r/hatethissmug • u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 • 10h ago

Non-fictional I HATE these "gotcha arguments"

Post image

"Ohhh, look how I tricked this dumb dumb baby in my trap so now I am right and they are wrong. I'm so smaaart even though it does not adress the actual argument and adds nothing to the debate. They teach arabic numerals in school btw."

And these type of comments always get tons of likes

113 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

764 comments sorted by

View all comments

881

u/Even-Tear-6965 10h ago

I think it addresses how uneducated people are about fetuses or just about conception and pregnancy as a whole yet still believe they know enough to be hold strong rigid opinions.

233

u/FeyMoth 10h ago

Most people don't know enough about most things to have opinions but the internet has tricked people into thinking their opinions matter no matter how uneducated they are

95

u/HumbleConversation42 10h ago

just look at how some people use medical terms in a completely wrong way. "trauma bonding" is one of the bigger examples

65

u/MrBoblo 10h ago

Overstimulated is another great example. It seems like neurotypical people are getting overstimulated from texts from their parents man, it's destroying the actual meaning of the word

7

u/astro_thefur 6h ago

"texts I get when I'm already overstimulated" đŸ€Ș

Shut the fuck uppp

59

u/HugeExplanation7865 10h ago

Doplhin fetuses can look very similiar to human fetuses at some stages.

34

u/Kubas_inko 9h ago

Applies to practically all fetus I think.

50

u/RedHair09 10h ago

Problem is all fetuses look very similar to the points it’s used as an argument for evolution

4

u/Amber-Apologetics 6h ago

The issue here is that people take a philosophical issue (the morality of abortion) and try to imply that the purely material science of biology can affect it.

37

u/Not_So_Normal_ 10h ago edited 10h ago

Most pro choice people cant tell the difference either, Saying this as pro choice, its just a bad faith argument 

19

u/ThatAnonymousPotato 9h ago

Thats literally the entire point of the argument.

Pro-forced birth people parrot that human life is sacred and special in all forms, but when you show them a picture of a dolphin fetus next to a human fetus, its hard for a lay person to spot the difference.

Literally pointing out that (a) humans aren't really on any special pedestal besides the one we put ourselves on and (b) that if its this difficult to discern the species the fetus even belongs to, maybe pro-forced birthed have a flawed understanding about fetal development, abortions, and the birthing process in general and should consider that a cluster of cells, despite being a human, has zero markers of a person.

3

u/Yadin__ 9h ago

but even a person who has a perfect understanding of how fetal development works wouldn't be able to tell the difference, because all early stage mamalian fetuses look very similar. And the question of what counts as a human isn't a purely scientific one anyway so someone being uneducated on the science isn't really relevant

5

u/Bad_Routes 7h ago

Someone being uneducated on the subject is wholly relevant and part of the point. The point of pro choice is "allow a patient and a doctor to determine what is best between them". This is a fundamental right that everyone should have access to and something that pro birthers want to specifically remove from a caricature of a woman that likes having abortions for fun. News flash most of them aren't medical professionals

-1

u/Yadin__ 7h ago

idk why you're spouting completely irrelevant talking points at me. How does any of that relate to what I said?

2

u/Bad_Routes 6h ago

It relates to what you said about them not being educated on a subject. Pro birthers feel like their opinion on how medical experts advise their patients matter more than the medical expert and their specific patient.

2

u/Trips-Over-Tail 6h ago

Someone with perfect understanding of cross-species foetal development can absolutely tell the difference.

1

u/Yadin__ 6h ago

Based off of a single picture with no context? No they wouldn't, becuase all mamalian early stage fetuses look very similar to each other

3

u/Trips-Over-Tail 5h ago

They look similar, yes. Put them next to each other and differences can be identified with enough experience. The trained eye will recognise those differences without comparison.

53

u/Aless76109 10h ago

Yeah but I think the point is that while pro-choice people are saying “do whatever you want reasonably”, pro-life people are trying to remove women’s choice inherently insisting that they know more, so poking a hole in their logic by showing that they don’t actually know what they’re talking about is still better and less in “bad faith”

2

u/Elliezium 5h ago

There are plenty of holes in "pro-life" people's arguments, but "you don't know exactly what a human fetus looks like" really doesn't get at any of them. None of their arguments actually rely on that, they don't claim to be experts on fetuses

1

u/Goosepond01 4h ago

I don't agree simply because if they are arguing they know more it probably isn't them arguing that they know exactly what a dolphin fetus or human fetus looks like, especially if both can look very alike.

-3

u/i__dont___know 10h ago

But it doesn’t prove they’re uneducated and don’t know what they’re talking about as it has nothing to due with the topic at hand. It’s also a bit dishonest to say pro choicers just want “do whatever you want reasonably” like come on you can have your stance on abortion but don’t act like it isn’t still an important discussion to have. The burden isn’t only on pro lifers to prove their pov.

6

u/grizzy45 9h ago

The group denying the others autonomy has to prove its POV. The group which doesn't deny others autonomy has not.

0

u/i__dont___know 8h ago

And what about the group ending a human life? Is half of pro choices stance not denying the value of another life? Don’t you think it’s really important to prove that the life your ending isn’t truly human?

2

u/grizzy45 7h ago

We already did prove that tho. The pro life people just don't care about sience.

