"How come with humans it's abortion, but with chickens it's an omelet?"
human : abortion :: chicken : omelet
abortion = omelet?
There are so many problems with this that I don't know where to start.
1. Humans and chickens are different. I think everyone acknowledges that on some level. How come with humans it's murder, but with chickens it's an appetizer?
2. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that humans and chickens are equal (which, if omelets are okay as the argument implies, means human rights go out the window). The eggs used for omelets are not fertilized, so closer comparisons would be "human : menstruation :: chicken : omelet" or "human : abortion :: chicken : balute".
3. Even if we equate a chicken egg with a chicken AND a chicken with a human, the analogy still compares two entirely different types of nouns, one describing an action and one describing an object. An action is not even the same as its immediate aftermath, ______* the aftermath of several action performed upon its aftermath.
To review, the ":"s, the "::", and the "=" are logically nonsensical.
I know this is probably meant to be a joke, but jokes should at least make fucking sense!
*The appropriate conjunction (or adverb?) to put here escapes me.