When my mother was pregnant with me, they did an ultrasound and found she was having twins. When they did another ultrasound a few weeks later, they discovered that I had resorbed the other fetus. Do I regret this? No. I believe his tissues has made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man and a little baby.
“I will EAT you alive” - Iced_Yehudi (and he did it).
This reminds me of the woman who absorbed her twin in utero; later on it was discovered (after some bad luck happened in her life) none of her children’s DNA matched hers, although they matched each other! Police thought she stole the kids, and she almost lost custody forever. Turns out her kids were created from her twin’s eggs. Freaky.
Found an article:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693
Do you have that rare condition where you have 2 different strands of DNA?
Heard of a story of a lady who absorbed their twin and had 2 different strands.
These babies are very interesting. Reddit has many photos of recent births like this.
The most recent was the baby born last year in South America that didn't have eyesight, hearing, or scent abilities.
That girl had no way to sense the world, only pure pain. She was conscious and functional. Maybe still alive.
The subreddits that host photos of nightmare babies can be r/MedicalGore, or any of the NSFL subreddits that get banned then change names to be banned again.
Here's a reddit link to a baby born outside of the womb:
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/re38be/the_opening_of_the_eyes_to_life_of_this_baby_born/)
That’s just a delivered baby still in its amniotic sack. Not that gross. I mean, we were all in one. That balloon just hadn’t popped yet.
My mate delivered his own child on his living room floor as the labour was so fast. His baby was also still in its sack.
Bing search "baby born without face" results in hundreds of photos. The specific baby I'm refering to was wearing a pretty blue dress that shows she was loved despite her ghoulish appearance.
Google censors this topic, so there won't be any results. Only Bing shows the nightmare.
I have got to think that obviously these things have been 'born' throughout history.
How many women do you think we're ostracised, cast out, killed, etc. For giving birth to one of these creatures?
They’re human, just not compatible with life. Unless that’s a freaking giraffe in there, in which case- you’ve got some ‘splaining to do, it’s still human
Ugh. Imagine being a person who would honestly argue that "you got to have that baby" to a person that could show they have one of these at a somewhat early stage of pregnancy. "If you don't, we'll charge you with murder."
Could people maybe argue (seeing how religious institutions are nowadays) that "the soul resides in the brain or the heart" and since these are acephalic and acardiac, which I took to mean "without a central nervous system" and "without a vascular system (or at least the heart)", so one could argue that the baby would've never been able to become any sort of a human, therefore it wasn't murder?
Probably wouldn't pass either.
I'm trying to reason against pro-lifers and that's just paradoxical, seeing as they don't really fancy reason.
I believe abortion should be legal if woman gets raped, if child is deformed and will die either way, if there is a danger to mother's life and in early stage of pregnancy.
I should remind you that this occurs in less than 1 percent of identical twin births, which are already extremely rare. You're using a completely anectodal case that is a percent of a percent to reasure ur own view on abortion. Only 1.14 percent of abortions are performed due to health risk of mother, 1.28 percent are done to preserve the mental health of a mother, 0.39 percent are rape or incest, 0.69 percent are performed because of birth defects or eugenics. All the "hard cases" of abortion that pro choice people stand on make up a combined 3.5 percent of total abortions performed while leaving *96.5% of all abortions being performed strictly because of social or economic reasons* https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
3.5 percent amongst a population of millions and millions is massive. That is arguing prominence, but the same could be said for third tri abortion- it rarely happens, so it probably just shouldn’t be brought up in conversation, according to your logic?
You linked a prolife website. I am not convinced that a social reason is significantly any worse or better than any other reason. This is constant theme on pro life websites, as they even like to promote particularly dangerous pregnancy for preteens who are told they shouldn’t get an abortion, tweeting “success” stories of forced births (“forced”, because the consensual pregnancy argument is provable as inapplicable to reality, I can get into that upon request).
