this post was submitted on
1,038 points (56% like it)
4,506 up votes 3,468 down votes

pics

subscribe2,346,914 readers

5,429 users here now

Looking for an image subreddit with minimal rules? Check out /r/images

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
/r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for

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 ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]TheLobotomizer 168 points169 points ago

This is an ad hominem argument that really makes the entire debate seem petty and childish. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, boiling down a nationwide debate into a one sentence poster is the exact opposite of "well said".

[–]ewo24 56 points57 points ago

exactly. plus, despite my disagreement with it, the man's sign holds a lot more emotional appeal than the woman's.

[–]InDaDrops 3 points4 points ago

I hate to say it, but I agree. And I'm 1,000% pro-choice. The woman's sign manages to reduce a larger issue of personal freedom, almost trivializimg it as some kind of personal inconvenience.

[–]DerpaNerb 28 points29 points ago

I also dislike arguments like this. To me it sounds like the "pro-choice" side is acknowledging the fact that an early-stage fetus is in fact a human with rights... but it doesn't matter because the mother's are more important. Sure I think some/many people may have this opinion, but there are many, including myself, that don't.

Personally, I think that if I were to ever consider (or rather, at the point I consider) a fetus to be a human then it is not okay to abort it... that would be murder to me. I think someones (and it is a someone if we are considering it a person) right to live supersedes anothers right to not undergo pregnancy. That being said, I do not think a fetus is a human, so I don't really care what you do with it... to me it would be the equivalent of having your appendix removed or something like that. For me, the point that a fetus = human being is when it develops consciousness. I don't think anyone really knows when that point is for sure, but we do know of definite points where it 100% does not have a consciousness (like before the fetus develops anything even close to a brain). But that's just my opinion if you care to read.

[–]Rentun 8 points9 points ago

The problem with the "when does life begin" argument is that it will always be up for debate. When you look at it from the other argument, it becomes a lot easier to digest because it becomes irrelevant whether a fetus is alive or not (I tend to think that fetuses are human life at some point, which seems to be the popular opinion as well). The fact that a fetus has a right to life doesn't trump the fact that it requires the use of the mother's body to live. In the same way that I'm not entitled to your kidney just because I need one to live and you're the only possible donor that can save me, a fetus isn't entitled to its mother's womb simply because it needs it to live.

[–]Mutericator 19 points20 points ago

But on the other hand, in 99.9% of cases, the mother did something consensually (had sex) that resulted in her being pregnant (the rape-caused pregnancies deserves to be noted, as does the "what if the fetus is retarded/deficient in some manner" argument, but for now I'm going to focus on the primary cases). In your other example, the kidney's owner had nothing to do with the one needing the kidney, nor any responsibility for it.

Of course, the woman didn't CHOOSE that exact sex act to become pregnant either, but there IS a correlation and causation.

I believe the core argument is absolutely about what stage we can consider a fetus a human.

[–]DerpaNerb 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, I guess that's true. My only problem with that line of reasoning, is that then abortion takes on a negative connotation. If you choose to abort a fetus, while also recognizing that it is indeed a human being, then you are still taking a life, rather than simply preventing the possibility of one. Because of this, I would advise people to just "not get pregnant" in the first place since it should always be the preferred option to not have to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong though, I do agree with this:

"a fetus isn't entitled to its mother's womb simply because it needs it to live."

[–]BoneJaw 0 points1 point ago

You just changed the terms of the argument. His statement has nothing to do with "when does life begin" and everything to do with "when does consciousness begin." It is literally impossible to argue that something without neurons is capable of consciousness without also admitting that it's wrong to kill, say, trees.

[–]Wally_B 3 points4 points ago

and you just exposed why the abortion debate will not be solved anytime soon. everyone has different opinions on when life actually begins. you say consciousness, i say when the heart start beating, others say conception, others say brain activity in the womb, organ development, and some say it begins when the umbilical cord is cut, or when the first breath is taken.

i'm not saying any are the right answer. they are opinions. the opinions could be a psych student claiming conscious thought, it could be a pre-med student going with the second tri-mester move. until everyone is satisfied on when life begins abortion will be a hot topic.

[–]Kakofoni 1 point2 points ago

I'm not here to prove you wrong, but you forgot the argument that life begins when an organism isn't biologically dependent on its mother. I mention this because this is the philosophy behind legislation in many western countries and people seem to not realise that.

[–]Wally_B 0 points1 point ago

i have actually heard that, mostly in comparison to giraffes. they're born and running with the heard 5 minutes later. and completely independent in about 6-8 months if i remember correctly.

[–]347MAN 1 point2 points ago

Now fit that on a sign.

[–]tonythetiger1 1 point2 points ago

I just hate the immature argument that goes along the lines of:

"But I was drunk/stoned at the time and was going through <insert problem here> and it's my body so I can do with it what I want!"

[–]aworldwithoutshrimp 4 points5 points ago

I agree. Instead, they should say, "But I was drunk/stoned at the time and was going through <insert problem here> and it's my body so I can do with it what I want!"

[–]Joe_Moneybags_McHuge 0 points1 point ago

And his is an appeal to emotion.

It's true, hers is an ad hominem but it's not really an argument, it's rhetoric on both sides - fallacies fly out the window when it's generally accepted that there's no argument being had. In the sense that calling someone an ass is just an insult, both sides here are just taking shots at each other.

I agree with one of the sides, and I think that there's great value in propaganda, but let's not delude ourselves: there's no debate going on here, and no arguments likewise.

[–]Broking37 240 points241 points ago

I've always hated the argument of "When you carry the baby then you can...", because you know full well that males can't even if we want to. Also men have no rights when it comes to prenatal decisions, but sure are liable post birth.

