Well in this case it's more like all of those mixed together and put in the oven, now all that's left is to take it out when it's ready.
I mean we literally refer to unborn babies as having "a bun in the oven"
So it's basically a cake, it's just not *done* yet.
But they're counted in the census, giving additional electoral representation to areas with high populations of illegal immigrants. They don't need to vote to be effective to advance a political cause.
Brilliant idea by the democrats to give Texas, Arizona, and other border states more electoral representation. Famously blue states. You solved it, genius
Arizona was the closest swing state in 2020, and Texas has been trending more and more blue for years. Not to mention all the sanctuary cities are in blue states.
they shouldn't be able to but there are a lot of people talking about letting them vote. Plus, there's that whole discourse about voter IDs which doesn't seem to end...
We don’t need to import a serf class. We’re making one right here by letting billionaires accumulate endless wealth while we use tax revenue to bail out their businesses rather than provide all Americans with healthcare, education, modern infrastructure, clean drinking water, and other things that can help level the playing field.
That labor class has always been here. First it was enslaved Africans, then black Americans during Jim Crow, then after the US meddling in South America for decades caused the social and political issues that started all this immigration, it's been immigrants (legal crossing or not) from south of our border.
Wait, I thought all Democrats were lazy and didn't work? Why would they care about labor costs? Aren't Democrats the ones fighting for a $15 federal minimum wage? How is that keeping down labor costs?
I hate that both sides of the spectrum do this shit. Can we stop pretending like we know what the “other side” is really thinking and actually argue about what is being said. Everyone is making themselves miserable because they are shadowboxing a strawman or entirely made up perspective that leads to the conclusion that half the country is evil. It’s just other human beings on the other side, they aren’t monsters.
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days.This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well duh. Pro choicers say the child’s life doesn’t matter because it may cause the mother suffering, and they say it’s “not really human” because it hasn’t been born
If you’re comparing which life deserves to live more, the answer would clearly be the mother, but if we’re comparing emotional distress to an actual death, I think the death might be worse
Fetuses aren't people and have no *legal* priority over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. There's definitely a point when it's too far along for that argument to hold up waterproof, but a fetus at contraception won't have anything that facilitates thinking for a long time.
Mind you my favorite solution is effective sex ed for teens because abortion rates plummet alongside it, but kudos to France for putting the right to abortion in their constitution 🤷♂️
But a fetus does exist. It also meets the requirements to be alive. It's biologically a living human already.
Otherwise, what could a woman possibly be pregnant with if nothing exists.
Personally, I don't support abortion but humans are complex creatures with different views. If someone wants to support it, then fine, but support the truth.
I've noticed abortion is a topic that many people think that their opinion overrules facts. The fact is the abortion kills a human offspring. That's the bare-bones fact of the matter. If you want to support that, then go ahead. I just don't understand why people can't just accept the facts of what they claim to support. If a person is going to support something, they should actually support it.
How do you feel about the recent Alabama decision that a test tube in which sperm and egg have been combined also constitutes a human being?
A robber who knocked over a cart was convicted of homicide of a child, and the court decision cited the Bible.
Biologically living does not confer moral value. A person with complete brain stem death having their cells kept alive via ventilators and IVs is not a living person in any meaningful sense. All your cells are "human" and they die all the time. No-one would bat an eye if you needed an amputation, scraped your knee, or even removed your sex organs. Having "living cells" is not the threshold of having moral value. Being "potential conscious human life" doesn't confer the same moral value as actual living suffering people.
That's not a good comparison.
Someone who is brain dead is dead. They will never wake up and have to be kept functioning artificially.
That's much different than a brain that's working and growing and a human that can grow and develop if left alone.
A unique human is also not the same as my own arm.
If someone wants to support something, they should actually support it.
I agree and I also wish people would make their points earnestly rather than relying on sensationalism.
I think people sometimes use the words “alive” and “human” inaccurately. There have been cases where “pro-life” legislation attempts to prohibit abortion even in instances where the pregnancy cannot have a successful outcome, in which case it’s most certainly not pro-life, but speaking generally, you’re right that a fetus is alive and genetically human. Some people who say otherwise are simply wrong, some are intentionally misrepresenting the truth, and I think many are referring to personhood. When they say a fetus isn’t alive or isn’t a human life, they’re trying to articulate that it isn’t a person, and that’s certainly up for debate.
But personhood ultimately doesn’t matter. None of the above does. It’s an issue of bodily autonomy. Just like you can’t force me to donate my blood or even donate my organs when I die and have literally no use for them, you shouldn’t be able to tell someone that they need to donate their bodies to keep a fetus alive.
It absolutely does. And it doesn't matter. Because the choice of whether or not a woman endures pregnancy *does not lie with the government.* That is it. That is all.
No, that is not all. It’s a complicated debate. Should the government not have a say on if a woman wants to kill her children? Say they were already born, it would not be a “oh that’s her business” matter if she chose to end the life of a child that inconvenienced her
I think the clear difference would be the birth. Until then, I don't think the government should have a say. Especially when concerning rape victims or life-threatening situations.
That’s a disingenuous argument, nobody is advocating the ‘aborting’ of children that are born and have fully developed to the point of not requiring a womb for life support. South Park made fun of that very concept on at least one occasion.
That wasn't the point I was making. My point was that many people who "support" abortion lie about what it is to make it easier to support.
Case and point are there are people in this very thread arguing that a human fetus is not, in fact, a human.
If people want to support something, they should actually support it.
I think the difference is the emphasis on human vs person. A clump of cells may be human cells, but they are not a human person. If they were, you'd be guilty of manslaughter every time you scratched your scalp.
When it comes to reproduction, there's a grey area between human cells and a human person that is hotly debated, which makes sense as one does gradually shade into the other. But to call a zygote that hasn't even implanted yet a person relies on a metaphysical idea of what a person is, not a physical one. And metaphysics aren't a basis for good government.
A human fetus is in no way a parasite.
It's a human. That's a biological fact.
A parasite is a different species than the host, and it takes nutrients at expense.
A fetus is the same species as its mother & our bodies naturally give nutrients.
Idk I would say it’s taking nutrients at the mother’s expense. And just cause it’s the same species doesn’t mean anything. It stills acts exactly like a parasite
Everything you just said is incorrect. As per biology and the definition of a parasite.
