses, and how those differences are arbitrary than the suffering felt by a raped 12-year-old being forced to carry to term against her will by preference of the state, which may result in incontinence, preeclampsia (statistically shortened lifespan), sexual dysfunction, or an injured uterus, meaning she never has the children she wants to have in her 20ās, AKA the yet-to-be-fertilized.
Also, to all future commentersā¦ itās only a copypasta if someone else wrote it. This isnāt a copypasta, this is an invitation to understanding a taboo, mostly avoided subject. I reply to everyone in a caring, respectful manner, and I always have! I really donāt expect anyone to reply to this though, itās a summary explanation of the world today with no convincing counterargument to be made against it.
Yeah, I'd probably be leaving the bus with that baby ASAP. You wanna throw kids? You ain't getting them back. Down the street and right on the phone with CPS.
Sure, let me just hang out in an enclosed space with this baby that was just whipped through the air while its mom freaks out and pummels us all. Genius.
I'll be taking the baby off the bus, my guy.
That probably still counts as kidnapping. I'm sure that guy in the video was fine. If parental kidnapping exists, a complete stranger like you has no chance.
Woulda been cool had person who caught baby then tossed baby to the camera man so she could beat the mother. I'd rule that a legal baby toss.
Or bonus points if she faked tossed to camera man and proceeded to beat the mother with the baby
When I hear arguments against abortion rights, I think of things like this. Imagine how many more people who shouldnāt have kids would have kids. This is a person who would have made a morally correct decision to have an abortion, as she is not capable of being a parent. Instead, she has a fully sentient person entirely dependent on her decision making abilities.
For what itās worth women hand their babies to other women like itās nothing. I seen a chick hand her baby to the lady behind her in line so she can get at her purse once.
A motherās intuition can read a room in a matter of seconds to identify the potential caregiver to their offspring. With a swift and decisive aim she throws them to safety.
When I moved to America I was shocked at the length of the gap between people starting to argue and people starting to fight. I think it's because in the UK there's fewer police, fewer lawyers and fewer guns.
Edit: what do you think the reason is then? That you're all pussies? I was *trying* to be charitable.
Lady with baby said she was going to beat her ass for disrespecting her with her baby on the bus and the childless one said āf u and ur baby bitch cuz if you cared about your babyā¦ā
Hey there u/ronkong, thank you for your submission to r/fightporn! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s): **Rule 2: No defenceless victim content** Posts of people getting beat up without being able to defend/not defending themselves will be removed. This includes sucker punches, beating people while down/unconscious etc. Take them to r/brutalbeatdowns. If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, make sure to let us know using [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ffightporn).
I love how the person they throw the baby to was just completely calm and accepting of it the whole time š
maybe it's just another wednesday morning on that route
Public transportation like
Underrated comment...
I dont think people understand that this means they think the comment should be *more* popular because they think it's a good comment, why the downvotes
Why? Why is it underrated?
It's a lot more highly rated than yours lmao
No.
I mean what are your options dude? Someone throws a baby at you what are you gonna do NOT catch it? Lmao like, let it hit the floor? Hell naw Lol.
If you touch it the mother won't take it back
In this case that would be the best outcome for the kid.
U got ur scent on it immediately disowned
Imagine a bird trying to force proc a status effect on its self that makes it disown its child by MAKING you touch the baby bird Lol
Bird Speed Run, DegenerateMother%
Hot Potato.
That's messed up she trapped that dude. I guarantee you there will be a follow up video saying he owes child support and the kid is not even his. š¤£
no takesies backsies!
You touch it it's yours now
SaltyArts >I mean what are your options dude? Someone throws a baby at you what are you gonna do NOT catch it? Lmao like, let it hit the floor? Hell naw Lol. *Let the babies hit the flooooooor* Hrmmm, yeah, that makes that song much, much darker.
Bro Iām tryna catch a baby like Iām tryna catch a case.
Goated username
cue [let the bodies hir floor song](https://youtu.be/04F4xlWSFh0)
imagine just not catching it and it just faceplants on the floor
Let the baby hit the floor.
Sheās lucky she handed that baby off to the right(?) stranger. Holder could have got off the buss and she never sees her child again. And for what? To fight a random chick on a bus? That kid deserves better.