1

u/i__dont___know 7h ago

Who proved what? Science actually agrees with pro lifers as only the only clear cut distinction made so far is that a new human with an entirely unique set of human DNA separate from the mother and father is created with the zygote. There is no clean line where a human becomes conscious and it certainly isn’t birth. How can science prove that bodily autonomy can override a life at different stages of development? That’s a moral problem.

4

u/grizzy45 7h ago

Science can probe and did prove that a fetus does not have an experience. It has for a long time no ability to produce its own experience

2

u/i__dont___know 7h ago

Thats a blatantly false statement to make for the entire pregnancy. Sure it’s true for some time in the development process but the line where that stops isn’t concrete and can’t be ignored when ending a life. And that’s under the presumption that not being able to experience makes a life null and void as it’s still a living. Does a comatose person lose their right to live?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ruggab0ut 7h ago

Neither do babies up to the age of 2 or 3.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/grizzy45 7h ago

Thought experiment. A psycho connects your heart to my heart with tubes. Should you be allowed to destroy the tubes to go on with your bodily autonomy even if it would kill me?

2

u/i__dont___know 7h ago

The classic violinist argument. This situation is only comparable to rape specifically since it removes all choice that a normal pregnancy would have with the consensual option of vaginal sex. You don’t just magically get pregnant at random. You can’t consensually do an action that could connect you to me then cut the tube and kill me.

2

u/grizzy45 7h ago

A condom ripping or a lot of other circunstances can make you pregnant without any fault of your own.

-1

u/i__dont___know 7h ago

You full well know going into sex that condoms aren’t full proof and decide that it’s a risk worth taking for pleasure. My saying is don’t put the baby making part in the other baby making part if you don’t want a baby. There are plenty of ways to be sexually intimate with your partner otherwise. Vaginal sex for pleasure is not a need and does not give you the right to kill your fetus because you were horny.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/moedexter1988 9h ago

True dat. Both make a lot of horrible arguments. I even have seen uneducated pro-choicers.

-15

u/Kitchen-Function5150 9h ago

(Very proud choice btw)

Come on, pro life people's goal isnt to limit the rights of women. Most of them would easily acknowledge that women benefit from having the option. Their belief is that the fetus is inherently valuable and that killing it is wrong.

If women were allowed to kill anyone who harassed them, that would also benefit women, but we agree that killing people is wrong so we limit that freedom. The disagreement is fundamentally not centered on women's rights, it's about the value of a fetus.

17

u/Foreversssssssss 9h ago

You’re not pro choice lmao. The fetus, when unwanted, is essentially a parasite sucking life out of you. It isn’t alive, it’s a clump of cells, and it is killing you from the inside out. If you’re allowed to take medicine to get rid of viruses and shit you should be able to get rid of fetuses.

0

u/Kitchen-Function5150 7h ago

I think you're dumb as rocks because I literally agree with you that it's a valueless clump of cells. You assume that juat because I am working within the bounds of a premise to steelman another position that I also accept that premise and position. I am pro choice for many reasons. I assumed putting that in my comment would reduce the need for your type of response.

I believe banning abortion kills women. I believe early stage fetuses have no inherent value. I believe leaving it up to the government to decide which abortions are allowed endangers and kills women. I believe doctors and women can decide when abortion is the right choice for them. There, are you happy now?

-4

u/Vahlez 9h ago

You’re literally the problem. You can’t even acknowledge the point of the pro-life crowd is that they genuinely believe that baby fetuses are still human. This isn’t a question that science can answer cleanly by the way. This argument has no clean answer and the fact that people get so passionate about their side is silly.

8

u/koalascanbebearstoo 8h ago

I mean, if you truly believed that fetuses were human life endowed with human rights to life and dignity, then I’m not sure it would be “silly” to feel passionate about stopping a genocide on the scale of about six Holocausts a year.

And if you truly believe that restrictions on abortion are the first step to returning women to a state of sexual/marital servitude that rolls back 100 years of gender equality progress then—again—it doesn’t exactly seem “silly” to have a strong reaction to that.

0

u/Vahlez 8h ago

Yea I may have worded that poorly. The silly part is the lack of acknowledgement of what the other side cares about.

-3

u/AlextheAnt06 8h ago

It literally cannot be a parasite because it’s the same species as its mother. And wtf does “sucking life out of you” mean? That’s not a valid medical term.

-3

u/Ruggab0ut 7h ago edited 4h ago

All babies consumes resources that otherwise could have gone to you and produce nothing in return. Why are they not parasites when fetuses are?

-2

u/froginabucket69 6h ago

This is such an inhumane way of thinking that it’s almost difficult to approach.

If the ONLY way you can rationalize getting an abortion is by dehumanizing the HUMAN fetus within you, then you don’t deserve to have that option.

1

u/Foreversssssssss 5h ago edited 5h ago

Okay, so, if I stick with that logic, you would rather doom a child who I’d resent and dislike than let me have the option to abort? Are you aware that that HUMAN fetus becomes a human? Fuck, I feel like people like you never consider what will happen to the child who wasn’t wanted. Dooming the woman/girl to a life of misery and the child too.

