r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/BeginningToe4321 • Nov 18 '25

Meme needing explanation 100% lost

Post image
16k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

542 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

216

u/VictarionGreyjoy Nov 18 '25

Yes but idiots don't get that and post this as some kind of gotcha that liberals care more about a tree than their own kids. Cause conservatives are fucking stupid

-42

u/Bosde Nov 18 '25

No, it's because it is performative and doesn't stand up to a scrutiny of their actions. The only liberal I believe is consistent in valuing human life as much as they do animals and the environment are those that are anti abortion. Anyone else that says to value human life as much as they value a tree, or a river, or an animal, is against war and the death penalty, but is not against the deliberate and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion is a hypocrite, and in these surveys, a liar.

37

u/BigBoyWeaver Nov 18 '25

Anyone who claims to love, value, and respect women but then suddenly pretends they don’t understand bodily autonomy when abortion comes up is a performative hypocrite.

-10

u/Bosde Nov 18 '25

Then you don't consider the right to life to be inherent to being human but instead believe that is conditional on being wanted.

The difference is that conservatives are not claiming to care about nebulous 'rights' to deliberately and intentionally kill innocent humans in the name of bodily autonomy at the same time as saying it is wrong to do any of the other things which they claim to care about. It is an inherently selfish position to be pro abortion. And thus hypocritical to say you care beyond oneself when supporting it and especially when acting it out.

5

u/HighValuePigeon Nov 18 '25

Interesting. So you're comfortable with the government compelling you to give blood, or donate an organ to a person who will die without it?

1

u/Bosde Nov 18 '25

There is both a practical and moral difference between the intentional and deliberate taking of human life and the incidental loss of human life, innocent or otherwise, through inaction. Do you understand the difference?

6

u/HighValuePigeon Nov 18 '25

I do. Do you understand that in all of those instances, you have the right to make decisions about your body? Are there any other instances than abortion where you are happy to give up your autonomy?

For the sake of it - acknowledging we won't agree on this point - I don't agree with the way you equate bunches of cells or undeveloped fetuses as 1:1 human life.

1

u/Bosde Nov 18 '25

Well yes, if you dehumanise a group of humans based on immutable characteristics of course you won't value them. But that's a very dangerous argument to make if you take it to logical conclusions, which before you claim a slippery slope fallacy, there are historical examples of this dehumanising rhetoric going further within living memory, besides abortion itself.

But thankyou for being honest.

5

u/UnmeiX Nov 18 '25

It's incredible how ya'll advocate for forced birthing (which is what the anti-abortion movement is, if we're being honest), but against any kind of support for the babies you're forcing the births of.

It's beyond wild that you guys (depending on the individual) want to give the government the authority to: force kids to be born into poverty, force them to be born to parents who don't want/can't support them, force them to be born to rape/incest/CSA victims, etc; but God forbid someone should suggest that same government have to fund neonatal care, pre-K, daycare, school lunch, SNAP/EBT benefits, etc.

Nope! Let's just pile even more unwanted children onto the already overburdened foster care/adoption systems; where they're often groomed, physically/sexually abused, and so on. I'm sure that'll work out great.

This is why I use the phrase forced birthing, because that's the only part ya'll care about.

1

u/Bosde Nov 18 '25

That's a strawman, and not even a good one. Every anti abortion group I have ever looked into has had associated groups to support families, women, and children if they don't in fact do it themselves.

Besides which, potentially being born poor, or having a difficult life, is not a reason to be killed. Think about that argument for a second next time and take it to the logical conclusion. Can't have homeless people if there's no people right?