this post was submitted on
200 points (78% like it)
275 up votes 75 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,029,905 readers

Help victims of the Aurora shootings

Help victims of the Sikh shootings

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

199
200

What's so hard to understand (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by fistpump69

all 79 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old
best

[–]Phapeu 47 points48 points ago

I was talking to a pro-lifer a while back who said that 'millions of people can't be wrong' referring to the millions of people who think that a foetus counts as a person with rights.

I pointed out that millions of people were pro-choice. I said millions of people are wrong all of the time. She asked for another example and I said that millions of kids believed in Santa Claus. She said that that doesn't count because kids don't count as people.

[–]antitheist33 5 points6 points ago

...and 4.5 billion people aren't Christians.

[–]s1thl0rd 5 points6 points ago

This is in line with their thinking though. They are pro-life when it comes to abortion, but anti-healthcare when it comes to enacting Obamacare for everyone.

Therefore, embryos = people, kids = not people.

[–]simjanes2k 1 point2 points ago

I don't know if anyone else got the joke, but I thought it was hilarious.

/pat pat

[–]Mileskitsune 0 points1 point ago

if kids don't count how does a fetus?

[–]EclecticSchemer 0 points1 point ago

I wish I could upvote you ten times.

[–]The_A_Drain 0 points1 point ago

There's a billboard on my way to work for a local radio station that says "Half a million people can't be wrong!" and underneath points out that half a million listeners tune in and enjoy their show, with the implication that it must be good because of this.

That billboard annoys the shit out of me. It's a terrible radio station, and half a million people can be very fucking wrong.

[–]psychroclasm 0 points1 point ago

I'm going to say I don't believe your story, but that may be because I don't want to believe she's out there somewhere.

[–]ChemicalOC 18 points19 points ago

I'm pro choice and I've seen this before and I don't think it's terribly helpful to the cause. The chicken egg is un-fertilised and therefore can never become a chicken. To say this isn't a difficult concept is really trying to make the other side seem like idiots.

[–]TheDoktorIsIn 4 points5 points ago

I think the only one that makes sense is the acorn; the chicken egg, like you said, is unfertilized and thus cannot become a chicken. The silkworm making silk for the dress...what? My grasp of botany is shaky at best, but it seems like the acorn would already have both sets of genes while it was on the tree? Or does that only happen every other generation.

But anyway, yeah, not the best examples.

[–]_jamil_ 0 points1 point ago

the image is about potential. the silk has the potential to be a dress, but it is not. the egg had the potential to be a chicken, but it's not. the acorn has the potential to be a tree, but it's not. it's about recognizing the differences between something that has the potential to be something else and what it is.

[–]Reazel 2 points3 points ago

An acorn is not analogous to a fetus. Trees don't really have any protective "preservation of the species" instincts, or any at all really, so they just spam acorns because it works. Most of them are probably going to get eaten by squirrels anyway, which is kind of disturbing if you consider that it would mean they're eating tree fetuses that only came into existence because of the massive amounts or tree sperm wafting through the air every day.

[–]pgoetz 3 points4 points ago

The chicken egg could be fertilized (maybe we're just not seeing the blood spot yet) and it wouldn't change the argument one bit.

[–]louisclub 19 points20 points ago

as a chicken i find this offensive

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

Actually, that egg yolk would never have become a chicken. The yolks you eat havent been fertilized, so that doesnt really count...

[–]psychroclasm 0 points1 point ago

Most people don't know that the part that we eat would be nourishment for the chick, and that the embryo would be attached to the shell. Look for a squishy white patch inside the next egg you crack open. That's where the chick would be.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Exactly. I get so upset when people talk about stuff like this and make the rest of us look stupid

[–]And12rew 6 points7 points ago

Your post is technically true, b/c none of these have met the conditions of life... however once that little sperm makes its way into the egg, your whole concept is obliterated.... a zygote is genetically (down to the DNA) a different person than the mother, which is why i am against abortion... still an atheist though

[–]SleepyAstronaut 0 points1 point ago

Yeah I feel the abortion topic gets thrown around something with an easy answer here a lot, but there's really more to it. A lot of ins, a lot of outs... it's not black and white.