Listen, it really isn’t alive and conscious. When the fetus isn’t wanted, or when the fetus is wanted, it is still a clump of cells that has the potential to become life. That isn’t dehumanising, that’s just science. Whether it’s viewed as a miracle or a parasite depends on the state of the person it’s inhabiting.

1

u/froginabucket69 5h ago

It is objectively alive, and if you really want to die on the hill of consciousness, then I’m afraid you may alienate those who have been through a coma.
It has human cells and a unique genetic profile from the moment of conception.

YOUR misanthropic hatred for another living being should not be the sole decider in whether it lives or dies, especially if it was created through a mutual, consenting effort.

There are plenty of children who go into adoption happy. I imagine that with a better cultural outlook on adoption as a whole, it can only get better.

You want to avoid responsibility in whatever way you can, and are projecting that fear onto a human fetus that had no say in the circumstances of its birth.

1

u/Foreversssssssss 3h ago

Honestly, I’m not misanthropic at all. It’s really the opposite. I love and cherish women, and want them to live happy lives where they retain their autonomy, and I want children to live happy lives where they’re loved and cared for. The adoption system, or foster system, isn’t an easy system. It isn’t easy to get adopted, it isn’t easy to find a foster home, it isn’t easy to be split from your birth parents. Having no fucking clue of what the reality of what life is actually like for kids sent for adoption is naive as fuck.

And comas don’t work that way what the fuck are you talking about?? A clump of cells aren’t the same as people in comas, that’s a crazy comparison. It’s like saying we’re basically dead when we’re sleeping or some shit like that.

3

u/TheFlyingSheeps 8h ago

Except the logical end point of the discussion regarding the rights and values of the fetus is to ban abortion which limits the rights of women to control their reproductive health. The disagreement is actually fundamentally on women’s rights as well because you cannot have a decision on one without the other being impacted

17

u/One-Mixture2184 9h ago

(Very proud choice btw)

parrots pro life strawmans to justify abortion bans

Yeah ok

2

u/Yadin__ 9h ago

They literally just explained the other side's viewpoints because the person they were replying to was making a strawman. As another pro-choice person I would be very concerned if someone were that ignorant of the other side's 'talking points' that they would not recognize the strawman that the comment OP corrected

4

u/One-Mixture2184 9h ago

When I stop hearing "that's what you deserve for having sex", I'll believe it. Until then, using harassment as the analogy is going to remain dumb

0

u/Yadin__ 9h ago

of course it's dumb, it's a pro life argument. But it's a hell of a lot better than "they are just evil and want to take right from women" which was the strawman that was corrected

3

u/TheFlyingSheeps 8h ago

Not really. They tried to dismiss the claims that pro-life isn’t an attack on the rights of women when the logical endpoint of pro-life arguments is to ban abortion, which limits the rights of women. Despite their claims it is center to the discussion and a core disagreement as you cannot affect change one without impacting the other

Their second paragraph is also completely irrelevant and misses the mark.

1

u/Yadin__ 8h ago

They were not dismissing the claim that banning abortion is an attack on the rights of women, they were correcting the premise of pro-lifers' motivation being taking rights away from women, which was what the original comment was framing it as

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kitchen-Function5150 7h ago

Yknow what there are probably some right wing politicians who do see abortion bans as a means of controlling women, which is obviously evil.

My comment represents what the most reasonable type of pro lifer might say. They see women losing their autonomy as an unfortunate side effect of protecting the lives of innocent fetuses.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kitchen-Function5150 8h ago

How is anything i said a pro life strawman? Steelman if anything

-8

u/therealsereny 9h ago

Hehe if I call the argument I disagree with a strawman, I win -you

5

u/One-Mixture2184 9h ago

"You wouldn't kill someone harassing you so abortion should be illegal" isn't a strawman? Okay, fine, it's just a really stupid argument. Is that better?

0

u/Kitchen-Function5150 7h ago

Are you fr? it was an analogy to try to help people understand what I was saying. Maybe next time I'll spell it out more clearly. The point was to illustrate that we all concede that that the right to not be murdered completely trumps the right to prevent suffering. Therefore you cannot kill a person to prevent suffering. If you see a fetus as a person, then the logical extension of this logic is to say that you cannot kill a fetus to prevent your own suffering.

Therefore, to convince a pro lifer that abortion is a valid method to prevent women suffering through unwanted pregnancy, you have to convince them that a fetus is not a person.

13

u/TaroJayda 9h ago

Is this r/asablackman but for pro-choice? Pro lifers don’t want the baby to stay alive (as evidenced by the fact that they don’t want their taxes to pay for its food and education) they just want the woman to be forced to birth it.

I feel like a pro-choice person wouldn’t dismiss pro choice arguments out of hand and blindly espouse pro life propaganda like you do.

2

u/Kitchen-Function5150 7h ago

Pro choice arguments about women's rights are valid. That's why I agree with them. They are simply on a smaller scope than 1 entire human life if you believe that the fetus counts as 1 entire human life. I do not believe the fetus counts as 1 entire human life, so I believe we should protect women's health and autonomy with higher priority. Those argument will, however, not convince someone who believes the fetus has a soul and should be valued as a person.

And yeah most pro lifers are also generally not very intelligent and don't agree with policies that would help a person actually life a good life.