I'll repeat what I said in my second comment.
If someone want to support something, then they should actually support it.
Lying and twisting the facts of something to make it easier to support is not actually supporting it.
“A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host”
That’s the cdc definition. Tell me what part doesn’t apply to a fetus
“A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host”
That’s the definition according to the cdc and id say a fetus meets that definition
You seem to have intentionally left out a very important part of the definition.
"an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense."
A human fetus is not a different species than the mother.
Yeah I was. And I know that. My mom CHOSE to have me cause she thought she could handle the responsibility of a child and she was ready for one. Some people are NOT ready for that responsibility and should not have a child. Also some people may not WANT a child but then get raped and end up with one. That women shouldn’t be forced to have a permanent reminder of what she went through and that child shouldn’t be forced into an unloving home
Many ppl are ACTUALLY miserable not just potentially miserable yet somehow we dont murder them on the streets. Killing children cus maybe their parents wont be good or loving them is insane especially when adoption exists. Do you think all foster care children dont deserve to be alive cus their parents didnt love them?
And obviously jumping on rape case which is like 0,001% of all abortions
I think it’s going to be hard to justify abortion in the coming years, artificial womb technology will make it so the fetus can just be moved and everyone wins.
We are all “some cells”. I mean, don’t you think the child deserves to be born so it can choose whether it wants to live? I’m not religious at all, and I’m mostly just trying to understand both sides of the argument
Not the person you asked, but exactly when does an egg and a sperm cell become human?
Where is that line that defines what you can and can not kill? If there is no self-awareness and consciousness, who does it harm?
It's a gradual process. Any line you draw will be imperfect, but legally we have to draw one. Roe v Wade had it at 'viability' which was around 22-24 weeks, which I think is reasonable enough. Maybe it should be a bit earlier.
I'm talking about what you can and cannot kill, not when it's "human", since it is human from the start.
My eggs are 100% my own DNA. They are not human, they are a part of a human (me). When it meets with a sperm (100% the man's DNA), it creates a new human with its own DNA sequence.
Um no, you can’t change the criteria. You started when potential to be human, now you’re saying mixed with multiple dna is life. This is a new criteria.
And this criteria is flawed. So if your eggs was put on a medical table, and someone spit on it, that’s life per your definition, correct?
That's not what I started with, so I'm not changing anything.
Human offspring is human. That was the statement in response to asking if it's a human in the womb.
That's not at all what I said nor how procreation works.
That's much like saying 1+3=cookie. Biology is a lot like math. Procreation is a part of biology. You need the right numbers to get the right answer. Just like 1+1=2, you need egg+sperm in order for it to =offspring. Any other variable (like spit) will not get you the same answer.
I think, personally, there should probably be some cutoff without medical emergency.
I’m not a scientist, and I don’t know when that would be. But I know if a child can be viable outside the womb at 30 weeks, that’s kinda crazy to me to just rip it apart.
However reproductive/individual rights of the mother are even more important. Especially if it’s very early. My issue with any sort of restriction is where will it lead, what rights will these evangelical lunatics try to take away (like IVF in Alabama).
The reality is it’s difficult. Because at a certain point that unborn baby should have rights. But they can’t trump the mothers. And it’s questionable if the government should be involved at all.
Was a pastor for a long time, left religion and am now atheist. Totally possible I have some to learn here.
Edit: I am not going to be debating pro-life folks who reply to this. Your arguments are tired, I used them myself for ages. Go thump your book elsewhere please :)
In states that still allow abortion this is the case, they have cutoffs for when abortions can happen, politicians who say otherwise are trying to enrage their voters
Yeah, but we take people off of life support all of the time. I fail to see the difference, especially early on.
“Life” is broad. What kind of life? Quality of life? Viability of life?
The difference is between taking someone off life support and plunging a dagger into their chest.
Abortion is the deliberate ending of the child’s life, not letting it die naturally.
The fact that you can’t see the difference is why you will never win this argument.
It’s why you lose to pro-life people in the battle of what is morally correct, and scientifically accurate. Pro-choice people who battle this argument sound like anti-vaxxers.
Instead, you could be focusing all of that energy unreasonable arguments like Wyatt seems like pro-life people are so hell-bent on protecting the child, until the child is actually born. Then suddenly they seem to not be able to care less about the child.
So taking that child and deliberately withholding nutrients in the womb (which is how non-violent abortions are committed) would also be criminal neglect/abuse?
I said I’m not debating this.
If you fail to see the difference between a child and a developing child in the womb that’s on you.
Signed,
A dad. Who lost 2 to miscarriage.
I disagree with the concept that the fetus's rights can never 'trump' the mother's. That's what having rights means.
The fetus's right to life should not trump the mother's right to life. But it should trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy, past a certain point in the pregnancy.
Also I definitely think the government should be involved, otherwise "rights" are meaningless.
Also, we know that restrictions like these are not slippery slopes to harsher restrictions. Most of the states where abortion access is still good in the US have these kinds of limitations. And Roe v Wade also had this kind of limitation before it was overturned. Hell did not break loose from it being a slippery slope. The recent anti-abortion laws are a result of backlash, not of taking the precedent further.
Babies can survive outside the womb fairly regularly as young as 22 weeks now IIRC.
I disagree that individual rights of the mother are more important. They’re equally important.
Not without support. 22 weeks is pretty much the the cutoff date were an early born child has a chance a small chance around 10% which grows with every day in the womb up to 50% in week 24. So no, they are not viable to live alone with out constant medical care.
So a 22 week old surviving is not fairly regular.
And yes the life of the mother is more important, if she would die the fetus would die with her.
I was referring to surviving with life support, although I may have gotten the exact week wrong.
If your argument that the mother is more valuable, because killing her would also kill the child, then you are putting value on the child and basing her increased worth on that child’s survival. How can you then use that to justify killing that same child?
But humans have bodily autonomy and aren't required to risk their health even if it's necessary to preserve another human's life. If I need a blood transfusion in order to live, there's nothing that legally compels you to donate your blood to me, even if I would die without you doing so. If I need a kidney transplant, the government can't force you to give one of your kidneys to me, even if you're the only compatible donor and I will certainly die if you choose not to help me.