[–]ethraax 64 points65 points ago

Also men have no rights when it comes to prenatal decisions, but sure are liable post birth.

This always confused me. The best argument I've heard supporting it is "you're a man, act like a man!" But seriously, if a woman lies to you and says she's taking birth control when she isn't, and then bears a child, you still get hit with huge fees, oftentimes for well over a decade! And it doesn't mean shit if you want the child aborted, since the mother is essentially seen as the primary owner, despite passing the costs off to you.

On the other hand, there's no good way to tell what kind of informal agreement occurred between the mother and father, so there's potential for abuse either way. Still, I wish people would consider such cases more carefully.

[–]derpinita 11 points12 points ago

If someone lies about birth control, I see that as sex you didn't consent to, and thus, rape.

I agree that the system needs fixing.

[–]PropMonkey 10 points11 points ago

There's a specific charge (I think it came into conversation regarding Assange) in some areas of Europe called "Rape by misrepresentation". Not the same as forcing sex on someone, but more akin to lying to coerce sex.

[–]ellelia 1 point2 points ago

Yup, you're right, that charge exists, at least here in Sweden and Assange is wanted for an interrogation regarding not using condoms/allegedly breaking a condom on purpose.

However he is also suspected of having sex with a sleeping woman, thus making it non consensual sex or rape.

[–]getter1 7 points8 points ago

Or you could, you know, wear a condom

[–]MightyCoast 2 points3 points ago

The only 100% effective way to not get pregnant is to just not have sex... Unfortunately

[–]ethraax 45 points46 points ago

That seems rather extreme. I'd rather not dilute the violent act of rape to a simple lie.

The only "fair" solution I can come up with is that there's a small period at the beginning of the pregnancy where the man can "disown" the unborn child: if the woman still decides (with the offer of financial aid from the man for the abortion) to carry the child to birth, she cannot charge the man for the expenses of birth and raising a child.

But if you pitched that to anyone in the US (and probably most places), they'd call you crazy.

[–]BelaKunn 9 points10 points ago

The problem with the disown thing is that the laws are in place so that a child can get a proper upbringing. If this rule were in place I could see tons of guys knocking girls up claiming they don't want the child and leave the burden on the woman. Either way you go about things it doesn't seem like things will work out.

[–]fatty-mcfattypants 9 points10 points ago

Which is why we need better birth control for men.

[–]ethraax 4 points5 points ago

Yes, that's a significant issue with it. I by no means think that solution is anywhere near ready to be made into a law. I also can't think of a good way around this issue that doesn't devolve into "he said"/"she said".

[–]epalla 2 points3 points ago

A woman is not a victim if she becomes pregnant through consensual sex. The man is only half of the equation and it only takes half to make sure nobody winds up pregnant. I think this solution presumes that abortion is on the table as well.

[–]mayonuki 29 points30 points ago

Rape is not always violent. ie statutory rape.

[–]ethraax 7 points8 points ago

This is true. Although I could have an entirely unrelated discussion as to how the statutory rape laws here (most/all states in the US) are ridiculous. For example, in many states it's illegal for a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old to have sex - the 16-year-old's parents can sue the 17-year-old. Furthermore, these cases are incredibly sexually biased (in terms of gender). An "older" (as in 1-2 years older) woman is much more likely to get off free than an "older" man. Also, the punishment can be ridiculous (the sex offender registry, the way its implemented, is just terrible).

Blah, I've wandered onto another topic. Sorry.

[–]brightman95 2 points3 points ago

And date rape

[–]mattacular2001 6 points7 points ago

What's to stop a consenting man from just screwing over a woman he impregnates then?

[–]ethraax 2 points3 points ago

Theoretically (and this totally wouldn't work in our society as it is), the woman would be able to get an abortion. Unfortunately, such a procedure has an extremely negative stigma, so much that it also carries a very expensive price tag to get it done properly.

[–]provokedcarp 2 points3 points ago

Problem is, sometimes birth control (like condoms) doesn't work, even if used correctly. Hard to prove it didn't just malfunction.

[–]Threedawg 5 points6 points ago

Shut the fuck up and be responsible, use a condom.

It is the responsibility of both parties to prevent conception, I don't care what each person says.

EDIT: To everyone responding, don't fuck someone you don't trust. And if you don't than use a condom. Sex is a lot more than just a way to get off, stop treating it like some stupid little game.

EDIT2: Jesus, SRS has some merit..reddit is sexist as fuck.

[–]Intelligonce 17 points18 points ago

hmmm so it't both parties responsibility to prevent conception, but they don't share responsibility when it comes to abortion...?

[–]lsirius 12 points13 points ago

Well, it certainly matters when one person LIES about birth control and then makes the other financially responsible for the next 18 years.

[–]Threedawg 2 points3 points ago

Why would you have unprotected sex with someone you don't trust?

[–]Anon159023 9 points10 points ago

I think they do trust them thus why they believe the lie about taking birth control.

[–]Threedawg 0 points1 point ago

The funny part is that this has never happened to any of the redditors preaching it.

[–]Anon159023 2 points3 points ago

Well it is hard to say that since reddit has such an insane number of users and viewers every day, that it is quite possible that at least some of the ones posting here have had it happen (or had it happen to a close friend).

[–]PapauNewGuinea 1 point2 points ago

Trusting someone doesn't make them not lie to you.

[–]mdoggdx316 1 point2 points ago

Do you realize it just might be possible to be lied to by someone you trust?

[–]Kakofoni 0 points1 point ago

The best argument I've heard supporting it is "you're a man, act like a man!"

That's a horrible argument, so I can safely assert that this one is better:

It's because it is about the woman's right to control her own body. That's why we allow abortion. If it were so that men could violate that right, then that right wouldn't be important enough to allow abortion anyway.

