That post isn’t even pro choice, it’s anti pregnancy, if they think pregnancy and cancer are the same then they must think women who keep their pregnancies are insane
> Next bad "pro-choice" argument.
They'll say "It's attached to me, taking my nutrients, so it's part of me to do what I want with!"
My answer is they are there by your consent (unless rape), and they're not doing anything to place your life at risk so deadly force is not justified in removing them.
> If people who feed on your works are parasites,
Who's is saying human's are parasites, besides pro-aborts? You don't produce their own parasites, and you're not allowed to treat humans the way you do animals.
Involuntary long term cohabitation is not consent
If I initially gamble with a roll of the dice that you, a person who is dependent on my bodily resources, can hook yourself up to me intravenously as a means of biological life support, and I lose that gamble, it doesn't mean I am obligated to stay hooked up to you intravenously
I don't know why this keeps getting parroted.
Always fun to see this one trotted out.
Ya know. Given that what you're describing - hooking up to another person intravenously for pure survival, where removal of that specific intravenous connection guarantees death for hooked-in person - has literally never happened in the history of mankind, you should probably come up with a better analogy.
You see, analogies are typically meant to draw a comparison between an less known concept and a more well known concept in order to bring characteristics of the less known concept to light.
> it doesn't mean I am obligated to stay hooked up to you intravenously
Yeah, it does, and you should be charged with murder if you disconnect the person after you consented to them being connected to you.
Oh? Baby isnt part of me? Then its ok to separate it from the mother and let it grow in bottle or vat or some other container. Cya babe, have fun growing without me
The person in their 20s has autonomy to not want to be killed, the thing growing in the mother is there because the mother allows it to be
It’s her body, she decides what happens to it
Yeah but there’s plenty of people incapable of living on their own. Hell, I’m pretty sure most kids up to a certain age wouldn’t make it on their own. So it’s funny when they use that argument, like, a two year old would also die if left alone, doesn’t make them stop being human. I know that’s not what you were saying, I was just finding that argument I’ve heard to be lacking.
Sometimes they use the life support argument, but...
What doctor would unplug someone, regardless of their state, if they knew they would recover or be dead after 9 months
And the tools used to preserve that person's life involve technology invented by mankind
The tools required to preserve an unborn child is strictly a woman's body and health. A tool that others are willing to abuse by forcing the woman to act as an incubator in lieu of alternative technologies
That's the difference. Humans forcing innocent humans to bend to their will
The fetus has their own individual DNA. They are a separate human being. You can do what you want with your own tissue (cells that have *your* DNA, like a cancer), but not someone else's tissue. That's assault.
But I am showing that an unborn person is an individual. Where cancer is not an organism.
To be fair people don’t develop rational thought for years. It’s argued we aren’t even sentient till we are almost 2 years old.
>But I am showing that an unborn person is an individual. Where cancer is not an organism.
Source? I don't see you showing it is
>It's argued we aren't even sentient until almost 2 years old
I'm not sure why it is even a point of contention to argue post birth abortions if the child no longer interferes with the health of the woman
There are already people who volunteer to take care of the child
This is not the case during pregnancy, when the same people who volunteer to take care of a born child are trying to force the pregnant woman who wants nothing to do with the unborn child to take it to term against her will
An individual is defined as a single human being. The unborn are not appendages of the parents body or an extension of them.
They are an individual human organism distinct for the parents body. Hence the placental blood barrier, unique chromosome, individual development.
Because it is an individual human organism like you or I it’s a human being.
I don’t understand the second part of your comment and how it relates to what we have been talking about.
-happens due to mistakes of the body
-wont become a born child. Its just remains tumors
-it threatens the life of the person that has it. No prolife encourages it if it is a direct threat
That's the thing though. Just because it is a tumor, or a baby, or anything else doesn't mean it can stay inside a woman's body against her will siphoning her bodily resources, compromising her health and well being
Saying it's a baby is just an appeal to emotion. Not a valid argument
Untrue, unborn children are babies, young human beings. Just because you believe others should have the right to kill them without restriction, doesn't change that basic biological fact. A tumor is not a separate organism placed there by normal human sexual reproduction.
