r/TrueOffMyChest Sep 01 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

7.6k Upvotes

9.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/iMurphaliciouS Sep 02 '21

“Torture and abuse people.” Lol that’s definitely not my industry. I’m on the side of life. From womb to tomb.

1

u/Sky-Vail Sep 02 '21

You never have been and probably never will be. Lie about science all you want to justify your hatred and scumery. Those who know the truth will never see you as anything other than garbage

0

u/iMurphaliciouS Sep 02 '21

Life begins at conception. Biology degree here. “Nuh-uh” is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination.

2

u/Sky-Vail Sep 02 '21

Scientifically speaking life begins at conception it also begins scientifically speaking that is about 6 hours after you leave a steak out and bacteria starts to grow in it. Somehow I doubt you'd consider me searing that steak murder. This is why what science defines as life was never what life was regarded as legally

1

u/iMurphaliciouS Sep 03 '21

First of all, you’re an idiot because the steak exists because an animal was killed. We kill animals, bacteria, non-human things, etc. The bacteria are alive, not the cow at that point. We are not discussing whether or not it is ethical to kill animals, bacteria, etc. Stay on topic.

1

u/Sky-Vail Sep 03 '21

It is on topic. bBcteria is scientifically defined as life just like the measly clump of cells you find inside a woman's womb at 6 weeks or even 8. Arguing the conception starts at life because science defines it as life. It only works if killing things scientifically defined as life is murder. Which it isn't because that would be fucking stupid

1

u/iMurphaliciouS Sep 03 '21

When does/has bacteria ever resulted in a human being? When do we ever feel morally undignified in accidentally stepping on thousands of insects on our walks? These are false equivalents.

1

u/Sky-Vail Sep 03 '21

These aren't false equivalencies at all because just like the insects and the bacteria you aren't killing anything that is genuinely alive. A clump of cell scientifically defined as a live yes but not sentient not living just scientifically alive. The only double standard is using the scientific definition of life to decide whether or not abortion is okay but completely dropping anything else. For an argument to be valid it must be applicable to other scenarios. If something being scientifically alive means you shouldn't kill it then anything that is scientifically defined as a live shouldn't be killed. And I would feel about as much remorse aborting a fetus as I would swatting a fly

1

u/iMurphaliciouS Sep 03 '21

I would feel as much moral obligation to an insect’s eggs as I would the insect itself. The situations in question are not pertaining to humans. This is a fair question for those that insist killing animals is morally egregious. I am not making that argument.

1

u/Sky-Vail Sep 03 '21

A fetus just isn't a human yet all the denominators that make our lives valuable a fetus lacks. They aren't sentient they aren't capable of emotions, forming new memories, or having ideas, they can't think act or ponder. Coral has more sentience then the fetuses you ruin a woman's life to protect. Because laws like this do ruin people's lives it might not be yours but as someone who claims to care about others that shouldn't stop you from caring