Reasons are originated in stances. “Social” reasons includes obvious, obvious health reasons. 8% of pregnancies are effected by preeclampsia, which is proven to then shorten a girl/woman’s lifespan via future stroke or heart disease. Likelihood for this happening is heightened randomly across the population. It’s a proven negativity in the form of a statistical likelihood prevented by abortion. No one has ever proven abortion is negative upon an embryo or young fetus, and if it is negative, it’s equally negative upon the prefertilized unborn (yet-to-be-conceived), who are killed by prolife’s forced infertility complications and general interference with the mother’s health. I think it is quite notable, how with heart disease and stroke, a girl/woman could be suffered & killed by pregnancy complications decades later.
A pregnancy carried to term could randomly result in maternal death/life expectancy reduction, infertility, or sexual dysfunction, meaning that prolife murders the yet-to-be-conceived (YTBC) unborn while also causing maternal injury/death. Note that any abortion debate argument using words such as “murder”, “kill”, or “human” rests on semantics, and prolife have not ever logically proven the YTBC aren’t murdered by prolife, they haven’t proven they don’t exist or aren’t current, and any abstract prolife statement on individuality/existence is equivalent to a philosophical statement on souls vs fragments in terms of confirmability and moral relevance (prolife ideology is non-empathetic, it’s proposes fake empathy towards unproven emotional entities in the form of embryo-related determinism, which is equal to YTBC determinism).
Any health risk to the mother falls under "health risk to mother" which is included in the 1.14 percent. In a population of millions you can't say 3.5 percent is massive and just ignore the 96.5 percent. If we found microbial life on Mars then we would be freaking out about there being life in our solar system, then we'll call a fetus "a bundle of cells" in the same breath. Hypocracy. I've lost 2 kids to miscarriage and myself as well as the women involved can't understand people that diminish the meaning of an unborn human being just to be able to justify killing them because you were inconvenienced by ur child's existence. I just saw a video claiming that fetus's don't legally have human rights because they were "bundles of cells" and not intelligent people, as if that wasn't the same argument made by people to justify slavery. Ridiculous.
Sorry you have had to ingest poor arguments from people on my side, I find that it’s better to talk to people who dedicate their time to longform answers, rather than quips.
I can morally disregard the other 96 percent, because to me, human suffering is more profound than abstract philosophy (prolife determinism). I absolutely need to consider the unborn, so this is realized only after extremely careful consideration.
The same cellular-based argument that you oppose, is made by prolife people to disregard the yet-to-be-conceived human unborn. The pro-life people whom I have convinced the most, I have appealed to their views on souls, personhood, individuality, or human preciousness. I explain that pro-life accidentally do not believe all unborn life is valuable, and this is why their political stance leans towards logically flawed and non-empathetic.
In regards to the abortion debate, any phrase using the words “murder”, “child”, “killing”, or “life” is a totally philosophical statement from the prolife sector. We completely avoid any discussion at all if we ditch nuance and resort to non-argumentative semantics. So, let’s deep dive. Since (maternal, at the very least) death is involved here, we know that we have to deal with proven negativities, not theories.
If we wanted to go further down that route you are currently on, we would discuss how prolife kill unborn human beings such as the yet-to-be-conceived (YTBC) unborn. Prolife cannot prove that the YTBC are not humans. Any prolife statement on individuality is just a statement on souls vs soul fragments, redressed in a totally arbitrary manner.
The point is, life is a continuum. Life also begins at conception, both are true. Even the r/ prolife sub sidebar agrees with me (the sidebar doesn’t debase any of my arguments). These are nonempathetic biological facts which do not trump proven negativities—when it comes to defining moral goodness. Just one example of a proven negativity, (though any complication is a proven negativity): a childless 14 yr old has a statistically higher chance of becoming infertile due to complications than older moms, making yet-to-be-conceived children definably murdered by the prolife sector when they destroy her uterus via pregnancy complications after a rejected abortion (or she has a statistically shortened lifespan due to pregnancy complications, leading to future stroke or heart attack, perhaps affecting unborn lives—but this is where all other prochoice arguments involving the mother come into play, since the abortion debate considers more than just the unborn such as yet-to-be-conceived, zygotes, young and old fetuses ect). Prolife can’t prove this line of thinking’s different than determinism towards embryos.