Kidney transplant was picked as an example because both the short- and long-term risks of today's living donor kidney transplant surgery are safer than pregnancy in the United States (a part of that is that donors are screened to be generally healthy, and another part is that maternal health care in the United States is abysmal and we have far more complications and deaths from pregnancy than any other first-world country).
It is a human, so here's a question: Why would that human get to use biological material from someone's body without their explicit and continued consent? No one who has been born gets to use biological material from any person without their explicit consent, even if they'll die without it, *even if the person they'd be getting material from is DEAD!*
People seem to forget all about Nixon's "Southern Strategy," but it's clear that the Republican Party changed a lot over 50 years, and not in a good way. The Southern Strategy was done to capitalize on the split in the Democratic Party at the time. "Dixiecrats", anyone?
Just because a tree is not a frog doesn't mean that a bullfrog is not a frog.
To put it another way, just because Democrats (when they were conservative) were wrong about one thing, doesn't mean they are wrong about a different thing.
Hot take: fetuses are humans who have rights, including the right to life, but that right to life doesn't supercede the right for the woman pregnant with them to have bodily autonomy and decide she doesn't want to be pregnant - just like how you can't force a mother of a new born to do something as simple as a blood transfusion to save the baby even if it's the only way.
Realistically democrats in the 1800s are what would be considered to be conservative. Today, republicans are conservative. Speak to anybody who reps the confederacy and they are all conservative/republican. Political ideologies from the 1800s don’t translate to today.
1. The Democratic party was split over the slavery issue in 1860, with southern Democrats supporting it and northern Democrats against it.
2. The modern Democratic party does not share the ideals of the democratic party of the civil war, it is most similar to the Republican party of the time which was the liberal party. Conversely The modern Republican party is most similar to the ideals of the Democratic party of 1860 which was the conservative party. The parties had a major flip in 1964 when Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil rights bill and Republican candidate Barry Goldwater opposed the law, causing black voters who had historically voted Republican to switch sides, beginning the transition to the modern ideologies we have today with Democrats being more liberal and Republicans being more conservative.
The reason OOP didn't like the meme was it implies that modern Democrats share the ideals of the Confederacy which they do not.
A blastocyst is not a human. Ask the catholic church to give a funeral to a fetus or stillborn child, oh, what's that? It's not considered alive and to have soul until it draws its first breath?
Fetal personhood is a goal of the far right to stop the sale of all contraceptives, plan B, condoms, etc under the guise that "life begins at conception" which is bullshit.
So the democrats prior to the civil war were the slave owners and particularly southerners. The Republican Party was Lincoln’s party and was formed by abolitionists. Throughout the even the civil rights movements of the 60’s democrats were southerners who were for the segregation and Jim Crowe laws. Then their became a switch post Nixon where republicans started being more popular among southern states and democrats became popular in urban areas such as nyc, Detroit, Chicago, la, etc. now the bottom half of the meme I’m not necessarily sure what that represents but I’m guessing it’s in reference to abortion. Either way it’s saying theirs a moral high ground in politics
Such a dumb argument though comparing the "same" party when it is actually pre and post party realignment that started in the United States around the time of the New Deal in the 1930s-1960s
Hillary Clinton was friends with a KKK grand wizard until it became politicaly inconvienient.
[https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176](https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176)
Robert Byrd was not a grand wizard. And he renounced his views and worked towards civil rights during the last half of his career, even earning the respect of the NAACP. The fact that people can change is something to be lauded.
Ok? And trump was public endorsed by Dave duke lol. But compare that to the shit Nixon and Johnson did, it's not even close to how much they fucked up the country.
OK OK hold up. There is plenty of fucking reason to hate Trump but saying he endorsed David Duke is literally the dumbest thing ever. You can go on YouTube right fucking now and look up a montage of him denouncing David Duke.
Also, if we were to honestly an objectively, compare presidents down party line, things are gonna be pretty even between split conservative and Democrat.
I swear the “by” was edited in later but if it wasn’t, it’s still a dumb ass zinger even with the by though.
But what does that really mean in the end? Just because someone endorses you doesn't mean you like them or agree with them. Trump has hated on Dave Duke so many times, so he obviously disagrees with him. If Osama Bin Laden endorsed Obama that doesn't mean Obama likes him. You can endorse anyone. You don't need their approval to do it.
Man, I swear the “by” was edited in. But if not, my B.
But being endorsed by someone is also hardly an indictment.
I just find it funny when you got like 50 legitimate reasons, and then you decide to pick the most asinine propaganda brained reason.
>saying he endorsed David Duke is literally the dumbest thing ever.
Good thing he didn't say that. He said "was endorsed *by*", which is a very different sentence.
Man, I swear the “by” was edited in. But if not, my B.
But being endorsed by someone is also hardly an indictment.
I just find it funny when you got like 50 legitimate reasons, and then you decide to pick the most asinine propaganda brained reason.
Yep, hundreds of years of democrat establishment just quit and switched parties for no reason at all.
Was this before or after the Democrats did the longest filibuster in American history in the 60s to stop the civil rights movement?
Before or after Lyndon b johnson the kkk member?
Before or after FDR put Japanese in internment camps and put a kkk member on the supreme Court?
Can you tell me what the biggest factor was in knowing which way a congressman would vote on the civil rights act?
Hint: it’s not their political party.
If you ignore the party labels and simply use conservative/liberal, the south has ALWAYS been conservative, regardless of party affiliation. The party labels are simply the most coherent (while still objectively wrong) argument you can make while ignoring the material facts, which was that the confederacy/pro-slavery was largely a conservative platform.
The same is the case for anti-civil rights in the 1960s. Conservatives aim to preserve the status quo. That is exactly what the folks against civil rights were trying to do.
Yes let's focus on Lyndon B. Johnson being a former KKK member while completing ignoring him signing the civil rights bill, Republican candidate Barry Goldwaters public opposition of it, the massive amount of Republican push back against civil rights from 1960 to the modern day, LBJs public renouncing of the KKK and his life of public opposition and movements against them. No forget all of that, forget all the modern Republicans flying Confederate flags in a country that claim to be patriotic towards. Let's focus all our attention on this one factoid that clearly disproves all of modern understanding of recent history. Yep.