[–]Imnotevenangry 0 points1 point ago

If I could count how many times I have jacked off every day for the past few years, I'd sound more genocidal than Hitler. If a woman doesn't want a fertilised egg dependent on her body, she shouldn't have to keep it. All the more reason if the egg is what you consider a basically developed person.

[–]Oldchap226 2 points3 points ago

wow, where did you find that many eggs to fertilize while jacking off?

[–]Imnotevenangry 0 points1 point ago

Ah. So the eggs have to be fertilised for them to qualify as people. Do you see the fallacies in this thinking?

Egg = not life

Sperm = not life

Sperm + egg = life

TIL 0+0=1

[–]psychroclasm 0 points1 point ago

.5 + .5 = 1

If you're taking that tack, at what point is a carbon atom a human? When it's paired with billions of other atoms and molecules, and begins "life processes."

[–]Oldchap226 0 points1 point ago

Yes, eggs have to be fertilized for them to qualify as people.

Eggs and sperm usually have 23 chromosomes. For it to be considered human life, it needs about twice that, aka a zygote.

Tell me, with your fancy mathematics, at what point does life happen?

[–]Imnotevenangry 1 point2 points ago

Ah. I see what you are saying and completely respect your viewpoint with an up vote, but may I suggest another way if looking at it?

Here is a comment on this very page by Charlie-Green-Rug:

Look, a fertilised egg is something that will, in time and assuming no complications, become a person. Why do we feel the need to draw a line, and say killing this proto-person is ok here, but not here. Really, the debate has nothing to do with the developmental state of the person. Nothing at all. It only concerns the woman, and her desire to use her body to support someone else. If she doesn't want to do it, then she shouldn't have to. And if that means the other person dies, well that's just unfortunate. Now, of course other steps to preserve the life of the other person should be taken into consideration where appropriate. Invasive surgery to remove the other person and place them on life support where possible, for example. But it's got nothing to do with how developed or not that person is. You can tell yourself whatever you want to help you sleep at night, but there's no meaningful difference between the moment of conception and their fifteenth birthday, or any other point during their life.

[–]Oldchap226 1 point2 points ago

It only concerns the woman, and her desire to use her body to support someone else.

I've been reading lots of comments on this issue recently, and this is one of the only argument I can't get around. The only thing I can think of is the whole "people should take responsibility for their actions." But, the more I think about it, the weaker it seems.

Thank you for the conversation.

[–]_jamil_ -1 points0 points ago

Tell me, with your fancy mathematics, at what point does life happen?

Are you presuming to think that the sperm and eggs aren't alive? Is it your premise that every time an egg gets fertilized, it's life from non-life?

[–]Oldchap226 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry, let me specify. They may be alive, but they aren't human life. So more like, it's life from non-human-life.

[–]_jamil_ -1 points0 points ago

What are they if they are not human life? Human spermazoa and ovum come only from humans.

Also, how do you define human life then? Do you think that a handful of cells is the same as your mother?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Imnotevenangry 0 points1 point ago

You're right. Conception can be where you believe life starts. So aborting a faetus at a time before conception is different from abandoning the elderly, who are developed. However, this doesn't matter..

Look above at the comment by Charlie-Green-Rug, which eloquently states that the time at which life 'begins' is irrelevant. The elderly are people that society wishes to protect. If an individual woman doesn't wish to carry a child, then the majority rules against it!

This seems cruel but when has nature been nurture?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Imnotevenangry 0 points1 point ago

I don't often hear of the elderly being denied homes (or I'm not looking hard enough). I do, however, hear constantly of children being abandoned at birth and unable to find adoptive parents. Part of the reason is that adoption is so difficult as a process, taking years to complete, that aspiring parents don't outnumber children born.

Your point and my point don't contradict, either. Our consensus may be that adoption should become easier if abortion is to become discouraged and, as you said, the woman is supported. After all, if a couple (or single) wish to take it upon themselves (or him/herself/ to support an extremely young human baby and are quickly seen as eligible, it can already be said that that baby will be loved and are for more than it would be in an adoption home or orphanage. Again, I don't see the point in this as I don't see abortion as murder, but this is a compromise both sides may be satisfied with.