[–]478nist 12 points13 points ago

I have to say I've always pitied men on this subject, mother nature has dictated that they have less of a say which sucks. While men can't carry a baby, women can't give the responsibly to men either. We shouldn't be punished because we had no say in childbirth being our responsibility. Men don't get to tell women what to do with their bodies in the same way women don't get to force vasectomies on men (oh how I wish :D)

Men have less of a say in prenatal decisions but they have equal say in choosing to have sex in the first place. Some guys I know get around this by tellling their partners before they sleep together that they are pro-choice/pro-life and would fully expect A or B to happen if an accidental pregnancy occurred. That way the girl is fully informed before hand and can choose not to continue the relationship, as many have.

EDIT: I've never understood pro-lifers using the 'we have no say but oh but we sure are liable post birth' argument. If you are pro-life you would have wanted the baby to be born anyway so what difference does it make?

[–]lily_gulmohar 1 point2 points ago

Just so we/I are/am clear. Are both pro- arguments about lessening human misery in society? Would the needs of the many (parents/family/mother & child) outweigh the needs of the few (baby/mother/father)?

My thinking has been that the government/state proxy on the child rights before birth isn't ultimately able to provide the level of care a mother can give. (upto 3 yrs of age, fathers or secondary caregivers come later)

This immediate burden of care and thus the choice goes to the mother.

This is barring all other future machinations where a man can come to term.

I can't comment on the experiences/possible feelings of child,mother & father. Its best not to use conflation and feel anything.

[–]Kakofoni 0 points1 point ago

Simply put, it's about the right to life ("pro-life") versus the right to self-determination ("pro-choice"). Thus, it's not about the needs of the many.

[–]iamagainstit 4 points5 points ago

I have a friend who will ask women before the act if they would abort if they got pregnant and if they say no, he doesn't have sex with them (or so he claims).

[–]ewo24 3 points4 points ago

it's called anal

[–]Furfaidz 1 point2 points ago

Either way you'll end up in deep shit with pro-lifers.

Ba-bing!

[–]Broking37 0 points1 point ago

I'm actually pro choice and Im sure you agree with me there is a point when the glob of cells become a human. Here in Nebraska if you're not married to the mother, the mother can prevent you from attending doctor visits, being there even the child is born, having a say in what to name the child, etc., and even when the child is born 100% custody is granted to the mother. So while it takes two people to create the child, only the mother is allowed the right the of a being parent. the father on the other hand is seen only as a cash cow, and even if the father goes to court to obtain custody, he is automatically the defendant. It should be when you decide against contraceptives, and additionally against abortion, you are agreeing to birthing the child thus agreeing to the rights of the male as a father.

[–]Hottenator[!] -1 points0 points ago

So in a debate on whether or not we should remove women's autonomy of their own bodies the top post is about men's right? Oh yeah wait, this is reddit.

[–]NooB-UltimatuM 122 points123 points ago

in all fairness... being killed is worse than being pregnant

[–]earthtank 30 points31 points ago

i came to the comments to see if anybody would point this out

[–]rebbitor 0 points1 point ago

i came to the comments

dolan y u do dis?

[–]krevency 21 points22 points ago

It's impossible not to think of this immediately.

[–]voodoo_first_aid_kit 0 points1 point ago

You have to be alive to be killed, though, and being alive involves being conscious and not needing to share someone else's organs.

[–]chris-martin 6 points7 points ago

This is a great synopsis of the shittiest pithy arguments on both sides of this bullshit.

This photo only comes off as pro-abortion rights because of the arrangement of these two people. If they were standing on the other sides of each other, this photo would come off as anti-abortion rights.

What is the utility of a pair of statements that each completely ignores the opposition's concerns?

[–]halasjackson 60 points61 points ago

I am mostly pro-choice, but this argument is anything but "well said.". In fact, makes the guy sound like he is anti-murder, while the girl just seems irresponsible.

Maybe if she said, "it's easy to be pro-life when you're not the one impregnated by your rapist father," she might have bee arguing on comparable ground, but in this case, she "loses" the argument.

[–]shitscray 16 points17 points ago

Yeah, I've got to agree with you there, being dead sounds a lot worse than being pregnant so I don't really know what she's getting at with this argument.

[–]Crashmo 4 points5 points ago

It's easy to agree with a guy on Reddit when you're not the one being dead and pregnant.

[–]shitscray 1 point2 points ago

That's true, dead and pregnant sounds even worse than being alive and pregnant.

[–]PowderedToasty 14 points15 points ago

Is she dancing?

[–]magician-gob 9 points10 points ago

i think that's her "I fart in your general direction" stance.

[–]DoubleStuffedCheezIt 20 points21 points ago

So if a women was holding that sign that the man was, what would her argument be?

[–]skarface6 2 points3 points ago

YOU WEREN'T THERE, MAN

[–]mdoggdx316 2 points3 points ago

That's a damn good question. Shows how bad of an argument she has.

[–]alendiel 21 points22 points ago

Which one is well said? Death is worse than pregnancy.

[–]SimilarImage 46 points47 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
1 year lanismycousin So true. here 648 645
6 months antitheistsCOUK No such thing as "pro-life" only "anti-choice" /r/atheism 997 987
1 year schwanky Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice /r/politics 2670 1537

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]bmores8 6 points7 points ago

It's easy to protest when you hold a sign

[–]greym84 5 points6 points ago

My sentiments are genuine confusion, let's say I'm neutral on the subject.

Here is a person saying that to abort a fetus is to kill a living human being. Next to this person is someone saying that the burden of pregnancy outweighs said humanity. The signs both acknowledged a perceived reality, but one person seems to think that the predicament of pregnancy outweighs the possibility of humanity.