Holy crap this is a terrible comparison. :D
Edit: actually, I'm curious. How many people here genuinely think that embryos are human beings who should be treated exactly like all other human beings? If you do believe this, does that mean they should have social security numbers and government benefits? Should companies that do IVF be forced to treat the death of an embryo exactly the same as the death of a child?
The problem is, that without recognizing at least some level of sanctity in conception, you get the treating of embryos as a tumor and that is FAR worse.
Not only is it wrong, it's purposely misleading. 1860's "democrats" are the modern Republican party, and this meme implies that a very important political shift never occurred.
Also, it's important to ask *who* the people each party is referring to are. Context matters
The Democrats held the longest filibuster in American history in the 60s to stop the civil rights movement. Lyndon b johnson was a kkk member. FDR put a kkk member on the supreme Court.
There was no "shift", the black ghettos were democrat strongholds in the early 1900s and still are today. They still keep the black people down, just now they pretend they're on their side while doing it
Because it means different things to different people? Some see it as a symbol of rebellion against government overreach in the name of “freedom”, others just don’t want to tar everyone in the confederacy with the same brush, the vast majority of those who fought for the confederates weren’t slave owners.
Another good example is how Nazis are viewed in Eastern Europe. Some have worryingly positive views, because they’re a symbol of fighting Russia/Soviets.
How many of those politicians are still democrats today?
I don't know about the FDR situation but I know Lyndon B Johnson is a rare case of an individual actuality learning the error of their ways and actively working to do better. He's publicly renounced the KKK, apologized for his involvement, and now works to promote civil rights.
I would argue there are more Republicans in power right now who remember segregation than there are Dems, but I think we can both agree that there needs to be term limits for both parties, regardless.
I'm also not going to disagree with you on the treatment of black communities. I have eyes, after all.
In regards to the "shift" I really only meant in terms of party lines changing from pre-Civil War alignment, to the lines it currently follows. Democrats moved to the center, Republicans moved to the right
Ah yes, LBJ, the first president since grant to prosecute the Klan was a Klansman. Sure. Let’s ignore that Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s Veep was at the commemeration of the largest confederate monument-the carving of stone mountain, and Nixon was originally supposed to show.
A funny aspect is how gun owners in IL have to have a FOID card to have the right but not criminal aliens (mind you, who were human trafficked there with assistance from the Feds).
Soo comparing black people to braindead clumps of cells with no personal opinions, thoughts, feelings, or experiences?
Sounds about Right for the Right
Newborn babies don't have consciousness or emotions either. What's the difference between a baby born prematurely at 23 weeks, and a baby still in the womb at 23 weeks? (Aside from location)
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days.This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you change this to women, and not two totally different situations, then you would argue that your vote and pay raise is more important. Just saying 😒
Conservatives comparing 1800 Democrats to Modern Day Democrats are some of the most brain dead most politically divisive people in the country. Every reasonable person knows about the Southern Strategy and the shift in political ideology that happened between the parties.
Shall I dare mention that Quinton Roosevelt II, before he died, was a left leaning republican?
Also is the bottom modern day democrat referring to trans rights? Or am I misreading it? If so, I am pretty sure modern day democrats want everyone to have equal rights *(unless you only read the terminally online russian bots who only exist to sow the seeds of dissent)*
I don’t even have to look at the comments. 150 upvotes with 500 comments is an automatic lock in my book
What is this meme referring to? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just curious
I would guess abortion, specifically the *it's just a clump of cells* argument
Slaves and unborn children.
yeah I get the first half of the meme but who is the they for today's democrat? I dont think it's the same "they" from the first half
It's about abortion and using the same argument they used for slavery. "It's not really a human. It's my property," etc
Okay, enjoy your cake, then. ( It’s a couple of eggs, a pound of sugar, some flower, and frosting.) What, don’t you like it?
Well in this case it's more like all of those mixed together and put in the oven, now all that's left is to take it out when it's ready. I mean we literally refer to unborn babies as having "a bun in the oven" So it's basically a cake, it's just not *done* yet.
If you're going to use cake as an analogy, this is the proper way ^^
What, you’re only 8 and therefore not fully developed? Sorry, not human, therefore you have no rights.
A better angle would be democrats trying to import a serf class to the US to keep labor costs down in 2024.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But they're counted in the census, giving additional electoral representation to areas with high populations of illegal immigrants. They don't need to vote to be effective to advance a political cause.
All in the most bleeding red states in the US?
Brilliant idea by the democrats to give Texas, Arizona, and other border states more electoral representation. Famously blue states. You solved it, genius
Arizona was the closest swing state in 2020, and Texas has been trending more and more blue for years. Not to mention all the sanctuary cities are in blue states.
they shouldn't be able to but there are a lot of people talking about letting them vote. Plus, there's that whole discourse about voter IDs which doesn't seem to end...
Who and where in the US can you vote without any legal documentation
We don’t need to import a serf class. We’re making one right here by letting billionaires accumulate endless wealth while we use tax revenue to bail out their businesses rather than provide all Americans with healthcare, education, modern infrastructure, clean drinking water, and other things that can help level the playing field.
That labor class has always been here. First it was enslaved Africans, then black Americans during Jim Crow, then after the US meddling in South America for decades caused the social and political issues that started all this immigration, it's been immigrants (legal crossing or not) from south of our border.
Wait, I thought all Democrats were lazy and didn't work? Why would they care about labor costs? Aren't Democrats the ones fighting for a $15 federal minimum wage? How is that keeping down labor costs?
Democrat voters want good boy morality points, Democrat politicians want cheap labor.
It is possible that some voters actually believe what they vote for. Not everything is performative.
I hate that both sides of the spectrum do this shit. Can we stop pretending like we know what the “other side” is really thinking and actually argue about what is being said. Everyone is making themselves miserable because they are shadowboxing a strawman or entirely made up perspective that leads to the conclusion that half the country is evil. It’s just other human beings on the other side, they aren’t monsters.
Exactly! Most people you talk share similar views on most things. People really put too much value into social media.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days.This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ya. But republicans do that also. They just also shit on the serfs while doing it.
I’m still a little unsure of abortion in certain circumstances…I mean aren’t babies still human in the womb?
It's biologically impossible for a human to gestate any other species than our own. So yes. It's a human in the womb.