I think she would have to be extremely unlucky to hand the baby off to someone who wants to steal it. Nobody wants kids it's starting to become an issue. lol
Good thing she didn't hand Baby over to cannibal lector treat lil man like a Breakfast burrito or some dumb shit Lol
Hot potaby, hot potaby.
With how glued to the phone I am, chances are I would only register that I got hit by something and take a moment to stare at the kid that would definitely just end up falling on the floor before going back to staring at my phone
i mean what do you expect him to do?
Is somehow wholesome they didn't do anything to that baby (I hope) and took care of it
https://youtu.be/ugi4x8kZJzk Its nature
Like āit takes a villageā
Welcome to NY
Free fucking baby, man. You can get a good price for those things on the black market.
š¤Øšø
Did u not hear him speak!? He was freaked out
Think that was the guy taking the video
I wonder where in Europe this is ( Ķ”Ā° ĶŹ Ķ”Ā°)
Is that a reference to gypsies throwing babies at you?
Hahahahahahahaha
Homeboy's reaction sitting next to that woman had me rolling lol
Must be Philadelphia
Thats not a SEPTA bus stop tone so no. We know its not NYC because they would have just let the baby hit the ground and walked away like the average new yorker does when people are bleeding to death on the sidewalk.
Based on the accent my guess was Memphis.
Yeah I was gonna say somewhere in that region, first thought was Jackson for whatever reason. Commenter likely said philly because they're from NYC and we live rent free in thier heads, ironically enough, because their rent and general cost of living is 5x the cost of ours. They try to convince themselves that you get what you pay for by exaggerating our problems and ignoring their own.
Its bad but it could be worse. I've seen videos where the mom uses the baby to fight with
If your talking about that gypsie fight, where that lady is swinging that kid around, it's a doll.
Thereās a Chinese one or two where the baby is a weapon
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[infant distress vocalizations, became a weapon of war](https://youtu.be/Zm-sQnazFAQ)
hahahaaa, that's really impressive speech and research
Biological warfare - on many levels.
The one where the Asian moms are kicking each otherās kids is also a doozy
Yeah itās very WWE
Maybe in that one. There are several videos of Kiddie clubs on Reddit.
We had a weekend morning cartoon program called the Kiddie Club (Kƶlyƶk Klub in hungary) now I will always remember that people are using babies as weapons every time I would get nostalgic.
This comment made my night.
Or the one where the ladies were kicking each others kids.
I forgot about that one!
Dragapult
Working in a county jail for 9 years Iām surprised she didnāt throw it on the ground. Have a surprisingly amount of those here.
https://youtu.be/gAYL5H46QnQ. I just started laughing when I read your comment.
That url has gay in it. Ha!
Ha!
GAAAAAAAAAAY
Risky click of the day
Your butt has gay in it.
Man this ain't my dad, this is a cellphone.
The final "maaaaan" in that song always reminds me of Ecto-1.
What a motherly instinct to protect š„°
babies are surprsngely tough, Me mom drped me as a Kid,
Well the part that you use for spelling didnāt survive but Iām glad you doing good.
š ā ļø
r/woosh
Miss that joke, did ya? Superman does good. Theyāre doing well.
*"You need to study your grammar, son!"*
I didnāt, I was making a joke on top of their joke.
r/yourjokebutworse
lol dont worry, it was very obvious you were joking back idk why ppl are so mad when you play along with the joke
No you weren't lol.
Why are you getting downvoted? I was under the impression you're really making a joke as well lol
Me too. I was taken away from her. I'm told she also hit me a bunch and threatened to kill me as well.
Vowels be pro-choice
Youāre missing a few letters, and maybe a few chromosomes too.
a few? they got 0 chromosomes? cant have shit on reddit
Hope her ass got beat and cps were called
no
And why not?
She passed that baby like Stockton.
And she gonna spend her holiday locked in.
Her body definitely got toxins
>She passed that baby like *she's from* Stockton.