[–]_jamil_ 0 points1 point ago

If you were a doctor, you'd know these decisions are made every day. Do you think we spend millions and put the same effort in on a destitute person that we do on a billionaire?

[–]And12rew -1 points0 points ago

You missed my point entirly, if it is ok to kill a baby b/c it is dependent on the mother it shud be ok to kill somebody that depends on a nurse...

[–]_jamil_ 0 points1 point ago

I didn't miss your point. My point was that what you are describing is already happening.

[–]0v0Nevermore 1 point2 points ago

"This is not a dress." I lol'd

[–]supernick530 1 point2 points ago

This is actually really ignorant. The first three pictures are of unfertilized eggs. They will never result in life, unless altered. The 4th picture is off an egg that has been fertilized by a sperm. It will result in life, unless altered.

[–]fearunlovednerd 1 point2 points ago

If a person isn't a person the moment they are conceived, at what exact moment are they considered a person? I'm not trying to be inflammatory and this isn't a religiously-charged question. I'm simply asking, is a person a person when they are made of two cells? Three? Four? How many weeks? Is there one second where a fetus is simply a fetus, and magically in the next second it becomes "human"? Logically, for me, it makes the most sense to argue that a person becomes a person the moment a sperm and egg join, thus creating a cell that will divide in grow ultimately into an adult.

[–]psychroclasm 0 points1 point ago

The way I think of it, it's a "person" at the point that it can survive outside the body. I think the current record for earliest surviving birth is just 20 weeks. That's why I'm pro-choice up to 18 weeks, after which point you can legally consider it "late-term" abortion.

Now, just given that argument, I wonder how many pro-choice redditors would think it was more appalling for me to kill a pregnant cat than a non-pregnant cat.

[–]amoludare 1 point2 points ago

Whoever made this needs to take Bio 101 and/or go back to analogy school.

[–]bigredjeff 3 points4 points ago

Hitchens had something good to say on this point. 'The zygote, while not a human, it is a candidate member of society, and to that effect deserves protection.' (paraphrased) If I take you're point, this is a statement about abortion and a woman right(s). Good post, but I don't think this has anything to do with atheism.

[–]Unholynik 2 points3 points ago

That.. made insanely good sense to me. While not conclusive, it seriously made me doubt my prochoice position..

[–]OnlyALetter 1 point2 points ago

It shouldn't have. Aren't sperm and eggs also candidates for society? Ejaculation outside of a vagina should be illegal, menstruation should be illegal, and birth control should be illegal. See how quickly that escalated?

[–]Unholynik 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, thats what I meant when I said it wasn't conclusive. It has made me thought that there has to be a poo t at which this argument becomes valid though and it meshes with my previous belief. If its developed e.ought that it could survive on its own outside of the womb than its a person, otherwise it has no more personhood than a tapeworm.

[–]bluefootedpig 5 points6 points ago

nope, sperm and eggs are only half human. They contain only half of the DNA we need in order to develop. No matter how many times you spew a load, the sperm will not multiply. Nor will an egg split. It requires both.

Take a ham sandwich. Do you call the ham alone a sandwich? do you call the bread alone a sandwich? But you put them together, you get a sandwich! Now go make me a sandwich!

[–]Mr_Ected 2 points3 points ago

Right, but a sperm alone is not a candidate because I could ejaculate an unlimited number of sperms and not one will ever produce a baby if none are introduced to an egg, however a zygote most often will produce a baby.

[–]fistpump69[S] 1 point2 points ago

I agree, after I posted it I forgot why I did it here I think I just didn't have anywhere else to put it

[–]No0delZ 5 points6 points ago

I concur, but OP I think the confusion starts a little bit later.

Swap out image of egg with chicken fetus inside shell, and sperm+egg for human fetus in the womb. The line begins to grey by such literal definitions, and coincidentally the argument should be changed as well.

[–]disharmonia 0 points1 point ago

This is still a rather silly argument, however. A sperm is a candidate member of society. An unfertilized egg is a candidate member of society.