But that's typical pro-life bullshit a person says. Calm down and hear me out, the admonishment of one view or another doesn't solve much in this. If it is indeed a person (a human) then evolution, religion, or whatever says to preserve that. Yes, pregnancy sucks (welcome to humanity), but human survival is worth it, therefore if it is truly a human then the obligation to the preservation of humanity supersedes the "suckiness" of pregnancy.

It's her sign, not mine. I'm not making a pro-life stance, just showing how easy it is to be indignant at her argument. I'll take my downvotes like man, but I'm not below begging for a response.

[–]Apples4lyfe2 6 points7 points ago

Really? If I wanted to subscribe to r/opinions, I would have. This is fucking r/pics, dipshit

[–]feyrath 5 points6 points ago

It's easy being pro-bono when you're not in U2.

[–]brezzz 30 points31 points ago

This is a very stupid argument because if you consider the fetus to be a person, as pro lifers do, it does not really matter if you have the ability to be pregnant or not, it is clearly wrong to have an abortion in most cases, except for complications etc. But people spin this into an anti-woman issue, saying it is anti sex, that it is punishment for women. What? Nobody saying that considers the personhood argument of pro-lifers. Yeah, pregnancy is difficult, but it should not change your opinion on abortion either way. If it did, you either have weak morals, or did not consider that personhood is the real issue with abortion. If you do not think a fetus is a person, fine, you are justified in being pro choice. I think it is a gray issue myself. I think most people who are pro choice do a good job at understanding and even stating this, but there are some that merely make it about a women's issue, without doing any of that, and I think they are going about it the wrong way.

[–]girl314159 2 points3 points ago

Absolutely. In the same line of reasoning, if the reason for being pro-life is the essential personhood of the fetus, then there should be no room for exceptions because of rape or incest. We would not kill a 5-year-old just because we found out he was conceived in an unpleasant way.

Pro-lifers who make exceptions for circumstances are agreeing with pro-choice people about the rights of the woman superseding the rights of the fetus.

[–]skarface6 0 points1 point ago

It's because both sides of the argument use their own arguments and preach to their own choirs. It happens all the time in partisan politics.

[–]GheavyZ 49 points50 points ago

Since when does pregnancy = death? I know pregnancy is difficult, but how can you ever come to the conclusion that it is ok to kill someone because their presence is inconvenient to me?

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points ago

I think what you are failing to understand, in terms of the difference between pro-choice and pro-life groups, is that neither one really thinks that killing someone because their presence is inconvenient is okay.

The difference comes from many pro-choice people not thinking that a human fetus is a someone... with many having different opinions of what stage of pregnancy the fetus can be in and what not.

[–]scarlet-agate 1 point2 points ago

...difference between pro-choice and pro-life groups, is that neither one really thinks that killing someone because their presence is inconvenient is okay.

THANK YOU! This drives me crazy when I hear others think that pro-choice = anti-life. Pro-choice means you believe others should be given the freedom to make their own choice when it comes to having children. It's the freedom to make a decision for crying out loud. It's not pro-choice = life needs to be snuffed out whenever it's not convenient for you. The personhood and determination of when life starts is a whole other aspect of the issue, just like DerpaNerb said.

[–]VestaDear[!] 5 points6 points ago

Because that inconvenience of time really seriously matters.

When a teenager has a baby, they do not have the means to take care of it. The child is immediately born into a higher stress world than it would have been if their parent or parents were of age. The parent often doesn't have the necessary previous job experience to support their baby and then the poor kid is being forced into this situation of poverty that statistically will cause problems for them down the road if their parent is too busy trying to survive to actually raise their child.

Compare this to a parent who has weighed the pro's and cons of having a baby and decided that they were not ready for that kind of commitment. They have time to go to college or trade school or what have you and get themselves settled into a job so that when they are ready they can raise a baby to the best of their abilities.

If you read Freakonomics or watch the documentary there is a much more poignantly put part about this exact topic.

[–]StrawburryMiwk 9 points10 points ago

Fewer than 1% of abortions are for young teens. 74% of abortions are for middle-aged women, many of whom are/were married, who cannot financially support another child. I'll be back with my source once I find it again, though I recall it being from an article titled "10 ways to avoid jail while pregnant."

[–]VestaDear[!] 1 point2 points ago

Here is a pdf about abortion from the US census

[–]LlamaLlamaPingPong 13 points14 points ago

Ok, I agree that teen parents aren't the best option, but what happened to adoption? There are thousands of people who would love the chance to be a parent. Why not do the unselfish thing and give the child up for adoption instead of killing it?

[–]marishtar 13 points14 points ago

Why is adoption not listed as a possibility, here?

[–]jscoppe 10 points11 points ago

Because that inconvenience of time really seriously matters.

But it's infinitely worse to have never had a chance to live. I'll take a fucked up teenage life over none at all, every time.

[–]Squatso 4 points5 points ago

Her sign is too small for anyone driving by to notice or give a shit.

[–]Britt6 3 points4 points ago

Gee, that makes complete sense. Way to make the female race look ever the more brilliant.

[–]EDIT_Read_it 3 points4 points ago

No matter how "well said" any argument for either side of this debate is put together, this issue will never come to rest. In America, I don't ever see Women losing the right for an abortion, but there will always be the unfortunate thought of who that child could have become. It's a lose-lose for both parties. Therefore I would not waste my day protesting. There are many more things I would rather be doing than trying to speak out on a policy that will likely go unchanged for a long period of time.

[–]Wilhelm_III 1 point2 points ago

This shit never goes away, I'm pro-life but sick of arguing. Well said.