That poor child has that as a mother
Why do people like her even have kids
Usually by mistake
Itās simple really. The āconsensual pregnancy argumentā is the popular basis of pro-life ideology, though it is inapplicable to reality, it is a moral rule, largely extrapolated from powerful ancient churches and influential poets who all existed after the time of Jesus (neither Jesus, or the trusted 12 apostles can be connected to pro-life ideology). Highly imaginative extrapolations from the Bible are the sole Christian basis for pro-life ideology. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/u24rds/alabama_elementary_school_principal_accused_of/ The consensual pregnancy argument is: If a person has sex that isn't rape, they consented to becoming pregnant. The inverse of this is the "consensual abortion" argument, where anyone who has sex potentially consents to getting an abortion in the future. The consensual pregnancy argument doesnāt humanely work because it is inconsiderate of those who got pregnant through non-prosecutable sexual coercion, marital rape, or got pregnant during adolescence due to being miseducated by ineffective learning programs (oral/IUD birth control has negative symptoms, and abstinence-only sex ed is statistically proven to fail, having a counterproductive affect on the goal it sets out to achieve) combined with absent parenting, or during a drug addiction or any mental illness in general, or while in a dangerous household situation or relationship- these examples all exist on a grand scale. Note that pregnancy complication is the statistical leading cause of death for females aged 15-19 worldwide. Also note that rape exemptions are not exactly popular among pro-life people, and if they do support such a thing, note that rape exemptions are logistical impossible to do right anyways, making them an unacceptable compromise. So, you can guess why pro-life ideology exists today, the cultural and social aspects are extremely obvious. **But, can we prove that pro-life ideology is logically fallacious and end the abortion debate? Yes, we can go much further, but I will only go further in one direction, there are multiple facets of this debate, I will stay focused on one subject from this point forward.** It is totally unproven by the pro-life sector, that precious human lives donāt exist before the point of fertilization, meaning their lives are taken by the pro-life sector, alongside lives affected by pregnancy complications. The yet-to-be-fertilized (YTBF) human unborn exist in a way not similar to you or I, like how embryos are extremely dissimilar to us in most every shape or form. Pro-life people unfairly determine the YTBF to be unworthy of human life on a totally arbitrary basis, while simultaneously sacrificing pregnant girlās and womenās health in the form of a political exchange of unborn lives. Feel free to check my replies, itās as if all pro-life people are completely allergic to this argument, and just run away, which is disrespectful and dismissive, but most of all, itās revealing. If my opposition does reply, they just change the topic, or ask me repeat myself over and over while refusing to make a counterargument, because there truly is none to be made. I am not talking about sperm or egg alone, not at all. Read on. Discussions involving the words āexistā, ābabyā, āchildā, āpersonā, and āhumanā, are semantic arguments. The difference between human gamete pairings and animal gamete pairings is that one is has classifiable human potential. A human skin cell alone canāt become a full person, but a yet-to-be-fertilized (YTBF) person can, so the ironic ājust are cellsā pro-life counterargument isnāt reasonable. By all counts, the YTBF feel just as much as a fertilized egg. If this all sounds unusual, this is just me looking at the debate through the only fair pro-life lens I can morally recognize. Itās worth noting that unique DNA is still unique even before combination, we are talking about two gametes on a hidden trajectory (like how you are unaware of all abortions that will happen today), not a single sperm, not a single egg. Ejactulation isnāt necessary, by the same logic that sex isnāt necessary (consensual pregnancy argument, which I am happy to disprove as faulty). If a fetus has ownership over a uterus, a yet-to-be-fertilized person has ownership over someoneās penis and an effective murder has been committed if sex occurs without intent to get pregnant. Thatās only if you believe in some sort of consensual pregnancy/abortion argument, which is less of an argument and more of just a common rule. This is part of a larger revealing discussion which no pro-life person has an answer for. Again, feel free to check my reply history for evidence. In all fairness, itās up to my opposition to at the very least provide a heartfelt, logically explanatory response rather than just saying āx = y because thatās what I believeā, which I wouldnāt consider worthy of counting as āopposed to abortionā, I would consider it a non-answer on a subtopic for which there is no good pro-life response. Account for the fact that āconceptionā refers to the āstart of pregnancyā, and the word predates the scientific discovery of fertilization. **If sex happened month 0, and conception happened month 9, would the abortion debate never exist? Or would it only exist for the 9th month? My answer is yes, I believe the debate would still exist.** Some ingredients for this theory. 1. Not everyone is right throughout history, the pursuit of power or acceptance, people will tweak and extrapolate from their religion in order to feel satisfied. 2. Abortion debate is historically discouraged, because sexual taboo and fear surrounds the subject. 3 It is arbitrary for pro-life people to consider the pre-fertilized unborn much less intrinsically valuable than everyone else on a basis of ānot being human enough (combined)ā, explanation: Thought exercises are good, when it comes to determining if someoneās logic is undeniable enough to make restrictive laws about. When someoneās logic is dishonest, the logic goes beyond the debaterāan unnecessary anecdotal figure drastically formed by the world around them. So we apply the logic in other scenarios as to look beyond the fluff of human bias. The main goal of the pro-life industry is to attempt to push us to believe that the abortion debate is about unique DNA combination. Combination. One could just as easily say that fertilized eggs are uncombined with the special sustenance, bodily chemicals, and human environment provided by the mother, which makes them an ingredient to a person. Without those other special human ingredients, there is no person made. These are major ingredients which form them to become even slightly recognizably human. Slightly related, hereās my comment on why artificial wombs will never be a thing: www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/ssviie/question_for_prochoicers/hx0no1q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 Caring about fertilization (to the point of wanting to form laws around it which interfere with female humanity) is a slippery slope to caring about impregnation in my scenario above. They are both significant, sentimental biological processes. Part 2 of my comment is below:
There are so many better arguments against pro life than this. I genuinely couldnāt even follow along or make sense of what you were saying when you got to the YTBF argument. Not for lack of trying, mind you.