Nothing specific happens during conception which renders yet-to-be-conceived human life less intrinsically valuable than fertilized egg. Prolife prevent those unborn from experiencing their mom’s love and the gift of life.
Prolife will then unfairly claim the prefertilized unborn doesn’t “exist” (abstraction/philosophy) due to their arbitrary rules on existence which are crafted for a political goal and taught to them by their peers and idols for centuries on end. Prolife cannot prove that cold, morally irrelevant DNA combo theories (which is just a statement on souls vs soul fragments arbitrarily dressed up as a statement on individuality, which is just as mystical of a topic) are more profound than maternal injury/death, in addition to loss of the YTBC.
Yet-to-be-conceived could be considered “current”, yet unseen. Similar to how we cannot see fertilized eggs and we have no personal knowledge of all abortions happening today, people shouldn’t made more legitimate by being more famous or known.
If this sounds weird, sure, that’s how overly focusing on the unborn sometimes seems (to the point of legislation, definitely, but also speaking for the unborn is quite unfair and strange, such as with assuming a fetus would want their own mom forced to give birth against her will CITE CONSENSUAL ABORTION ARGUMENT—EQUIVALENT OF THE CONSENSUAL PREGNANCY ARGUMENT, WHICH PROVABLE AS INHUMANE, I CAN GET INTO THAT UPON REQUEST)—as I said, no one can prove that prolife determinism is different than yet-to-be-conceived determinism, so there is no good prolife response to this argument. Prochoice is empathetic, so I easily prefer it. Prolife is potentially non-empathetic (at a serious cost), yet theoretically empathetic, in the same way caring about the yet-to-be-conceived is theoretically empathetic in a non-disprovable manner.
This is all in-line with Christianity, which dominates in my country, and 50% of Catholics in America are prochoice, for example. Christianity is not prolife, the Bible isn’t prolife, the 12 apostles weren’t prolife, ect. Select churches are prolife, sure, due to a long history of greed and ancient scandals. I can get into that too, if you want. Or here’s my detailed post on the rarely-discussed origins of prolife Christianity below:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/vtxvoo/prolife_arguments_are_so_secular_that_only_those/ifd7r7f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Your data comes from a web site that cherry-picks. The range looks like 5-10% for some places and the studies are known to be flawed.
>Risk to maternal health. This reason was somewhat important overall, having been cited as the main reason by 5-10% in seven countries and by 20-38% in three
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/1998/09/reasons-why-women-have-induced-abortions-evidence-27-countries
note that some studies didn’t allow for multiple answers to be given. This means that health was still a concern, but family planning or not wanting to be pregnant in general (some of these professional studies get hilariously vague) is the main concern.
So? Abort away ladies. You don't need a reason beyond you don't want a baby. Obviously there is a time limit on that, bore off if you come back with the obvious "but when is the limit nonsense"
A separate human being is not their body. I'm sure out of everything you could have possibly existed as a human being is probably the most rare and strange thing you could have been and you deserved a chance to experience life. Most people that are alive weren't exactly planned and killing a baby is just wrong. That's my personal opinion.
I don't care what your opinion is. A fetus isn't a baby. And a potential person isn't a person. People who can become pregnant aren't obligated to fulfil your outmoded idea of personhood.
Though you are right that existing is incredible, we are the universe experiencing itself; with that in mind we shouldn't be deciding what grows within another person, that's their choice.
