Abortion Explained. . tr. Thi' Here' s a test: I' m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other. I' m going to drop one. You chose
x

Abortion Explained

tr. Thi'
Here' s a test:
I' m holding a baby in one hand
and a petri dish holding a fetus in
the other.
I' m going to drop one. You chose
which.
If you really truly believe a fetus is
the same thing as a baby, it
should be impossible for you to
decide. You should have to flip a
coin, that' s how impossible the
decision should be.
Shot in the dark, you saved the
baby.
Because you’ re aware there' s a
difference.
Now admit it
woah.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+820
Views: 39061
Favorited: 243
Submitted: 11/07/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to TimUsher submit to reddit

Comments(575):

[ 575 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - hightechlowlife ONLINE (11/07/2013) [-]
MS Paint Skillz.
#17 to #12 - taurusguy (11/07/2013) [-]
Or you could use the one which says, why not both.
User avatar #18 to #17 - hightechlowlife ONLINE (11/07/2013) [-]
But the one I used is the original quote.
#20 to #18 - taurusguy (11/07/2013) [-]
But you would look cooler without a white box.
User avatar #23 to #20 - hightechlowlife ONLINE (11/07/2013) [-]
Well sorry that I can't edit the while box out and leave "drop" in.
#63 to #23 - fragman ONLINE (11/07/2013) [-]
there you go.
sorry for the sloppy "r", I'm ******* lazy
#24 to #23 - taurusguy (11/07/2013) [-]
Neither can i, im just saying.
User avatar #5 - settlwlvs (11/07/2013) [-]
I'd like to point out that if the fetus is in a petri dish, it is already dead.
User avatar #7 to #5 - nyangiraffe (11/07/2013) [-]
Never said the baby was alive either
User avatar #8 to #7 - settlwlvs (11/07/2013) [-]
Assuming Schrodinger's theory, the baby at any point in time is both alive and dead unless proven otherwise. That means that there is an approximate 50% chance the baby is alive, or a range from 0% to 100% chance the baby is dead. Consequently, there is an infant-essimal number of possibilities if you drop the baby, whereas only one outcome if you drop the fetus. Now, being a man who doesn't like the unknown, I would choose the guaranteed outcome and drop the fetus.
User avatar #21 to #8 - silveravatar (11/07/2013) [-]
I thought schrodinger's theory only applied when the subject was in an unobservable state.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
User avatar #519 to #21 - settlwlvs (11/08/2013) [-]
Technically, it is unobservable to us. I suppose.
#9 to #8 - nyangiraffe (11/07/2013) [-]
That was not the expected response
#10 to #9 - settlwlvs (11/07/2013) [-]
And once again my well devised puns go unnoticed. This was also unexpected.
And once again my well devised puns go unnoticed. This was also unexpected.
#109 to #8 - airforceman (11/07/2013) [-]
"infant-essimal"
User avatar #45 to #8 - bokkos (11/07/2013) [-]
... That's not how that works at all (the physics part, that is).
User avatar #515 to #45 - settlwlvs (11/08/2013) [-]
I know, but I used a false statement just so I could use "Infant-essimal" in my comment. There are, in fact, only two possibilities.
User avatar #587 to #515 - bokkos (11/11/2013) [-]
.... You still have it wrong.
#92 to #7 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
then who cares what you do with either?
User avatar #361 to #7 - skrynox (11/08/2013) [-]
It said you "Saved" the baby.

If you save it it's probably alive.
User avatar #374 to #361 - nyangiraffe (11/08/2013) [-]
And it says "odd are you saved the baby." as in that would be the choice I would make. not that the baby was actually saved
User avatar #378 to #374 - skrynox (11/08/2013) [-]
Dude dropping a baby probably wouldn't even kill it.

Unless you were like really tall.

Or standing on a ladder.
User avatar #380 to #378 - nyangiraffe (11/08/2013) [-]
Shh baby snacks need no defending
User avatar #368 to #361 - nyangiraffe (11/08/2013) [-]
Or you saved the baby for a snack later
User avatar #226 to #7 - hammywh (11/08/2013) [-]
only logical option is to throw the petri dish and eat the baby
User avatar #232 to #226 - nyangiraffe (11/08/2013) [-]
Eat both. Protein
User avatar #86 to #7 - redtooth (11/07/2013) [-]
Can I go for option C then, drop both?
#120 - ivoryhammer (11/07/2013) [-]
I'd drop them both, because babies suck.
#161 to #120 - Operd (11/08/2013) [-]
You're right, babies totally suck titties.
#160 to #120 - randomwanker (11/08/2013) [-]
... titties, babies suck titties... are you jealous that babies get more boobs than you
#341 to #160 - anon (11/08/2013) [-]
babies drool on you, crap on you, vomit on you. pee on you. they scratch your faces off. so much work to take care of babies. and don't get me started on their cries the most annoying thing I've heard to this day. they are crying like 90% of the time and wont shut up. so loud.
#163 to #160 - Operd (11/08/2013) [-]
damn, you beat me to it by 20 seconds..
#166 to #163 - randomwanker (11/08/2013) [-]
fast fingers
fast fingers
#170 to #166 - Operd (11/08/2013) [-]
I'm sure that's handy