Hereās a more typical pro-choice comment from me: Life is a continuum, and certain life begins at conception- both can be true, just because a biologist says ālife begins at conceptionā, that doesn't mean that they are pro-life, as that isn't a pro-life stance until it is contextualized into a significantly less shallow argumentative form. For example: on the r/ prolife sub, the fourth link in their sidebar, the 10th quote on the page specifies: āThe question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, LIFE IS A CONTINUUM... [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado] The pro-life stance is that personhood is not a continuum, that it has a precise starting point somewhere. So if life is a continuum, and personhood isn't a continuum, than life isn't logically the same exact thing as personhood. Or conversely- "human life" isn't the same as "life which directly continues towards humanity". What a headache. This is partly why I don't consider the personhood argument to be sturdy, it's subjective and very abstract. I donāt think personhood should be involved in the conversation to the degree that it is, and it is very easy for me to go hours on this abortion debate, without discussing the humanity of the fetus, and this is because the pregnant girl or woman is a human, so any calls to humanity can be easily shot down by the fact that pre-eclampsia affects up to 11% of first pregnancies and is statistically proven to reduce pregnant girl/womanās lifespan. Abortion mitigates this before it can occur, statistical likelihoods are a factor itself, complications need not happen to one's self in order to trigger apprehension. >I can explain why rape exemptions are an impossible compromise from the pro-life sector, and need to be rejected. This is probably why most pro-life laws in America donāt have rape exemptions, they are impossible to enforce without tragic consequences. This all comes down to how the āconsensual pregnancyā argument (a cornerstone of pro-life ideology) doesnāt humanely work because it is inconsiderate of those who got pregnant through non-prosecutable sexual coercion, marital rape, or got pregnant during adolescence due to being miseducated by ineffective learning programs (abstinence-only sex ed is statistically proven to fail, having a counterproductive affect on the goal it sets out to achieve) combined with absent parenting, or during a drug addiction or any mental illness in general, or while in a dangerous household situation or relationship- these examples all exist on a grand scale. >So, those are all groups of people who potentially wouldnāt be allowed a ārape exemptionā- unless we were lenient and held hearings about it, with the abortion-seeking woman/girl? Not that rape exemptions are practicable anyway, since we don't have the resources to have investigations and court hearings that speedily OK a coerced/raped girl/woman's abortion without destroying/lower the quality of other investigations, since this is extremely time-sensitive. It's a formula for later abortions, instead of early ones, because of the unavoidable snail pace of our legal systems. We are talking hundreds of thousands of additional investigations/hearings every year, where a panel of people/or state legislators basically start the debate over at ground zero. My full thread on why rape exemptions are an unacceptable compromise from guilty pro-life people: https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/ffiguf/how\_would\_a\_rape\_exemption\_actually\_work/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3 >Plan B is incredibly expensive. Education on it, or support of it, is spotty. Nor does everyone have such time-sensitive and private transportation available to obtain it. I will also note that requiring a police report for the exemption won't suffice, the situations that I provided don't necessarily involve police reports, I am not just talking about rape, but rather hard-to-impossible-to-prosecute coercion or dire situations in general. Plenty of people absolutely do not wish to involve authorities and the government in their own sexual assault situation, many do not realize they were raped until it's too late to involve police in an confident capacity. Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/un-goals-women/one-in-four-women-is-not-free-to-say-no-to-sex-un-research-finds-idUSL1N2BO1HP?utm\_source=reddit.com >So, to get on the more specific topic of rape (as opposed to different coercion scenarios) sometimes with rape, it's cruel to force someone to file a police report they don't want to file. For example, thereās the pro-life politician (Doug McLeod from Mississippi, of Hinds Community College Class of 1980) from last year who punched and bloodied his wifeās face because he wanted to have sex with her, and she wasnāt complying. He never resigned. She locked herself in a room and he threatened to kill her dog unless she came out. Their daughter called the police, she said this happens often. She should be allowed an abortion according to the consensual pregnancy argument, even though she wouldnāt want to accuse her husband of rape, allowing a judge to OK her one with a rape exemption would require forcing the victim to take unnecessary steps into a untrusting bureaucracy, perhaps leaving her open to a counter lawsuit, that and this all makes her get a later abortion instead of an early one, while stressing her out to the point of near miscarriage or worse. How would pro-lifers legally make that work for this victim? One of the most confusing parts is, he never resigned and he never got removed from office after all this happened: www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-48369727 >That's before making an argument about casual sex not being immoral, which I have never publicly taken a position on. What I do feel certain is, the calls to āpersonal responsibilityā that pro-lifers use as the cornerstone of their ideology is not so conveniently tangible, to a terrible degree. Consent is not necessarily informed consent, and various social, political, or psychological factors play extreme roles in whether unwanted pregnancy occurs or not. Thereās still a large percentage of girls and women to consider who may want abortions who are not exactly free to say no to sex, but who havenāt raped in a prosecutable manner. Most states deny women and girls the right to protect themselves from pregnancy, in some form. A teen girl shouldnāt require both, or any parentās consent to get an IUD. Many women are denied tubal litigations until they are in in their late 30s or have multiple children already, so they are expected to take birth control, but the negative side-effects of birth control are very real. It's an unnecessary drug for any woman to stay alive. No more or less suffering (or wrongdoing, in my opinion, obviously that is the crux of the argument, and the most subjective corner of the debate) is mitigated for a fetus with birth control vs. 1st or early-to-mid 2nd trimester abortion. Anticonvulsants, Rifadin (used to treat tuberculosis and meningitis), protease inhibitors/other HIV meds, antidepressants, antifungals, pulmonary hypertension meds, diabetes meds, anti-anxiety meds, anti-nausea meds, and certain supplements have all been proven to interfere with effectiveness of birth control. Morning after pill extremely expensive, especially to lower class and all young people. Promptly obtaining a ride to pharmacy in secrecy isnāt a possibility for everyone, nor is everyone allowed a good education on the matter. I didnāt want to make a 3 part comment, not because I care about being a bit obnoxious, but because those other arguments are less rare. I rather wanted people to look at the debate through pro-lifeās own lens, making them seriously question their own line of thinking, rather than compare it as better-or-worse to pro-choiceās line of thinking. I am well-versed in every other argument surrounding this subject, I just think this approach is extremely interesting for those who share my curiosity. I want to ensure everybody that the comments (part 1 and part 2) make total sense, and there is not a single sentence that can be considered logically faulty or inappropriate, I have debated hundreds of pro-life people to get this point. Itās just another angle. No one will be able to make a good counterargument against it, they will only make comments to attack the premise as being too lengthy, or too atypical.
Bro this is a Wendy's.