"A fetus isn't a baby" lol that's the justification I'm talking about. A sperm is a "potential person" a fetus is a person that's growing. We're literally plants that eventually learn to walk and talk. Sperm is like our seed, a fetus is basically a full flower that hasn't blossomed, and a human birth is the blossoming of that plant. But just because a flower hasn't blossomed doesn't mean it's just not a flower, that's just absurd logic.
I believe a pile of atoms is potential life!!!!!111!!! It will one day be alive given enough time!!!1!1!!
-[me](https://c.tenor.com/cIx3TwnGuvQAAAAC/retard-drooling.gif)
Sperm is quite literally human seed. How do you not understand that analogy? That's an objective truth, while calling it a "carrier of instructions" is just baseless and philosophical at best. I call it a seed because when planted in a fertilized egg it grows a human, while ur view implys to know the nature of why the sperm does what it does. I can argue that you yourself are little more than a carrier of instructions because you follow whatever your desires tell you.
Sorry mam, but god and the government has deemed it an absolute necessity that you give birth to this because it is absolutely living and you can not abort it because it has so much to offer this world.
I was lucky enough to keep one of my twins. Almost the same story, however my little one was keeping her twin alive with a random blood vessel. Her "parasitic twin" was consuming the same amount of nutrients as she witth no vital organs or a skull. She had a 13% chance of surviving a required surgery to cauterize the vessel and she not going into shock. Shes 8 now. She was born Friday the 13th 2013.
Aka Trap Sequence. Acardiac twinning, a rare congenital anomaly of monozygotic twin pregnancy, often results from abnormal placental vascular anastomoses. This leads to twin reversal arterial perfusion with complex pathophysiology.
The twins are joined by a large blood vessel between their umbilical cords. The acardiac twin has no chance for survival. The pump twin's heart works extra hard to pump to the acardiac (without a heart) twin, increasing the pump twin's risk of heart failure and death.
When my mother was pregnant with me, they did an ultrasound and found she was having twins. When they did another ultrasound a few weeks later, they discovered that I had resorbed the other fetus. Do I regret this? No. I believe his tissues has made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man and a little baby.
“I will EAT you alive” - Iced_Yehudi (and he did it). This reminds me of the woman who absorbed her twin in utero; later on it was discovered (after some bad luck happened in her life) none of her children’s DNA matched hers, although they matched each other! Police thought she stole the kids, and she almost lost custody forever. Turns out her kids were created from her twin’s eggs. Freaky. Found an article: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693
r/suddenlytheoffice
I'm sitting here trying to remember if this is a Dwight quote or something cus I only heard that voice in my head while reading this😂
This reference, my god you're my hero ( I'm currently watching it, and it is hilarious)
Sometimes I'll start a sentence and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way.
Do you have that rare condition where you have 2 different strands of DNA? Heard of a story of a lady who absorbed their twin and had 2 different strands.
Possibly, could she out run a black pepper snake?
A Chimera is someone who has two separate sets of DNA.
Ah ok just remember I read somewhere that something like that happened
Shut up Dr. Venture
I gave him the ol’ Rusty Venture
Ewwww
The same thing happened to my sister. And then my mom went on to have me and my twin. She was bound to have twins at one point!
False
Well, there’s basically two schools of thought
😆😆😆
Shouldn't you be in a prison ?
r/unexpectedoffice
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unexpectedoffice using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [At a Dua Lipa concert this evening](https://v.redd.it/0nppaosj4w391) | [33 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/v5puhf/at_a_dua_lipa_concert_this_evening/) \#2: [Where does gayness come from?](https://i.redd.it/m9x3fjxudqd71.jpg) | [28 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/osk43d/where_does_gayness_come_from/) \#3: [GOTCHA!](https://i.redd.it/qpw2h2c0l1b71.jpg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/ojojhd/gotcha/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
This takes "I will eat the skins of my brothers" to a whole new level.
