Anti-Abortion

Me in blue

Am I in the wrong here, Sup Forums? Do I need to start reevaluating my life?

Keep in mind that I've had special education all my life so don't feel bad to call out on my bullshit, I could just be retarded.

Other urls found in this thread:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You're wrong bro. At some point it become a human but other than EXTREME late term abortion the process does not end a human life.

Most people consider someone being no longer being alive when their heart stops beating and/or when they stop breathing.

A fetus cant do these two functions until way late into the process and if you were to pull those cells out of the mother during the time that approved abortions are done it wouldnt be a baby (esp cause it couldnt do those two things).

Abortions in 3rd trimester are pretty much murder though. At about 6mos on that is a living thing that has the potential to live and breath on its own with a little bit of help.

>arguing on youtube
yes you're wrong

I'm confused, how is an embryo in the process of building an ability to breath and having a human heart not human?

To me it would be like saying a baby isn't human cause its brain isn't fully developed yet and it has no teeth. Every single one of us were embryos at one point of our lives. Were we not human at our conception?

Like I said I've been through special education.

Abort yourself, it's a human being from conception onwards. There is no magic arbitrary distinction.
You are scientifically correct OP. Link them to the Ben Shapiro abortion video or perhaps some fetus gore

If the leafer says it's wrong, you must be right OP

Abortion is a human sacrifice ritual -- the most powerful known to exist. It was invented by eugenics operatives within the occultic elite to cury Satan's favor while gaining his protection of their warmaking, usury, currency manipulation, and control over the minds of men.

Why is abortion the most powerful form of ritual human sacrifice? Because it entails the most defenseless victims conceivable (the unborn) being murdered by the very persons most duty-bound to love and protect them from harm -- their own mothers, and medical doctors who've sworn oaths to their gods to do no harm.

These ritual murders which society misnames abortions are, furthermore, carried out in a nonchalant and routinized fashion exclusively to facilitate hedonistic apathy, laziness, and convenience; symbolically placing ten seconds of vaginal pleasure above the value of a human lifetime's worth of a living, breathing human being's consciousness.

In short, Satan loves abortion because it symbolizes evil within cruelty within evil. It proffers that a few seconds of vaginal contractions mean more than human life itself, and it does this using the greatest symbols of love and compassion (mothers and doctors), satanically inverted into spiritually numbed, unfeeling executioners.

So the next time you see a western woman screeching about her abortion rights on the steps of some state capitol, look into her empty eyes and know that you're seeing more than a simple murderer. Look into her eyes and know that you're seeing a demon, the very definition of evil. And know that the steady stream of death she inflicts on the unborn is what powers the elite's satanic karma.

Yes a single cell, indistinguishable from a single cell from your elbow skin is a human, right

>"you're a bad person"

Maybe, but you probably never took a human life like these backwards agnostic retards.

Yes, this is my human body with my human skin cells.

Wait but are you saying that all your skin cells are individual humans like every zygote is an individual human? That was my point... what makes a zygote a human?

both a human cell (as long as it is alive, actively metabolising and capable of reproducing) and the entire human body can be taken as alive. That my cells are alive does not lessen the fact that I am too. It is just a matter of perspective.

Should we ask /sci/?

Well my perspective is that when my girlfriend had a miscarriage we didn't fake a week off work and mourn for 6 months after an expensive funeral. In fact, nobody does that. Not to say miacarriages arent sad, but clearly people dont treat them like the death of even a very young human. Why is that? Furthermore, I sure as shit don't cry when a living thing like a skin cell dies.

No, the woman is just reverting to muh reproductive rights meme

By 8 weeks the heart is beating, and that is when it is generally safe for Planned $$$ Parenthood to do abortions.

So ask her when it is 8 weeks old and its heart is beating and its tiny brain is emitting waves, is it still not human?

She is saying shit about abortion from 1960s technology when no one had a fucking clue there was a heart there at 8 weeks beating.


>i have experience with them, they wouldnt do one before 8 weeks
>ours had no heartbeat

God dude why do liberals have to be such fucking faggots about stuff. I'm fine with people aborting their babies so they purge their genetic line, but I really want be against it because of those faggots.

Whoa sonny save that energy for algebra ii tomorrow!

Any cohesive group of unique human dna is a life. Sperm and Eggs do not have full sets of dna. Human embryos have unique dna that isn't shared by the host. Cancer is mutated human dna

There is no logical argument for abortion. None at all.

Abortionist argument #1:

>My body is my property!

You cannot trap someone on your property and kill them because they can't remove themselves.

Outside of rape, you placed the child inside you.

Abortionist argument #2:

>It's a clump of cells! Not a baby!