[–]Lukers_RCA 68 points69 points ago

also easy to wear a condom or not have sex

[–]tiffanydisasterxoxo 4 points5 points ago

Only 100% way to not get pregnant is to not have a uterus.

[–]Ikimasen 15 points16 points ago

How's that campaign to stop people from having sex going?

[–]187lennon 33 points34 points ago

Judging by many of the comments I see on reddit, it is going very well.

[–]ewo24 3 points4 points ago

that's not so much a campaign as it is nature running its course. the meek shan't inherit the earth.

[–]Lukers_RCA 0 points1 point ago

It really isn't a campaign against sex. It is more of a plea for people to accept the consequences of their actions.

[–]Ikimasen 1 point2 points ago

You said it was easy to not have sex, is all.

[–]FridayNightSargin 36 points37 points ago

Condoms break, accidents happen etc.

[–]MrFace1 30 points31 points ago

That's when the use of multiple contraceptives comes in handy.

Can never have too many contraceptives.

[–]lizardfrance 34 points35 points ago

too bad people want to make it harder to get contraceptives instead of easier... then people can get smarter and have safer sex, and we wouldnt have to worry about as many unwanted pregnancies

but instead we live in denial, teaching abstinence only sex education and make it harder for those who cannot easily obtain contraceptives (uh oh im poor but sexually active, too bad they closed down that planned parenthood down the street... COUGH texas COUGH)

p.s. that last part was a sarcastic example

[–]Jibrish 9 points10 points ago

too bad people want to make it harder to get contraceptives instead of easier... then people can get smarter and have safer sex, and we wouldnt have to worry about as many unwanted pregnancies

So by your own admission they have failed to do just this. Meaning, it's easy to get contraceptives.

Arguing a hypothetical in response to a real situation is silly.

[–]yep45 4 points5 points ago

contraception is easy to get. failing to provide free birth control is not the same as taking it away from you.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Inessia 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, happens all the time man...

[–]FridayNightSargin 2 points3 points ago

Happened to me twice, and I'm a redditor.

[–]halasjackson 2 points3 points ago

Happens extremely rarely, actually. Condoms have a very high success rate against pregnancy because they were engineered that way. And an "accident" is also a minority occurrence too, by definition. Just because the undesired outcome is possible doesn't mean basic responsibility can be abdicated.

[–]eal 4 points5 points ago

New, fresh condoms are usually quite safe, but have you ever carried one in your wallet? Those are not at all safe because of the friction and heat applied to them.

[–]DoubleStuffedCheezIt -1 points0 points ago

If your not willing to have a kid, don't take the risk.

[–]channelfive 6 points7 points ago

Am I the only person around here who thinks if you are adult enough to have sex you should adult enough to deal with the consequences? And as a women I wouldn't have sex with a partner without a condom even though I'm on the pill. To do so otherwise would mean we are both dumb. Besides pregnancy I like to avoid increasing my odds of getting stds. Also for the record not it all women are out to suck men dry when they get pregnant. My aunt and my best friend both got pregnant and told the dads, but didn't ask for anything and only told them they can have as much or as little part in the life they wanted. One decided to and the other didn't, both are just fine supporting themselves. I figured it's my choice to raise it, it's the mans if they want to stick around. I also have a close friend who's a full time single dad. I have nothing but respect for him.

[–]oderint_dum_metuant 8 points9 points ago

If we consider fairness, is it fair to put a mother's choice for quality of life over the unborn's life period?

[–]bad_religion 16 points17 points ago

Protected till you come out of the womb. Then you're on your own kid.

[–]jscoppe 4 points5 points ago

I don't understand. Are you suggesting pro-life people think it's okay to kill a child post birth?

[–]FalconTaterz 3 points4 points ago

He means that the government, society, etc. will stop caring and/or protecting these children and their rights once they're born.

[–]jscoppe 1 point2 points ago

But that's absurd.

[–]FalconTaterz 3 points4 points ago

He may or may not be joking, but a lot of Reddit (/r/politics) likes to point fingers at Republicans who talk about "pro-life" and talk about how after they protected them for nine months, where is the welfare or healthcare or other public services needed to take care of them? It's a fucking awful opinion, but hey, they've got it.

[–]Crashmo 0 points1 point ago

He's quoting Carlin.

[–]jscoppe 1 point2 points ago

Oh. Well it is expectantly cynical of Carlin.

[–]skarface6 2 points3 points ago

Are you saying pro-life people don't care about people once they're born? That's a stupid talking point that doesn't begin to be accurate about the 50%+ of Americans that are pro-life.

[–]jscoppe 2 points3 points ago

No, not really. She's conflating being killed with being pregnant. Not quite as bad, in my completely invalid man opinion.

[–]BadgertronWaffles999 2 points3 points ago

I am impressed by the comments in this thread. Most people seem like they are being really respectful and realize that this is not such a simple thing. Granted, not all, but my expectations were certainly exceeded.

[–]Z3r0Axi5 2 points3 points ago

Bitch looks dumb as shit.

[–]number5567 2 points3 points ago

Well if you get pregnant it is your fault. If you are a fetus, it is not your fault. I am pro choice, but this is a stupid argument.

[–]Link3693 2 points3 points ago

So being pregnant is worse than being killed?

[–]shitscray 8 points9 points ago

Downvote me all you want, but I would much rather be pregnant than dead.

[–]alkhalicious 47 points48 points ago

Holy shit, according to these comments, reddit is pro life now. When did this happen?

Edit: It looks like the downvote brigade is equalizing some of the more pro life comments. Reddit makes sense again.

[–]mullacc 28 points29 points ago

Pro-choicers don't want to associate themselves with her flawed logic.