I just think its disingenuous to act like the only pro life argument is that women deserve to suffer through the pain of childbirth if they didn't practice safe sex.

-3

u/Yadin__ 9h ago

as evidenced by the fact that they don’t want their taxes to pay for its food and education

the concept of pro life exists outside of the US btw

6

u/TaroJayda 9h ago

Yeah but luckily you freaks don’t have a ton of sway in your countries.

1

u/Yadin__ 9h ago

I'm pro choice lmao

3

u/ConcentrateFree4918 8h ago

And they're the same kind of people in my country, which isn't US. The support for those children that women are forced to give birth to ends when they are born. It's a pretty universal pro-life brain rot.

4

u/sesquipedalianmime 9h ago

Boy howdy that's a disingenuous argument right there. Is it common for women to attach feeding tubes and carry the person harassing them in your part of the world?

6

u/Annual_Insect6972 9h ago

In every part of the world, parents have an obligation to care for their children. Doing nothing to care for a child is criminal child neglect nearly universally. Even if my toddler bites me daily, I can't leave them at home or refuse to feed them.

The only question remaining is when does that obligation begin? 

4

u/sesquipedalianmime 9h ago

When the foetus becomes a baby. Until then it's a parasite.

3

u/Yadin__ 9h ago edited 9h ago

see how the disagreement just became centered on something other than women's rights, but on the value of the fetus itself?

1

u/Annual_Insect6972 9h ago

We have to always ask ourselves if we're respecting everyone's rights, if we are to say we believe in human rights at all 

2

u/Ruggab0ut 7h ago

When does a foetus become a baby?

0

u/sesquipedalianmime 7h ago

When it permanently exits the vagina in almost every situation.

3

u/Ruggab0ut 7h ago edited 7h ago

Alright, so if you gave the lethal injection to a foetus whilst it was still in the womb in such a way that the mother was not harmed in any way, even if the mother was in labour and was expecting in 30 minutes, that would not be murder? - even if that mother wanted to keep the baby?

Indulge me, this is a thought experiment.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Annual_Insect6972 9h ago

Nonsense!  They're definitely not a parasites.  They're offspring.   This isn't some foreign alien body.  This is natural reproduction.  Gestation is the only way any of us have come to be at all.

0

u/Kitchen-Function5150 7h ago

What? My argument was not to compare the level of suffering between unwanted harassment and unwanted pregnancy. My comparison relied on the premise that they are both bad and should be prevented by reasonable means. Killing all harassers is an obvious unreasonable means. Killing all unwanted fetuses, in my opinion, is a good solution because I do not care about fetuses. But if someone saw fetuses as humans, you might be able to see why they would say that is an unreasonable means of prevention of suffering.

0

u/Fold-Open 6h ago

Well, I am in shock that you got downvoted only for explaining other side belives instead of talking how bad they are.

1

u/Kitchen-Function5150 6h ago

As far as some of them are concerned I literally am the other side even though I will always argue for the side that protects women and autonomy

15

u/Sensitive_Shape5746 9h ago

I think you’re missing the forest from the trees here


We don’t have to know what kind of fetus something is, because our arguments aren’t predicated on defining a fetus as a person.

But if you’re going to claim a fetus is a person then I’d expect you to be able to point out a fetus with human DNA from something. Unless you’re going to claim that all animals are persons too.

3

u/Goosepond01 4h ago

But if you’re going to claim a fetus is a person then I’d expect you to be able to point out a fetus with human DNA from something.

Why?

I don't see it being relevant to the argument at all, it doesn't invalidate the point at all, I'd imagine most people would fall for this regardless of their opinion, it really is just a pointless gotcha.

It's really obvious what the subtext to this is, the main question is when does life begin and contextually we all understand that the conversation isn't going to be about where life begins in dolphins but in the more contentious and popular question regarding humans.

to put it in a different context imagine I said to you "why shouldn't this bit of artwork be in a art gallery" and showed a picture that looked like AI and had a watermark you might say something about how it wasn't made by a human, about art theft or whatever, if I then said "actually that was drawn by a human as a form of protest against AI"

all that really does it prove the two things can at times be hard to tell apart, it may mean that your specific view on this exact image changes, but it doesn't invalidate your view that AI art isn't made by humans and has other issues.

2

u/Sensitive_Shape5746 3h ago

Even if I grant you all that. It doesn’t change the fact that pro-lifers have the more inconsistent definitions on life, quality of life, prioritizing life, and the concept of personhood.

1

u/Goosepond01 1h ago

Ok but that wasn't the question.

and it's not like pro lifers are one hivemind, I'm sure plenty do have bad definitions of life and all that jazz, I'm sure some don't, it's a very difficult topic

0

u/FermentedPersonality 7h ago

The argument is that any fetus deserves life. Doesn't matter if it's a dolphin or a human, those making the argument are just saying that from the moment of conception there is life.

5

u/Sensitive_Shape5746 7h ago

If you eat meat, you intrinsically have the notion that we can arbitrarily decide what life is more deserving than others.

We draw arbitrary distinctions all the time for what deserves life and what doesn’t.

2

u/Upstairs_Big6533 4h ago

So pro lifers are also Vegan? I dunno dude, I am confused by this comment.

