this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024

-84 points (7.1% liked)

Conservative

394 readers

68 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee

-84

just three women have died and 50783 babies have been saved by Texas' abortion law. A damn good trade if you ask me. (www.propublica.org)

submitted 1 week ago by Kaboom@reddthat.com to c/conservative@lemm.ee

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-findings-reports.html for the abortion numbers.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago

You're obviously looking for a reaction by using the phrase "a damn good trade" when referring to dead women. That is very weird.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 26 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (10 children)

Oh look another disgusting take on reducing women to bargaining chips while also neglecting to acknowledge that infant mortality is on the rise.

Shame on you OP.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think one of the problems is women who die because they have a miscarriage and can't get medical support. This is something completely avoidable, but the laws are catching these people in the crossfire.

[+] Kaboom@reddthat.com -18 points 6 days ago (2 children)

True, but when you compare the numbers, just 3 women have died. 50783 babies have been saved. So a net of 50780 lives have been saved.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Too bad republicans don’t even remotely give a fuck about making sure those babies have decent lives and support after they’re born.

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Are you a troll?

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Just look at the argumentative, insulting and provocative discussion style. OP is absolutely a troll of some sort, although it’s difficult to distinguish that from a typical deluded and fanatical conservative.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 7 points 5 days ago

50,000 unwanted babies = plenty very angry adults in 30 years. I would know as a child of teen pregnancy. Having a 16 year old mom with nothing to offer me but Ramen and horror movies living under the thumb of a mad woman who made it her lifes work to undermine my mother really did wonders for moms mental health.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yet another ignorant fool thinks he knows better than scientific consensus...

Life doesn't begin at conception, you dunce. You can stop say an abortion is equal to "saving babies" anytime now. That is a ridiculous untruth.

[+] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When does "the science" say life begins?

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't. Life is a continuum, it doesn't care what artificial labels we try to put on things. A fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized one, or a sperm cell, by any scientific definition of life, highlights how useless it is to try and use that definition to argue about abortion.

[+] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club -10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

A fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized one

Source?

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

From the National Institute for Health

In biology, it is generally agreed that organisms that possess the following seven characteristics are animate or living beings and thus possess life: the ability to respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment

The article as a whole elaborates that even trying to pin down a single definiton of life is a bit of a fool's errand, much less trying to use such a definition to support arguments about when life starts or stops.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which actually is just re-quoting an entirely different article, one of many discussed within)

We propose to define living systems as those that are: (1) composed of bounded micro-environments in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings; (2) capable of transforming energy to maintain their low-entropy states; and (3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.

From a University of Minnesota Introduction to Biology course

All groups of living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to stimuli, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life.

In short, there really isn't any unified definition of life. Comparing different definitions, there's common themes that emerge, but nothing that supports saying conception is when it starts. If you're going to use that definition, you can't support it by saying that "science" defines it that way.

[+] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The definitions you provided exclude both egg and sperm from being classified as a living organism. They can not reproduce or replicate themselves.

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Considering those quotes talk about defining "living systems" or "groups of organisms", as opposed to individual cells (and again, elaborated on even moreso within the full linked articles), I'm gonna have to say "no, they're not really excluded at all." Their entire purpose is to meet up and initiate replication. An egg and sperm cell are each one small part of a much larger system of ongoing life. The same can be said for a fertilized egg, an embryo, and so on for most stages of development in a womb.

If you want to insist on a definition that says egg and sperm cells aren't alive, or aren't an organism, you're gonna have a hard time saying that a fertilized egg or an embryo are. They don't replicate on their own, either, not without a very specific environment and set of stimuli.

Also, sperm cells DO replicate, to an extent. They undergo forms of mitosis and meiosis, during their growth. And an egg cell absolutely replicates. Like any other type of cell replication, it needs certain stimuli to initiate it. I.E. it needs to be fertilized.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -2 points 5 days ago

If you want to insist on a definition that says egg and sperm cells aren’t alive, or aren’t an organism, you’re gonna have a hard time saying that a fertilized egg or an embryo are. They don’t replicate on their own, either, not without a very specific environment and set of stimuli.

An embryo goes from a single cell to multiple genetically identical cells, that is replication. Sperm cells do not replicate into more identical sperm cells, eggs do not replicate into more identical eggs.

Also, sperm cells DO replicate, to an extent. They undergo forms of mitosis and meiosis, during their growth. And an egg cell absolutely replicates. Like any other type of cell replication, it needs certain stimuli to initiate it. I.E. it needs to be fertilized.

I would argue that the mitosis process sperm cells undergo splits the cell into two genetically different cells and the genetic difference ia not a mutation so it's not replication. Egg cells don't replicate they don't copy their DNA, they fuse with sperm at which time they become an embryo and start to replicate.

[–] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And you think embryo can reproduce/replicate itself? Lol

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes an embryo does replicate. How do you think an embryo goes from one cell to multiple cells?

[–] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Thru cell division. Didn't know you were referring to DNA replication, which was not mentioned anywhere in the articles you replied to.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -1 points 5 days ago

You should probably read the articles before you comment on what's in them. It may also help to know what replication means.

“Any system capable of replication and mutation is alive” to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2002:

(3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.

Forterre, Patrick, 2006a, “Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: a hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(10): 3669–3674.

[–] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club -2 points 6 days ago

I guess my thing is those descriptors don't apply to unfertilized embryos.

[–] waz@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm curious what your relationship with abortion is. Do you know anyone who has had one or even considered one? People aren't waking up and casually deciding "well, I guess I'm going to go kill a baby today!". Every single one is a complex decision weighing the risks and benefits of everyone involved. Ignoring tens of thousands of people suffering through what is one of the most difficult emotional events I can imagine and reducing it to a game of numbers doesn't seem fair.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

OP should have as many kids as possible. What are they waiting for?

[–] SeanBrently@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Well it's literally impossible (without being evil) to argue against the moral principal that killing babies is bad. That's because killing babies is bad.

So according to this new baby accounting morality, the hamas attack on Israel killed only 37 children, 2 of which were babies. So that's good. But according to oxfam, more than 11,000 children were killed by Israeli military in the last year, that's bad. Of course many women were killed also, likely some pregnant ones, that's bad.

According to UNICEF, 2000 children have been killed in Ukraine, that's bad. I can't find any record or report of Ukraininan military killing any Russian children, so that's good.

So I'd like to see as much effort put into reducing the deaths of Palestinian babies and Ukrainian babies instead of encouraging those baby murdering israelis and baby murdering ruzzians.

Edit: Oh, nobody agrees with me? Huh. Maybe it never was about the babies, but about control, subjugation and punishment.

Edit 2: Ah so someone does agree with me. It's pretty clear, from a strictly anti-child-killing standpoint who the good guys and bad guys are: hamas and Ukraine are the good guys, Israel and ruzzia are the bad guys.

Interestingly, abortion has been legal in Israel since 1977, but but under Palestinian law, abortion is illegal. So why support the baby killers and supply bombs to be dropped on the baby protectors?

[–] yuri@pawb.social 8 points 6 days ago

y’all are really doing a lot to further the divide between parties in the US by playing these ridiculous characters.

[–] MIXEDUNIVERS@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago

Why not a Compromise? A more flexible Abortion Ban, but free Morning after Pill and Condoms. Or highly subsidized BirthControl and Classes with the Topic prevention. Target would be smaller number of Abortion because smaler number of Tennie prec. Please overlook my Bad english.

load more comments