this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
534 points (97.8% liked)
Brand New Sentence
210 readers
771 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other.
- Post title must be the sentence.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
puts on devil's advocate hat
No, because liquor laws don't care about when life began. They care about date of birth. Life beginning at conception does not erase date of birth as a valid type of data.
removes hat because I'm not pro-life
We should not rely on "pro-lifers are too stupid to understand how to refute this" when deciding our views.
Will I sell booze to this baby? Absolutely.
Will I extend this baby booze on credit? Not in this economy.
What I really want to know: Is Abortionado pronounced like afficianado, and they are an expert in abortions? Or is it like Tornado, and they are a tornado of abortions?
Like I always say, abortionado, abortionado 🤷♂️
I assumed the first one before reading your comment, probably because I am too feeble to imagine an abortion tornado on my own.
Hey 30 years old is 30 years old. Give that baby a bottle of Jack Daniels.
Objection! They believe that life starts at conception, but not that aging starts at conception! This is why people are not considered 9 months old at birth!
Conceptually, people can also be frozen at any age, which "pauses" or slows their aging (see: Captain America, Han Solo, Dave Lister)
that's a good steelman. but this is why I think the better argument is Hasan's usual hypothetical about this: there's a fire in a hospital and you can only get into one of the rooms in time to save some people. do you go into NICU where you could save a couple babies or to the IVF section where you can save thousands of embryos?
This hypothetical is great as it forces them to admit born babies are more important than embryos, but it doesn't prove embryos are not alive
it's not about them being alive; embryos are alive, that's not even disputed. it's about whether the life is a person. if you think the babies are more important you're already conceding the embryos don't have personhood, or at least not to the degree that babies do.
either case they shouldn't have the same rights as actual people. if you think an embryo is a person then you can't choose the couple babies over so many people. or if you do it's still going to be fun hearing you try to justify it without conceding.
Ooh yeah makes sense
load more comments
(2 replies)
Like I tell a friend of mine who was premature: Do you want to celebrate your birthday today or in a couple months when you should have been born?
Is Dave Lister an actual real life person? Or is it a fictional character like the others? Otherwise, they can't be taken as examples. That's like saying that oh yeah, a toddler can totally lift a car no problem.... see Superman.
He’s an absolute smeghead.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I am pro-choice & think that life begins at birth, but this argument is fallacious. Even if you believed that life begins at conception, you could coherently claim that this baby is physically still a baby and cannot safely take alcohol
Safely? No.
Legally though?
And what about hilariously? When did we start leaving that one out?
Age for legal purposes generally begins counting at birth, even for people whose cells have been active, and whose organs and such have been growing and maturing for longer than that.
If you could put a baby into suspended animation of some form, and return it to usual biological function 25 years later, there might be a real legal issue. As it stands, I don't see it.
As a libertarian I would advocate selling liquor to all babies who want it.
Man, I miss the "As a libertarian" guy on reddit. Dude would start every comment like that before saying something insane.
Hilariously redundant.
As a libertarian, I'd also still comment on Reddit.
As a progressive with libertarian tendencies, I would add that alcoholic babies should also have access to rehab if they want it.
As a libertarian I would advocate selling liquor to all babies who can afford it.
FTFY
load more comments
(1 replies)
As a libertarian I would advocate selling ~~liquor to all~~ babies who want it
load more comments
(4 replies)
In this thread: people who are going to lose our liquor sales licenses when we're caught in a sting operation by an undecover cop baby.
well if embryos can be frozen for longer time, perhaps they can be the first humans to travel to other galaxies?
What's the benefit of sending babies to Mars? That's just a very expensive recipe for dead babies.
TIL Mars is in another galaxy
well, there's also questions about whether you could have a species that is entirely made of robots, that could do spaceflight, and kinda incubate humans in a lab when it arrives.
my personal guess is that it's not possible to have a species entirely made of robots because they cannot reproduce reliably. so it would go extinct after a while. but that's just my guess; some people believe that robots can indeed build more of themselves, i.e. completely reproduce.
You are absolutely correct, we were supposed to go to Alpha Centauri! I have course corrected, and have confirmed that we are now on the correct trajectory.
The new estimated time of arrival is: 1.1E+4932 years. 🚀👨🚀
Jokes aside, would they need to reproduce? Or just not break for a long time
How fucked up is it to be of legal age, and have no benefits, as a Baby, because your life was literally put on hold while frozen.
The baby can legit be told to get a job, diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, prescribed adult drugs.
Or am I reading this wrong?
All those legal obligations start at date of birth. I think that was the point of the post.
How is this confusing anyone? We count age from date of birth. Anything that happens before that has nothing to do with your legal age any more than whether you were carried for more or less than 9 months. This would only become interesting if someone froze a toddler for 30 years or something.
Yeah, seems like this might be a bad faith argument intended to cause more division. It's a flimsy argument that people who like the point it's trying to make might ignore that big thing that makes it fall apart while those against it won't ignore that and will see the other side ignoring it as dishonest.
Trying not to upvote flawed arguments just because it supports my views challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
view more: next ›