[–]buh-nana 3 points4 points ago

As they shouldn't. I consider myself pro-life, but I have heard some very compelling and well-reasoned arguments by the pro-choice group. This is not one of them.

[–]brittsuzanne 42 points43 points ago

That's what I was wondering as well. I've always been pro-life but figured when I clicked on this post it would be a circle-jerk of pro-choice. A bit confused now.

[–]RealDeal83 40 points41 points ago

I think it's more to do with the fact that the girls sign isn't that clever or compelling.

[–]whats_chivalry 9 points10 points ago

or that OP believes that the girls "argument" is superior

[–]REDDIT- 7 points8 points ago

I think it's more that Reddit as a whole is more contrarian than it is one unified worldview.

[–]ewo24 2 points3 points ago

when a post clearly takes a side on a stance and it's not in /r/politics or r/atheism, at least half of the responses are going to be counters. which is a good thing, in my opinion.

[–]REDDIT- 1 point2 points ago

I don't disagree.

[–]ubernood 2 points3 points ago

Also, my thought is that there would be plenty of pregnant women that would stand next to her with a sign saying "I'm pro-life and pregnant. What's your argument now?"

[–]Slime0 7 points8 points ago

I think the issue is that the pro-choice redditors don't all think this is a good argument for being pro-choice.

[–]arbitration_man 1 point2 points ago

Reddit just likes to argue counter to whatever is the proposition made by the OP. The more counter intuitive the argument, the better.

[–]snow_56767 34 points35 points ago

I don't like that arguement, either of them actually. I don't agree with abortion, but I have a good reason for not liking it.

[–]Rajio 4 points5 points ago

nobody is asking you to like it.

[–]snow_56767 14 points15 points ago

Thank you, Cap'n. I'm so glad you decided to drop by and tell us your observations.

[–]princessduckie 5 points6 points ago

Just asking everyone to keep in mind that women are not always irresponsible. I was with a guy that I had known my whole life and had no reason not to trust. When we started dating, he told me he would never be able to have children. We had unprotected sex. Now trust me, hindsight is 20/20. Long story short, I got pregnant. He tried to bully me into keeping it. I didn't and I immediately became a murdering whore. Turns out he did lie about being infertile so that he could knock me up and become a father. That just solidified my reasons for an abortion, because obviously that fucking psycho should not be raising a child.

So as someone that has had an abortion, all I'm asking is to never throw hurtful words at a woman for having an abortion. It was the hardest decision that I have ever made, but I whole heartedly believe I made the right choice. I'm just happy I was able to make my own choices with my body after being manipulated in such a way.

[–]tengu1337 13 points14 points ago

yea b/c being pregnant is a lot harder than being dead. 9 months vs a lifetime that never happened. flawless logic

[–]Mantis05 1 point2 points ago

Thank you. Whether you consider the fetus to be a living person or not is irrelevant. The point is, barring unseen complications in pregnancy, the fetus will become a living person eventually. That's why the "removing your appendix/kidney/etc." analogy is inherently flawed. An organ is never going to be a living person, but a fetus will.

[–]shazaam23 3 points4 points ago

Ive just never met a person who wanted to be aborted.

[–]MiddleAgedWhiteGuy 4 points5 points ago

Yes, because being pregnant is on par with being killed.

Glad we have that cleared up.

[–]Otiac 1 point2 points ago

Also, this does not belong in /r/pics

[–]PandaHysteria 1 point2 points ago

My bad, I thought this was /r/pics, not /r/politics

[–]2JokersWild 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, because being pregnant ranks just above being water boarded 4 times a day.

[–]girl314159 1 point2 points ago

For anyone who is interested, the CDC has a statistical article regarding abortion.

[–]skytiger859 1 point2 points ago

Most cases are as much the man's fault as the woman's fault, and I think both should be equally responsible from start to finish. The cell theory states that living things are made up of cells, living things grow and they reproduce. A fetus is made of cells and it grows. Yes, I know it can't reproduce- that is, not yet. But think about it- a four year old can't, either, but they're still living, just not fully developed. I think if a girl doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't take any chances. Yes, I know cases of rape are a gray area, because the woman had no say, but is that the child's fault? Life is life, no matter how it starts.

Think of a line of dominoes. The first one is conception, the next few are the forming of a heartbeat, organs, birth, etc. If you don't count the first one as the starting point, where did it all start? If you hadn't tapped the first domino, the others wouldn't have fallen down. Yeah, okay, maybe you could tap the third of fourth one in the line, but then they aren't all knocked over, are they? When life begins, it doesn't just happen out of the blue. Someone has to knock over the first domino, the start of the line, whether it is accidental or on purpose.

So, if life begins at birth, then what is the fetus at conception?

Also, why do the rules seem different for humans and animals? Different seasons are set up for different animals do as not to disrupt their mating patterns and to keep the species alive. Killing a pregnant doe or shooting a buck out of season is animal cruelty. Why do we protect fetuses of animals, but not humans, who are supposed to be smarter, more civilized?

If conception isn't the beginning of life, then what is it? Conception is the beginning of everything, isn't it? Isn't that what conception means?

[–]angelchi 1 point2 points ago

i think it should be pro-choice. some women are raped, some women are too young to handle a child, some women are too poor for a child.. some women are too sick to have a child.. why should a baby be born into an environment that cannot properly care for it.. we have enough abandoned babies in the world as it is.

[–]Krissyx3 6 points7 points ago

I'm pro choice. As in, you have the choice to use birth control. Seriously.