I'm sorry
User avatar #151 - dickstick (11/08/2013) [-]
Hey five second rule? Right?
User avatar #1 - hektoroftroy (11/07/2013) [-]
abortion is wrong because it gives women a choice
User avatar #176 to #1 - mowgaycraft (11/08/2013) [-]
Sorry to be that guy but why is that a bad thing?

Unless it was intended as a joke, then it just passed over my head ^^;
User avatar #180 to #176 - mayormilkman (11/08/2013) [-]
It's a joke.
User avatar #182 to #180 - mowgaycraft (11/08/2013) [-]
My bad then. I'm really not good with humor sometimes.

Sorry for that!
#4 to #1 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
No, it's good because it kills the baby.
User avatar #3 to #1 - TimUsher ONLINE (11/07/2013) [-]
But on the other hand it kills babies
#121 to #3 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
Our planet is overpopulated as **** , we don't need more hell spawns.
User avatar #339 to #121 - buttgauges (11/08/2013) [-]
Definitely not a national problem. Here in the U.S. our death rate is actually larger than our birth rate.
User avatar #421 to #339 - buttgauges (11/08/2013) [-]
woops I definitely meant *international*
User avatar #490 to #339 - hydraetis (11/08/2013) [-]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought overpopulation only takes the number of people into consideration. So, saying that the death rate is higher than birth rate doesn't mean there is no overpopulation issue.
User avatar #498 to #490 - buttgauges (11/08/2013) [-]
Well what I said was really just in response to the person above me. He was claiming that our planet is overpopulated and that we don't need any more people being born. However, in many countries the death rate is higher than the birth rate so these "hell spawns" being born isn't exactly an issue.
User avatar #507 to #498 - hydraetis (11/08/2013) [-]
Well until the birth rate of the world becomes significantly lower than the death rate and stays that way for a while, the problem still isn't solved.
User avatar #512 to #507 - buttgauges (11/08/2013) [-]
I never said that the problem of overpopulation was solved for the world. I said overpopulation is not a global issue because there ARE places where death rate > birth rate.
User avatar #416 to #339 - imnotkickthecat (11/08/2013) [-]
Thats cause life is starting to catch up to the baby boomers.
User avatar #435 to #416 - buttgauges (11/08/2013) [-]
Indeed
#326 to #121 - instalation (11/08/2013) [-]
Every time I see someone talk about the world being overpopulated I feel like they should just kill themselves.
User avatar #178 to #121 - mayormilkman (11/08/2013) [-]
>thinking overpopulation is a global issue and not a regional issue
Outside of such places, it doesn't matter as much (for now, I guess).
#145 to #3 - thatguay (11/08/2013) [-]
That awkward moment when we think we are 4chan. but we arent, stop stealing their jokes pls
User avatar #175 to #145 - hektoroftroy (11/08/2013) [-]
it's a Zach Braff quote
User avatar #191 to #145 - nippuhl (11/08/2013) [-]
That awkward moment when you think you are tumblr. Stop stealing their lines pls
User avatar #111 to #3 - pyrelord (11/07/2013) [-]
Why would we want babies being born into a world where women have choices?
User avatar #91 to #3 - adu (11/07/2013) [-]
But on the other hand, they taste better alive.
#88 to #3 - hijokpl (11/07/2013) [-]
*fetuses
#67 to #3 - simbawarrior (11/07/2013) [-]
but... not without giving the woman a choice, there is no way around it
#119 - helenwheels (11/07/2013) [-]
The fetus in the petri dish baby is already dead.
The question should be Kick a pregnant woman in the gut or step on a baby.
User avatar #514 to #119 - ryderjbudde (11/08/2013) [-]
Which I am honestly more comfortable with stepping on a baby than kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach.
#124 to #119 - tck (11/08/2013) [-]
Yes I agree, I was about to post that. People on Tumblr sure think they're clever.
User avatar #80 - Nightinear **User deleted account** (11/07/2013) [-]
I was considering dropping the baby just for the fun of it
I dunno, it seemed funny
#54 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
I would just like to share my thoughts on abortion. **** this sexist double standard society. If a woman wants a baby and the man doesn't, man pays child support. If the woman doesn't want a baby and the man does, too ******* bad for the man. It isn't fair. If the man isn't ready for a child than don't force it upon him. The woman wants the baby, not the man, so she should raise it herself if she wants it so badly. Oh what's wrong? You can't afford it alone? Then don't ******* have it. Simple as that. Pro life? Put it up for adoption, no need to go against your religion like that. But if she was honestly that religious she wouldn't have ****** someone in the first place before marriage. If the woman wants the baby then it's her problem. Good luck with that. Don't force me to pay for the little **** if I don't want it. And while on the topic men should have a MUCH bigger say in abortion.
0
#55 to #54 - meegal has deleted their comment [-]
#75 to #54 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
If I put a dollar in a soda machine and a can of soda pops out, is it MY soda or the machine's soda?
User avatar #122 to #75 - martycamp (11/07/2013) [-]
Did you chat the vending machine up, take it on a date, hang out one night playing some nice music, then decide together to put money inside it? You think that the machine isn't stocked, and the machine thinks you've got a fake coin, so both of you are ok with it. But it turns out that the machine WAS stocked, and the money WAS real. And now you have a drink that neither of you like.