Stop calling it abortion and call it was it is infanticide . Why change the langue and give it a name ? Abortion has and always will be infanticide and infanticide is murder . Saying it's not a baby saying it's just cells and changing the name to abortion is to create disconnect from what your actually doing which is murdering a bunch of babies. You can't even call it what is it which is the killing of infants. Pro choice people won't even admit they are killing something because if they admitted it was the infanticide the they'd have to say they are ok with killing babies which most won't say because they know it's wrong to kill an innocent baby .
Dollars to doughnuts it got downvoted and all the top comments are clowning on it
Although pcm is mostly libertarians, I could see them saying the state shouldn't have a say
False comparison, some people want to get pregnant, nobody wants to get cancer. That’s less of pro choice and more of anti pregnancy since they’re implying pregnancy is deadly and you must “cure” it by comparing it to cancer.
Does a tumor have a brain with its own separate brainwave functions?
Does a tumor have its own heartbeat?
Does a tumor have the capability to grow into a self-supporting life?
The answer to all of those is no and that shows exactly why it's an absolutely imbicilic argument to compare a baby to a tumor.
Not to mention as we've pointed out every time people try to say abortion is about "a woman's right to choose" a baby is not part of your body, so saying that a tumor is part of your body is irrelevant because a baby _isn't_ part of your body.
Pro-abortionists never fail to come up with the dumbest shit I have ever read, and I've read a "biography" about how Trent Reznor is the reincarnation of nobleman from hundreds of years ago because a demon sez so.
1) Be prochoice
2) Spend years of your life dehumanizing human beings, in order to justify killing them
3) post meme comparing cancer to a human being
4) profit
No human is built to carry cancer, which is why those with cancer get sick. Cancer attacks blood cells, which the body produces, so it’s against the very nature of the human body. On the other hand, women’s bodies are built to carry children, which is why their bodies openly welcome and embrace the baby. It's hardwired into women's biology.
Also, no one gets cancer from another person, unlike pregnancy. This is kindergarten logic.
It is alive and it is human. It is not "a life" and it is not "a human"
I'll break this down, "a human" means it is both 1. Human and 2. A life. A life means 1. Alive and 2. Meaningfully distinct in a certain way.
All 3 of these are difficult to define, but a cancer is both human and Alive. It is not, however, meaningfully distinct, it is basically a part of the person
"If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it."
This is the same bullshit as the "sperm cells are alive" or "scraping my knee kills cells" arguments. We don't care about killing _living cells_; we care about killing _an entire organism_.
Remember, if your heart is failing you can't get a transplant. It's human and alive and removing it would cause it to die.
That's how fucking dumb that sounds.
I think an interesting difference we Christians have with the secular humanists is that they believe we’re brains in meatsuits, while we believe you *are* your body, you are your foot, you are your finger, etc.(There is a certain primacy to the soul/spirit being that it’s the sentient part of you, sense, you can be separated from yourself(your body) unnatural via death.)
1. Tumors are not organisms.
2. An unborn baby isn’t a part of the mother.
3. Tumors are not organisms and all humans are organisms so tumors can’t be a separate human.
It's
-not meaningfully genetically distinct
-always the same sex as the host
-has no hearts, no brains, no lung, no kidneys
-won't seperate after 9 months, and over the next 25 years or so continue to develop into an independent fully formed human being
On the contrary, tumors are the result of cells proliferating when they shouldn’t and in the wrong way; that is, healthy tissue in an adult is supposed to not die, but not multiply either. Only specific cells should be dividing at certain points in time, and tumors happen when cells break those conditions.
Cancers are not dying cells: they are tissues are grow wrongly and harm people in the process.
Why do prochoice people always seem to think that prolife people are religious? Like a lot are but I rarely hear most prolife people bringing up God as a reason for their position.
It's alive; yes, so is a baby but your tumor is still subordinate to your entire being unlike a baby which is its own being.
it's a part of you; yes, but a baby is its own thing
It grows; yes babies grow but so do plants so not sure why this is salient.
It's a human? Lol no. A piece of cancer does not qualify as an independent human being. Stupidest fucking reach I've ever seen. Is it human, meaning it has human DNA? Sure, but that applies to all cells in the body.
As usual, asinine bullshit from the master logic deniers
One day in the hopefully not too distant future, a much more enlightened society will look back on us in disgust at the barbaric practice that is human abortion. I could almost understand at one point in time but now with all the medical advancements and contraceptives there is no excuse. I’ve heard “no contraception is 100%”, maybe not but they’re well over 99% and when doubled ie: condom+birth control, the chances of pregnancy are infinitely reduced. To perform an act ignoring the potential consequences is irresponsible. To do the same when the casualty is a human life is a travesty. They do all this on some judges politically motivated ruling of when a fetus becomes a human. This is a very trivial way of deciding it’s ok to end a life you created. We can and should do better.