1

u/FermentedPersonality 2h ago

No, they're not vegan. I'm not saying I agree with it either. I'm just pointing at that they think life begins at conception. They believe a cow fetus is also life, and they'll eat that cow one day. They'll tell you that's the circle of life. You don't have to agree with it to understand that some people believe that fetus = life.

38

u/BoringPoolPlaying 10h ago

Most people can’t tell the difference because there’s nothing remotely close to a human being at that stage.

Nobody is pro abortion, they just believe in women’s rights to bodily autonomy.

16

u/Scorkami 10h ago

Thats also an important part about this. "A fetus, from the moment of conception, is human in my opinion" means that persons opinion about what classifies as human is VERY wide ranging

1

u/Ruggab0ut 7h ago

There is no objective way to classify when someone becomes a human apart from the point of conception.

I say this as someone who is pro choice, but pretending there is some arbitrary line where suddenly a fetus becomes human is silly.

2

u/Scorkami 7h ago

No, but you can make an argument for when its reasonable to consider something worth keeping alive versus when there is not. Even most pro life people donr cry over someone ejaculating into a tissue.

You could argue that first brain activity signals that you want it to have rights now. You could arvue about a heartbeat or "would it be capable of survival without the pregnant person its attached to"

But those arguments need information, like at what point does a fetus have a heartbeat or show signs of brain activity and thinking. The gotcha argument here is that people argue about those things without said information

3

u/Ruggab0ut 7h ago edited 6h ago

They don't cry over that because someone ejaculating into a tissue has no possibility of ever becoming a human - a fetus does.

There is a point before conception where human life is not possible in any way, and a point afterwards where human life arising is almost guaranteed.

A fetus first has brain activity after 5 - 6 weeks - same for heartbeat, 5 - 6 weeks. To live outside of the womb, a fetus needs 22 - 23 weeks of gestation.

At which of those points is a fetus a human being, not a clump of cells? The only possible scientific way to classify this is by saying a fetus is a human at the point of conception, as beforehand there was no possibility of human life and afterwards human life is inevitable.

A baby cannot remember anything at all for the first 2 or so weeks after birth - why would that baby be different to a fetus just before birth?

2

u/Ok-Hyena4541 9h ago

Some people are pro abortion. We don't need more people.

Pro life people often think of it as still a negative sad thing that's stigmatized. Just get rid of it. I'll bake you a cake if you want.

1

u/WormsDelicious286 4h ago

Even then the "pro-abortion" people would much rather the fetus not get created in the first place, and it's an unfortunate necessity to end a runaway biological process before it causes harm.

1

u/Not_So_Normal_ 10h ago

Worded it wrong my bad 

3

u/Interesting-Fail-969 9h ago

The point is indeed that most ppl (even pro choice) can't tell the difference, ergo it might be silly to consider it a person.

1

u/Adept-Bumblebee2560 8h ago

Personally I've never had a problem telling a human being and a dolphin apart. It's very easy to always know the difference.

If your definition of human being makes it hard to differentiate between a dolphin, a hedgehog, and a human being, then maybe you have a flawed definition.

0

u/Sugarrrsnaps 9h ago

No, the point is that most people can't tell the difference. I'm pro choice and I wouldn't claim that I could tell the difference either, because I'm aware that fetuses at certain stage look very similar in different species.

21

u/TIFOOMERANG 10h ago

Not being able to tell mammalian fetuses apart isn't a sign of a lack of education though

27

u/Even-Tear-6965 10h ago

It isn't, even I could be tricked from a picture like that as someone studying early child and infant care. But I believe it's more symbolic.

8

u/Vasheerii 9h ago

But saying the moment of conception is the point where it is a life and gains a soul arguably is.

Why the dolphin fetus point is effective against those people, because they staked so much into it's human that it pokes a hole in their stance when they can't tell.

Especially if they were already making that argument before the dolphin fetus was brought up.

2

u/Goosepond01 4h ago

It's not even remotely effective because it doesn't attack any element of the argument unless their argument was literally just "things that look humanlike at any stage of life are sacred or whatever"

it might make them rethink about this exact image, but their argument (regardless of how good it is) isn't changed at all

1

u/kwantsu-dudes 16m ago

No. Its a stupid argument. Because it's not about an individual being able to tell what a human fetus is from an image. But knowing that a pregnant human woman has a human fetus within her, not a dolphin fetus.

The "set up" for the "gotcha", is presentung the argument of a human fetus alongside a picture of a dolphin fetus. But someone is simply making the pro-life claim about human fetuses, the image not at all being important.

3

u/TheRenamon 6h ago

should there be fetus identification classes in school?

8

u/SpinoHawk097 10h ago

I saw someone call it a "real or cakeism" argument and I'd say that's pretty accurate. If a normal person can't tell the details between different mammalian fetuses at <=7 weeks that isn't suddenly points for one side or another. Most people who are for strict gun laws don't know shit about firearms but we still let them yap.

8

u/Lurk-aka-Batrick 10h ago

Nobody knows what the fuck a dolphin fetus looks like. We all know what the point was. OPs point is that this is a stupid arguement because again nobody knows what a fucking dolphin fetus looks like. "Oh you can't recognize a dolphin fetus at a glance? That must mean you're an idiot and therefore I win all the internet points!"