Babies are clumps of cells. You're a clump of cells. I'm a clump of cells.

A fetus is part of our human life cycle--we were all fetuses once. We were all kids once. We become adults. We become elders. It's all part of the lifecycle.

Abortionist argument #3:

>It will have a poor miserable life!

It will still have a chance at a life. Oprah had a poor miserable childhood.

By your logic, we should go around killing people who have miserable lives. We're doing them a favor, right?

Abortionist argument #4

>What about rape and incest?! Huh, huh?!

Sure. It's not the baby's fault, but let's only allow abortion in the case of rape or incest.

That outlaws 99% of all abortions currently done. Abortion is just murder of convenience.

But... all of your cells have a complete set of dna... are they all a life? Is that one neuron in your asshole really a life? Seriously?

this tbqhwy

Maybe because you don't consider it human even thought scientifically it is, or was human.

Perhaps you thought it didn't feel anything when it died, making you more relived.

For some people it is a heart breaking experience, and they do consider it a loss of a child cause it was. How was it not?

I mean, look at our friends at Ctrl Alt Delete

LOSS

I pretty much have the same belief that human life begins at conception. It seems obvious doesn't it?

I think you made very cogent points and you're just arguing with a brainwashed marxist. There is virtually no hope for these people. You should be confident in your opinions here and not need to seek validation from Sup Forums.

Human life does start at fucking birth. All the DNA is paired up taken from the father and mother, left alone the embryo will develop into an infant, into a child, into an adult. These people just come up with muh feels and bs science to attempt to justify infanticide, don't buy their bullshit, you obviously know better.

>abort a fetus
>strong woman made a choice

>kill a pregnant woman
>double homocide

I agree on all , but much like anything illegal, people find a way. And if abortion is made 100% illegal, then lots of women will be doing wild shit and going to dark underground clinics to get it done.

I'm fine with abortion but it would be nice to stop the lel let's go get this shit sucked out , whoops!

And then they get sent to jail for murder right?

I think this has a good point.. in an implied sense. Laws can always be changed but the existence of this particular law alludes to the common sense that a pregnancy is the mother AND her yet to be born child.

Just a reminder, there are NO Christians on Sup Forums. Anyone on Sup Forums spouting Christian beliefs if LARP because being Christian and Anti-Abortion is currently the most edgy and least popular lifestyle. 3 years ago, NO ONE gave a shit about abortion, much less christcuckery until they realized it triggered liberals.

Any Christcuckery displayed on Sup Forums is for the triggering of liberals or is ironic.

I'm agnostic, not christian but I believe abortion is murder of another human being.

Yeah it's as nonconformist as you can be and still piss people off while being taken seriously. It is the same attitude teenagers always have because they get hard pissing off their parents and other authority figures.

Didn't read the whole thing, and while I am a huge Trump supporter and right winger, abbortion is prefectly fine from a biological/developmental standpoint. I suggest reading up on gastrulation, neurulation, and development. I'm cool with abortion until ~5-6 months.

How can people think that embryos aren't alive? I'm willing to listen to arguments about how much value the life of the embryo has against the life of a human being that has been born (or is older of course), but to pretend like the fertilized egg isn't even a lifeform is just incorrect.

In order for you to consider that the case you would have to believe that life didn't begin on Earth until the first fish swam in the sea, but we all know life started much earlier and much smallar than plants and animals.

skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

That's cute, but what about the science?

Uh seriously?

It's obvious why those laws are not contradictory if you stop and think critically for even a moment

Right so according to that analogy, if we took it to the start of life (not the very very start which we don't exactly know but there is strong evidence that it was self reproducing RNA) then the trillions of bacteria in our intestine (which outnumber our ~30-70 trillion cells) should have the same rights as humans. So to make distinctions, we consider developmental complexity, and until ~5-6 months, fetuses do not have any of the features that would give strong credence to considering them humans.

I can go more into the biology if you need it.

Just because it is alive doesn't mean it should be considered a protected human life. I don't know who is saying they aren't alive... of course, one definition of life involves being capable of surviving with your own systems and anot embryo can't do that

Cancer can happen for no reason dummy.

We get tumors all the time, jusy our body usually breaks it up before it's too late.

Doesn't matter, you're both retarded.