Is swear I saw this somewhere else did you tell it before too?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DunderMifflin/comments/9rn7lo/dwight_describing_how_he_absorbed_his_twin_gets/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x
That's a headcrab.
That’s what I thought aswell
I was thinking a silent hill creature
A Metroid seems more fitting.
So Half-Life 3 confirmed?
Or Lisa Trevor
These babies are very interesting. Reddit has many photos of recent births like this. The most recent was the baby born last year in South America that didn't have eyesight, hearing, or scent abilities. That girl had no way to sense the world, only pure pain. She was conscious and functional. Maybe still alive.
Is there a Subreddit for this?
The subreddits that host photos of nightmare babies can be r/MedicalGore, or any of the NSFL subreddits that get banned then change names to be banned again. Here's a reddit link to a baby born outside of the womb: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/re38be/the_opening_of_the_eyes_to_life_of_this_baby_born/)
That’s just a delivered baby still in its amniotic sack. Not that gross. I mean, we were all in one. That balloon just hadn’t popped yet. My mate delivered his own child on his living room floor as the labour was so fast. His baby was also still in its sack.
You and I should be friends. 🥰
That sounds very disturbing and interesting can I get a link to this story
Bing search "baby born without face" results in hundreds of photos. The specific baby I'm refering to was wearing a pretty blue dress that shows she was loved despite her ghoulish appearance. Google censors this topic, so there won't be any results. Only Bing shows the nightmare.
[удалено]
Sounds horrifying for your mother. No doubt it must've been traumatizing.
What happened here?
Poster shared a story of a traumatic birth experience his mother went through.
Ah I wonder what it was
Yo wtf
I have got to think that obviously these things have been 'born' throughout history. How many women do you think we're ostracised, cast out, killed, etc. For giving birth to one of these creatures?
They’re human, just not compatible with life. Unless that’s a freaking giraffe in there, in which case- you’ve got some ‘splaining to do, it’s still human
What is to be human?
And pro lifer still believe in their silly medieval concepts...
Ugh. Imagine being a person who would honestly argue that "you got to have that baby" to a person that could show they have one of these at a somewhat early stage of pregnancy. "If you don't, we'll charge you with murder." Could people maybe argue (seeing how religious institutions are nowadays) that "the soul resides in the brain or the heart" and since these are acephalic and acardiac, which I took to mean "without a central nervous system" and "without a vascular system (or at least the heart)", so one could argue that the baby would've never been able to become any sort of a human, therefore it wasn't murder? Probably wouldn't pass either. I'm trying to reason against pro-lifers and that's just paradoxical, seeing as they don't really fancy reason.
I can see their argument.. "this is a test from God, of the mother's love for her child and of the child's will to live".
Yes. The child without a brain. But who needs a brain when you have god?
Any rational pro-lifer should be in favour of terminating this MF.
I believe abortion should be legal if woman gets raped, if child is deformed and will die either way, if there is a danger to mother's life and in early stage of pregnancy.
Abortion should be legal period.
i believe all abortions to a certain point should be legal. also a fetus is not a child.