2

u/CloudySide7 6h ago

Fair enough but I don't think you need to be expert on something to have an opinion on it.

I'm not a pilot but if I saw a plane in a tree I could give my opinions

3

u/digidestine 6h ago

I think there's an emphasis on when they said "strong rigid opinion". Like yes you can have opinions on literally anything with no expertise but have strong opinions youre not willing to back down on; you should have alot of knowledge in whatever it is youre talking about. Its kinda like people who strongly dislike tv shows and go on long rants about them any chance they get and you come to find out theyve never actually watched the show but they heard from other people that it sucks. No normal person should be that intense over something they dont actually know about.

1

u/CloudySide7 6h ago

I agree. I have my opinions and beliefs. I don't force them on anyone. If someone asks for my opinion I will give it. I also keep an open mind. Like for the instance of abortion I think there's good arguments both in favor and against, and I also keep in mind that our understanding of things is constantly changing as new information is discovered. I'm not someone who can't admit that my opinion has changed when new information comes out or when I experience life and that causes me to change my viewpoint.

I can't stand people who basically refuse to either see the other side (the sane people on the other side, I know there's extremists on every side of a debate) or who refuse to acknowledge when science discovers something new regarding the debate

2

u/ZiggyCrusade 10h ago

Even if people are dumb/uneducated and only know enough to make a single argument, that doesn't disprove that argument.

6

u/Even-Tear-6965 10h ago

Yes it does. You can't have an argument if it's not based on knowledge. That argument is otherwise null and void

3

u/ZiggyCrusade 10h ago

The argument, or statement, exists in a vaccuum separate from the person making it. If someone makes a full, logical moral argument for why abortion is good/bad/whatever, and then you turn around and ask them what a c-section is and they go "i dunno" that wouldn't disprove the argument, only throw shade at the person.

3

u/grizzy45 9h ago

It does not. Nothing exists in a vacuum and pretending anything does is just denying reality. Proving someone doesn't know shit fully invalidates every point they make about a topic because even if it would be true, they are to uneducated to varify the claims they are making. You basically authority-check them.

0

u/ZiggyCrusade 9h ago

So, "person a" makes a perfectly sound argument, but something tangentially related to the argument (being able to tell the difference between foetuses) or even a core term/concept in the argument is not understood properly by "person a". So the argument is now invalid. Now, "person b" makes the exact same argument with all the same premises and conclusion, but they do understand everything, and it's now valid? Gotcha.

This is like saying that a man's argument on abortion is invalid because he's a man, when he could very well get a women to make his exact argument for him, thus making it valid?

2

u/grizzy45 8h ago

The validation of your argument hinges on you actually being able to understand the topic. If you don't understand the topic, your opinion can be dismissed. You have proven to only parrot things and thus your argument has zero value.

1

u/ZiggyCrusade 8h ago

Truth and validity don't depend on who says something, however epistemic justification can depend on how someone arrived at or understands it.

Your understanding of a topic may affect your ability to defend an argument, but it does not determine whether the argument itself is valid. Validity depends on whether the conclusion follows from the premises, and whether the premises are valid, not on who presents it. Dismissing a sound argument because the person parroting it doesn't understand it is attacking the person rather than refuting the argument, i.e an ad hominem.

You just swapped the term argument for opinion halfway through aswell? An opinion can't even be invalid in the first place.

1

u/Rare_Dance7130 7h ago

The argument is "This creature is a human being," which makes "You cannot possibly recognize it as a human being," a pretty effective counterpoint, rhetorically. The fact that dolphin fetuses and human fetuses are basically indistinguishable is effective evidence that human fetuses aren't people.

1

u/ZiggyCrusade 7h ago

Biologically, a human fetus is a living member of the human species in a stage of prenatal development. So, you're wrong there. The argument is about personhood and moral worth which cannot be determined from external senses.

It is also "possible" to visually recognise it as a human as early as 8 weeks, just not necessarily easy. A person's inability to recognise a thing doesn't effect said thing.

If I took a human and made them look fundamentally identically to a dolphin, would that make them cease to be human or a person?

1

u/Rare_Dance7130 7h ago

"If I did this totally impossible hypothetical, doesn't it prove my point?"

Personhood has always been distinguished by external senses. The only reason you can distinguish a human being from a dog is external senses. If you did not have access to any external senses, you would literally not have a way to determine personhood (or anything, for that matter).

If a dolphin were a human or a person, how would you possibly know? Should you start treating all dolphins like humans, just in case?

1

u/scrapy_the_scrap 8h ago

Most experts probably wouldnt be able to tell mammalian fetuses apart...

1

u/StickSouthern2150 6h ago

it does not actually

1

u/Icy_Variation_9288 1h ago

It shows that people just like to blindly argue. This is what happens when a person parrots what everyone else says instead of having actual beliefs lol

1

u/Forsaken-Mousse344 57m ago

Dolphin fetus and human fetus look very similar. You dont need to have a PHD to form an opinion on abortion

1

u/ZaoMenom 9h ago
  1. I disagree.
  2. That is definitely not what it’s used for, it’s used as a gotcha

1

u/Much-Average6704 9h ago

I don't know exactly what order my organs are going to shut down in if I die from blood loss, but I still don't want to get stabbed. I have a very strong opinion about not being stabbed, actually

Not a pro-forced-birther by the way, there are just better arguments you can make against them

1

u/Myballsitchheavily 8h ago

the knowledge whether a fetus is a human's or not does not invalidate one's argument, or make them look stupid and thus unagreeable. in fact, the majority of people can not tell a difference from either side of the spectrum, it's just not common knowledge.

