- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Pro-life and pro-choice is interchangeable with pro-quantity and pro-quality.
No… No this isn’t right. This is not at all what its like.
First panel (upper left) Server: “You will have the steak mam” Woman: “Umm no, I don’t want the steak”
Second Panel (upper right) Man: “Sorry dear, I didn’t wash my hand before we sat down to eat even though we agreed I would. Guess you have to have Steak.” Server: “Thus you will have the steak”
Third Panel (lower left) Woman: “Okay, instead of all this how about I walk out instead of all of this” Server and Man: “Sorry no, we can’t allow that to happen. You have to sit down and have the steak.”
Forth Panel (lower right) “This is what its like to have pro life forced on you.”
This is my worry after they repeal same sex marriage. They will come after ALL woman next.
I don’t think any of those scenarios focus on what happens to an unwanted steak. Abortion bans are horrible for all the little steaks who don’t get to have parents who wanted them, too.
At least you can grind them up to make hamburger.
Maybe there’s something here…
And the steak might kill the woman… Because its some kind of poison or the woman can’t digest steak … But she is forced to eat the steak
deleted by creator
See also, supply-driven capitalism
‘What are “reverse logistics”? If no one bought it, just throw that shit out’ -supply-driven capitalism
That’s why reducing your individual consumption won’t stop the waste.
If half of the shit is thrown out every week, less shit will be produced next week.
Masterpiece 🌟
A comic well done.
probably one of like 3 cartoons from this that isn’t just fucking weird with no reason to exist. execution still feels a bit lacking though
The real question is ketchup versus butter and we all know it.
I do both. First the ketchup, then a hard slice of butter into the puddle of ketchup. It’s the best way to eat children!
The real question as in not really a question?
Sir, this is Ruth’s Chris.
Nobody cares because nobody ordered it.
Human lives are only valuable if they serve a purpose
Human lives are only worth living if they aren’t destined to a life of pain and hardship without any clear path to peace and love.
Abortion is almost always the moral choice.
Abortion is almost always the moral choice.
Are you implying context for this statement or do you really believe that creating new life is (almost always) immoral?
The vast majority of humans do find love.
I’ll do the unpopular argument today…
Creating life is always a selfish action and cannot be morally justified. There are no reasons for it that do no begin and end in pure self interest.
Even if you’re infinitely wealthy with all the free time to care for and guaranteed friendly people to support your child, it would still be a selfish act to force a being into existence to experience joy as much as it would be to experience sorrow.
You never got their consent and the human species has a ridiculously strong drive against suicide. There’s essentially no ‘out’ for them if they don’t like whatever you prepared.
There are no reasons for it that do no begin and end in pure self interest.
Doing something out of self interest does not make it immoral. Creating art out of pure self interest doesn’t make it immoral either.
it would still be a selfish act to force a being into existence to experience joy as much as it would be to experience sorrow.
Forcing a being to exist is no more selfish than forcing a being not to exist.
By the upvotes it is clear that our readers agree with you, but I’m more than happy to go on record saying your philosophy is empirically invalidated by the fact that you are posting this.
Ah, but an argument doesn’t have to be shared in order to have merit.
I added the part about humanity’s aversion to suicide for a reason. To counter this silly part of the argument.
It’s incredibly difficult to choose to commit suicide as a human. Every one of our drives and instincts is against it. An extremely rare number of us can do it in as a sacrifice to others, and only a few more than them can choose to do it as an escape from their own pain. Even amongst them, those that manage to survive the attempt will usually never attempt it again. It’s an incredibly rare number of humans that can try to commit suicide repeatedly.
But it’s not their fault or virtue, any of them. It is logic either winning against or failing against instinct.
Some of us are here today solely because we cannot overcome this instinct and have decided to let fate decide. Some still have embraced fact we lost against this instinct and have decided to make light of life until our misery is over.
But there are plenty today, and I think the up votes reinforce this, that would take a painless death in a heartbeat even if they aren’t clinically suicidal. Life is that bad for most people.
Life is so bad that we had to come up with a divine justification for our suffering. A meaning to this existence beyond anything we can find on earth, because earth has no such justification for the suffering of life. Nothing excuses it.
The only parents I forgive are teen parents whose hormones fully overtook any thought process. If you’re an adult and have a child, you’re a selfish bastard that chose to damn another life to 80 years of suffering.
there are plenty today […] that would take a painless death in a heartbeat even if they aren’t clinically suicidal. Life is that bad for most people.
Most people aren’t suicidal, not even passively. A small minority is passively suicidal (and that minority is very loud on Lemmy and Reddit), but generally humans do enjoy life.
Had me in the first half, ngl
That’s existed long before capitalism. Capitalism is a huge stain on existence, but life has always required resources to sustain.
And for all of its ills, capitalism solved scarcity. There’s more than enough to house and feed everyone on the planet. And yet the vast majority of us are still, at best, dedicating our lives to feeding the beast in the name of feeding ourselves. With many living in abject poverty, on the edge of starvation.
It’s no longer a problem of resource availability. It’s now a matter of resource allocation.
I think this is a failure of merit distribution. Technology,collaboration, and industrialization solved scarcity. Capitalists argue that it was capitalism which spurned the extreme speed of these advancements - I’d argue that society was already having it’s advancements accelerate. I’d argue that we solved scarcity directly in spite of capitalism, which only feeds off this advancement parasitically.
Point taken.