Yeah, your analogy doesn't really work, does it?
User avatar #146 to #54 - hoponthefeelstrain ONLINE (11/08/2013) [-]
If a guy doesn't want to pay birth control then he can give up his parental rights and not have to pay a cent.
User avatar #193 to #54 - yetiyitties (11/08/2013) [-]
This is the internet nobody gives a **** about your thoughts on abortion. Not a shot at you, just the truth.
User avatar #314 to #54 - nigeltheoutlaw (11/08/2013) [-]
I agree fully with you and casval. It's the best method to satisfy just about every person involved.
#394 to #54 - twentyten (11/08/2013) [-]
Maybe they should discuss such topics before their relationship gets serious? That way people don't have to worry about lawsuits and child support. And if it was a surprise, then they should have been prepared or used protection or something.
User avatar #79 to #54 - senortesta (11/07/2013) [-]
Well to be fair the woman is the one having the baby grow in their belly for 9 months and then forcing in through her vagina so I think that counts for something. And the abortion case is much more controversial in high school situations because usually the girl has no way of being able to raise the child and if the girl does keep it, it could ruin the boy and girl's future.
#96 to #79 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
If the highschool girl gets pregnant than don't keep the ******* baby. It's that simple. You want to ruin your life? Great. Have it. Raise it. Do NOT ruin the boy's life also who doesn't want it.
User avatar #129 to #96 - senortesta (11/08/2013) [-]
Its not always as simple. Some times the girl is pressured by parents, religion, or peers. if it were as easy as "just get an abortion if you're in highschool" then we wouldn't have nearly as many teen pregnancies.
#136 to #129 - anon (11/08/2013) [-]
If she was honestly that religious she wouldn't be having premarital sex and would not have gotten pregnant in the first place. Also there's always adoption.
User avatar #99 to #54 - casval (11/07/2013) [-]
As a pro-choice woman, I actually agree with you. I don't believe a man should have to pay child support UNLESS he wants to be a part of the child's life (this is assuming the relationship with the mom didn't work obviously).

HOWEVER,

If the woman wants an abortion and the man does not want to terminate, I feel the man should then have an option to sign a sort of pre-birth prenup. He agrees to care for the child 100% after it is born, and the mother would then relinquish all legal control to the father.

And of course if no one has an interest in the fetus, kill that little ****** before it's born into a world that doesn't want it.

Just my two cents.
#127 to #99 - ennemi (11/08/2013) [-]
I agree on the dad should not have to pay child support if he don't want a child.

But, if the mom don't want it, she should be able to abort no matter what the dad says. She is putting her health in danger and she will go through great suffering to deliver this baby + the 9 months of child pregnancy and the lost of income.