If you can't convince them that every stage of embryo development is human, you can at least make them acknowledge that destroying something with the potential to be human carries some moral weight, which increases as the fetus develops, and it should be a sobering decision not to be taken lightly, a wake-up call to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Before you do that, try to see if you can get them to define when a fetus becomes a baby, and when abortion becomes unacceptable, anyone but the most rabid of SJW's will oppose abortion when the baby is viable to live outside the womb. Walk it back from the day before the due date (yes I know it's just an estimate) all the way through the third term. Keep going back until they can name a solid point where humanity is gained.
Also, they seem to be taking the 3rd wave feminist angle and calling you a bad person for supporting abortion. Sophists think this gives them the upper hand, but accusing you of bad faith opens up a major weak point. Point out their Ad Hominem and counter with statistics showing how most of the people strongly opposed to abortion are women, while men are more ambivalent.

>cancer can happen for no reason

When a pregnant woman is murdered everyone agrees the baby was also murdered even if she was only a week pregnant.

For all anyone knows she was planning on aborting the kid the next day, and yet nobody even thinks to consider her intent. A baby was murdered.

The killer is demonized for the barbarism of ending a life in the womb. It's viscerally disgusting to literally every single human being that isn't totally damaged.

And we stop recognizing this barbarism when the mother is the one who intends to end the baby's life why exactly?

No. The person you're arguing with has no understanding of biology.

Even a zygote has human DNA and its cells are reproducing.
only women think that something that is both alive and a human being isn't a person.

There is no point in human development where you are a single cell

and it's completely discernible because it has different DNA

Well not literally no reason, but certain genes limit the effectiveness of the bodies defense against cancerous growths.

You can never smoke, have a great diet, exercise everyday, and be happy as can be and still get cancer and die at 50 despite nver being exposed to carcinogens.

A zygote has seperate individual human DNA from any other person

Why would you be against shitskins and liberals killing their own offspring? The only concern one needs to have with abortion is how to get muslims to do it as well

>Biologically speaking cancer could be considered human
Because a clump of dead cells is the same as live ones. Stopped reading there. No point in arguing with them.

Most people think that embryos have less value , they just don't over quibble over specific definitions of "alive" because it's a pointless semantic argument which only exists because the term "alive" is insanely imprecise in this context.

A good thought experiment is to consider the opposite extreme where you have a comatose, braindead senior on life support. Is it murder to remove life support if their heart is still beating? How about 50 years from now when we can remove their organs and keep them alive almost indefinitely?

Here's the thing. I too am an atheist and it's wrong because it's the ultimate slippery slope. If it's not wrong to kill a fetus in the womb then it's also not wrong to kill grandma when she's taking a nap and inconveniencing you a bit.

The Walking Dead and Nietzsche sum up what I came to as to why it is wrong because it makes you a little bit more of a monster/calculating machine to do it. This is reasoning completely independent of the existence of a soul or any other such nonsense but merely a measure of your capacity for empathy for others vs. your convenience.

Oh look, it's this thread again
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

"They're not human, i can do whatever i want with it, the government can't tell me I can't"
I thought lincoln settled this shit.

I don't think that believing the bacteria is alive necessitates that you believe it has equal rights or equal value to human life. I certainly wouldn't try to make the argument that something like a skin cell has as much value as the organism to which the cell belongs and is a part of.

Again I respect the argument that different lifeforms or different stages of life have different values. Most people would consider an elderly person who has lived most of their life to be worth less than a child who has their whole life ahead of them, to use a simple analogy.

My contention is with the people who claim that the fetus shouldn't be considered alive at all until X stage of development: the fetus is a lifeform at conception, and while that doesn't necessitate that it has inherent equal value to the mother, it does necessitate that its value is not zero if you are someone who values "life"in general. If we agree upon that then the argument becomes what value that life has and at what point it is ok to terminate that life.

cancer cells are alive
but they also share the same DNA as the rest of the cells in the body
so there's no point in bringing them up

>literally using the phrase 'ultimate slippery slope'

You forgot to mention how it's also the ultimate false equivalency

Basically even if it doesn't matter to society that you're killing another life (because they have changed the definition of human life) if you're not ostracized for it but you are still killing a piece of your own capacity for empathy. This brings you closer to the sociopathic state and makes you closer to an insect than a human being.

Sorry if my reasoning makes you feel wrong inside.

you were wrong to try and debate a leftist and expect logic or civility. otherwise, you're correct.

There's a point where it has brain functions and that's where you can, by the strict legal medical definition, call it a living human.

>A fetus or embryo may be human (much like my spit and hair are human)
Stopped reading there. There is no way anything intellectual can come after that.

Would you mind presenting the reason, Oh Wise one?

lol we don't assign people value because of DNA or how close someone is to being a fully formed human being or how able they are to live without life support.

It's wrong to kill brainless vegetables and people with wildly fucked up genes and premature babies, and we feel this even if they're totally mindless, and even if nobody will lament their loss.

