You must log in or register to comment.
As thought emporium pointed out, egg based artificial meat is a pretty good idea.
oh my god this is why we lose all the goddamn time. why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments? this comparison is dumb for multiple reasons. viability is arbitrary and irrelevant, and most importantly could be subject to change. some people talk about the fetus technically being a parasite; that makes you sound psychotic.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal. you can’t be forced to donate an organ or blood to your own child. the only reason one is forced and one isn’t is because of the general idea that men will be in one of those situations.
there’s no reason to accept their framing on any of this and try to beat them in some sort of logical trap. they’ll move the goalpost. they’re not serious about any of this. this is and has always been about controlling the woman, and the counter therefore should be about the woman.
everything about the fetus is just bullshit. if they cared about the fetus they’d argue for its wellbeing literally at any point after the first moment of its birth but they don’t. THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY BABY. why would they care about a goddamn chick? no it’s always only about women. the baby stuff is a smokescreen to get you to argue mind numbingly stupid shit like this.
oh my god if I were arguing with an anti choice moron and someone “on my side” would butt in with “but we kill chicks though” I would smack them across the face. stop being weird.
why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments?
It’s an ongoing struggle and essentially everybody hates you when you point out just how many pro-choice arguments are either just fucking dumb and ineffective or try to argue for being pro-choice as an application of a broader principle that doesn’t get treated as half as important in most other cases where it’s application would be controversial.
It’s even worse when you yourself are pro-choice and it’s just pointing out that bad or inconsistent arguments are bad or inconsistent.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal.
Freedom over your own body is really only sold as some kind of highest principle specifically in pro-choice arguments and blood and tissue donations. Usually the counter arguments rely on the notion that there’s a point where you’ve agreed to the thing and can’t demand it be undone (you can’t for example donate a kidney and then demand it back), which for pregnancy brings it back around to things like whether or not a human being in the earliest stages of its life counts as a person that you’ve presumably consented to create by engaging in the reproductive act.
Also, by all appearances the line for when the bodily autonomy argument is seen as acceptable is specifically when the process involved is wholly biological - the moment it can be abstracted from that even a little bit suddenly bodily autonomy no longer applies.
A fun hypothetical to throw out there is this - artificial wombs are currently in development for agricultural use because they could potentially increase yields and reduce emissions (once the tech is mature, it’s hypothetically cheaper and cleaner to run an artificial womb than maintain a whole cow per head of beef per season). This tech could probably be adapted for human use. So, in a hypothetical where artificial wombs are perfected for human use, would you support banning abortion in favor of transplanting to an artificial womb if the prognosis for the woman was the same, knowing that she will of course be responsible for the resulting child? If no, are you really arguing from bodily autonomy since the part involving the woman’s body has been removed from the equation?
it’s fine; I was expecting dumb fucks who make dumb arguments all the time to not read into all that. most of the downvotes probably assume I’m pro life despite the fact that I’m pro choice. not only that but I support abortion without restrictions. don’t care about viability as I think it’s a weak basis, I don’t care if it’s the tenth month.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother, and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that. you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
nah maybe if you’d have the baby conceived inside the artificial womb from the start…?
then you’d have other questions like is it ok to force a baby to be born without any parents in their life… whole other can of worms which is about the baby’s welfare, which is why this hypothetical will never be discussed by anti choice people because they don’t give a shit about the baby and aren’t the least bit interested in what would happen to them if you remove the woman from the equation.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother,
It’s not “part of the mother” once it is no longer physically tethered to her, if it’s no longer physically attached to her body why would bodily autonomy be relevant? Like, the entire point is to separate bodily autonomy from being made responsible for a child, because it demonstrates that the argument isn’t really about bodily autonomy, not entirely.
To throw you another loop along these lines - if something that was part of your body remains part of your body once removed and you keep overriding power over what happens to it afterward would that mean after you donate blood you have absolute power over who is allowed to receive that blood henceforth?
and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that.