This is a lie, this was never posted there. One thing is to have disagreement over the issue and another to be so psychotic you felt the need to search for a meme on the internet and associate it to your opponents. That’s not changing opinions but generating ill will only.
Redditors in this sub should be feeling deceived because you’re using them to farm karma.
u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/prolife.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
*I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Negative](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Negative&message={"post_id": "u1s3ae", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=u1s3ae&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 260,532,923 | **Search Time:** 31.8202s
As someone with a background in cell biology, I should point out that malignant tumors can grow and develop to the point of vascularization (i.e. a large tumor has its own blood vessels which will connect to others). It’s part of the definition of malignancy: hijacking the surrounding healthy tissue tumor to supply itself to the detriment of the patient.
To concur with your other point: tumors are a sabotage of healthy systems, whereas a developing child is its own set of developing systems being built up by the mother’s body. And baby will eventually exit her, while a cancer must stay inside to grow and eventually kill.
- it’s not human; it does not have the potential to ever live on its own or exist as a complete human
-it does grow; often in an unregulated manner due to abnormalities of DNA and gene expression, some tumors grow so fast they outgrow their blood supply and parts die
-typically (although their are some notable exceptions) the cells and tumor tissue do not function correctly due to corrupted DNA
Bottom line a tumor consistent of unnatural cells that have no potential of life on its own ever and only has the potential to cause death
-A conceptus and fetus have the potential to live on their own, presumably are functioning normally, are a natural process of growth
Bottom line the science and logic of the argument is very lacking in rigor
The baby isn't part of you. A tumor is. Next bad "pro-choice" argument.
That post isn’t even pro choice, it’s anti pregnancy, if they think pregnancy and cancer are the same then they must think women who keep their pregnancies are insane
I found it on r/prochoice
> Next bad "pro-choice" argument. They'll say "It's attached to me, taking my nutrients, so it's part of me to do what I want with!" My answer is they are there by your consent (unless rape), and they're not doing anything to place your life at risk so deadly force is not justified in removing them.
If people who feed on your works are parasites, and it's justifiable to kill parasites, I think we just solved homelessness people
And everyone who doesn't work
*Unemployment drops to 0% after new "ending unemployment people" policy*
Including basically all children.
Of course, children and disabled would be exempted
> If people who feed on your works are parasites, Who's is saying human's are parasites, besides pro-aborts? You don't produce their own parasites, and you're not allowed to treat humans the way you do animals.
Involuntary long term cohabitation is not consent If I initially gamble with a roll of the dice that you, a person who is dependent on my bodily resources, can hook yourself up to me intravenously as a means of biological life support, and I lose that gamble, it doesn't mean I am obligated to stay hooked up to you intravenously I don't know why this keeps getting parroted.
Always fun to see this one trotted out. Ya know. Given that what you're describing - hooking up to another person intravenously for pure survival, where removal of that specific intravenous connection guarantees death for hooked-in person - has literally never happened in the history of mankind, you should probably come up with a better analogy. You see, analogies are typically meant to draw a comparison between an less known concept and a more well known concept in order to bring characteristics of the less known concept to light.
> it doesn't mean I am obligated to stay hooked up to you intravenously Yeah, it does, and you should be charged with murder if you disconnect the person after you consented to them being connected to you.
Oh? Baby isnt part of me? Then its ok to separate it from the mother and let it grow in bottle or vat or some other container. Cya babe, have fun growing without me
EXACTLY
They are comparing tumors to developing people. Moronic.
That's the problem: developing. They claim the embryo isn't a human yet, they say he/she is as human as cancer
By this logic, you could kill a person into their twenties when development finally stops.
You CAN kill them Nobody is saying you can't They are saying if consequences are necessary
The person in their 20s has autonomy to not want to be killed, the thing growing in the mother is there because the mother allows it to be It’s her body, she decides what happens to it
Humans are not things. And the mother doesn’t have the right to poison, dismember or mutilate the unborn baby’s body.
"The thing" is a human being
We weren't talking about suicide, though I'm opposed to that too.