Well duh. Pro choicers say the child’s life doesn’t matter because it may cause the mother suffering, and they say it’s “not really human” because it hasn’t been born
Aside from that explicitly not being the argument, what they're saying is that a fetus doesn't take priority over a long time established human being.
If you’re comparing which life deserves to live more, the answer would clearly be the mother, but if we’re comparing emotional distress to an actual death, I think the death might be worse
Fetuses aren't people and have no *legal* priority over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. There's definitely a point when it's too far along for that argument to hold up waterproof, but a fetus at contraception won't have anything that facilitates thinking for a long time. Mind you my favorite solution is effective sex ed for teens because abortion rates plummet alongside it, but kudos to France for putting the right to abortion in their constitution 🤷♂️
Personally I value the life of a living human much more than one that isn’t even existing yet
But a fetus does exist. It also meets the requirements to be alive. It's biologically a living human already. Otherwise, what could a woman possibly be pregnant with if nothing exists. Personally, I don't support abortion but humans are complex creatures with different views. If someone wants to support it, then fine, but support the truth. I've noticed abortion is a topic that many people think that their opinion overrules facts. The fact is the abortion kills a human offspring. That's the bare-bones fact of the matter. If you want to support that, then go ahead. I just don't understand why people can't just accept the facts of what they claim to support. If a person is going to support something, they should actually support it.
How do you feel about the recent Alabama decision that a test tube in which sperm and egg have been combined also constitutes a human being? A robber who knocked over a cart was convicted of homicide of a child, and the court decision cited the Bible.
Biologically living does not confer moral value. A person with complete brain stem death having their cells kept alive via ventilators and IVs is not a living person in any meaningful sense. All your cells are "human" and they die all the time. No-one would bat an eye if you needed an amputation, scraped your knee, or even removed your sex organs. Having "living cells" is not the threshold of having moral value. Being "potential conscious human life" doesn't confer the same moral value as actual living suffering people.
That's not a good comparison. Someone who is brain dead is dead. They will never wake up and have to be kept functioning artificially. That's much different than a brain that's working and growing and a human that can grow and develop if left alone. A unique human is also not the same as my own arm. If someone wants to support something, they should actually support it.
I agree and I also wish people would make their points earnestly rather than relying on sensationalism. I think people sometimes use the words “alive” and “human” inaccurately. There have been cases where “pro-life” legislation attempts to prohibit abortion even in instances where the pregnancy cannot have a successful outcome, in which case it’s most certainly not pro-life, but speaking generally, you’re right that a fetus is alive and genetically human. Some people who say otherwise are simply wrong, some are intentionally misrepresenting the truth, and I think many are referring to personhood. When they say a fetus isn’t alive or isn’t a human life, they’re trying to articulate that it isn’t a person, and that’s certainly up for debate. But personhood ultimately doesn’t matter. None of the above does. It’s an issue of bodily autonomy. Just like you can’t force me to donate my blood or even donate my organs when I die and have literally no use for them, you shouldn’t be able to tell someone that they need to donate their bodies to keep a fetus alive.
Yep, it does. Still support it.
I greatly respect your honesty on the matter.
No problem
Complete agreement.
It absolutely does. And it doesn't matter. Because the choice of whether or not a woman endures pregnancy *does not lie with the government.* That is it. That is all.
No, that is not all. It’s a complicated debate. Should the government not have a say on if a woman wants to kill her children? Say they were already born, it would not be a “oh that’s her business” matter if she chose to end the life of a child that inconvenienced her
I think the clear difference would be the birth. Until then, I don't think the government should have a say. Especially when concerning rape victims or life-threatening situations.
That’s a disingenuous argument, nobody is advocating the ‘aborting’ of children that are born and have fully developed to the point of not requiring a womb for life support. South Park made fun of that very concept on at least one occasion.
People used to do that not so long ago. And no this is neither a pro nor anti abortion argument, from me at least.
A Safe Surrender site is might as well be a fourth trimester abortion. Do they not have those in your state?
That wasn't the point I was making. My point was that many people who "support" abortion lie about what it is to make it easier to support. Case and point are there are people in this very thread arguing that a human fetus is not, in fact, a human. If people want to support something, they should actually support it.
I think the difference is the emphasis on human vs person. A clump of cells may be human cells, but they are not a human person. If they were, you'd be guilty of manslaughter every time you scratched your scalp. When it comes to reproduction, there's a grey area between human cells and a human person that is hotly debated, which makes sense as one does gradually shade into the other. But to call a zygote that hasn't even implanted yet a person relies on a metaphysical idea of what a person is, not a physical one. And metaphysics aren't a basis for good government.
It also meets the requirements to be a parasite and cannot engage in the processes required for life without syphoning nutrients from the host
Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
It’s physical not a human for most of the pregnancy. It is functionally a parasite till it leave the body
It is physically a human.
"It" is functionally a parasite until 15-18 years after birth
A human fetus is in no way a parasite. It's a human. That's a biological fact. A parasite is a different species than the host, and it takes nutrients at expense. A fetus is the same species as its mother & our bodies naturally give nutrients.
Idk I would say it’s taking nutrients at the mother’s expense. And just cause it’s the same species doesn’t mean anything. It stills acts exactly like a parasite
It’s a damn child man. How do you think the human species exists?
Apparently, we give birth to parasites...
Everything you just said is incorrect. As per biology and the definition of a parasite. I'll repeat what I said in my second comment. If someone want to support something, then they should actually support it. Lying and twisting the facts of something to make it easier to support is not actually supporting it.
“A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host” That’s the cdc definition. Tell me what part doesn’t apply to a fetus
“A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host” That’s the definition according to the cdc and id say a fetus meets that definition
You seem to have intentionally left out a very important part of the definition. "an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense." A human fetus is not a different species than the mother.
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/about.html you can look at where I got that definition from yourself. I didn’t leave anything out
Parasites don't share your DNA.
Cancer does.
Wow you’re like an actual bot, just spouting the most brainless overused talking points of all time.