Once it’s not attached to her body and is therefore not a matter of bodily autonomy, why shouldn’t she be compelled to provide for it’s continued existence whether or not she wants the child? Maybe threaten her with jail if she doesn’t comply with payments to keep the gestation going.
you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
In this hypothetical no one is forcing anyone to transfer their fetus, they can carry the pregnancy or terminate the pregnancy as is their preference but what they can’t do is terminate the pregnancy and then kill the fetus, instead a terminated pregnancy doesn’t free you of the future child. Ending a pregnancy in this hypothetical doesn’t end the future responsibility for a child, which is why it’s illustrative of how it’s not entirely about bodily autonomy, not really.
And for a fun question, what do you think happens legally if you ejaculate somewhere (anywhere other than a vagina is fine for this hypothetical) and someone retrieves that sperm and manages to inseminate themselves with it against your will or even knowledge? I’ll give you a hint, it involves future responsibility for any resulting child. Same situation as applies for reproductive coercion, sexual assault and statutory rape for a person who produces the smaller reproductive cell (to use the US federal government approved phrasing).
if it is part of your body the removal is still the removal of part of your body. you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me. as I said the only way you could remove bodily autonomy from the equation is if the fetus never enters the body (eg it all happens in the artificial womb).
and this entire hypothetical completely avoids my main point which is that the bodily autonomy problem comes into play not because of the pro-choice side. it’s because of the anti-choice side. the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
that’s why this hypothetical will never be the problem because if the woman is not involved there wouldn’t be an anti-choice side because THEY. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. THE FETUS. it’s never about the fetus. which is also why you see people moralize based on religion even though their religion doesn’t actually oppose abortion as a concept.
also the law you cite is stupid and doesn’t have any weight on what ought to happen. it’s also legal to marry children in some states, doesn’t make it ok.
you can’t say it’s OK to cut off my hand because once it’s off, it’s no longer attached to me.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
the whole point of the entire conversation is the control over women, and the unborn is just a pretense.
And I’m literally arguing that the pro-choice side isn’t being honest about it either, that claiming it’s exclusively about bodily autonomy is also just pretense. Notice that I’m suggesting a hypothetical where bodily autonomy and still having the child are detached from each other, where ending the pregnancy doesn’t mean you don’t still end up with a baby to deal with and you instead keep trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy because the alternative is admitting that to an extent it isn’t because that idea is uncomfortable to grapple with.
it’s also legal to marry children in some states
Yeah, California do be like that (seriously, CA has no minimum age of marriage if you can get a judge to sign off on it). Until 2022 MA had no hard minimum and only required parental consent to marry under 18. Most other states with “child marriage” are something like hard minimum of 16 or 17 and requires sign off from parents, a judge, or both for marriage under 18 (likewise in most states the age of consent is 16).
Actually surprised no enterprising pedophile with enough money to bribe someone has tried marrying a very young child in CA (or until 2022 MA) then traveling to somewhere like NM where marriage is an exception to age of consent.
No, but I can say that if you ask me to remove your hand, what happens to the hand after it is removed is not a matter of your bodily autonomy.
says who? you can’t force people to donate organs even after they die.
trying to find a way to make that still about bodily autonomy
I’m not trying to make it about bodily autonomy. I’m saying what it is in reality, while you are arguing some abstract hypothetical situation to make an irrelevant point.
once again, if your hypothetical were a reality the whole argument would cease to exist. it would either be legal or illegal but it wouldn’t be the battleground that it is because the battle isn’t about babies.
All right I’m convinced, we should be eating fetuses
Tastes like chimken
Atheist here, we apparently love to eat babies. tune in Tuesday for recipes.
Ye an unborn chick and an unfertilised egg is practically the same thing nutrition-wise anyway
/s?
Why did they forget to put in the bullet of them both being delicious?
I think there is a thing to only create female chicken now so they won’t have to kill 50 percent of them.
It’s funny the amount of downvotes every single comment on this thread has.
There are still religious folks on Lemmy, I imagine.
