Is a zygote a human being /sci/? Asking for a bunch of liberals

I think that it is a human being and that there are scientific arguments to proof this. The problem is that is doesn't end there.

Know you need to demonstrate that this human being is a person.

Then you need to argue that there are universal rights that every person has.

They can tell you that a embryo is not a person, and in the sense that you can say that an embryo is a human being, you can not derive moral rights.

This is no longer the topic of science.

>>8645175
This is only debatable. People will argue it is not due to lacknof humanoid form, some would argue it is due to its DNA.
Regardless after insemination it is a life of its own. The two parents genetics have been bound and this zygot now has its own genetic future separate of both its parents. It is in no way shape or form a part of either parent anymore it is its own, if it were viable to extract it and grow it in a tube one could.
The argument needs to be is how important is any life over another. Not weather it counts as its own

As much your fallen hair being your clone

>>8645213
But the Embryo has DNA that of a human being.

A different human being from yourself

Embryology suggests yes

>>8645213
so human rights are not about humans but rather about persons?
what a bunch of stupid shit.

>>8645225
Yes, I agree with that.

>>8645229
Human being is a biological classification it leaves no place to ambiguity. The same doesn't happen with the concept of person.

A few examples:

There are some people that argue that you are only a person with rights the moment you are born and not before.

When the European came to the american continent they say a bunch of human beings with a different skin color and culture that them. They knew the natives were also human beings, but they did not consider them as persons with rights. They consider them as animals.

Nope a zygote is not a human being.

It is, according to german law. Like, sure, just give all the scientific breakthroughs to the chinese.

It isn't human shaped until week 8.

>>8645266
How did you reach that conclusion, what is it if not human?
Alien of some sort? Maybe an animal? Maybe a star? I don't know, if it is not human what is it?

>>8645258
how about people with no actual opinion or understanding of things like politics, science and sexuality? people who just take an opinion they saw instead of actual research, people who decide to live the path of the memes and never question themselves? can those retards be called /peronswithrights/?

zygotes are such bros.

How could you ever prove this scientifically. the definition of "human" is subjective as fuck.

>>8645213
No, but it's awfully popular red herring for the GOP to get voters upset enough to vote for their party all the while riding the 1% dick once they get in power! But, that's okay, because MUH BABIES.

>>8645494
Do you contest the definition of what a dog is? Would you walk up to a dog and say, ''well, shit is this a dog? It's awfully subjective.''

>>8645221
>if it were viable to extract it and grow it in a tube one could

But it's not viable. A fetus is literally completely physically dependent on its mother.

>>8645494
No, it isn't

The definition of human being lies in the kingdom of science.

A zygote is a human, 50% genetic material from the father, 50% from the other

The definition of person is the one that is subjective as fuck. Across history you can how it has changed and even today people use it differently.

>>8645506
Chihuahuas are rats

>>8645506
if it was a dog zygote, maybe

>>8645213
> there are scientific arguments to proof this

You can't prove an object is a made up word with an arbitrary definition

OP, I wish you were a zygote so I could abort you

>>8645523
>OP, I wish you were a zygote so I could abort you

Reading your post cheered me up.

>>8645523
So that means I'm a human being right?

>>8645175
A zygote is the beginnings of a human being, so yes, it is human. Why abortion is such a controversial topic is because some people can't cope with the idea of ending another person's life. They can't deal with the fact that a parent is killing their child. Why is that? Because as social beings, we know what sentience feels like, and we don't want to end another individual's sentience. In my opinion, it's ending another individual's sapience. Since that zygote will not experience sapience, not even sentience, there shouldn't be a problem. You have no reason to feel pitty for something that has never experienced sentience. Its living of course, but so is bacteria, and we have no problem getting rid of that. 95% of abortions take place through a pill, and most pro-life supporters imagine it being pulling and ripping a baby out of the womb; but that isn't even the case the majority of time. I think that abortion should be legal up until the child experiences sentience, anything before is fine. While there may be a good chance an unaborted child might grow up on wellfare, killing children is not the best solution for getting people off of welfare, nor is the only one.

>>8645494
Anything that can breed fertile offspring with another human is what defines us. Well, actually, if you wanted to verify you are indeed classified as a human, just see which taxa you belong to and go down the line until you reach sub-species.