tl;dr: woman should be the one to decide if they want an abortion or not, but they should not be able force the father to pay them child support
User avatar #352 to #127 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
To be fair, if she wasn't prepared for the experience of childbirth, she shouldn't have been having unprotected sex.
If the father wants the child, the woman should be forced to have it, but the father would have to pay her medical bills, including morphine and **** to dope her up during, and pay for the possible need for elective plastic surgery on the mother afterwards.
User avatar #467 to #352 - perfectmoment (11/08/2013) [-]
but what about the actual 9 months of pregnancy? If the mother didn't have a steady career she would likely have to quit her job, quite a few months of feeling sick and vomiting, having to buy maternal clothes, possible complications, etc.
Also what about the mental torment of having to carry around a baby for 9 months that she absolutely doesn't want.
Or if she was raped, if "the father wanting the baby" became our standard, the man who abused her could still force the victim to keep his child.
User avatar #497 to #467 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
The rape case, **** what he wants.
The rest, it does suck. But she did have sex. She knew the consequences. Just to avoid carrying the child, she can take away a man's right to his child?
User avatar #555 to #497 - perfectmoment (11/08/2013) [-]
i totally understand where you're coming from.
i just feel that if I got pregnant by accident, through my own fault or a faulty condom or whatever, and the father wanted it, it would likely be a horrific 9 months. Could you imagine carrying around a living thing inside of you that you didn't want, and having to let people come up and touch your stomach, talk to them about the baby, whether it's a boy or girl. It would just ******* suck.
User avatar #304 to #127 - commontroll (11/08/2013) [-]
The only thing is, that's disqualifying the man completely from his say. That is not equality. Too many men have been robbed of their children in that way. If she doesn't want it, *************** , that's how it's been for men for decades now, only for 18 years.
User avatar #359 to #304 - trivdiego (11/08/2013) [-]
its definitely no easy answer thats for sure. the best thing I can contribute is if a woman had sex and got pregnant unwillingly, then the couple isn't responsible enough to care for a child anyway. I think eventually we will be able to remove all of the danger and pain from childbirth, at which point this problem will resolve itself
User avatar #274 to #127 - EnemySpy (11/08/2013) [-]
I respectfully disagree, at least in certain scenarios. If the child is a legitimate life-threatening condition, then I think medical action should me taken in protection of the mother. But when the pregnancy seems just about normal, why shouldn't the father get a say? The 20 or so prospected years of raising that child and then however long afterwards of having that child exist, along with all sentimental values of passing on genes and making a mark on the world or whatever, seem to far surpass the significance of 9 months of pregnancy. To be fair I'm a man so I haven't ever been pregnant, but I still don't think I'd sacrifice the life of a human being - my child, specifically - to avoid the experience.

And before I get the "ur a man u dont understand" argument from anyone, I must first ask any potential repliers, have you been pregnant and given birth to know better?
User avatar #306 to #274 - RoflcopterGoSwoosh (11/08/2013) [-]
Why should anybody get to decide whether or not you have to go through 9 months of carrying and baby and give birth to it if you don't want it? How does that even make any sense to you.
User avatar #313 to #306 - EnemySpy (11/08/2013) [-]
Because under normal circumstances (cases of rape or medical issues excluded) the situation was created by myself and another individual that I either cared enough for or was irresponsible enough to have sex with. It's not like the condition of pregnancy was /forced/ on me (again, excluding special cases). It's not like a random mishap in need of correction. Refusing a 9 month space in my uterus for the life of a human being that will last literally a lifetime and be taken care of by someone other than myself just seems selfish to me, especially when I made decisions leading up to the condition of pregnancy. Just my opinion.
User avatar #316 to #313 - RoflcopterGoSwoosh (11/08/2013) [-]
Selfish or not, you still shouldn't be given a right to decide whether or not someone else should have a baby, regardless of who you are and how close you are to that person. The final decision is always to the person who is going to be baring the child.
User avatar #319 to #316 - EnemySpy (11/08/2013) [-]
Your entire comment doesn't really explain anything. You're just not making a claim, and not explaining why it should be the way you describe.

So, uh, why?
User avatar #322 to #319 - RoflcopterGoSwoosh (11/08/2013) [-]
Because it is your body, so you should have total power over everyone's decision? You can't force someone to have a baby. That is what is wrong with it.
User avatar #372 to #322 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
Just saying:

If you commit a crime, you are forced into prison, where your body, and sometimes mind, are affected. They warn you that this may happen before you commit the crime, but you do it anyways, and have to live with the consequences.
Ideally, If you (the average woman) have unprotected sex and get pregnant and if the father wants the child and you don't, you should be forced to have the child, where you might gain a bit of weight and experience some pain, which can easily be fought with meds. They warn you that unprotected sex may lead to a child before you commit the act, but you do it anyways, and must live with the consequences.

But, this is simply how I believe it should be.
#575 to #372 - ennemi (11/08/2013) [-]
I have a hard time seeing how this is fair, because at the end of the day, if the guy want the baby he could force the mom to keep it even if she don't want to and if he don't want the baby he could just walk away.

Also I don't like your crime analogy, both party are involve, but only one will suffer. A human should be the only one to decide what happen to his body. You basically want to remove the right of self-ownership of someone.

(also, it doesn't matter, but for the sake of full disclosure I'm a guy (and English is not my first language) )
User avatar #576 to #575 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
I see that it is unfair, but either way it is unfair, whichever rule it is.
#579 to #576 - ennemi (11/08/2013) [-]
indeed, after that it's a matter of which you find more important : the right for the guy to be a father or the right of self-ownership of the mother.