[–]FroggiJoy87 10 points11 points ago

nobody is "pro-abortion" and when taken, is a measure that should be taken with thought, measure and responsibility. Yes, it is a tragic thing to do, but it is a method that should be freely available to to women, despite reason, because the ordeal of pregnancy and birth should be a blessing not a curse. Accidents happen, even with contraceptives. By judging others or limiting womens (and their partners) resources you are only making life difficult for them. Think of others before your own beliefs.

[–]lsirius 5 points6 points ago

"nobody is "pro-abortion" and when taken, is a measure that should be taken with thought, measure and responsibility."

I'd love to see some stats on how often this happens vs. how often ignorance, poverty, ect. are the driving factors for an abortion.

I am TOTALLY pro choice, btw, I just would say off the top of my head, that 80% of abortions are done because people are stupid not because of accidents or medical recs or rape.

[–]ewo24 0 points1 point ago

uneducated would be a much more appropriate and realistic term instead of stupid.

[–]BaronVonDinosaur 4 points5 points ago

Actually, I'm "pro-abortion" in a variety of circumstances. Especially when it comes to early in a pregnancy, I don't think the fetus has a significant moral standing. In the majority of cases where abortion occurs (which are early in pregnancy), I have about the same level of judgment as I would have toward someone who had to get some cavities filled because they didn't take proper care of their teeth. It doesn't even come into my head to judge someone who got a cavity filled. The same is true of abortion. If I was being pedantic I might say I judge them a little bit, but I also judge myself for staying up too late last night.

I see people frequently claim pro-life people are all secretly mourning every abortion. That's just not the case. I think anyone who is seriously concerned for the ethical status of a fetus (at least an early-term fetus) has a very poor understanding of the scientific realities and the philosophical implications that surround the topic of abortion. I often consider the issue as parallel to a time traveler showing fictional movies to people. I suspect they'd believe it's a representation of something that really happened unless told otherwise. Showing them the actor subsequently could very well result in him being the target of violence. They're reacting on an emotional level rather than being informed about the facts. The same is true for the abortion issue, in my view.

A pregnancy is happy. A fetus eventually turns into a baby. There is a reason pro-life groups exaggerate the extent to which early-term fetuses resemble babies. We're biologically programmed to be protective and loving towards the little minions. Culture also pressures us to feel like abortion is somehow wrong. If pregnancy is something to celebrate then how could abortion be good, especially when miscarriages are so tragic? This is a classic case of society having difficulty thinking outside binaries. Things are black and white. Pregnancy has to be good. Notice how society slowly stopped criticizing young mothers and is now praising them? Society loves simplicity. The idea that a certain age isn't appropriate to have a child leads to "what age is appropriate?" If it's not age, what is it? People don't want to think. They want to check a box and say "that's not acceptable, you're a monster if you disagree." There are so many problems in the world and people focus on things like abortion and gay marriage because they provide a mechanism for acceptable discrimination and a feeling of superiority. Take away the image in your mind of the fetus and explain why we should care about abortion? What argument can be given that doesn't logically lead you down to some absurd conclusion?

[–]came_here_2_say 3 points4 points ago

So the person inside the woman is not one of these "others" that you're thinking about?

[–]azyzzbrah 3 points4 points ago

Not arguing for either side here, but pregnancy is the result of choices you make. Being aborted as a fetus is not.

[–]VaderPrime1 8 points9 points ago

So, because you're inconvenienced by your stupidity, a life is better traded for convenience?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

they both have points, but the guy has a stronger one

[–]talitus 1 point2 points ago

I mean, I'm all for getting abortions and shit. But being killed is worse than being pregnant, so.

[–]leegail 2 points3 points ago

Ur right... The one on the left has the right idea. But look at that idiot on the right.

[–]Goblicon 3 points4 points ago

Yeah. Poor you being pregnant. Go get your tubes tied you worthless person.

[–]Flexosaurus 7 points8 points ago

You realize you have a choice whether or not to get pregnant, right?

[–]Crustycrustacean 9 points10 points ago

I don't know why you think this is a black and white issue. Many people take all precautions aside from not having sex and still end up pregnant. And before you say it, abstinence while being the most effective form of birth control is not realistic and you know it.

[–]lolmonger 9 points10 points ago

abstinence while being the most effective form of birth control is not realistic

Says people that aren't abstinent.

We might as well talk about drunk driving being an inevitability as well.

[–]Crustycrustacean 0 points1 point ago

Well that's a horrible analogy. People aren't born with the urge to drunk drive. People ARE born with the urge to fuck, and it is quite a powerful force. Maybe you can resist the temptation but just telling people not to do what their body tells them to at the most primitive level is not a solution to the problem. This is why abstinence only education has proven to be so damaging for society. Telling teenagers not to have sex is like fighting gravity.

[–]lolmonger 11 points12 points ago

Well that's a horrible analogy.

The analogy isn't about the morality.

People aren't born with the urge to drunk drive.

People don't develop an urge to have sex and don't start engaging in it well afterwards.

it is quite a powerful force.

Yeah, human beings aren't animals in heat.

just telling people not to do what their body tells them to at the most primitive level

bullshit

I don't buy the argument that people who can drive at 16, vote at 18, drink at 21, are somehow in-fucking-capable of exercising any control prior to 30.

abstinence only education

Coming from the State coupled with handing out condoms undercuts abstinence based education as much as it does prevent actual sex education for those students who simply don't care.

Also, you're missing the point here:

It doesn't matter what people do with their own bodies; once a pregnancy happens, there's a developing human that had no choice in the matter at risk.

It's simply not just the woman's body any more, as a reality of biology.

[–]Rajio 5 points6 points ago

not always

[–]simjanes2k 2 points3 points ago

You have got to be kidding me. Why is this Reddit's big point on abortion? Did the rape rate in the US jump up to 85% of all pregnancies or something? I don't even see stats about how some high percentage of abortions are due to rape victim.