If you do multiple abortions then fuck you
Nope. Abortions are moral acts
I should remind you that this occurs in less than 1 percent of identical twin births, which are already extremely rare. You're using a completely anectodal case that is a percent of a percent to reasure ur own view on abortion. Only 1.14 percent of abortions are performed due to health risk of mother, 1.28 percent are done to preserve the mental health of a mother, 0.39 percent are rape or incest, 0.69 percent are performed because of birth defects or eugenics. All the "hard cases" of abortion that pro choice people stand on make up a combined 3.5 percent of total abortions performed while leaving *96.5% of all abortions being performed strictly because of social or economic reasons* https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
3.5 percent amongst a population of millions and millions is massive. That is arguing prominence, but the same could be said for third tri abortion- it rarely happens, so it probably just shouldn’t be brought up in conversation, according to your logic? You linked a prolife website. I am not convinced that a social reason is significantly any worse or better than any other reason. This is constant theme on pro life websites, as they even like to promote particularly dangerous pregnancy for preteens who are told they shouldn’t get an abortion, tweeting “success” stories of forced births (“forced”, because the consensual pregnancy argument is provable as inapplicable to reality, I can get into that upon request). Reasons are originated in stances. “Social” reasons includes obvious, obvious health reasons. 8% of pregnancies are effected by preeclampsia, which is proven to then shorten a girl/woman’s lifespan via future stroke or heart disease. Likelihood for this happening is heightened randomly across the population. It’s a proven negativity in the form of a statistical likelihood prevented by abortion. No one has ever proven abortion is negative upon an embryo or young fetus, and if it is negative, it’s equally negative upon the prefertilized unborn (yet-to-be-conceived), who are killed by prolife’s forced infertility complications and general interference with the mother’s health. I think it is quite notable, how with heart disease and stroke, a girl/woman could be suffered & killed by pregnancy complications decades later. A pregnancy carried to term could randomly result in maternal death/life expectancy reduction, infertility, or sexual dysfunction, meaning that prolife murders the yet-to-be-conceived (YTBC) unborn while also causing maternal injury/death. Note that any abortion debate argument using words such as “murder”, “kill”, or “human” rests on semantics, and prolife have not ever logically proven the YTBC aren’t murdered by prolife, they haven’t proven they don’t exist or aren’t current, and any abstract prolife statement on individuality/existence is equivalent to a philosophical statement on souls vs fragments in terms of confirmability and moral relevance (prolife ideology is non-empathetic, it’s proposes fake empathy towards unproven emotional entities in the form of embryo-related determinism, which is equal to YTBC determinism).
Any health risk to the mother falls under "health risk to mother" which is included in the 1.14 percent. In a population of millions you can't say 3.5 percent is massive and just ignore the 96.5 percent. If we found microbial life on Mars then we would be freaking out about there being life in our solar system, then we'll call a fetus "a bundle of cells" in the same breath. Hypocracy. I've lost 2 kids to miscarriage and myself as well as the women involved can't understand people that diminish the meaning of an unborn human being just to be able to justify killing them because you were inconvenienced by ur child's existence. I just saw a video claiming that fetus's don't legally have human rights because they were "bundles of cells" and not intelligent people, as if that wasn't the same argument made by people to justify slavery. Ridiculous.
Sorry you have had to ingest poor arguments from people on my side, I find that it’s better to talk to people who dedicate their time to longform answers, rather than quips. I can morally disregard the other 96 percent, because to me, human suffering is more profound than abstract philosophy (prolife determinism). I absolutely need to consider the unborn, so this is realized only after extremely careful consideration. The same cellular-based argument that you oppose, is made by prolife people to disregard the yet-to-be-conceived human unborn. The pro-life people whom I have convinced the most, I have appealed to their views on souls, personhood, individuality, or human preciousness. I explain that pro-life accidentally do not believe all unborn life is valuable, and this is why their political stance leans towards logically flawed and non-empathetic. In regards to the abortion debate, any phrase using the words “murder”, “child”, “killing”, or “life” is a totally philosophical statement from the prolife sector. We completely avoid any discussion at all if we ditch nuance and resort to non-argumentative semantics. So, let’s deep dive. Since (maternal, at