Laws preventing all forms of chick culling exist in Germany, France, and Luxembourg. Switzerland and Austria forbid shredding but allowing gasing male chicks (Austrians really love their gas chambers). There are ongoing discussions about forbidding the practice in most of Western Europe (AFAIK only the UK doesn’t have ongoing discussions).
Is that really a good thing for the animals though? Instead of being killed right away, they will suffer a short miserable life, then be killed.
In Germany the eggs are tested early on the incubation period and if they are male, they are never hatched.
Ideally, these male chicks could be taken to an animal sanctuaries. With the scale of the industry and the rarity of farmed animal sanctuaries, it wouldn’t be possible for all of them. For the ones that can be rescued, life on a sanctuary is much better than in the wild or on a farm in a dark shed.
I think one of the problems is that you basically can’t keep many roosters together (I’m not even sure you can keep two roosters together). That means that for a sanctuary you need huge space so that the roosters don’t kill each other. So while I also buy eggs that guarantee that the male chicks will be raised, I wonder how this is supposed to work if I pay only like 50 cents per egg and half of the hatched eggs are male.
(Note that my knowledge on rooster farming comes from a German or possibly German-French documentary on that, so I might be talking out of my ass here.)
(I think I just remember that 2€/egg was the price calculated in the documentary for ethical farming without losses for the farmers. This was some years ago. To be fair - I’d totally pay that for an egg. Egg as an ingredient can be easily substituted and as a standalone dish it can be something special that I’m willing to pay for. )
I saw this German documentary about the egg industry.
They ship the males out of country where they are raised in sheds, then sold to Africa.
I think the best solution is to not buy eggs. A good replacement is mung bean flour. It has similar nutrition and flavor, can be obtained cheaply, and spares chickens from being exploited by humans.
whether you buy eggs or not, the industry doesn’t change
It does, its called a “boycott”
what is your plan to get enough people to boycott eggs to stop there industrial production?
You need about 5 hens per rooster, unless you only have a single one, then you can get away with less. More than 5 of course doesn’t hurt, but usually 5 hens per rooster is enough to prevent them from killing each other.
Source: I keep chickens
So they can theoretically be held together? Like, 3 roosters 15 chicken in one group?
Also, and I am sorry if this sounds dumb, but is there any kind of birth control for chicken? Or do you just eat fresh eggs with 1 day old embryos inside all the time? Can you castrate a rooster?
(Wait isn’t there even a dish with a castrated rooster? I think it was in a play by Bertold Brecht)
So they can theoretically be held together? Like, 3 roosters 15 chicken in one group?
Yes
Also, and I am sorry if this sounds dumb, but is there any kind of birth control for chicken?
No, hens don’t immediately start hatching their eggs when they lay them, they try to collect about 8 before they do so. There are no embryos inside the fertilized eggs when you eat them
Can you castrate a rooster?
No, because their scrotum is not outside of their body
Capons are a thing. It’s not common to castrate roosters, because it’s extra effort, but the taste is different so people do it.
Austrians really love their gas chambers
They’re like Alabama, Arizona, California, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wyoming in that aspect.
Technically, California hasn’t used that method of execution since 1993, but that’s still a lot more recent than your Austrian with the funny moustache 🤷
Yeah, but the fetus can eventually be used for slave labor, including the production of more slaves. The male chicks are more useful being shredded for cheap slave fodder. If we generate enough value for our masters in this way, they’ll let us join them. Blessed be the fruit.
be used for slave labor, including the production of more slaves.
That’s the theory they had. Turns out humans don’t breed that well in captivity. In practice the birth rate keeps dropping and is now way below replacement rates.
I know you’re going for the joke, but it’s way to close to why a lot of these people want to outlaw reproductive healthcare.
In reality, humans have more children in bad circumstances, and less when we’re educated, have life options, don’t need children to work as labor for the family, don’t need them to provide for us when we get old, and have confidence that they’ll survive.
In bad times we have a lot of children for better odds and more hands to do work, and in good times we have fewer to concentrate our resources on.