>>8645522
Go back to middle school please

>>8645585
i highly doubt that there's a clear-cut line between sentience and non-sentience. are babies sentient? are they *as* sentient as 20-year-olds?

>>8645329
A spore isn't a fern.

A zygote only has the potential to become a person. It obviously doesn't have the functions of a normal human being and if something goes wrong during the development cycle obviously it won't become a real person. How you define when in the development cycle should a fetus/embryo/baby be defined person and given human rights is not a question science can directly answer, but you can of course have personal opinions.

I think a person should be defined as when the central nervous system is basically developed, so that it can potentially feel pain, respond to outside signals and maybe have some sort of consciousness. I think it's fair to give it a safe margin but not as far back to the earliest fetus/zygote stage.

I think if a woman express that she wants an abortion, that abortion should be performed. And then she should be locked up in a mental hospital for even considering to kill her own child, what kind of sick people are those.

>>8645175
>conservatives totally cool with bombing weddings, funerals, schools, and hospitals full of people. Freak out about less than 100 cells being exterminated.

gota love that republican cognitive dissonance.

>>8645723
If it was up to me I would nuke the planet while riding horseback on one of the nukes.

>>8645175
Genetically, a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens.

But then, so were the millions of epithelial cells that you destroyed cleaning your teeth this morning. Right to life is not necessarily contingent on something being genetically human.

Indeed; the vast majority of conceptuses never see the light of day; the fate of 75% of zygotes is to be destroyed and reabsorbed by the female body. If the zygote is a fully autonomous human being, a subject of moral rights, then this is the most serious health problem facing humanity. 75% of people are dead from prenatal complications, it is by far the greatest single contributor to human mortality. Yet not even the most fervent right to lifers make this argument; you cannot on the one hand compare abortion to the holocaust, and on the other dismiss naturally zygote attrition as being unworthy of treatment.

>>8645731
Yeah but those are your own cells while the zygote contains the cells of a child

>>8645723

gotta love that leftist cognitive dissonance which assumes all republicans automatically contradict themselves

As a conservative who is consistent on his views surrounding abortion and innocent civilian children, it's honestly awe-inspiring at just how ill-prepared people are when they meet a conservative whose views are consistent.

>YOU THINK ABORTION IS MURDER?
>Me: Yes
>WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BROWN CHILDREN WHO GET BOMBED??
>Me: That's murder too.
>b-b-but.... oh....

This is an actual conversation I once had with somebody.

>>8645534
No, you'd be a zygote. Didn't you read what he said?

>>8645738
then either convince your elected representatives to stop being shitty or stop associating yourself with shitty conservative elected officials.

> 75% of zygotes is to be destroyed and reabsorbed by the female body

Citation needed

Are you comparing ovaries to a zygote?

>>8645738
To be fair, abortion isn't murder and you're clearly a moron for believing it is, so it's generally safe to assume your beliefs are filled with contradictions. Because you're a moron.

>>8645735
So what? OP asked if the zygote was genetically human. So it is; as are my epithelial cells. If the argument is that it's murder to kill anything whose DNA is human, then it is genocide to brush your teeth.

Alright, how about this chestnut? A new technology arises which allow us to transfer the conciousness of a dying patient to a computer. Said computer is no loger genetically human, but it contains all the memories, hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the patient. As it is not genetically human, is it therefore not murder to smash that computer to bits?

>>8645744
Are we not just robots made out of organs?

>>8645744
stop you're going to make its brain melt down with your questions that run contrary to the programmed propogandization it runs on.

>>8645681
No, they're not.

Not who you're replying to, but I am honestly and unabashedly for abortions all the way up to the point until the fetus/baby is viable to live outside of the womb. Any second before that it's fair game to abort.

I don't even consider myself pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. I genuinely believe they should happen more often.

Moreover, I am fully in support of "soft eugenics." I believe the state should offer cash money to women and men who are drug addicts, mentally ill, criminal, indigent, ect. to get themselves sterilized. Say like $2,500 to men for a vasectomy and $5,000 to women for a tubal ligation, since it's a more complicated procedure. The amount of money it would save in the long run would be astronomical.

>>8645743
Seconded.

>>8645687

A plant isn't a mammal. A mammal isn't a human.