That's what people have to rectify with their belief that it's okay to kill a barely developed, mindless person. Why would they feel bad about stuffing cyanide down a brainless vegetable's throat but not the fetus?

If you can't even articulate your point without quoting logical fallacies by name you may want to reconsider your line of argument.

I guarantee you are no ubermensch and you make decisions every day which "kill a piece of your own capacity for empathy" because those decisions serve your immediate convenience.

It's ethically dishonest of you to apply this extremely personal litmus test to something which has no direct bearing on your life. If you believe that mantra you stated it only has value for you to live it. It's not a measure for governing society en masse and if you think otherwise I suggest re-reading your Nietzsche because you have hugely missed his point

not sure what your argument is here.

DNA is important because it completely destroys the feminist's argument that it's
>part of my body
when it clearly fucking isn't

>In fact, nobody does that.

Maybe not 6 months and an expensive funeral,but human beings with hearts generally do mourn miscarriages and treat them as a death.

Hope you succeeded having another baby, kinda...

It's logically consistent with the pro-abortion position regarding the mother's agency in carrying a pregnancy to term that a pregnancy terminated prematurely without her consent (as in murder, etc.) constitutes murder of the child.

OP here, a vegetable and a fetus isn't even comparable, I wouldn't use that argument at all. A vegetable has no chance to gain any sort of brain function anymore, while an embryo/fetus is in the middle of developing it.

Abortion is the edgiest meme there is. Its not the murder of a human bro :^) hehehe

You state multiple times in your facebook image that an embryo "is alive." Those are your words.

The vegetable is also "alive" unless you want to claim that it's dead because it has no brain function. In which cases embryos are not "alive" either.

Basically stop saying dumb shit and clean up your argumentation if you want to focus on something else entirely, like whether rights should be handed out in the present based on a potential future state.

How much of a self hating nihilist worm can you be "cancer is also alive brah". I post boiling retard rage on pol daily and Im not that misanthropic. Thats because abortion is a meme. A troll. Nobody believes abortions are wholesome and good offline. It is only online, when we put on our masks, that abortion becomes "totally ok whatever"

Ive seen preserved fetus' from weeks 3 to after birth even and i can assure you it every bit resembles a human

An embryo isn't suffering in a vegetative state.

I didn't say a vegetable isn't alive but I'm pretty sure that anyone here would say "If I become a vegetable I want you to kill me"

And the kill me part infers to the fact you're still alive.

And embryo isn't comparable to that state.

The question does not really make sense.

To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.

The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).

Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.

Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.

And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm

concerning some modern livestock).

On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.

So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.

There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.

I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?

In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"

Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.

So the only person who can legally kill an unborn child is its mother.

>There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question

This is where you fucked up. You create a false dichotomy of science vs. religion and your argument relies on it, even though it is a logical fallacy. "If it's not science it must be religion" is pure bullshit.

I just got another reply from the same person who called me evil

>"You are a lying sack of shit.

>You realize that the CURRENT LAW has restrictions on abortion? And that nobody really argues against those except in triage cases, where your lot would prefer to see the mother die than "abort" an already dead and rotting corpse festering in that sinful woman's womb?

>You're evil because you spout horseshit and people die because of it. ACTUAL PEOPLE, not unfeeling clumps of cells.

>And STILL you have nothing to say about the millions of "human lives" flushed out by the menstrual cycle every fucking year. Why doesn't that loss of life bother you one bit? It's because you don't actually see zygotes as humans, but will pretend you do if it gives you an excuse to stomp on women.

>Get fucked, you vile inhuman scum."

I can't take this seriously

When the mother chooses not to carry to term there is nothing to kill. As I stated, it's the mother's agency in proceeding with a pregnancy which is the crux of the pro-abortion position and if you don't understand what that logically entails then you haven't made a good faith effort to debate it. If you disagree with the pro-abortion position then that's fine but the laws those original posters were quoting were not contradictory.

cancer is your own cells, changed a bit, fighting with your status quo cells to take over, end result is always death. Much like libtards right now. Or why dictators tend to kill their own people even if benevolent. You need a final solution or every cell dies, you get rid of the cancer in order to restore balance of the system, or you lose the system.

Thats why abortion is generally accepted when under risk of death. The mother is proven to be alive, the fetus may or may not survive and may take the mother with it if it does. Is it murder ethically? yeah, but also there was no other choice, so it is a tragedy with no villain, everyone is a victim.

Abortion when there's no risk of anything is murder with no redeeming quality to it

Removing cancer is not accepted as murder as it is your own cells, your own system. If you cut your arm people will think you are crazy but that's about it..