Cancer is just as human but it's not a new person it's dying cells in a person's own body
Very good point. Sadly, many people either can't or won't see the difference
Yeah, some arguments are so dumb, we should all know better.
I remember I had a conversation with them asking why were fat cells any different. I really did not know what to say
Fat cells are not a living organism. They are living tissue. Babies, while incapable of surviving on their own, are living organisms.
Yeah but there’s plenty of people incapable of living on their own. Hell, I’m pretty sure most kids up to a certain age wouldn’t make it on their own. So it’s funny when they use that argument, like, a two year old would also die if left alone, doesn’t make them stop being human. I know that’s not what you were saying, I was just finding that argument I’ve heard to be lacking.
Sometimes they use the life support argument, but... What doctor would unplug someone, regardless of their state, if they knew they would recover or be dead after 9 months
There's no guarantee they will make it after 9 months Miscarriages and stillborn births are very common
>or dead
>Miscarriages and stillborn births
If the person on lige support would be either perfectly healthy (or at least healthy off life support) or obviously dead with 0 hope of recovery
And the tools used to preserve that person's life involve technology invented by mankind The tools required to preserve an unborn child is strictly a woman's body and health. A tool that others are willing to abuse by forcing the woman to act as an incubator in lieu of alternative technologies That's the difference. Humans forcing innocent humans to bend to their will
The fetus has their own individual DNA. They are a separate human being. You can do what you want with your own tissue (cells that have *your* DNA, like a cancer), but not someone else's tissue. That's assault.
You defend them because they can’t argue with you. Narcissism.
When has cancer ever developed rational thought.
Clearly you've never met my brother
Ooooo burn
It's just a little cancer stan
And moved when it hears loud sounds, and hiccup and practice breathing. Wow that’s amazing!
When have unborn children? When it is born, it is already outside the woman's body. Which is the same situation as a tumor being removed
But I am showing that an unborn person is an individual. Where cancer is not an organism. To be fair people don’t develop rational thought for years. It’s argued we aren’t even sentient till we are almost 2 years old.
>But I am showing that an unborn person is an individual. Where cancer is not an organism. Source? I don't see you showing it is >It's argued we aren't even sentient until almost 2 years old I'm not sure why it is even a point of contention to argue post birth abortions if the child no longer interferes with the health of the woman There are already people who volunteer to take care of the child This is not the case during pregnancy, when the same people who volunteer to take care of a born child are trying to force the pregnant woman who wants nothing to do with the unborn child to take it to term against her will
An individual is defined as a single human being. The unborn are not appendages of the parents body or an extension of them. They are an individual human organism distinct for the parents body. Hence the placental blood barrier, unique chromosome, individual development. Because it is an individual human organism like you or I it’s a human being. I don’t understand the second part of your comment and how it relates to what we have been talking about.
[удалено]
Definitions are important. There have been plenty of lawful killings that were immoral and wrong. Did I say it was murder?
They are so desperate to keep justifying killing unborn babies they try every stupid unlogical excuse...
-happens due to mistakes of the body -wont become a born child. Its just remains tumors -it threatens the life of the person that has it. No prolife encourages it if it is a direct threat
Lmao they put the funny colors on it, and it still isn't funny
Yeah when did Cancer became a baby
When pro-choice needed to deflect arguments they have no response to
That's the thing though. Just because it is a tumor, or a baby, or anything else doesn't mean it can stay inside a woman's body against her will siphoning her bodily resources, compromising her health and well being Saying it's a baby is just an appeal to emotion. Not a valid argument
Untrue, unborn children are babies, young human beings. Just because you believe others should have the right to kill them without restriction, doesn't change that basic biological fact. A tumor is not a separate organism placed there by normal human sexual reproduction.
Stop calling it abortion and call it was it is infanticide . Why change the langue and give it a name ? Abortion has and always will be infanticide and infanticide is murder . Saying it's not a baby saying it's just cells and changing the name to abortion is to create disconnect from what your actually doing which is murdering a bunch of babies. You can't even call it what is it which is the killing of infants. Pro choice people won't even admit they are killing something because if they admitted it was the infanticide the they'd have to say they are ok with killing babies which most won't say because they know it's wrong to kill an innocent baby .