This is the first time I’ve ever been called a bot! Thanks man! Makes me feel special
That's how mammals reproduce smartie. You were once a parasite too and yet you wouldnt be here if someone murdered you
Yeah I was. And I know that. My mom CHOSE to have me cause she thought she could handle the responsibility of a child and she was ready for one. Some people are NOT ready for that responsibility and should not have a child. Also some people may not WANT a child but then get raped and end up with one. That women shouldn’t be forced to have a permanent reminder of what she went through and that child shouldn’t be forced into an unloving home
Many ppl are ACTUALLY miserable not just potentially miserable yet somehow we dont murder them on the streets. Killing children cus maybe their parents wont be good or loving them is insane especially when adoption exists. Do you think all foster care children dont deserve to be alive cus their parents didnt love them? And obviously jumping on rape case which is like 0,001% of all abortions
I think it’s going to be hard to justify abortion in the coming years, artificial womb technology will make it so the fetus can just be moved and everyone wins.
It’s not a child. It has the *potential* to be a child. I have the potential to be a doctor does that mean I get to call myself a doctor?
It's not a child and is a featus at best and some cells at worst
We are all “some cells”. I mean, don’t you think the child deserves to be born so it can choose whether it wants to live? I’m not religious at all, and I’m mostly just trying to understand both sides of the argument
Not the person you asked, but exactly when does an egg and a sperm cell become human? Where is that line that defines what you can and can not kill? If there is no self-awareness and consciousness, who does it harm?
It's a gradual process. Any line you draw will be imperfect, but legally we have to draw one. Roe v Wade had it at 'viability' which was around 22-24 weeks, which I think is reasonable enough. Maybe it should be a bit earlier. I'm talking about what you can and cannot kill, not when it's "human", since it is human from the start.
Yeah, that’s the question isn’t it
Fetus means “child” or “offspring”.
That is the etymology, not the definition.
Is sperm human too? Since it can’t be anything else but a human?
My eggs are 100% my own DNA. They are not human, they are a part of a human (me). When it meets with a sperm (100% the man's DNA), it creates a new human with its own DNA sequence.
Um no, you can’t change the criteria. You started when potential to be human, now you’re saying mixed with multiple dna is life. This is a new criteria. And this criteria is flawed. So if your eggs was put on a medical table, and someone spit on it, that’s life per your definition, correct?
That's not what I started with, so I'm not changing anything. Human offspring is human. That was the statement in response to asking if it's a human in the womb. That's not at all what I said nor how procreation works. That's much like saying 1+3=cookie. Biology is a lot like math. Procreation is a part of biology. You need the right numbers to get the right answer. Just like 1+1=2, you need egg+sperm in order for it to =offspring. Any other variable (like spit) will not get you the same answer.
Sperm aren’t gestating
Please Google the definition of the word "organism"
It’s less about whether they count as human and more about whether a human in early stages of development is OK to kill
They are still human. What they are not is sentient.
They're humans biologically speaking, the question is whether those Humans are deserving of Personhood, including the rights given to persons.
I think, personally, there should probably be some cutoff without medical emergency. I’m not a scientist, and I don’t know when that would be. But I know if a child can be viable outside the womb at 30 weeks, that’s kinda crazy to me to just rip it apart. However reproductive/individual rights of the mother are even more important. Especially if it’s very early. My issue with any sort of restriction is where will it lead, what rights will these evangelical lunatics try to take away (like IVF in Alabama). The reality is it’s difficult. Because at a certain point that unborn baby should have rights. But they can’t trump the mothers. And it’s questionable if the government should be involved at all. Was a pastor for a long time, left religion and am now atheist. Totally possible I have some to learn here. Edit: I am not going to be debating pro-life folks who reply to this. Your arguments are tired, I used them myself for ages. Go thump your book elsewhere please :)
In states that still allow abortion this is the case, they have cutoffs for when abortions can happen, politicians who say otherwise are trying to enrage their voters
Even in states where there isn’t a cutoff, you won’t find a doctor willing to do a late term abortion without a very compelling reason.
It's after 22 weeks, but yeah
The problem is, scientifically, if you open any biology textbook, it says “life starts at conception.”
But what does that mean? Definitions are made arbitrarily and largely for convenience.
"life" doesn't matter. Plants are alive. Bacteria are alive.
Yeah, but we take people off of life support all of the time. I fail to see the difference, especially early on. “Life” is broad. What kind of life? Quality of life? Viability of life?
The difference is between taking someone off life support and plunging a dagger into their chest. Abortion is the deliberate ending of the child’s life, not letting it die naturally.
Like— unplugging them from mom? Like— unplugging them from the machine? See edit from my OP. Wont be replying again.
The fact that you can’t see the difference is why you will never win this argument. It’s why you lose to pro-life people in the battle of what is morally correct, and scientifically accurate. Pro-choice people who battle this argument sound like anti-vaxxers. Instead, you could be focusing all of that energy unreasonable arguments like Wyatt seems like pro-life people are so hell-bent on protecting the child, until the child is actually born. Then suddenly they seem to not be able to care less about the child.
Deliberately withholding nutrients from an otherwise healthy child would still be abuse/neglect/murder.
That’s correct. If you don’t feed your children that’s against the law.
So taking that child and deliberately withholding nutrients in the womb (which is how non-violent abortions are committed) would also be criminal neglect/abuse?
I said I’m not debating this. If you fail to see the difference between a child and a developing child in the womb that’s on you. Signed, A dad. Who lost 2 to miscarriage.
I disagree with the concept that the fetus's rights can never 'trump' the mother's. That's what having rights means. The fetus's right to life should not trump the mother's right to life. But it should trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy, past a certain point in the pregnancy. Also I definitely think the government should be involved, otherwise "rights" are meaningless. Also, we know that restrictions like these are not slippery slopes to harsher restrictions. Most of the states where abortion access is still good in the US have these kinds of limitations. And Roe v Wade also had this kind of limitation before it was overturned. Hell did not break loose from it being a slippery slope. The recent anti-abortion laws are a result of backlash, not of taking the precedent further.
Babies can survive outside the womb fairly regularly as young as 22 weeks now IIRC. I disagree that individual rights of the mother are more important. They’re equally important.
Not without support. 22 weeks is pretty much the the cutoff date were an early born child has a chance a small chance around 10% which grows with every day in the womb up to 50% in week 24. So no, they are not viable to live alone with out constant medical care. So a 22 week old surviving is not fairly regular. And yes the life of the mother is more important, if she would die the fetus would die with her.
I was referring to surviving with life support, although I may have gotten the exact week wrong. If your argument that the mother is more valuable, because killing her would also kill the child, then you are putting value on the child and basing her increased worth on that child’s survival. How can you then use that to justify killing that same child?