-11

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 10h ago

It's a picture of a fetus. Do you really think someone must be able to correctly differentiate different fetuses from each other in order to have opinions on it? I'd understand if it actually had to do something with abortion itself, but it doesn't. Someone could learn how each animals fetus looks and correctly tell them apart, but this still wouldn't have anything to do with the debate about abortion.

20

u/NaziPunksFkOff 10h ago

Considering a majority of the pro-life argument is "look at this thing, it's a BABY. How DARE you question that!" - I think it's fair to throw that back in their face.

These people aren't showing up to Planned Parenthood with signs covered in well-reasoned arguments for human life. It's just pictures of sad babies.

-3

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 9h ago

Only because they make shitty arguments does not mean that if you do them too that it's fine.

Considering a majority of the pro-life argument is "look at this thing, it's a BABY. How DARE you question that!" - I think it's fair to throw that back in their face.

They argue that a fetus is still a human being. Alright, you tricked them with your dolphin fetus trick. What now? They still believe that a human fetus is a human being, you made no proper argument, and this whole thing brought you nowhere.

6

u/BreakerOfModpacks 9h ago

Only because they make shitty arguments does not mean that if you do them too that it's fine.

...actually, really basic refutations of stupid arguments are fine.

1

u/NaziPunksFkOff 7h ago

No, that's exactly how you address that argument. If your argument is "the sky is purple" and my counter-argument is "look up", then there ya go. I don't need to show you an analysis of the frequency of light hitting your eyes.

Look up.

1

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 7h ago

No, in this case, you are using a good argument.

In the screenshot of my post regarding the dolphin fetus, it's a fallacy. You can't compare these 2 arguments

21

u/BoringPoolPlaying 10h ago

If the opinion is “that’s a human being and women have to birth it no matter what”, then yes, I think they should be able to tell whether or not they’re looking at a human fetus.

1

u/SpinoHawk097 10h ago

But it has nothing to do with it if that's the point, because you're still admitting there is specifically fetuses that are human, not just fetuses. So it circles back to being a debate about when human life is worth preserving. It's a nothingburger of a gotcha.

6

u/BoringPoolPlaying 10h ago

No, I’m arguing specifically that a human fetus is not a human being.

1

u/SpinoHawk097 9h ago

That's my point. We're back to square one, only now you can be smug because mammals at only 15% in utero development are so alike that a lay person can't tell the difference. Saying that nulls their argument is as valid as saying pro-gun law people can't actually have an opinion if they don't know shit about guns.

3

u/BoringPoolPlaying 9h ago

It doesn’t null their argument. Just highlights how reactionary they are, allowing people who view their argument to see where it’s coming from.

1

u/moedexter1988 9h ago

Dunno if that carries any merit in argument against pro life because their stance is not that, but rather the LIFE of a human that eventually gain individuality. This won't convince pro lifers.

0

u/BoringPoolPlaying 9h ago

Might stop some people from becoming anti-choice though.

It is tough to reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.

0

u/moedexter1988 3h ago

Yeah it can be, agreed.

11

u/Darknadoswastaken 10h ago

you kinda need to if you're arguing in the pursuit of truth.

The dolphin fetus gotcha works as the attacker is so predisposed to the concept of a human fetus they forsake actually knowing what a human fetus even looks like, as their argument hinges on terminating a human fetus being wrong, so they don't actually know what the termination of said human fetus looks like, so when presented with something that looks like a fetus they assume it's a human one without doing any research and in this case are made to look stupid.

1

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 10h ago

Let's say someone argues that abrotion is wrong, because fetuses can still feel pain and have emotions (example, can't verify). Their source is a research paper.

What does being able to differentiate a baby fetus from a dolphin fetus have to do with the argument?

And also, human and dolphin fetuses look similiar.

2

u/Darknadoswastaken 9h ago

not being able to differentiate means you're not intimately familiar with the subject you're trying to debate. It's like if you argued that X country was an issue and someone else asked you to point to X country on a map and you pointed to the wrong country, it proves you're not too well educated on your topic if you don't know what the problem even looks like.

And it doesn't matter that they look slightly similar, they're still different. And look different. Macaques and baboons look similar but if you want to write a scientific journal about baboons you don't want to show a picture of a macaque with full certainty that you're talking about a baboon as it shows you don't know baboons intimately at all.

But in this case you're trying to make a moral argument that will restrict women's rights to bodily autonomy so you'd better be intimately familiar with the issue you're trying to bring up. So if a silly gotcha is able to trick you then you're not the right person to talk about said issue, Neither the OOP was the right person, and neither was kirk.

1

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 9h ago

No, because based on the context and question, one easily assumes that the picture will be the one of a human fetus.

It's like if you argued that X country was an issue and someone else asked you to point to X country on a map and you pointed to the wrong country, it proves you're not too well educated on your topic if you don't know what the problem even looks like.

