Ah, you fell for one of the classic blunders: expecting your opponent to value logic and consistency in their opinions
Yeah my fault. You can’t really expect them to treat logic with respect when they are balls deep in an altarboy.
As the below comments have shown, lmao
Eggs aren’t fertilized and thus aren’t embryos tho.
I already checked they can eat fertilized eggs as well.
I mean, unless people are eating Filipino Balut on a regular basis… I don’t think that the vast majority of eggs are fertilized.
I guess Balut is a good question and the island / city of Ilo Ilo is predominantly Catholic. So I could ask around lol. But honestly, I avoid that food. It just doesn’t look right…
Maybe not anymore, but they were for thousands of years while this has been practiced.
Wrong. Eggs can be fertilized. Many people eat them without even realizing.
It’s unlikely a factory farm would bother to have a rooster around after the hens start laying.
We’re talking religion here, so I guess it could be a virgin fertilization…
Logic in religion? Sorry, friend, but that’s a no can do
To be fair, convincing anyone with facts and logic is pretty tough (and not just for me), religious or not.
Turns out, that’s not how humans work most of the time…
to paraphrase an interaction I saw screenshotted somewhere at some point:
“you can change people’s opinions with facts”
“[link] here’s a study saying that’s incorrect”
“well I still think it works”
I think that my mind has been changed by facts. But how do I know? Maybe something else actually changed my mind, and I tell myself it was facts because I like to think of myself as a logical person.
“Fish on Lent” is supposed to be an act of humility, as it is historically a peasant dish.
“Eggs on Lent” is appropriate not because “eggs aren’t chickens until they’re hatched” but because eggs are cheap.
Of course, with the price of fish diverging heavily from meat in the wake of factory farming, one might rationally argue that the American lental feast should be burgers.
But this would not be the first time that the dogma of church history outweighs the message they’re supposedly teaching.
If eggs aren’t chickens than a fetus isn’t an adult.
If you want to get really theological
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
the question isn’t whether a fetus is an adult but whether it is “human”. And the question of humanity boils down to whether a fetus has a soul. And a fetus doesn’t have a soul until “the quickening”, which is generally regarded as the point at which a woman can feel the fetus kicking in her belly (typically between week 16 and 25, on the back end of the second trimester).
So the real question a doctor has to ask before performing an abortion is whether he can detect a soul in the fetus he is aborting.
I think the biggest reason the debate continues amongst honest actors is that defining when life begins is always going to be arbitrary.
Is it meiosis - when a genetically unique human begins to form? Is it fetal heartbeat? Is it 2nd trimester? Is it birth? Is it after they’ve developed language and can begin to function in society?
The line is going to be arbitrary any place its drawn, and there will be people thinking it’s murder to abort and others who think it’s fine.
That’s one end of the argument. But the other is the same argument you’ll find with conjoined twins or child support payments. At what point do the needs of one individual supersede the well-being of another?
That’s another arbitrary line to draw. But the fundamental problem with “pro-life” as a movement is that said line seems to be drawn to explicitly exclude the pregnant woman. In fact, the possibility of pregnancy almost feels like an excuse to weaponize law enforcement against women, such that even the possibility of being pregnant instills a perpetual social/economic obligation on an entire gender.
there will be people thinking it’s murder to abort and others who think it’s fine.
There will be people thinking its murder not to abort in quite a few circumstances. And women bleeding out in ERs, because physicians are too afraid of the civil/criminal liabilities of aiding a pregnant woman are becoming entirely too common in these so-called pro-life states.
Which is why it’s so damn complicated. But I think the time line of when human life begins is the biggest sticking point because it’s the one that determines the basis of all other arguments.
You have to be willing to see the other side sometimes to have an honest debate.
The best pro-life argument I ever heard was to look at pregnancy like an accident. If you cause an accident that puts someone else’s life in danger, you’re legally required to stop and render aid to the victim until someone else can take over - up until doing so would endanger your own survival.
To the pro-lifer, choosing to have sex was causing the accident that placed the “child” in mortal danger, and carrying the child to term was rendering aid. They also held the position that the logic meant that a raped woman had no responsibility to continue the pregnancy because it wasn’t the victim’s fault they were raped, and that a pregnancy endangering the mother could be terminated.
That argument could be persuasive, but only if the fetus is considered a human.
I think the time line of when human life begins is the biggest sticking point
Its an age old philosophical debate, but that’s precisely why it isn’t a viable candidate for policy. You inevitably get into a contradictory standard of enforcement when the liabilities for fetal death eclipse the electoral benefits of prosecuting pregnant women.
Texas isn’t using these rules to adjudicate HOV lanes, for instance.
While the Texas penal code recognizes an unborn baby as a person, current transportation law in the state does not.
So the question isn’t what’s being raised. These are arbitrary distinctions set by the whims of the legislature.
You have to be willing to see the other side sometimes to have an honest debate.
But we’re well past the point of debate. We past that point when AG Ken Paxton petitioned to stop the abortion of a nonviable pregnancy.
The best pro-life argument I ever heard was to look at pregnancy like an accident. If you cause an accident that puts someone else’s life in danger, you’re legally required to stop and render aid to the victim until someone else can take over
The act of pregnancy itself puts the mother’s life in danger. However, the prospective father is not liable for providing health care to the woman he impregnated.
These theories are quaint thought experiments, but they fail to make their way into law.
That argument could be persuasive
That’s the thing though, you’re jumping straight to Ken Paxton as the standard example for the other side. You’re judging the other side of the debate by the extremists. There are millions of pro-life people who hold that position out of legitimate concern for what they consider to be unborn children, and not because they want to control women.
Acting like the goal of every pro-lifer is subjugation of women is no different than pro-lifers acting like pro-choice people are only interested in “murdering babies.”
It’s an antagonistic position that prevents honest discussion and only serves to empower the extremists on the right.
People on both sides have noble goals, and acknowledging that is the first step towards seeking consensus. Calling everyone on the other side mysoginists gets them defensive, and the political right has weaponized that defensive reaction for decades and used it to create the most powerful single-issue voting group in modern history.
The table eggs you eat are not fertilized, therefore not a chicken.
Fertilized eggs aren’t a chicken either though…
But no one wants to eat them because they’re fertilized.
Clearly you haven’t been travelling through Asia.
I’m sorry, but if you’re gonna use countries like China which have a dish literally called “virgin boy eggs” and consists of eggs and urine, i dont think you have room to talk.
Nobody eats fertilized eggs. The eggs we buy in cartons from the grocery store are unfertilized. The hen factory those eggs originate trom has no males anywhere near the ladies.
It is the rooster’s job to fertilize the egg by inserting its sperm into the hen’s cloaca during mating. In reality, the process of fertilization is more complex than this brief summary suggests. The journey of the rooster’s sperm within the hen is rather arduous until it finally reaches the eggs and fertilizes them.
You’re naive as hell lol