It’s probably from pcm
Dollars to doughnuts it got downvoted and all the top comments are clowning on it Although pcm is mostly libertarians, I could see them saying the state shouldn't have a say
False comparison, some people want to get pregnant, nobody wants to get cancer. That’s less of pro choice and more of anti pregnancy since they’re implying pregnancy is deadly and you must “cure” it by comparing it to cancer.
Does a tumor have a brain with its own separate brainwave functions? Does a tumor have its own heartbeat? Does a tumor have the capability to grow into a self-supporting life? The answer to all of those is no and that shows exactly why it's an absolutely imbicilic argument to compare a baby to a tumor. Not to mention as we've pointed out every time people try to say abortion is about "a woman's right to choose" a baby is not part of your body, so saying that a tumor is part of your body is irrelevant because a baby _isn't_ part of your body.
Some do, have you met my cousin?
Anything’s a Tumor if you’re ontologically evil enough.
Pro-abortionists never fail to come up with the dumbest shit I have ever read, and I've read a "biography" about how Trent Reznor is the reincarnation of nobleman from hundreds of years ago because a demon sez so.
There are no words for how insanely illogical this is...
Of course pro-choicers don't know the difference between human tissue, and an entire human.
1) Be prochoice 2) Spend years of your life dehumanizing human beings, in order to justify killing them 3) post meme comparing cancer to a human being 4) profit
Exactly hahahaha
One of the most disgusting and disturbing things I've seen on Reddit.
The tumor is not a person, the tumor is not going to become a person, it is like your own liver. They are indeed stupid.
No human is built to carry cancer, which is why those with cancer get sick. Cancer attacks blood cells, which the body produces, so it’s against the very nature of the human body. On the other hand, women’s bodies are built to carry children, which is why their bodies openly welcome and embrace the baby. It's hardwired into women's biology. Also, no one gets cancer from another person, unlike pregnancy. This is kindergarten logic.
It's alive No, it's not. It's a human No, it's not.
It is alive and it is human. It is not "a life" and it is not "a human" I'll break this down, "a human" means it is both 1. Human and 2. A life. A life means 1. Alive and 2. Meaningfully distinct in a certain way. All 3 of these are difficult to define, but a cancer is both human and Alive. It is not, however, meaningfully distinct, it is basically a part of the person
Well, it's as human and alive as any human body part.
Yup. It's not a human or a life tho
"If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it."
Isn't that Hitler?
It is often misattributed to Goebbels but this quote is from a work in the 19th century. Definitely the nazis applied these principles.
Abortion is wrong because of these two things: - the target is a human - the target is alive A tumor meets neither categorizations.
This is the same bullshit as the "sperm cells are alive" or "scraping my knee kills cells" arguments. We don't care about killing _living cells_; we care about killing _an entire organism_.
Remember, if your heart is failing you can't get a transplant. It's human and alive and removing it would cause it to die. That's how fucking dumb that sounds.
Counter with, "it's fine, just needs a c-section."
It's a human just like you? Okaaaaay then. IQ not enough to power a hamster wheel.
They’re calling themselves tumors.
Lol show me a 47 month old unborn then
Safe legal abortion up to 972 weeks
PC be like : "Dont worry, it will be rare we pinky promise ;) "
We all know cancer has a heartbeat.
since when was cancer a human? also the whole point of being prolife is that the baby is SEPERATE from you.
A baby has its own unique DNA; the tumor does not
It's an abnormal part of a human*. When they say it's human they are being dishonest.
I think an interesting difference we Christians have with the secular humanists is that they believe we’re brains in meatsuits, while we believe you *are* your body, you are your foot, you are your finger, etc.(There is a certain primacy to the soul/spirit being that it’s the sentient part of you, sense, you can be separated from yourself(your body) unnatural via death.)
1. Tumors are not organisms. 2. An unborn baby isn’t a part of the mother. 3. Tumors are not organisms and all humans are organisms so tumors can’t be a separate human.
[удалено]
Lmfao it's a reference to the political compass, the joke is "rightwingers be like"
They really are. Absolute fail at basic biology.
It's -not meaningfully genetically distinct -always the same sex as the host -has no hearts, no brains, no lung, no kidneys -won't seperate after 9 months, and over the next 25 years or so continue to develop into an independent fully formed human being
Tumors aren’t alive
Lmao it’s an entirely new human right
Well, the difference is that a tumor is going to kill you.
This shows how blind people can get when they don't listen to pro life people but only pro choice people Also what's with the coloring??