It's a stupid argument that is rarely relevant.

[–]nwsreddit 0 points1 point ago

always?

[–]JoobaBooba 0 points1 point ago

People, especially younger people in their late teens or early 20's, need to be able to make this kind of mistake without it ruining their lives and the life of the baby. I never really understood pro-life arguments, myself. Personally, I think if you extend the idea of murder to something so insignificant like a fetus, which really is not much more than just a parasite at the early stages, and not much better up to midway through, you should also be a vegetarian since you're basically torturing and killing cows for none other than your desire to eat their flesh. You shouldn't step on spiders either, since you could extend your philosophy on murder to them too.

And then you have the more religious pro-lifers who come mainly from the southern U.S., and many of them ardently defend the death penalty. It just confounds me.

[–]-o_0- 8 points9 points ago

1) Nursing babies are as much parasites as prenatal fetuses, which are as much parasites as earlier stage fetuses and embryos. The only difference is the relative ability for development outside the controlled environment of the uterus in which the child was created.

2) The significance of a child is not something you should suggest lightly. I assure you many expecting parents do not consider their child insignificant at any stage of development.

If you could, describe a meaningful condition that qualifies a fetus at one stage of development for person-hood which does not apply to the same fetus at an earlier stage of development.

Such a definition is also useful in situations where the mother isn't making life-death choices. Imagine a late third trimester mother is murdered. Should the court legally be able to charge the murderer with a double count due if the child is killed in the process?

[–]Kamon2011 9 points10 points ago

Insignificant? Parasite? What about after it's born? Isn't the child just as dependent as the new born? The baby has its own genetic code and will even react to its mother singing to it. But I guess if you call a baby a "parasite" you're already way fucking past reason.

[–]478nist 3 points4 points ago

Lol it is technically a parasite, biologically speaking. ~~ an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Its perfectly reasonable and accurate to refer to an unborn anything that way. It's no more offensive than me calling you a carbon-based or mostly aqueous.

Oops, my mistake, a parasite is defined as one species living off a different species, thanks darthmunkeys!

[–]darthmunkeys 3 points4 points ago

Sorry bro, your quote says "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species." Even though it is an organism that obtains nutrients from the host.

[–]478nist 2 points3 points ago

Ah you're right, I hadn't realised that it was a two species relationship. Thanks for pointing it out!

[–]Ut_tempus_mauris -1 points0 points ago

A foetus is not a baby. A mother should be able to make her own decision on what happens to her body rather than have someone else dictate it to her, she has her own life to live and should be able to choose either way.

[–]skarface6 1 point2 points ago

Uh, it's the offspring of 2 humans, how is it not a baby? Does it magically become a baby when it's born and it's not a person or a baby 20 minutes earlier? When an older brother or sister ask about the person in their mother's belly, should the mother dissuade them from using "baby"?

"Sorry, kids, this isn't your baby brother/sister. It's just a fetus and not a person at all. When it is born, then it will become your baby brother/sister. Until then, it's my body and I'll do what I like with it. Now go clean your room."

Do you see how absurd your argument is?

[–]sknoff95 2 points3 points ago

Then prove to me it's not a human. Prove to me that the "parasite" is not its own person. Prove that it is just an object and that we have no reason to believe it is a living creature. What functions of life does it not meet?

[–]ArcusImpetus 1 point2 points ago

It's shame that your mother didn't have the same viewpoint as yours when you were impregnated.

[–]rycov24 0 points1 point ago

DEM LEGS

[–]Bgreen25 0 points1 point ago

Message is beautiful, but all I can think of is dem curves....

[–]anraiki 0 points1 point ago

It's easy to be straight when you are not gay.

Am I doing this right?

[–]Dyert 0 points1 point ago

It's easy to take the day off to hold picket signs when you live in a trailer park

[–]babada 0 points1 point ago

So the lesson I learned today was to always stand to the left of your opponent when holding signs. It makes it look like you are having the last word in the subsequent pictures.

[–]Chemical_Cutthroat 0 points1 point ago

Wow. What a cunt. Really.

[–]dianthe 0 points1 point ago

What if it was a pregnant woman holding the first sign?

[–]SBJhehe 0 points1 point ago

inb4 this thread turns into a giant abortion deba- Oh wait....

[–]KilliamWallace 0 points1 point ago

as someone who is pro-choice, I think her argument actually makes her look selfish.

[–]Milldog 0 points1 point ago

Arguing with Christians. Good game, well done , bad luck.

[–]ViNtaGeRiFF 0 points1 point ago

The only way to fix the abortion issue is to avoid it all together.

Provide funding for research and development labs to come up with a relatively cheap medical procedure that takes the zygote or fetus out of the mother to be grown in an artificial womb so that when the baby reaches full term, it is born and put into adoption agencies or given to the father if he wants the baby. If the father receives a baby via these means, the mother is forced to relinquish any rights to the child (thus avoiding child support and the like). Well, that is, of course, if this medical procedure was used because the woman did not want to have a child.

If this medical procedure was developed and was a safe means of doing all the above, then fathers should also be able to sign over their rights to the mother, to be fair. (and be honest with this if you plan on arguing with me)

Women's rights? Check Paternal Rights? Check Baby's Rights? Check Republicans happy? Probably not, but Check Democrats happy? Check

[–]PlasticKiwi 0 points1 point ago

TIL that Pro-Life individuals can not become pregnant....

[–]evildustmite 0 points1 point ago

just had an idea... what if we passed a law that gives a baby "squatter's rights" to the womb after two months of conception, and said contract can only be voided after birth. so the woman would no longer own her womb until the baby has been evicted through natural processes.

edit: this is not entirely a serious suggestion