Fact of the matter is, though, we find the idea of arresting men for ejaculating outside of a vagina, or arresting a woman for menstruating, to be immoral.

Punishing a woman for daring to spread her legs? Not so much.

Don't think that's the point? Then please, point out to me how much time, money and energy pro-life groups sunk into combating involuntary abortions, aka, miscarriages.

[–]jastium 0 points1 point ago

That'd require them to admit that miscarriages aren't actually acts of god.

[–]Oldchap226 0 points1 point ago

The zygote, while not a human, it is a candidate member of society

zygote: A diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum.

aka, not sperm nor unfertilized egg

[–]disharmonia 0 points1 point ago

...yes? And?

[–]Oldchap226 0 points1 point ago

in your post you stated sperm and unfertilized eggs are candidate members of society. This is not true.

Not arguing for any pro-life group, im arguing for myself

[–]disharmonia 0 points1 point ago

But they are. Undeniably they are. You literally can't make a human without them.

[–]Oldchap226 0 points1 point ago

That's my point exactly. You can't make a human without the other. However, without the other, they are not human, nor do they have the potential to be human.

[–]disharmonia -1 points0 points ago

They absolutely have the potential to be human. They're ovum and sperm. It's literally their biological purpose.

You can from an ovum and a sperm -- that ovum and sperm undeniably had the potential to become a human because you became a human from them.

What you appear to be trying to say is that they only have the potential to become human with human interaction, but honestly, that's a relatively arbitrary marker. Why is the fertilized egg now magically a protected member of society and the unfertilized egg not? They're both biologically alive. They both have the potential to be a human.

But in one of them, we can point a blaming finger at some naughty naughty apes and say 'You made your bed.'

[–]Oldchap226 0 points1 point ago

Again... an ovum and sperm do not have the potential to be human alone. They have 23 chromosomes, while a human has about twice that.

I don't see how that's a relatively arbitrary marker. One has 23 chromosomes, the other 46 (usually). Yeah, they're both biologically alive, but one a biologically potential human.

Yes, they made their bed. If proper contraceptives are not used and/or both participating members accept that even those contraceptives may fail, then they should take responsibility for the human life they could create.

[–]disharmonia 0 points1 point ago

One has 23 chromosomes, the other 46 (usually). Yeah, they're both biologically alive, but one a biologically potential human.

That's still pretty arbitrary. What if we were measuring based on cells instead of chromosomes? At one point, the fetus only has four cells. Later, it has several hundred!

You're just picking chromosomes out as the big that's most significant. Fact of the matter is, though, every egg has the potential to become a human life. We just don't give a shit.

[–]JesterAzazel 0 points1 point ago

If /r/atheism was just about atheism we'd see a lot less posts around here. And we'd quickly get tired of rage comics about people coming out as atheists and stuff like that because they would be posted so much more.

I consider /r/atheism to be a place FOR atheists, not about atheism. If it was the latter then I could make the same statement about the vast majority of the posts here. Posts about science, various religions, quotes from beloved celebrities/scientists, gay rights, and the list goes on.

You may not care about posts like this, but it's a common thing for atheists to enjoy them and the discussions that come from them. I think that's a good enough reason for it to be posted here.

[–]Imnotevenangry 1 point2 points ago

Not many agree with you but what you say can't really be denied. It's nice to have a working community in which we learn weak points about religion and important facts about anything else and that is all that /r/atheism is.

[–]JesterAzazel 0 points1 point ago

I'd like to spread this idea as much as possible. No offense to bigredjeff, but it's selfish to point this out in posts you don't particularly like or agree with if you're not going to say it about posts you do like or agree with because this subreddit is here for all of us, not just one person.

I don't like the quotes because I don't find them any better because of who said them, but they are liked around here so I don't complain or tell people that they shouldn't be here.

[–]poop_sock -2 points-1 points ago

I respect Hitchens a lot as an intellectual but he unfortunatatly drank the conservative koolaid.

[–]bigredjeff 2 points3 points ago

I am a liberal. Some here may be conservative. All atheists. Political views do not have anything to do with Atheists or, such as I and Hitch are, Antitheists.