>It's ethically dishonest of you to apply this extremely personal litmus test to something which has no direct bearing on your life.

As a members of society we apply personal litmus tests to murders and crimes and all kinds of bad behaviors that "have no direct bearing on my life". We judge them as a society all the time when they "have no direct bearing on our life"

If society decays downward because no one stands against the devaluing of people's lives then that has "direct bearing on my life"

Nothing fallacious about my analogies you just don't like them.

Society en masse needs to value human life.

It's all moral relativism anyway, but my idea of society is superior because it's in line with successful western ideals.

There is no empirical evidence that determines the value of a life. Your point makes no sense.

Typical liberals bullshit, resorting to lumping you together with a group and arguing about the group instead of the individual.

>There is no empirical evidence that determines the value of a life.

I never said there was, please try reading the content of my post and arguing that instead of whatever bullshit you feel like making up.

Both sides do this shit, hop off your horse.

> until ~5-6 months, fetuses do not have any of the features that would give strong credence to considering them humans.

Other than the fact that a human fetus has human DNA, following a developmental program encoded in that DNA (as well as epigenetics) specific for h. sapien.

You're implying that morphology is the only factor that determines whether something is human. Did you just finish biology 101?

>I never said there was
Then where exactly do you stand on this? If it's not science and not religion then what is it?

Morality.

So an opinion. Gotcha.

Exactly. If a woman doesn't get murder charges for killing an embryo people should be totally happy with me getting nothing more than aggravated assault charges if I drop-kick a pregnant woman and destroy that same embryo.

The only argument against this is that the woman can choose whether it's murder or not, which is fucking laughable.

The only reason murder is illegal in the first place is because of opinions, dipshit.

More than a few libtard circuits are being shorted out in this thread because they can't dismiss pro life arguments as religious fundamentalism anymore. It's pretty entertaining.

So say if the mother is going to die if the child is killing the mother, and therefore the child can no longer survive in the mothers womb since shes dead,

Is that the only right time to have an abortion?

Clearly you didn't read my original post if you feel the need to say this. We choose whatever value we give to a life, and this varies widely between people, and institution. Get with the program.

> then the trillions of bacteria in our intestine (which outnumber our ~30-70 trillion cells) should have the same rights as humans

You also added a very sneaky argument into here. I'll dissect it for you.

Bacteria aren't human you kike. You're joining the concepts of life w rights here, when those are two separate arguments.

1. Is the subject alive?
2. Does it have rights?
Then add
3. How do you define rights?

Stop moving goalposts

You can sidestep the whole "Is a fetus a human" thing and still be for abortion.

pic related, paraphrasing of JJT's 'famous violinist argument'

Society does not create laws to apply personal moral litmus tests. That's your own wank fantasy. If you love western ideals so much then try reading some actual Western legal theory sometime, for example start with legal positivism.

Then your argument as to whether a fetus is a human life for the sake of considering it murder is irrelevant.

>By the fifth week of the gestation period, the heart starts beating and divides into chambers. Six weeks later blood is flowing inside the body, and there is an improved heartbeat rate of 100 to 160 every minute. So you can hear a baby’s heartbeat at six week gestation.

This is when it should be considered a human. If time of death can be determined by a pulse, time of life should also be able to be determined by a pulse.

However, you can't argue with pro-choicers. The woman's body is her domain and she should be able to do what she sees fit with it. If there is a tumor she should be able to cut it out, if there is an invasive life form, they should decide if it should be removed.

Imagine if your testicle enlarged for 9 months and a huge 8lb very cute tumor pop'd out crying for food and shitting all over the place. This might be great if you wanted that to happen, but to be surprised by this at 9 weeks would be life changing.

So, scientifically and in accordance to the law, once it's heart is beating it should be considered human, and we try to not kill humans as much as possible.

You're in the right OP. Ask them to define at what point an embryo can be considered a human life. Once they give you the standard response, "once it exhibits primitive brain activity!" you can look up a plethora of standard state restrictions which, unsurprisingly, prevent abortion after brain waves are detectable, i.e. about 12 weeks after conception.

This muddies the water a bit on determining whether or not something is a human life because of its physical appearance, as opposed to the complexity of biological processes in is capable of independently exhibiting. If something can look like a clump of cells, but still independently produces basic human-like brain activity, and your opponents agree that the qualifier for "human" is ultimately determined by human-like brain activity, they can't say that an embryo is not a human just because it doesn't look like one.

>/pol
>gas the jews
>nuke the mudslimes
>lol, libtards got shot in a night club :DDD
>9/11 memes
>oh no people aborting little cells, the cruel humanity :'( we must stop this :'(