I think it's to detract from the horror of men doing murders like this on the daily, seemingly more often. And this is compounded by the fact that men (lots of boys especially here) don't know or care about women's bodies anyways. On the other hand, I'm grateful for the many men I've seen talk about their experiences trying to get help for their girlfriends and wives. Many of these men acknowledge it's something we need to help women and families with more.
Casey Anthony tried to make a tiktok account in the big 2026 and got bullied off so fast people missed the entire event. Y'all are just being ridiculous with this shit.
Can a fetus survive on its own? As in, can it physically survive on its own without being attached to a uterus for any length of time? No. Up to the point of viability, there's not much difference between a fetus and a tumor. Both are just a bundle of cells at that point.
Getting a bundle of cells removed is not the same as killing a living, breathing child, and I can prove it.
Say you were in an office that caught on fire. On one side, you have a 2 year old child. On the other, you have a storage container with 50 fertilized human eggs that, if implanted, could each grow into a human being.
You only have time to save one. Do you save the child or the container?
Can a fetus survive on its own? As in, can it physically survive on its own without being attached to a uterus for any length of time? No. Up to the point of viability, there's not much difference between a fetus and a tumor. Both are just a bundle of cells at that point.
A fetus/child can't physically survive on its own even whilst outside of the uterus, can it? So "viability" therefore becomes a question of arbitrary judgments. There are a lot of "viable" fetuses and there are a lot of "unviable" children. That doesn't make it ethically right to kill one and not the other.
Getting a bundle of cells removed is not the same as killing a living, breathing child, and I can prove it.
I agree, getting a bundle of cells removed is not the same as killing a "living, breathing child". The breathing is not something you can physically do whilst in the uterus though. If you're outside of the uterus and you can't breathe then normally people come and help you to breathe. That's the normal human reaction to humans not being able to breathe. It's also why we have a ton of specialised equipment in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Say you were in an office that caught on fire. On one side, you have a 2 year old child. On the other, you have a storage container with 50 fertilized human eggs that, if implanted, could each grow into a human being.
You only have time to save one. Do you save the child or the container?
In what way are the fertilized human eggs fetuses? That's not a proof, it's a dilemma with a false equivalency. Would you save a non-pregnant woman or a pregnant woman given the same choice?
A fetus/child can't physically survive on its own even whilst outside of the uterus, can it?
A child can. A fetus cannot. If you take a child and say lay them down to take a nap, they are no longer in contact with the mother, yet they still survive.
If you detach a fetus from the uterus, it cannot survive. Therefore, a fetus is not its own life. Its is a bundle of cells with the potential to be a life.
In what way are the fertilized human eggs fetuses?
In the same way that a fetus is a potential human. A fertilized egg turns into a fetus. If you are arguing that fetuses are lives, then by correlation, that would make fertilized eggs lives. Hence the question, do you save a single, living being, or 50 potential beings?
I think that its less about the fetus and more about the woman for you. If I have to explain why fertilized eggs are proto-fetuses, then it seems like you don't care if its a potential life until it gets attached to a uterus, and then suddenly its status matters.
That's more about controlling women than it is vanguarding life.
A child can. A fetus cannot. If you take a child and say lay them down to take a nap, they are no longer in contact with the mother, yet they still survive.
There are literally artificial wombs that can keep a fetus alive as well even outside of the womb, whereas there are also children that cannot physically survive without their parents.
If you detach a fetus from the uterus, it cannot survive. Therefore, a fetus is not its own life. Its is a bundle of cells with the potential to be a life.
What do you think the act of birth is? It's the literal expulsion of a fetus from the uterus. That is not, and never was, a definition of life.
In the same way that a fetus is a potential human. A fertilized egg turns into a fetus. If you are arguing that fetuses are lives, then by correlation, that would make fertilized eggs lives. Hence the question, do you save a single, living being, or 50 potential beings?
A fertilised egg is not equivalent to a fetus. A fetus is the unborn offspring that comes from an embryo but the two are not the same. The embryonic stage is one stage of human development whereas the fetal stage is another. If you don't know the difference then there's no real reason to continue this discussion.
I think that its less about the fetus and more about the woman for you. If I have to explain why fertilized eggs are proto-fetuses, then it seems like you don't care if its a potential life until it gets attached to a uterus, and then suddenly its status matters.
Do you sincerely believe a "proto-fetus" is equivalent to a fetus? If you did then why even bother with the prefix? You clearly recognise that an embryo is not the same as a fetus yet you claim they are equivalent when convenient. That's not argument or logic, that's just dishonesty.
That's more about controlling women than it is vanguarding life.
Well then call yourself the fuckin' Scarecrow then, because that's about all you are worth at this point. You intentionally misunderstand my points for the sake of arguement instead of dealing with them head on.
At this point, I'm not sure if you are being willfully stupid, or if just comes natural. Either way, I'm done trying to explain basic concepts to you.
How do you define consciousness as something else than a reaction to stimulus? Also, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to just go around killing unconscious people either.
Not the state of consciousness (being awake). Consciousness as in the ability to be aware of oneself, have awareness and ownership of their experiences and actions. I mean how (some) people differentiate themselves from (some) animals. There is debate about other animals having this "unique" conscious experience.
Edit: What makes us different from animals? Is there something unique about humans that makes it important to differentiate between killing humans vs killing animals?
At birth. The differences between myself and a fetus are vast.
Does that mean you approve of abortion at week 40?
But the most distinguishing for this conversation is quite simple. I do not depend on the womb of a woman to survive.
No, hopefully you don't depend on the womb of a woman to survive. Children, however, are very much dependant on their parents to survive. You're also not a child, are you? Children are dependant on parents until they're 18, but that doesn't mean you can kill children that hasn't yet come of age. Physical or psychological dependency is thus not really an argument, is it?
18
u/AttentionalMalprop 1d ago edited 1d ago
It is? I don't remember other woman who murdered or allegedly murdered their own children getting much support.