Personally I think the second one is more important,, but I can easily understand if someone would put number 1 in priority,
User avatar #328 to #322 - EnemySpy (11/08/2013) [-]
It seems rather shortsighted to me to decide to rid the world of a future human being because it causes you a physical inconvenience for a year. To be fair, pregnancy is a pretty severe "inconvenience", but still. Give the child up for adoption. What you do with your body no longer only affects you. Sorry, but now there's a father and a son/daughter involved because of the choices you made, and it isn't right (again, in my opinion) to have total power in the decision that affects more than just you, because it seems like that 9 month pregnancy pales in comparison to every other way that child will affect you and the world.

You can't force someone to have a baby? Well, I don't mean to sound bad, but that's kind of what laws against abortions are for. Some laws protecting a father's claim to a child would be nice too.
User avatar #337 to #328 - RoflcopterGoSwoosh (11/08/2013) [-]
And there is a reason why those laws are being removed, because they are retarded and the person carrying the baby should be entitled to abort the baby regardless of someone wanting the baby.
User avatar #349 to #337 - EnemySpy (11/08/2013) [-]
Your logic has turned circular you're starting to just repeat yourself. Again, why? All you've really said is that you should be in control of anything that affects your body. My argument is that the 9 months affecting your body is superficial in comparison to human life. I still fail to see how it's right to end that organism that is in the process of becoming a human being because the woman that started it all doesn't want to deal with the 9 month consequence of her own actions. I know this will earn me a hail of red thumbs for disagreeing with the Funnyjunk masses, but I value the life of an unborn child over a woman's 9 month trials.
User avatar #479 to #349 - perfectmoment (11/08/2013) [-]
i have not had a baby myself, but I'm just wondering what it would feel like to have to carry a living thing inside of you for 9 months that you didn't want.
I feel like if we forced a woman to have a baby that she didn't want, she would go to drastic measures to not have it as opposed to an abortion done by a doctor (mass amounts of drinking, drugs, smoking, self abortions). Wouldn't we then end up with a lot more babies with mental and physical disabilities, a lot more deaths caused by women trying to abort the baby themselves?
#557 to #479 - danzey (11/08/2013) [-]
That's a pretty stupid argument, and let's just keep using the word forced, i like that word, it implies a victim, by having an abortion while the man wants the baby, the woman is forcing the man to give up his child, his blood, just because she can't be bothered, sure she will have unprotected sex with him, but when there is a responsibility involved, pfft **** that and **** the man, ill just get an abortion, imagine if men held the keys, we are all aware of the ridiculousness of some of the feminism, imagine if men decided whether or not the baby was kept, yeah just think about it for a second ... you know it would be a different kettle of fish, why? Because men and women aren't equal, its about time people realised that. Women shouldnt get paid as much for physical labour, because men, with are larger muscle mass on average, are better equipped to do it, thats just a fact, it stems from men being the hunters and is just a fact that people have to deal with, the only reason it's a problem is because some people can't deal with the negatives about themselves.
User avatar #566 to #557 - perfectmoment (11/08/2013) [-]
there is at least one, if not more opinions where the arguer literally stated, "if the father wants it, the woman should be forced to have the baby". I'm not implying her as a victim.
I was literally arguing against this point, saying that if a woman truly didn't want the baby she would be desperate and resort to worse things than what she can do now, which is an abortion.
No need to get all "men should be paid more" and "women aren't equal" on me. I was stating my opinion on what some thought would be a good idea.
User avatar #455 to #349 - johnnygoldmane **User deleted account** (11/08/2013) [-]
Nah, I'd imagine a fair number of us agree with you. If we were talking something unforeseen, like a tumor, then it would be entirely the woman's decision what to do with her body. But, if this was a known possibility, then she essentially made that decision with another person, and both of them should have equal say, barring health risks.
#552 to #337 - danzey (11/08/2013) [-]
So, supposing you're female, just because it's inside you, you have the right to deny me my child, just because you don't want it. You're basically saying that women have the right to deny men children, you flip those two genders in any sentence and everyon goes ******* mental "Men have the right to deny women" thats a sentence that would get you stoned to death. If you're having unprotected sex, you run the risk of a child, and if I want to keep it, you take responsibility for your actions, we live in a society now where anything sex related has the man taking 100% responsibilty and women taking 0%, because women are these frail things that don't make their own choices, ******* double standards, women want to be paid the same to do less, they want men to pay their way through everything, then when it comes to responsibilities, lay it on the man, the scapegoat of the human race.
#101 to #99 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
I completely agree with everything you just said.
#117 - iamphoenix (11/07/2013) [-]
I would bitch about how awful this analogy is, but Tumblr is filled with 16 year old girls.
#252 - funnynsfw (11/08/2013) [-]
Not arguing for or against, but this is classic false dilemma scenario.