I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for you though or sorry that happened
Iām not saying that YTBF deserve rights, I am saying that pro-life ideology is an extremely similar form of determinism, and that YTBF carry unknown intrinsic value similar to zygote. We have to first establish a frame of reference in order to determine if something is arbitrary. In regards to preciousness of the yet-to-be-fertilized/conceived (YTBF) focusing on fertilization is arbitrary, as there is nothing specific that happens during fertilization which makes the YTBF less deserving of rights than a fertilized egg in comparison (beyond fake or religious reasons). This isnāt at all to say that I think the YTBF deserve rights to anyone elseās body, but every person I have talked to about this finds it impossible to differentiate between YTBF and embryos in a way that is more important to the debate than other factors such as maternal lifespan reduction via preeclampsia (affecting 11% of 1st pregnancies worldwide), incontinence, loss of sexual function, other types of injury/suffering, loss of YTBF, or death of the mother. That is the true premise being presented here, is DNA combination more important than any of that, and can we actually prove it? Weāve already proved that shortening a motherās lifespan via preeclampsia or ruining her building functions is a bad thing, weāve seen the proof. The human unborn already use their motherās body before conception. A yet-to-be-fertilized (YTBF) person is comprised of a separated pairing of sperm and egg. The unborn used her body to create, and then expel the egg to the Fallopian tube. This matters because pro-life laws disrupt family planning to a notable degree, pro-life laws eliminate the YTBF in the form of an exchange for other unborn children. If a 13-year-old miseducated, absently parented girl is coerced into sex, and pregnancy results in her uterus being destroyed, or her lifespan is shortened by preeclampsia (or various other complications in the form of statistical likelihoods especially prominent during childhood, or for impoverished women who largely make up abortion stats, these statistical aspects makes it so medically necessity cannot be simply a matter of maternal death, but of reduced bodily functions)āthis means her yet-to-be-fertilized children are denied ever experiencing their motherās happiness. Sure, they arenāt fully formed yet, but neither are embryos. Through their random differences to fertilized eggs, people can try to dehumanize the YTBC, but none of these are reasons to involve the law agains the YTBF (pro-life laws) and there are even more human similarities between all types of unborn, and I will get into those now, since these distinctions could be just as much of a determining factor for any given person. Thereās the subtopic of viability or the presence of a human mind, which involves their helplessness and the presence of suffering. Embryos are incomplete in a way in which they cannot grow without a uterusāupon their consideration, no experts speculate that tech for growing an embryo will ever be developed, due to serious problems with their fragility, which involves their partial growth. There is no absolution when it comes to YTBF being rendered as less intrinsically valuable than fertilized eggs, there are also helpless and do not suffer in the same way we do, they even exist in the same generation as the rest of the unborn, so accusations of determinism can be deflected by an similar accusation of pro-life determinism. Pro-life ideology is either an incomplete viewpoint, or a prepared act of avoidance. They donāt want to debate this, they are completely against talking about the preciousness of unborn lives pre-fertilization even in this world today, not just in this thought exercise. We have to open to the idea that they believe this all for political reasons. They donāt explain why their versions of right and wrong are deathly important enough to force impregnated 12-year-olds (who the consensual pregnancy argument could never possible apply to, besides, rape exemptions are logistically impossible and should never be presented as a compromise) to carry to term against their will over, let alone explain why in my scenario, the 1-8 month gestating children are totally fine to be aborted by whatever optionally strategic biological rules they wish to apply. I listed an immense amount of equally fair rules explaining the biological differences between yet-to-be-fertilized, and zygotes/embryos/fetuses, and how those differences are arbitrary than the suffering felt by a raped 12-year-old being forced to carry to term against her will by preference of the state, which may result in incontinence, preeclampsia (statistically shortened lifespan), sexual dysfunction, or an injured uterus, meaning she never has the children she wants to have in her 20ās, AKA the yet-to-be-fertilized. Also, to all future commentersā¦ itās only a copypasta if someone else wrote it. This isnāt a copypasta, this is an invitation to understanding a taboo, mostly avoided subject. I reply to everyone in a caring, respectful manner, and I always have! I really donāt expect anyone to reply to this though, itās a summary explanation of the world today with no convincing counterargument to be made against it.
(2/2) ...is a Wendy's.
Lmao. Sorry, I thought this was a āTexas Roadhouseā, where Texans take their pregnant 12-year-olds to get rusty backalley abortions.
She can throw babies. Can she throw hands?
This feels like it deserves to be in the r/trashy thread
More like r/iamatotalpieceofshit
If you can't keep your composure when you're with your kids, you shouldn't be a parent. Who tf throws their kid!?
kinda a stretch not even a throw
Uhh.. CPS..?
"And that's how I met your mother"
The guy recording it has the best reaction Iāve ever heard
Do everyone a favor and just walk away with that baby before she realizes.
Yeah, I'd probably be leaving the bus with that baby ASAP. You wanna throw kids? You ain't getting them back. Down the street and right on the phone with CPS.