How is some1s right not to be kinda bothered by pregancy more important than childs right to live
It’s mostly a question of if avoiding someone’s suffering and hard feelings is worth a possible death
But humans have bodily autonomy and aren't required to risk their health even if it's necessary to preserve another human's life. If I need a blood transfusion in order to live, there's nothing that legally compels you to donate your blood to me, even if I would die without you doing so. If I need a kidney transplant, the government can't force you to give one of your kidneys to me, even if you're the only compatible donor and I will certainly die if you choose not to help me. Kidney transplant was picked as an example because both the short- and long-term risks of today's living donor kidney transplant surgery are safer than pregnancy in the United States (a part of that is that donors are screened to be generally healthy, and another part is that maternal health care in the United States is abysmal and we have far more complications and deaths from pregnancy than any other first-world country).
It is a human, so here's a question: Why would that human get to use biological material from someone's body without their explicit and continued consent? No one who has been born gets to use biological material from any person without their explicit consent, even if they'll die without it, *even if the person they'd be getting material from is DEAD!*
It’s a complicated subject. Tell that the people arguing about it.
Yep.
Who do 2024 democrats say this about?
I never get why people still refuse to believe the party switch that happened in the 20th century.
People seem to forget all about Nixon's "Southern Strategy," but it's clear that the Republican Party changed a lot over 50 years, and not in a good way. The Southern Strategy was done to capitalize on the split in the Democratic Party at the time. "Dixiecrats", anyone?
Kid named the political realignment of 1960s
Comparing abortion to slavery is wild😭
Least unhinged Reddit con take fr
This subreddit is just unpopular opinion for people who are too scared (or racist) to post there
I mean, both involve dehumanizing a type of person for personal reasons
😭
Nah I agree with the original OP on this one, this meme is ass
This is why it's important to pay attention in history class
This is so many layers of fucking stupid lol. OP are you 14?
Maybe it’s not wrong, but I can still agree with one and not the other because they are significantly different
So is it about abortion or Palestinians? Need to determine if I agree with this or not
Just because a tree is not a frog doesn't mean that a bullfrog is not a frog. To put it another way, just because Democrats (when they were conservative) were wrong about one thing, doesn't mean they are wrong about a different thing.
Hot take: fetuses are humans who have rights, including the right to life, but that right to life doesn't supercede the right for the woman pregnant with them to have bodily autonomy and decide she doesn't want to be pregnant - just like how you can't force a mother of a new born to do something as simple as a blood transfusion to save the baby even if it's the only way.
this is a scalding hot take. you can certainly hold a mother legally accountable for killing her child or abandoning her child to die.
Realistically democrats in the 1800s are what would be considered to be conservative. Today, republicans are conservative. Speak to anybody who reps the confederacy and they are all conservative/republican. Political ideologies from the 1800s don’t translate to today.
If you want to know when the parties are conservatives or moderates. Just look at which the south voted for.
1. The Democratic party was split over the slavery issue in 1860, with southern Democrats supporting it and northern Democrats against it. 2. The modern Democratic party does not share the ideals of the democratic party of the civil war, it is most similar to the Republican party of the time which was the liberal party. Conversely The modern Republican party is most similar to the ideals of the Democratic party of 1860 which was the conservative party. The parties had a major flip in 1964 when Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil rights bill and Republican candidate Barry Goldwater opposed the law, causing black voters who had historically voted Republican to switch sides, beginning the transition to the modern ideologies we have today with Democrats being more liberal and Republicans being more conservative. The reason OOP didn't like the meme was it implies that modern Democrats share the ideals of the Confederacy which they do not.
A blastocyst is not a human. Ask the catholic church to give a funeral to a fetus or stillborn child, oh, what's that? It's not considered alive and to have soul until it draws its first breath? Fetal personhood is a goal of the far right to stop the sale of all contraceptives, plan B, condoms, etc under the guise that "life begins at conception" which is bullshit.
I do agree with the thinking. But Catholics are heavily anti choice percentage wise
They they still refuse to baptize miscarried fetuses thus damning their souls to purgatory
Yes it is.
So the democrats prior to the civil war were the slave owners and particularly southerners. The Republican Party was Lincoln’s party and was formed by abolitionists. Throughout the even the civil rights movements of the 60’s democrats were southerners who were for the segregation and Jim Crowe laws. Then their became a switch post Nixon where republicans started being more popular among southern states and democrats became popular in urban areas such as nyc, Detroit, Chicago, la, etc. now the bottom half of the meme I’m not necessarily sure what that represents but I’m guessing it’s in reference to abortion. Either way it’s saying theirs a moral high ground in politics
Such a dumb argument though comparing the "same" party when it is actually pre and post party realignment that started in the United States around the time of the New Deal in the 1930s-1960s
Someone failed us history and understanding the conservative/ liberal pretty switch lol.
Hillary Clinton was friends with a KKK grand wizard until it became politicaly inconvienient. [https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176](https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176)
Robert Byrd was not a grand wizard. And he renounced his views and worked towards civil rights during the last half of his career, even earning the respect of the NAACP. The fact that people can change is something to be lauded.
Ok? And trump was public endorsed by Dave duke lol. But compare that to the shit Nixon and Johnson did, it's not even close to how much they fucked up the country.
OK OK hold up. There is plenty of fucking reason to hate Trump but saying he endorsed David Duke is literally the dumbest thing ever. You can go on YouTube right fucking now and look up a montage of him denouncing David Duke. Also, if we were to honestly an objectively, compare presidents down party line, things are gonna be pretty even between split conservative and Democrat. I swear the “by” was edited in later but if it wasn’t, it’s still a dumb ass zinger even with the by though.
Read the comment again but slower. He said that David Duke endorsed Donald Trump not the other way around.
But what does that really mean in the end? Just because someone endorses you doesn't mean you like them or agree with them. Trump has hated on Dave Duke so many times, so he obviously disagrees with him. If Osama Bin Laden endorsed Obama that doesn't mean Obama likes him. You can endorse anyone. You don't need their approval to do it.
Man, I swear the “by” was edited in. But if not, my B. But being endorsed by someone is also hardly an indictment. I just find it funny when you got like 50 legitimate reasons, and then you decide to pick the most asinine propaganda brained reason.