Just because one is valued less than the other does not necessarily mean it's okay for the other one to be destroyed.
User avatar #413 to #252 - revisandbutthead (11/08/2013) [-]
Exactly. If I had to choose to save a family member or a random stranger, I'd probably pick my family member. Doesn't mean I want people to kill strangers.

Btw I'm pro-choice, but this analogy is just bad.
#137 - lordraine ONLINE (11/08/2013) [-]
The fetus is already dead if it's in a petri dish.

Once again, I don't know why anyone listens to anything on Tumblr.
User avatar #139 to #137 - faithrider (11/08/2013) [-]
i was going to say that
User avatar #141 to #137 - imnotanig (11/08/2013) [-]
true, but then again its hypothetical
#142 to #141 - lordraine ONLINE (11/08/2013) [-]
My point is that it's a ****** hypothetical. If you want to make this kind of proposal, have a guy pointing a gun at a pregnant woman's stomach and holding a knife to an infant's throat. You choose. See? That didn't take a second to come up with, and it's a better scenario.

Oh, and look, now that it's more reasonable, suddenly the choice is a harder one to make. It's almost like the guy who made this was deliberately biased or something. But that's just silly, right?
User avatar #183 to #142 - azumeow (11/08/2013) [-]
Well...no. In your scenario, two people are being threatened by holding the gun to the pregnant woman's stomach: Her life and the life of her unborn child. Soooo...your argument is in fact WORSE, and even more biased.
#143 to #142 - reduxalicious (11/08/2013) [-]
Calm the **** down sweet-heart, it's just a Tumblr post.
#181 to #143 - lastkingofx ONLINE (11/08/2013) [-]
Agreed.
#172 to #143 - SrslyWtf (11/08/2013) [-]
I was thinking the same
User avatar #144 to #142 - imnotanig (11/08/2013) [-]
whoever it was probably was thinking this isn't a literal scenario so didn't think about it, but yeah i get your point lol, i'm pro-choice because its someone else's decision, but i could never convince someone to do it, i just don't have the stomach to handle stuff like that
#165 to #137 - batwill **User deleted account** (11/08/2013) [-]
I assume someone just missed the difference between fetus and embryo.
#452 - joshkx (11/08/2013) [-]
Mfw i choose to drop both
Mfw i choose to drop both
#280 - stevegasm (11/08/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#125 - Mustafa (11/08/2013) [-]
What I dropped
What I dropped
#325 - gmarrox (11/08/2013) [-]
Fallacies like this are so ******* stupid. False dilemma ******** .
#43 - therealtotodile (11/07/2013) [-]
But no in all seriousness, that's a retarded argument. It's like saying every time you don't abort a fetus, a baby hostage is executed.
#76 to #43 - hawaiikid (11/07/2013) [-]
I dont think hes making that argument, so much as trying to show that there is a difference between an infant and a fetus.
User avatar #90 to #76 - therealtotodile (11/07/2013) [-]
Well that's obvious. But what about this. You're on a skyscraper holding a baby in one hand off the edge, and a teenager in the other. You only have enough strength to save one. Which do you save? It's the same scenario.Life is life, whether it's fully developed or not.
#268 to #90 - luigiyoshi **User deleted account** (11/08/2013) [-]
I disagree, because if I'm holding a teenager up in one hand and a baby in the other then I'm going to just pull the baby up and divert both arms full to the teenager. See? The baby not being as developed means I'm a ****** hero.
User avatar #329 to #90 - nigeltheoutlaw (11/08/2013) [-]
Couldn't you just pull up the baby, then use both arms on the teenager?
User avatar #404 to #329 - therealtotodile (11/08/2013) [-]
The point is, I'm giving an ultimatum. Just like in the tumblr post, the person doesn't need to drop the baby or the fetus. It's just a goddamn example...
User avatar #89 to #43 - redtooth (11/07/2013) [-]
I don't think that's what whoever posting this was going for. I guess it's more of the argument of "if you don't know what to decide, flip a coin and the decision that you're hoping for signifies what you really wanted all along" kind of thing, just modified. It's supposed to make you realize whether you'd care more about a fetus or a baby. Though I do agree the argument is bloody retarded if the baby could also become a baby.
User avatar #309 - baditch (11/08/2013) [-]
If the fetus is in a petri dish then it's dead already, so yea there is a difference. One of them is dead.
User avatar #318 to #309 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (11/08/2013) [-]
In this hypothetical scenario its still alive. Don't be that guy.
User avatar #330 to #318 - loopymoomoo (11/08/2013) [-]
were all that guy, get over it
User avatar #135 - sirbutterballs (11/08/2013) [-]
If the fetus is in a ******* dish that means it's dead or as good as dead anyway. This question is plain it doesn't me I value one less.
#116 - mereu (11/07/2013) [-]
This argument is retarded on so many levels it hurts my brain.
User avatar #211 to #116 - witislimited (11/08/2013) [-]
Anti abortion arguments or the one in the post?
#276 to #116 - anon (11/08/2013) [-]
BUt is it significantly retarded?
User avatar #310 to #116 - jordanish (11/08/2013) [-]
Most abortion arguments tend to be retarded. Those that aren't are high end philosophy papers that mind **** your brain, and even then the obvious flaws are so glaring its like lens flare on a hipster's photo album
#387 to #116 - twentyten (11/08/2013) [-]
It's just shows that there are differences between a fetus and a baby. It's an argument for those who said that fetuses fetusi? and babies are the same/similar. Would it make a difference if they fetus was "alive" or if the baby is dead? But yeah, this argument is not really all that great when you nit-pick it.
User avatar #534 to #116 - seventhseeker (11/08/2013) [-]
Ok, for you dumbass, let me smack you with some science right now. Ever heard of schrodingers cat? Theoretical experiment. Just like this one. And the argument "Why would I put the cat in the box with some poisonous gas and radioactive material" is just as retarded as the arguments you used.
#242 to #116 - anon (11/08/2013) [-]
Pro-life faggot. Hahahahah. Suck a dick.
#177 to #116 - anon (11/08/2013) [-]
Right.



