Ignore it on the side of the road, offer no help, but celebrate its ability to participate in capitalism!
If you’re pre-born you’re sacred. If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked.
Literally. Our nation is filling up with pedophiles and rapists at an alarming rate.
Behold, a car:
Transphobes be like: “No matter how much you try to reshape it with excessive physical force, or melt it by applying excessive heat, still a slab of raw iron!” (Is there some synonym for melting that could sound “gross”?)
I’m not sure, but you could always make a metaphor. Might I suggest the word sloughing, which is generally used to mean the shedding of dead tissue? Like say, “no matter how hot you work the iron to slough its form-”. Though then again, might be a big ask for a transphobe to use a rhetorical device like that.
A cybertruck!
forced birth
The term “pro-life” is proof for the right being the one engaging in “political correctness”.
Fundamentalists: “As it says in GOD’S WORD”
God’s Word: “if a foetus is fully formed treat it like a person, if it’s not, don’t”
Fundamentalists: “wait… what”
Texas and Farscape crossover: a mama truck births a vehicle, that vehicle is a crossover SUV.
What’s the point of dunking on stupid things that don’t actually correspond to what the people you don’t like believe?
Because it baits out the people who can’t deal with hyperbole, and it’s hilarious how pissed they get!
The fundamentalist position is more extreme than the meme… Individual components are not a truck, but as soon as you put two of them together, no matter how small, “it’s a whole new creation!”
I’m not sure what you mean. I think that the fundamentalist position does not define a person in terms of multiple components at all. If there’s a soul, there’s a person. If there’s no soul, there’s no person. God adds in the soul at conception, or perhaps shortly afterwards. The components of the body are relevant only in that without the necessary components to maintain life, the soul leaves the body.
I was alluding to the belief that while neither sperm nor egg (the ‘components’) have a soul, a fertilised egg somehow does.
Yes, but what’s particularly odd about a belief in the soul? I think it’s false in our universe, but I can imagine an alternate universe in which it is true. If I lived before the development of our modern understanding of neuroscience and the invention of computers, I would not have enough evidence to be convinced that it was false even in our universe. We still have no idea what subjective consciousness is or how it can be formed from computation, so I think reasonable people can refuse to rule out the existence of souls even in the modern day.
The idea that a soul is assigned to a fertilized egg at conception is somewhat arbitrary even if souls do exist, but presumably souls would be assigned to bodies some time before birth and conception is the only really sharp dividing line. Better safe than sorry if being wrong means killing a lot of people…
Yes, but what’s particularly odd about a belief in the soul?
It depends what exactly you mean by ‘soul’. If it’s some sort of disembodied manifestation of our personality and memories that exists indepedent of the body then the problem is that there’s no evidence for it. And instead we find evidence supporting (but not explaining) that our ‘being’ is one and the same as our brain. Consider, for example, that damage to specific parts of the brain not only impair certain parts of personality but can also destroy specific memories. That’s because these things are physically one and the same as the brain. We just don’t understand the subjective concious experience but there are some pretty solid boundaries delimiting what it is not.
If I lived before the development of our modern understanding of neuroscience and the invention of computers, I would not have enough evidence to be convinced that it was false even in our universe
I agree. In prehistory I would have believed the breeze in the crops was the work of elves and that thunder was sent by Thor because that’s what it looks like and they didn’t know better. But we don’t live there. And we do know better.
but presumably souls would be assigned to bodies some time before birth
by who?
There’s no evidence for this, of course. If one wants to pick the Judeo-Christian tradition there’s still no reason to believe it given the bible that Jesus used considers early foetuses to not be people.
and a child would be a pickup truck without the engine or what?
what makes you think a child is not a ful-fledged
humanautomobile?i was making fun of the post because a fetus or a child arent just adults with parts missing
A fetus technically is a human with most of the parts missing, so is a heart transplant or a strand of fallen out hair.
In practice though, during the usual period where abortion can happen a fetus is not much more human than a load of semen. Okay, it’s technically diploid, but still just a bunch of cells.
Refusing an abortion for the life of the “child” in the first few months is like refusing a heart transplant for the wellbeing of your original heart.
i meant a fetus is not just a human with a bunch of parts missing. there are other differences to go with that, like being way smaller and needing another person’s body to survive.
edit: for example, a fetus isn’t just an adult’s legs, while in the post, the “truck fetus” is the equivalent of that
In this example a child would be a pickup truck.
i dont see how the adult pickup truck wouldn’t be a fully built one, since real children aren’t considered fully developed human beings
plus the pickup truck could be called elderly when it’s parts aren’t working as well.
This is where the metaphor breaks down. Cars don’t reproduce through sexual activity or experience a long period of maturity.
my whole point was that it wasn’t a good metaphor