It’s why they want to ban reproductive healthcare and tank the economy: in 20 years there’ll be a wave of economic demand and labor supply. That the individual will be broke, have no future, and no education is irrelevant.
In bad times we have a lot of children for better odds and more hands to do work,
That used to be true until children were not allowed to work anymore. They’re quietly trying to roll that child labor of course.
in 20 years there’ll be a wave of economic demand and labor supply.
By that time, people are competing against humanoid robots and office AI to see who can do the job the cheapest. Humans are in the end not going to win that race. Robots and AI are a bit silly now but are getting better and cheaper quickly. There will buy a lot of labor supply, but with most people in a trailer park trash existence there won’t be that much demand.
We do still actually see that lower income households tend to have the highest birth rates, even in places where child labor is outlawed.
And I’m gonna disagree about the demand thing. People have demands from the base act of existing. Lower income people have proportionally higher demands. Their entire income is consumed and goes to other people. If you’re looking for people to do economic activity and whatever tasks you need done by a human, low income people are usually incapable of seeking a life elsewhere, and quickly return any compensation they get to circulation near where they are.
Lower income households also have the highest mortality rates and shorter lifespan.
I´d argue higher income people spend money a lot more money on other things than the basics, like apparel, entertainment, travel, starbucks coffee, … Entire industries disappear when people can´t afford the products or services. In times of crisis, people stop certain spending and you get all the restaurants, hotels, amusement parks, fancy shops and so on crying they don´t get as much business anymore and slowly start to go bust.
Turns out humans don’t breed that well in captivity.
Depends on how broad your definition of captivity is 🤷
In terms of economic system, they got us by the balls and are squeezing hard.
Yup, that’s pretty much what I was alluding to.
When all of the things you need in order to live is made artificially scarce by a system you can’t opt out of, that’s a form of captivity if you ask me. And even if you don’t.
While I absolutely agree with the sentiment here, I doubt it’d convince anyone remotely “pro-life” - because one’s “just a chicken”, and the other’s human.
I mean Christ, if you can’t get them to sympathise with the life carrying the fetus, you’re not gonna succeed with a random chicken’s.
Yeah, I get the impression that the thing that drives most pro-lifers is religion (or their twisted interpretation thereof), not compassion. And as far as I’m aware, their religion doesn’t consider animals to even have souls but rather sees them as tools for humankind to use, provided to us.
Unless you account for them thinking of the carrier as just that. A means to an end.
Which is what it’s about. It’s 100% about controlling and punishing women. Everyone’s posting that Satre quote about anti-semites, but not understanding that it’s always applied to this debate too. A pro-life position motivated by tender feelings about embryos is rare; it is that pregnancy gives men power over women. (Weren’t some of the Southern states suing the government due to falling birth rates because teenage mothers are becoming rare? Teenage pregnancy is the way to control the entire course of a women’s life.)
iTs A pErSoN!
animals kant have rights
I don’t personally believe in rights at all. they’re absolutely unnecessary for right behavior or a just society.
Are you absolutely nuts?
How do you define a “just society” without having any concept of rights?
equality and freedom
How do you define freedom without rights?
easily. I just remove the word “right” from my vocabulary.
What’s a just society?
A fantasy apparently.
I define it as one where everyone is equal and free. opinions may vary though.
Why do you want that?
it sounds nice to me
Ok, then why does that sound nice? You gotta see where I’m going with this.
I don’t care for your interrogative style. say what you want.
I want you to understand how your concept of a just society ultimately depends on natural rights, whether or not we call them rights.
Why do you want everyone to be equal and free, why would that be nice? Why should we care?
Carnism and patriarchy are both foundations of fascism.
[citation needed]
“I can excuse abortion, but I draw the line on animal cruelty.”
It’s “I can excuse animal cruelty, but I draw the line on abortion”
You got the joke!
Reasonable take yeah.
Yes.
Correct.
Problematic fact: Animal rights implies the existence of animal wrongs.
Anybody with a dog will know that animal wrongs are very real.