No, it's more like "Oh so you think this country is [x]." And they show a near identical pixture if the country, and based on context, the other person doesn't assume they are being tricked and say yes without much thinking, only to find out that the perosn intentionally picked a nearly identical country just to trick them.

2

u/Darknadoswastaken 8h ago

If you didn't know what the country looked like and had an idea of what a country looked like, you could be confused, which shows inexperience with the topic.

If you don't know exactly what a human fetus looks like, don't act like an expert.

1

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 8h ago

Like I said, a nearly identical picture. And based on context, one does not check twice. It's just instinct, because the argument isnvt aboit the shape of the country

2

u/Darknadoswastaken 8h ago

You should always check twice when the context is debating the human rights of a person.

1

u/i__dont___know 9h ago

You can know what a human fetuses looks like and still confuse them as dolphin fetuses look near identical in certain stages. It’s like if you’re talking about how much you like mint Oreos and someone hand you an Oreo, when you bite into only to find out it has toothpaste filling. Does that prove you don’t know what an Oreo is or that it’s on you for assuming it was a regular Oreo? Especially when this stupid gotcha is specifically brought up when talking about human abortion, obviously I’m gonna assume the picture you’re showing me that looks exactly like a human fetus isn’t a dolphin fetus as that’s not relevant.

0

u/Darknadoswastaken 9h ago

let's say you're writing a research paper on macaques and you show a picture of a baboon fully confident it's a macaque, are you really an expert on macaques if you don't know what they look like?

1

u/i__dont___know 9h ago

This is using the presumption that most pro choicers wouldn’t fall for the same trick. Do they still get a say in abortion even though they can’t tell the difference between a cherry picked example at a glance?

1

u/Darknadoswastaken 9h ago

That's the thing though, It doesn't matter if a pro choicer doesn't know what a fetus looks like, as they're arguing for the choice of the woman, not the life of the fetus. So there is no trick.

you can't fall for a trick if your entire argument isn't based on being intimately familiar with what something looks like.

It would be a different story if pro choicers didn't know what women looked like, but as most pro choicers are women themselves I heavily doubt they wouldn't know.

1

u/i__dont___know 9h ago

So your working on the justification of abortion that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is considered a human being. That’s a whole different can of worms as most people argue for abortion because they don’t consider the fetus as a human being yet. But if your acknowledging that your taking a life shouldn’t you too be knowledgeable on what that truly means though for your choice to override that life? So it still holds, under the assumption this meaningless gotcha is a deciding factor on if you know enough about fetuses in the first place.

1

u/Darknadoswastaken 9h ago

Fetuses aren't human beings. To be classified as a human being is to be self sufficient. Fetuses rely on the resources of the mother to survive so aren't self-sufficient. My justification of abortion is that the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing a birth is a violation of their human rights. And abortion isn't taking a life. that is unfounded. life begins at conception but moral worth begins later.

The gotcha isn't meaningless, it showcases how in depth you are with the subject. Not knowing what the thing you're fighting for looks like is tone deaf and shows your inadequacy. It's like if you supported Israel without knowing where Israel is or who they are.

1

u/i__dont___know 8h ago

Okay, multiple things. Number one is that you are still making a choice on the worth of a human fetus, meaning you are still tied to this gotcha as much as any pro lifer, and if you were on the receiving end of this trick it would invalidate your entire point.

There are SO many flaws with your argument on what makes a human life valuable. Mainly with how vague self sufficient is as a determination. Born babies aren’t self sufficient in the slightest. Disabled people often aren’t self sufficient and rely on others to stay alive. Even being generous to your idea of self sufficient what about late third trimester abortions that still rely on the mother directly to stay alive?

On the topic of bodily autonomy I believe women already have full bodily autonomy. Don’t put the baby making part in the other baby making part if you do not want a baby. Boom problem solved and entirely up to the woman. Reproduction is the main point of vaginal sex, there is no full proof way to prevent it so relying on condoms isn’t an excuse to override the life of a fetus. And you can still be sexually intimate with your partner without full on vaginal penetration. It’s a small pleasure to give up in comparison to the mental, physical, and moral dilemma of abortion.

-1

u/baronfv 10h ago

Oh yeah. Obviously we can only let "the experts" have opinion on things

Why in this case, you should be able to recognize the fetus of every mammal species and know which is which, before you can have options, and only if they are the right ones at that

2

u/Ok-Wolf8972 9h ago

Because anti choice people will instantly say "yes thats a human life and should be protected" when shown a picture of a dolphin, because they dont think critically

2

u/REV0LV3RR 9h ago

“I tricked you” actually doesn’t prove someone doesn’t “think critically”.

They are being asked a question about something and most would inherently assume the image given with the question is that of the subject, and most people cannot look at two extremely similar things and differentiate without prior knowledge of what the subject looks like compared to them.

I.e. If I ask you “do you like the look of this chocolate cake” and included an image of a visibly chocolate colored cake so you said “yes that looks like a good chocolate cake” should I be able to say that you shouldn’t have an opinion because I never told you it was actually a cake like brownie and you’ve never studied similar brownies to be able to tell the difference at a glance?

0

u/National_Body_9071 9h ago

It doesn't at all, infact the irony of your comment is it applies more to yourself than the people you think it does.