Just for the record, Hitchens was never conservative. The only reason anyone says that is because of his support for G.W. Bush's Iraqi campaign. Ask a conservative what they think of his books. It will become very clear (if the conservative you ask actually does read books) that Hitchens is not one of them. Hitchens called himself a socialist fyi. If his support for the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is enough for you to discount the rest of his life's work, well I just would not know what to say to that.

Sorry to sperg. Hitchens work changed my life ('Letters to a Young Contrarian' and 'God is not Great'). I get upset when people characterize Hitchens as conservative, which you did indirectly.

[–]SleepyAstronaut 0 points1 point ago

All atheists

I'm not, YOUR ENTIRE POST IS WRONG

[–]Charlie-Green-Rug 2 points3 points ago

Look, a fertilised egg is something that will, in time and assuming no complications, become a person.

Why do we feel the need to draw a line, and say killing this proto-person is ok here, but not here.

Really, the debate has nothing to do with the developmental state of the person. Nothing at all.

It only concerns the woman, and her desire to use her body to support someone else. If she doesn't want to do it, then she shouldn't have to. And if that means the other person dies, well that's just unfortunate.

Now, of course other steps to preserve the life of the other person should be taken into consideration where appropriate. Invasive surgery to remove the other person and place them on life support where possible, for example.

But it's got nothing to do with how developed or not that person is. You can tell yourself whatever you want to help you sleep at night, but there's no meaningful difference between the moment of conception and their fifteenth birthday, or any other point during their life.

[–]Luke-ocity 2 points3 points ago

This, right here. I'm tired of people taking the biology out of our biological life. As i said in a previous post, we're animals for fuck sake, whether you believe it or not. Organs, chemical and energy requirements, comparative locomotion, respiratory, circulatory, cognitive structure, etc. Change one human aspect ( such as our females naturally occasionally eat their young as many other species do), as opposed to our child and power fetishes we have now. The fact that she may or may not have chosen to have sex, and subsequently may or may not want to carry the possible child to term, is no one's fucking business but her's and potentially the father's. The filial cannibal doesn't bother me any more than an informed and cared-for woman aborting a person. It's nature, it's horrible, it's monstrous, and it's fuckin' life! Deal!

Edit: bracket

[–]Selachian 0 points1 point ago

It's not that simple.

[–]6blackened66 0 points1 point ago

Yeah all those items have the potential to become

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]JesseMagnanimous -1 points0 points ago

(read: eaten by squirrels)

[–]JesseMagnanimous 0 points1 point ago

But they all (given the right conditions) have a very good chance of becoming a chicken, tree, dress, or human. Also not a difficult concept.

Mayyyybe not so much the egg... Unless it's from a new species... In which case I don't think it will last very long.

[–]Imnotevenangry 1 point2 points ago

In response to your statement about their potential to become a chicken, tree, dress, or human, that is all that it is- potential. Timing matters.

[–]CAkEBall 0 points1 point ago

And this is not original content.

[–]toodrunktofuck 0 points1 point ago

Put a fetus in its 30th week in the lower right tile and see how it works.

[–]psychroclasm 0 points1 point ago

You should have made your username "toodrucktofunk." Completely unrelated to this thread, just a thought I had.

[–]MrBoujangles -1 points0 points ago

Your analogies are bad and you should feel bad.

[–]MedicMehdi -1 points0 points ago

The thing is fundies wouldn't suddenly get logic'd after seeing this picture, they'd stop eating eggs, fruits and they'd stop wearing clothes

[–]ozzcar23 -1 points0 points ago

a human is not a "person" until it's OUT of the womb and breathing OXYGEN BY ITS OWN MEANS, its not that spaghettimonster damn hard to understand.

[–]CatholicCommunist -2 points-1 points ago

First of all, this is a repost. Second, not all christians are pro-life and not all atheists are pro-choice, this is not a religious issue. Third and most important, only a handful a really stupid people would disagree with this picture, even people who are against abortion. Ignoratio elenchi.

[–]TheJ0EST3R -3 points-2 points ago

finally some body said it thank you

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 22957 on app-60 running fc22e53.