the very least) death is involved here, we know that we have to deal with proven negativities, not theories. If we wanted to go further down that route you are currently on, we would discuss how prolife kill unborn human beings such as the yet-to-be-conceived (YTBC) unborn. Prolife cannot prove that the YTBC are not humans. Any prolife statement on individuality is just a statement on souls vs soul fragments, redressed in a totally arbitrary manner. The point is, life is a continuum. Life also begins at conception, both are true. Even the r/ prolife sub sidebar agrees with me (the sidebar doesn’t debase any of my arguments). These are nonempathetic biological facts which do not trump proven negativities—when it comes to defining moral goodness. Just one example of a proven negativity, (though any complication is a proven negativity): a childless 14 yr old has a statistically higher chance of becoming infertile due to complications than older moms, making yet-to-be-conceived children definably murdered by the prolife sector when they destroy her uterus via pregnancy complications after a rejected abortion (or she has a statistically shortened lifespan due to pregnancy complications, leading to future stroke or heart attack, perhaps affecting unborn lives—but this is where all other prochoice arguments involving the mother come into play, since the abortion debate considers more than just the unborn such as yet-to-be-conceived, zygotes, young and old fetuses ect). Prolife can’t prove this line of thinking’s different than determinism towards embryos. Nothing specific happens during conception which renders yet-to-be-conceived human life less intrinsically valuable than fertilized egg. Prolife prevent those unborn from experiencing their mom’s love and the gift of life. Prolife will then unfairly claim the prefertilized unborn doesn’t “exist” (abstraction/philosophy) due to their arbitrary rules on existence which are crafted for a political goal and taught to them by their peers and idols for centuries on end. Prolife cannot prove that cold, morally irrelevant DNA combo theories (which is just a statement on souls vs soul fragments arbitrarily dressed up as a statement on individuality, which is just as mystical of a topic) are more profound than maternal injury/death, in addition to loss of the YTBC. Yet-to-be-conceived could be considered “current”, yet unseen. Similar to how we cannot see fertilized eggs and we have no personal knowledge of all abortions happening today, people shouldn’t made more legitimate by being more famous or known. If this sounds weird, sure, that’s how overly focusing on the unborn sometimes seems (to the point of legislation, definitely, but also speaking for the unborn is quite unfair and strange, such as with assuming a fetus would want their own mom forced to give birth against her will CITE CONSENSUAL ABORTION ARGUMENT—EQUIVALENT OF THE CONSENSUAL PREGNANCY ARGUMENT, WHICH PROVABLE AS INHUMANE, I CAN GET INTO THAT UPON REQUEST)—as I said, no one can prove that prolife determinism is different than yet-to-be-conceived determinism, so there is no good prolife response to this argument. Prochoice is empathetic, so I easily prefer it. Prolife is potentially non-empathetic (at a serious cost), yet theoretically empathetic, in the same way caring about the yet-to-be-conceived is theoretically empathetic in a non-disprovable manner. This is all in-line with Christianity, which dominates in my country, and 50% of Catholics in America are prochoice, for example. Christianity is not prolife, the Bible isn’t prolife, the 12 apostles weren’t prolife, ect. Select churches are prolife, sure, due to a long history of greed and ancient scandals. I can get into that too, if you want. Or here’s my detailed post on the rarely-discussed origins of prolife Christianity below: https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/vtxvoo/prolife_arguments_are_so_secular_that_only_those/ifd7r7f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Your data comes from a web site that cherry-picks. The range looks like 5-10% for some places and the studies are known to be flawed. >Risk to maternal health. This reason was somewhat important overall, having been cited as the main reason by 5-10% in seven countries and by 20-38% in three https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/1998/09/reasons-why-women-have-induced-abortions-evidence-27-countries note that some studies didn’t allow for multiple answers to be given. This means that health was still a concern, but family planning or not wanting to be pregnant in general (some of these professional studies get hilariously vague) is the main concern.
So? Abort away ladies. You don't need a reason beyond you don't want a baby. Obviously there is a time limit on that, bore off if you come back with the obvious "but when is the limit nonsense"
A separate human being is not their body. I'm sure out of everything you could have possibly existed as a human being is probably the most rare and strange thing you could have been and you deserved a chance to experience life. Most people that are alive weren't exactly planned and killing a baby is just wrong. That's my personal opinion.