But it isn't, so...
User avatar #289 to #116 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
Answer the question, though. Which would you save?
#295 to #289 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Are you ******* serious or are you retarded?
User avatar #296 to #295 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
Just a question. Why not answer it?
#298 to #296 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Jesus Christ! You really are serious...
User avatar #301 to #298 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
Yes. I'm seriously asking you to answer the question. That's it.
User avatar #315 to #301 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
OK... First of all, the fetus is already dead.
Second, I don't know in which Universe would I have to be to find myself in a dumbass situation like that.
User avatar #320 to #315 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
The post mentions nothing about the health of either the infant OR the fetus. Also, it is rhetorical, thought provoking and should not to be considered a possible situation.

You still haven't answered.
User avatar #327 to #320 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
>The post mentions nothing about the health of either the infant OR the fetus

But in order to save one of them, don't they have to be alive? What the **** ???
That situation described in this post is retarded beyond belief and abortion is a matter too serious for retards like you to come up with stupid analogies like these.
User avatar #331 to #327 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
>Retard like [me]
I'm a third year student at a highly recognized university performing higher than 80% of students, hold a private pilot license and fly regularly. I'm not the most accomplished person in the world but Federal Aviation Regulations don't allow a 'retard' to fly a plane.

I'd save that child. What about you?
User avatar #340 to #331 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
The fact that you had to give me some kind of confirmation about your high social status tells a lot more about yourself. I'm glad I didn't met you in real life.

And to answer your question... I'd save the baby because the fetus is already dead.
User avatar #343 to #340 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
I apologize for bragging. I'm glad, however, that we came out of this with you [almost] answering the question. And we did so without me insulting you! That would have been childish, huh?
User avatar #354 to #343 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
I forgive you for bragging. And I'm glad that I did however answered your question.
And just because you didn't insulted me it doesn't makes you more mature.
On the other hand I have insulted you and I stand behind my words. Because you really deserved it and stupidity annoys the hell out of me.
Retards can fly airplanes too btw
User avatar #383 to #354 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
Federal Aviation Regulations/Aeronautical Information Manual 2014 Part 67: Medical Standards and Certification

Section 67.207 [Mental]: Mental standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are:

(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:

(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.

(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, “psychosis” refers to a mental disorder in which:

(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or

(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
#393 to #383 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Oh God, I'm laughing so hard right now.
This ***** is trying to convince me he's not a retard by Avation Regulations.
Holy **** , dude!
User avatar #398 to #393 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
The math is there.

Andiminius = pilot

Retard =/= pilot.

Therefore Andiminius =/= retard
#405 to #398 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Dude, I hope you're not one of those guys that will end up on the news who kills himself  because of the bullies on the internet.   
Please don't do that!    
Lets make peace, ok?   
Sorry if I offended you!   
 Please don't kill yourself!
Dude, I hope you're not one of those guys that will end up on the news who kills himself because of the bullies on the internet.
Please don't do that!
Lets make peace, ok?
Sorry if I offended you!
Please don't kill yourself!
User avatar #412 to #405 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
I never took any personal offense to what you were saying. I'm capable of arguing without it hurting my person. But could you give an effort to make statements in the future without insulting someone, their profession or those with mental disabilities?

I really do appreciate your concern. I hope you don't kill yourself either.

I'm going back and green thumbing all your posts because showed compassion that made me genuinely happy.
User avatar #432 to #412 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Sorry once again for insulting you, bro. I admit I can be a real asshole sometimes.
I take back the mean words I said. You seem like a nice guy.
But you didn't had to thumb me up
User avatar #535 to #432 - wooyoungkim (11/08/2013) [-]
No, you don't seem apologetic at all.