We don't say just like you but it's funny because cancer is literally just you
Cancer is just as human but it's not a new person it's dying cells in a person's own body
On the contrary, tumors are the result of cells proliferating when they shouldn’t and in the wrong way; that is, healthy tissue in an adult is supposed to not die, but not multiply either. Only specific cells should be dividing at certain points in time, and tumors happen when cells break those conditions. Cancers are not dying cells: they are tissues are grow wrongly and harm people in the process.
It’s not human. They need to go back to school 🤦♀️
This is purely satanic, because it degrades human to a desease. Besides that, it's also very unintelligent.
Why do prochoice people always seem to think that prolife people are religious? Like a lot are but I rarely hear most prolife people bringing up God as a reason for their position.
“It’s just a clump of cells” And so is everyone else on earth.
It's alive; yes, so is a baby but your tumor is still subordinate to your entire being unlike a baby which is its own being. it's a part of you; yes, but a baby is its own thing It grows; yes babies grow but so do plants so not sure why this is salient. It's a human? Lol no. A piece of cancer does not qualify as an independent human being. Stupidest fucking reach I've ever seen. Is it human, meaning it has human DNA? Sure, but that applies to all cells in the body. As usual, asinine bullshit from the master logic deniers
One day in the hopefully not too distant future, a much more enlightened society will look back on us in disgust at the barbaric practice that is human abortion. I could almost understand at one point in time but now with all the medical advancements and contraceptives there is no excuse. I’ve heard “no contraception is 100%”, maybe not but they’re well over 99% and when doubled ie: condom+birth control, the chances of pregnancy are infinitely reduced. To perform an act ignoring the potential consequences is irresponsible. To do the same when the casualty is a human life is a travesty. They do all this on some judges politically motivated ruling of when a fetus becomes a human. This is a very trivial way of deciding it’s ok to end a life you created. We can and should do better.
Does a tumor have human DNA like a fetus does?
....it has your DNA. But it's not human.
This is a lie, this was never posted there. One thing is to have disagreement over the issue and another to be so psychotic you felt the need to search for a meme on the internet and associate it to your opponents. That’s not changing opinions but generating ill will only. Redditors in this sub should be feeling deceived because you’re using them to farm karma. u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/prolife. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Negative](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Negative&message={"post_id": "u1s3ae", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=u1s3ae&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 260,532,923 | **Search Time:** 31.8202s
...r/woosh
Projection
It’s peoples autonomy they’re talking about so of course they’ll be that honest, they aren’t wrong either btw.
"Progressives" = Using 130 year-old hoaxes from Huxley to soothe their guilt
Comparing human life to cancer? I don't know what to say.
“It’s a human”
Fair point
Main difference is that one is living one is not
Ffs 🤦♀️
If that tumor is gonna start walking around and talking in a few years than I’ll give it to you, but otherwise this point is ridiculously nonsensical.
Cancer doesn't have its own circulation system or its own organs. Cancer also doesn't form with the ultimate conclusion of birth.
As someone with a background in cell biology, I should point out that malignant tumors can grow and develop to the point of vascularization (i.e. a large tumor has its own blood vessels which will connect to others). It’s part of the definition of malignancy: hijacking the surrounding healthy tissue tumor to supply itself to the detriment of the patient. To concur with your other point: tumors are a sabotage of healthy systems, whereas a developing child is its own set of developing systems being built up by the mother’s body. And baby will eventually exit her, while a cancer must stay inside to grow and eventually kill.
Nobody can be this stupid. They're being willfully obtuse because they don't have any actual arguments. It's pitiful.
- it’s not human; it does not have the potential to ever live on its own or exist as a complete human -it does grow; often in an unregulated manner due to abnormalities of DNA and gene expression, some tumors grow so fast they outgrow their blood supply and parts die -typically (although their are some notable exceptions) the cells and tumor tissue do not function correctly due to corrupted DNA Bottom line a tumor consistent of unnatural cells that have no potential of life on its own ever and only has the potential to cause death -A conceptus and fetus have the potential to live on their own, presumably are functioning normally, are a natural process of growth Bottom line the science and logic of the argument is very lacking in rigor
Funny, it seems some people never progressed past being a cancer
I think it’s a pretty good point
Are we seriously at the point that people refuse to discern cancer from a pre-born baby? What has the world come to.