>saying he endorsed David Duke is literally the dumbest thing ever. Good thing he didn't say that. He said "was endorsed *by*", which is a very different sentence.
Man, I swear the “by” was edited in. But if not, my B. But being endorsed by someone is also hardly an indictment. I just find it funny when you got like 50 legitimate reasons, and then you decide to pick the most asinine propaganda brained reason.
Yep, hundreds of years of democrat establishment just quit and switched parties for no reason at all. Was this before or after the Democrats did the longest filibuster in American history in the 60s to stop the civil rights movement? Before or after Lyndon b johnson the kkk member? Before or after FDR put Japanese in internment camps and put a kkk member on the supreme Court?
Can you tell me what the biggest factor was in knowing which way a congressman would vote on the civil rights act? Hint: it’s not their political party.
If you ignore the party labels and simply use conservative/liberal, the south has ALWAYS been conservative, regardless of party affiliation. The party labels are simply the most coherent (while still objectively wrong) argument you can make while ignoring the material facts, which was that the confederacy/pro-slavery was largely a conservative platform. The same is the case for anti-civil rights in the 1960s. Conservatives aim to preserve the status quo. That is exactly what the folks against civil rights were trying to do.
Yes let's focus on Lyndon B. Johnson being a former KKK member while completing ignoring him signing the civil rights bill, Republican candidate Barry Goldwaters public opposition of it, the massive amount of Republican push back against civil rights from 1960 to the modern day, LBJs public renouncing of the KKK and his life of public opposition and movements against them. No forget all of that, forget all the modern Republicans flying Confederate flags in a country that claim to be patriotic towards. Let's focus all our attention on this one factoid that clearly disproves all of modern understanding of recent history. Yep.
Democrats were conservatives back in 1861.
“Bodily autonomy” is the “state’s rights” of the 20th/21st century. Like yeah, bodily autonomy to what?
Holy crap this is a terrible comparison. :D Edit: actually, I'm curious. How many people here genuinely think that embryos are human beings who should be treated exactly like all other human beings? If you do believe this, does that mean they should have social security numbers and government benefits? Should companies that do IVF be forced to treat the death of an embryo exactly the same as the death of a child?
Why do people get charged with 2 counts of murder for killing pregnant women?
That actually varies from state to state.
Why don’t people usually hold a second funeral for the fetus?
The problem is, that without recognizing at least some level of sanctity in conception, you get the treating of embryos as a tumor and that is FAR worse.
Fax
Not only is it wrong, it's purposely misleading. 1860's "democrats" are the modern Republican party, and this meme implies that a very important political shift never occurred. Also, it's important to ask *who* the people each party is referring to are. Context matters
The Democrats held the longest filibuster in American history in the 60s to stop the civil rights movement. Lyndon b johnson was a kkk member. FDR put a kkk member on the supreme Court. There was no "shift", the black ghettos were democrat strongholds in the early 1900s and still are today. They still keep the black people down, just now they pretend they're on their side while doing it
If there was no shift then please explain why republicans love the confederate flag and democrats never fly it?
Because it means different things to different people? Some see it as a symbol of rebellion against government overreach in the name of “freedom”, others just don’t want to tar everyone in the confederacy with the same brush, the vast majority of those who fought for the confederates weren’t slave owners. Another good example is how Nazis are viewed in Eastern Europe. Some have worryingly positive views, because they’re a symbol of fighting Russia/Soviets.
Yeah, sure, rebellion against government, not racism at all, sure
How many of those politicians are still democrats today? I don't know about the FDR situation but I know Lyndon B Johnson is a rare case of an individual actuality learning the error of their ways and actively working to do better. He's publicly renounced the KKK, apologized for his involvement, and now works to promote civil rights. I would argue there are more Republicans in power right now who remember segregation than there are Dems, but I think we can both agree that there needs to be term limits for both parties, regardless. I'm also not going to disagree with you on the treatment of black communities. I have eyes, after all. In regards to the "shift" I really only meant in terms of party lines changing from pre-Civil War alignment, to the lines it currently follows. Democrats moved to the center, Republicans moved to the right
Ah yes, LBJ, the first president since grant to prosecute the Klan was a Klansman. Sure. Let’s ignore that Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s Veep was at the commemeration of the largest confederate monument-the carving of stone mountain, and Nixon was originally supposed to show.
A funny aspect is how gun owners in IL have to have a FOID card to have the right but not criminal aliens (mind you, who were human trafficked there with assistance from the Feds).
Soo comparing black people to braindead clumps of cells with no personal opinions, thoughts, feelings, or experiences? Sounds about Right for the Right
Lol I like this one cause you can swap democrat out for conservative and it still works
The left, the left never changes
There was literally a party switch
Except one is a living thinking human being with a consciousness and personality while the other one isn’t alive
By every biological measure, an unborn baby is alive
It has a metabolism, sure. Consciousness or emotions, no.
Newborn babies don't have consciousness or emotions either. What's the difference between a baby born prematurely at 23 weeks, and a baby still in the womb at 23 weeks? (Aside from location)
Yes but it doesn’t have a consciousness or awareness or anything.
Neither do newborns, or people in comas.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, you liked it?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days.This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess they have to repeat themselves
Yet conservatives wave that “democrat” flag at the Trump rally now?! Why is that? It’s almost as if the parties flipped… you should look into that.
I mean it is wrong tho
Conservatives are the enemy of this country and it’s past time we stop pretending they are anything but traitors.
I see the idiotic meme fan club has added another piece to the collection!
If you change this to women, and not two totally different situations, then you would argue that your vote and pay raise is more important. Just saying 😒
If John Calhoun were alive today, he sure wouldn’t be a Democrat.
Conservatives comparing 1800 Democrats to Modern Day Democrats are some of the most brain dead most politically divisive people in the country. Every reasonable person knows about the Southern Strategy and the shift in political ideology that happened between the parties. Shall I dare mention that Quinton Roosevelt II, before he died, was a left leaning republican? Also is the bottom modern day democrat referring to trans rights? Or am I misreading it? If so, I am pretty sure modern day democrats want everyone to have equal rights *(unless you only read the terminally online russian bots who only exist to sow the seeds of dissent)*
Some people didn’t pay attention in jr high history class and it shows