Look at the way you are acting

"Oh **** man please don't kill yourself I'm sorry okay?"

Jesus. You act like you were put him down and made him cry.

You are acting like the douchebags you'll see in school who apologizes just because they went too far. In this case you didn't. The guy you were calling "retarded" seemed much more logical than you at the very least.

(Also I don't know why my comment got deleted)
User avatar #539 to #535 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
How did you get the feeling that i wasn't sincere about my apology?
Think about it... Why would I give a **** If I felt otherwise? I would've continued to insult him.
I may be dick sometimes but I'm honest.
User avatar #525 to #432 - wooyoungkim (11/08/2013) [-]
You must think you are so goddamn cool don't you?
User avatar #532 to #525 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Why did you delete your previous comment?
And yes, I do believe to be cool.
Not all the time but sometimes.
0
#521 to #432 - wooyoungkim has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #528 to #521 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Dude, what is your problem?
I said I was sorry to the guy which I really am.
I know I was a dick to him and i shouldn't have insulted him. I not ashamed for admitting that I was wrong.
Although I do stand about my opinion about anything else I said.
User avatar #396 to #393 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
Who are you talking to?
User avatar #399 to #396 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
andiminius.
I replied to him. Isn't that obvious?
User avatar #408 to #399 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
You obviously said "This ***** " When talking, and you were talking about him.
Why would you talk to him, about him, in the third person?
User avatar #392 to #383 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
He's using the slang term for retarded. Not mentally retarded, but having an opinion that he disrespects.
User avatar #395 to #392 - andiminius (11/08/2013) [-]
Yes, I realize that. But by taking the literal meaning of everything he's been saying I can prove him wrong at every turn. Thereby revealing his false statements and/or inability to form a viable argument
User avatar #347 to #340 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
The content never mentioned that the fetus was dead.
The situation is set in an imaginary universe in which they could have a fetus in a petri dish, fully alive.
Assuming they were both alive, and that dropping them would cause them to die, which would it be?
User avatar #381 to #347 - mtflyer (11/08/2013) [-]
Fetuses become babies. If the fetus was in a petri dish, it wouldn't develop into a baby, and thus, is already dead. Either way, a life is lost, and I would shoot the ****** , making him drop both, and then I would devour them all and gain their power.
User avatar #390 to #381 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
This is a bad metaphor. That's all there is to it. I don't think the creator of said metaphor meant for the asked person to use normal logic.
User avatar #365 to #347 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
Ok, so this scenario takes place in this imaginary universe. And the fetus and the baby are both alive.
But wouldn't this change our all perception about the whole thing? About babies? Fetuses? And abortion?
Reality is that this scenarios will never happen. And you can't justify abortion with a stupid argument like this.
#486 to #365 - convulsive (11/08/2013) [-]
Mfw your dumbass gets more negative thumbs then green in this post You just couldn't answer the question, could you?
User avatar #502 to #486 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
I answered the question. I'd save the baby because the fetus is dead.
I know it's an analogy but it's a bad one. And I know it was meant to make people find how they trully feel.
But that is not possible. Because the post implies for us to step into this imaginary universe where a fetus can survive in a petri dish and at the same time keep our beliefs from this reality. Of course people will say that they'll save the baby. But it's not because the fetus is meaningless to them it's because they are reasonable people and they will chose the reasonable choice. Because in their subconcious they'll know that the fetus can't survive.

I stand for all I said so far. Except for the insulting andiminius I don't know why people can't see that.
User avatar #509 to #502 - convulsive (11/08/2013) [-]
Imagine, just for a second, that the fetus is alive. Then what would you choose?
User avatar #520 to #509 - mereu (11/08/2013) [-]
This is what I'm trying to say. You can't give an answer here without it sounding like the baby is more important.
In a world where a fetus can survived in that condition, our perception about abortion will be totally different. We might not even have abortions.
Even if we imagine that the fetus is alive, we are making our choice subconciously.
I would save the baby because my mind will know that the fetus is dead.
We can't know exactly what we will chose in that situation, but i'm guessing it would be both.
User avatar #388 to #365 - psykobear (11/08/2013) [-]
This scenario isn't to change anyone's opinion. It's to help you realized what your true opinion is. By putting yourself in this situation in your mind, you would realize which has more value to it.

But also, it is not a good metaphor, but for different reasons.
Just because you might value a baby's life more than that of a fetus doesn't mean a fetus's life is valueless to you.

While I agree with you that this metaphor is not a good argument, I agree for different reasons.
User avatar #483 to #298 - hydraetis (11/08/2013) [-]
Jesus you're an asshole.
[ 575 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)