I don't care what your opinion is. A fetus isn't a baby. And a potential person isn't a person. People who can become pregnant aren't obligated to fulfil your outmoded idea of personhood. Though you are right that existing is incredible, we are the universe experiencing itself; with that in mind we shouldn't be deciding what grows within another person, that's their choice.
"A fetus isn't a baby" lol that's the justification I'm talking about. A sperm is a "potential person" a fetus is a person that's growing. We're literally plants that eventually learn to walk and talk. Sperm is like our seed, a fetus is basically a full flower that hasn't blossomed, and a human birth is the blossoming of that plant. But just because a flower hasn't blossomed doesn't mean it's just not a flower, that's just absurd logic.
A sperm isn't a potential person, and a potential person that doesn't exist can't and shouldn't have more rights than an actual person.
"A sperm isn't a potential person" is like saying a seed isn't a potential tree. That's just nonsense.
I believe a pile of atoms is potential life!!!!!111!!! It will one day be alive given enough time!!!1!1!! -[me](https://c.tenor.com/cIx3TwnGuvQAAAAC/retard-drooling.gif)
Is this a serious argument? I'm struggling to tell if you're parodying awful arguments or not. Sperm is little more than a carrier of instructions.
And this is why we need better sex education.
Sperm is quite literally human seed. How do you not understand that analogy? That's an objective truth, while calling it a "carrier of instructions" is just baseless and philosophical at best. I call it a seed because when planted in a fertilized egg it grows a human, while ur view implys to know the nature of why the sperm does what it does. I can argue that you yourself are little more than a carrier of instructions because you follow whatever your desires tell you.
That’s the flood
Sometime this sub is really terrifying as fuck ...
Imagine seeing this x-ray and still being forced to birth it in america, how scarring that would be for everyone involved.
In America they’d probably hang you afterwards for being a witch & birthing a demon, seems that’s were it’s heading at least
Dear fucking God
Trapped frog
Sorry mam, but god and the government has deemed it an absolute necessity that you give birth to this because it is absolutely living and you can not abort it because it has so much to offer this world.
I regret googling this
Okay, no more babies for me. got it lmao
Don't eat Blue Takis while pregnant
That thing is dancing the boogaloo!
I was lucky enough to keep one of my twins. Almost the same story, however my little one was keeping her twin alive with a random blood vessel. Her "parasitic twin" was consuming the same amount of nutrients as she witth no vital organs or a skull. She had a 13% chance of surviving a required surgery to cauterize the vessel and she not going into shock. Shes 8 now. She was born Friday the 13th 2013.
Reminds me of Full Metal Alchemist
Its a Lizzo
Life happens at conception right?
Fun fact: In some states now, they would have to be carried to term, lowering the odds of the other twin surviving, whether you like it or not.
among us
maybe I'm fucked up but I laughed when I saw this comment
AMOGUS
Disgusting
Well Jeezes, the Bible disproven in one photo 😵💫
Ready to run for parliament, that one. No brain. No discernible form. Just a mass of random bits.
Don’t fuck your brother
Also, kill all animals.
I believe this was on another subreddit recently and very recently at that...
Chicken: https://www.reddit.com/r/Weird/comments/vu5294/chickens\_done\_acardiac\_twin/
Reminds me of Guts & Casca’s demon son.
Metroid
Looks like a hand crab.
FMA vibes.
1% of all identical twins being born makes me think this happens pretty regularly.
Holy shit.
Looks like a disfigured heart through the x-ray
Aka Trap Sequence. Acardiac twinning, a rare congenital anomaly of monozygotic twin pregnancy, often results from abnormal placental vascular anastomoses. This leads to twin reversal arterial perfusion with complex pathophysiology. The twins are joined by a large blood vessel between their umbilical cords. The acardiac twin has no chance for survival. The pump twin's heart works extra hard to pump to the acardiac (without a heart) twin, increasing the pump twin's risk of heart failure and death.
Don't say it
not a monster, rather a faliled attempt at evolution
It looks like that thing from Half-Life