Opinion of this picture

[Pheurton Skeurto]

A friend of mine posted this picture on Facebook and has been getting a lot of sh*t for it. Here's the picture:



In my mind, rightfully so. This is an awfully stupid argument in favour of the pro-life movement. What say you??

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Eh, bad argument, but I get what he's saying.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I agree 100%... it amazes me how many pro-choice people are also environmentalists and/or vegetarians- as if a calf or hatchling is more precious then an unborn human child

[fezzyfestoon]

It gives me bubble guts it's so poor of an argument.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My faith in humanity has dropped yet again.

[AmericanNation]

It isn't an argument for a pro-life position (if it is than it's bad).  It is an argument that "Liberals" are stupid/ illogical(pretty good at that).  Simple juxtapositions are easy to do with the American left because their arguments inevitably conflict with themselves.  

[Dr. Cynic]

I agree 100%... it amazes me how many pro-choice people are also environmentalists and/or vegetarians- as if a calf or hatchling is more precious then an unborn human child

I'm neither a big environmentalist nor a vegetarian. In fact, I would probably find it easier to be a carnivore.

However, take into account that the Eagle is the national bird and it just beats the crap out of this argument.

Also, a fetus is not a person. If it were, it would count towards your age and we could all drink 9 months sooner.

[Foucaulf]

I'm sure the eagles also think their children are more precious than those fat human children, so let's throw that argument aside.

It would also be amazing if eagles could speak English and ask for humans to throw away their eggs, but until such rational discourse be established what can we do? The only rational action would be non-interference.

(I'll foam at the "force taxpayers" argument another time.)

[7,052,770]

Silly arguments aside, there should be no special protection for nonsense patriotism like the "national bird." If you want to make it illegal to destroy eggs of all birds or all endangered birds, fine, but the punishment should be community service

[John Dibble]

It's dumb because it clearly doesn't understand the different logic behind the two cases. Humans aren't an endangered species - aborting a human fetus isn't going to increase the risk of human extinction. I'm reminded of that episode of Battlestar Galactica where they end up banning abortion in the fleet because humans may actually have ended up going extinct in the scenario.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I agree 100%... it amazes me how many pro-choice people are also environmentalists and/or vegetarians- as if a calf or hatchling is more precious then an unborn human child

I'm neither a big environmentalist nor a vegetarian. In fact, I would probably find it easier to be a carnivore.

However, take into account that the Eagle is the national bird and it just beats the crap out of this argument.

Also, a fetus is not a person. If it were, it would count towards your age and we could all drink 9 months sooner.

I consider myself a patriot but even a majestic eagle- a symbol of our nation- is not worth as much as a human life. If a fetus is not a person- please explain premature babies... ordinarily they would be fetuses at less then 22 weeks gestation but circumstances occurred and they left the womb early. I doubt any one would argue that a premature baby is not a person- so why is it different 5 minutes before his or her birth when he or she is inside the womb?

[Redalgo]

I can't see the picture. Does anyone have a link?

[RI]

I can't see the picture. Does anyone have a link?

http://api.ning.com/files/R3T6T9I24RQOkpR6nbHQT*7unoZamkcG65Gejn1F0hWw95ezJ-Avw0KEdUBwop*l1z0tXEWiXOqjjqX07fkoALeRKaasOYg0/22.jpg?width=500&height=416

As for the argument, I don't really care. I don't see why being pro-life and pro-conservation/in favor of protecting endangered species have to conflict. It's not like protecting eagles make abortion more likely or vice versa. They really don't have a whole lot to do with each other.

I get it's point, but crass arguments like that really bug me, especially with the ad hominems.

[greenforest32]

Why do they always seem to pretend the debate is a simple issue of whether or not a fetus/baby is alive?

"HAH, THE FETUS TWITCHED THEREFORE ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL"

And of the woman? Should she be forced to give birth against her will?

"..."

We never seem to hear this argument when discussing other things like self-defense when someone defends them-self against an attacker and injures/kills them.

The issue of abortion is about conflicting rights (which is admittedly easier when talking about a fetus vs a baby). Why should a woman's right to control what happens to her body be trumped by a baby's right to life?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do they always seem to pretend the debate is a simple issue of whether or not a fetus/baby is alive?

"HAH, THE FETUS TWITCHED THEREFORE ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL"

And of the woman? Should she be forced to give birth against her will?

"..."

We never seem to hear this argument when discussing other things like self-defense when someone defends them-self against an attacker and injures/kills them.

The issue of abortion is about conflicting rights (which is admittedly easier when talking about a fetus vs a baby). Why should a woman's right to control what happens to her body be trumped by a baby's right to life?

Unless a woman was raped, she already chose what would happen, so the "right to control" argument doesn't work all that well if one considers the unborn fetus to already be a human life instead of merely a bit of tissue that could someday become a life.

[greenforest32]

Why do they always seem to pretend the debate is a simple issue of whether or not a fetus/baby is alive?

"HAH, THE FETUS TWITCHED THEREFORE ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL"

And of the woman? Should she be forced to give birth against her will?

"..."

We never seem to hear this argument when discussing other things like self-defense when someone defends them-self against an attacker and injures/kills them.

The issue of abortion is about conflicting rights (which is admittedly easier when talking about a fetus vs a baby). Why should a woman's right to control what happens to her body be trumped by a baby's right to life?

Unless a woman was raped, she already chose what would happen, so the "right to control" argument doesn't work all that well if one considers the unborn fetus to already be a human life instead of merely a bit of tissue that could someday become a life.

You could argue it also comes into play for unintended pregnancies as well but that's just for the people who think abortion should be illegal in any case with no exceptions.

Outside of those exceptions I'd still say the right to choose has precedence because it requires continuous active consent of the use of your body. Maybe if we were talking about babies growing up independently of the mother via eggs or something it would be different, but in this case it's something that has to live and grow inside your body for 9 months.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't see the picture. Does anyone have a link?

You'd be better off not seeing it. Believe me.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

In my mind, rightfully so. This is an awfully stupid argument in favour of the pro-life movement. What say you??

That's not an argument in favor of the pro-life movement, even if the creator of the picture is pro-life. It's intended to criticize the (alleged) inconsistency of leftists.

Also, a fetus is not a person. If it were, it would count towards your age and we could all drink 9 months sooner.

That's a bogus argument. It is similar to all other arguments about the fetus not being a person and is subject to the same rebuttal.

First, regarding age, it is indeed true that the current concept of age is flawed. However, it is so firmly attached (and has been for thousands of years) that is pointless to attempt to change it. Further, we don't know when the child was conceived (or, at least, people didn't know thousands of years ago), only when it is born. That does not mean that it is not the beginning of life.

As far as the drinking argument, it is perhaps even less legitimate than the arguments of dependence/sentience/appearance/etc. Why, of all things, should drinking be a/the deciding factor in determining an object's personhood?