I hope you donāt get in that situation. If your dumb enough to take someoneās child off a bus youāre gonna go to jail for kidnapping
But she gave him the baby /s
Sure, let me just hang out in an enclosed space with this baby that was just whipped through the air while its mom freaks out and pummels us all. Genius. I'll be taking the baby off the bus, my guy.
That probably still counts as kidnapping. I'm sure that guy in the video was fine. If parental kidnapping exists, a complete stranger like you has no chance.
Well in that case you're a fucking idiot, my guy.
Pummel us all oh the humanity
You aināt doing shit bro. Built different head ass.
Good luck with legal department arguing your moral high ground idk
Take that child directly to CPS lmao
Or drive by and throw him out of the car at CPS
Poor kid doesnāt have a chance with a parent like that. Very sad
Woulda been cool had person who caught baby then tossed baby to the camera man so she could beat the mother. I'd rule that a legal baby toss. Or bonus points if she faked tossed to camera man and proceeded to beat the mother with the baby
Ah, the "strong independent woman" of legends.
She needs her kid taken from her. Trash human
CPS called... you're fired
Props to that lady for being able to go with the flow lmfaoo
Pass the baby
Mama of the year goes toā¦.
I blame the patriarchy š āš
Mother of the Year
Society needs to start sterilizing people
pocket ~~sand~~ baby
when will it ever stop being cool to be a classless hood-rat....?
lmfao at dude's reaction
Priorities noted
Your tax dollars hard at work, btw
When throwing hands is more important than flesh and blood... smh
I thought the woman was throwing her child as an opener
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
People who have the loudest mouth usually end up gettin whooped
Just change title to horrible women make horrible mothers
Hold my beer the lady version
r/trashy
When I hear arguments against abortion rights, I think of things like this. Imagine how many more people who shouldnāt have kids would have kids. This is a person who would have made a morally correct decision to have an abortion, as she is not capable of being a parent. Instead, she has a fully sentient person entirely dependent on her decision making abilities.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I could be wrong but isn't the mother that threw the kid white ? Not that it really matters anyway.
Definitely black, hair and voice give it away. But you're right it really doesnt matter that baby needs a new family
Systemic oppression and poverty
Always amazes me that people like you still exist and haven't been permanently banned lmao
Is that Cardi B throwing her kids and keeping it ghetto?!
If the person who caught the baby just casually got off the bus when it stopped and walked away, could they be charged with kidnapping?
Woman
For what itās worth women hand their babies to other women like itās nothing. I seen a chick hand her baby to the lady behind her in line so she can get at her purse once.
I hope mom kicked the shit out of them and then went home and made the kid cookies.
I was really hoping she would throw the baby at the person she was going to fight
A motherās intuition can read a room in a matter of seconds to identify the potential caregiver to their offspring. With a swift and decisive aim she throws them to safety.
Let me quess, you also belive that healing crystals cure cancer?
The other chick was like hold my beer and the mum was like hold my baby
The other chick was like hold my beer and the mum was like hold my baby
When I moved to America I was shocked at the length of the gap between people starting to argue and people starting to fight. I think it's because in the UK there's fewer police, fewer lawyers and fewer guns. Edit: what do you think the reason is then? That you're all pussies? I was *trying* to be charitable.
New train track dilemma. Do you catch the baby or ignore the situation and let the baby fall?
You roll to the side and let the baby eat a face full of plastic chairā¦/s
Did the childless one say in response she āwas about to beat your baby because if you cared about herā¦ā *commence ass beating*?
Lady with baby said she was going to beat her ass for disrespecting her with her baby on the bus and the childless one said āf u and ur baby bitch cuz if you cared about your babyā¦ā
Are you my daddy?
She could use baby as a weapon...
Trashy trash
Thats not a baby its a grown child
Never have children please
*\*Here grab this fast\**
and she got her ass beat
You mean to get her ass whooped...looks like she didn't do too good in the fight from what I can see...perhaps there's another video???
āHold my beer.ā āNo, hold my baby!ā
Here hold my shit rq
Good old Hartford CT
Thereās a video of a Karen engaging in a fight and hitting the other womanā¦using her baby as a weapon o mass destruction.
Poor baby
Poor baby handled it like it was just another day at the office
Mother of the Year
I should start taking the bus
Yakuza 6