A zygote is a living organism with human DNA operating under a biological imperative to develop.

Minimum requirement for a person:

>living
>complete set of human DNA; specifically, enough information to encode an individual
>following an imperative to survive

If you kill something fitting the above, it's murder.

Your question's too emotionally charged and subjective.

If you wanna argue abortion focus on a utilitarian viewpoint: "abortions are bad because they hurt society in X ways" or "abortions are good because they aid society in Z ways".

Any other argument will just lead you to run around in circles and probably lose your friends.

>>8645743

It's murder. My beliefs are not contradictory. If you kill a human being, especially for your own convenience, it's murder.

I understand that it's hard to conceive of somebody with a differing opinion than your own; feel free to ask questions to uncover this inconsistency you believe I subscribe to. Or continue in your ignorance--whichever you prefer.

>>8645755
The thing is, some of our arguments against abortion are cultural. When you ask a modern westerner if a fetus is not sentient what about an infant at the same developmental stage they typically tie themselves in knots. However our ancient forebears, the greeks and the romans, believed precisely this. Infanticide by leaving the child on the side of a hill (exposure) was a common practice in ancient sparta. It continued in various places in europe until relatively recently. The spanish last name "Esposita" means "exposed", and was given to children who had been left to die by this manner and recued by the church.

In todays world, the philosopher Peter Singer continues exactly this argument; that like abortion, infanticide is not necessarily murder on the gounds that the newborn is not yet sentient.

>>8645771
Different guy. A zygote isn't a human being - so your beliefs are shit. That's my opinion.

>>8645175
We seem to all be able to accept the concept that life ends when brain activity ceases, though cells may continue to live for some time after that, often a LONG time.

It would seem reasonable to apply that principle to the beginning of life, and define human life beginning with brain activity.
.

>>8645681
>is there a clear cut line
Not exactly, but it takes a cetain level of development to experience it.

>as sentient as a 20 year old
Something is either sentient or it isn't, what the fuck has that to do with anything?

>>8645766
Utilitarianism has been refuted already.

Only science undergrads who can't keep with modern ethics support that crappy ethic theory.

Anyone here doing Human Embryology or some equivalent?

>>8645776
I like to plant my flag here as well. Any other pro-choicers on this thread like to link to this post so we give the pro-choicers and OP something of a consensus?

>>8645229
scientifically, your toenail clippings are "human", but that doesn't mean they have rights

>>8645749
Well yes, but I fail to see the relevance of that.

>>8645775

My definition of human is as outlined here:

>>8645759

A living zygote fits these requirements. Further, I accept a strict definition of murder as the premeditated taking of human life. Under the premise that a zygote (and thus an embryo, a fetus, and all forms of a child through gestation) is human, abortion, which ends the life of an entity fitting the definition of human, is murder. Further, my view is entirely consistent (and may, in fact, be derived from a well-defined set of premises).

You're free to try to convince me why I should not accept this definition of human, but I doubt your argument will have much weight beyond anecdotes and dissonance.

>>8645774
I know all about infant viability tests throughout various cultures in history, and almost spoke about them in my post. I'm on the fence about bringing them back. I excluded them because I'm not 100% on making that leap, mostly due to the fact that a responsible adult could give birth to a baby which may die if exposed overnight, but though modern medicine, would otherwise grow up to be healthy and well-adjusted.

>>8645755
Your cut off point is when it's no longer completely dependent on the mother to survive? Why?

>>8645778
>Something is either sentient or it isn't, what the fuck has that to do with anything?
Babies don't pass the mirror test for self-awareness until 18 months of age. Is infanticide OK up to 18 months of age then?

>>8645776
>>8645785
I have a question.

Were you as a human being, not once a zygote?

>>8645806
Correct.

>>8645799
define "following an imperative to survive", please
as far as I'm aware the zygote isn't consciously doing shit

if you surgically remove a quarter of my liver to use as a transplant, does the liver have human rights? it's not conscious but neither is the zygote. both are just mindlessly following their genetic programming to grow and survive

>>8645783
>Utilitarianism has been refuted
How do you refute the notion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? I personally believe the value of a person is based on what they are capable of contributing to society, so if there is a boat filled with 20 beggars, but a boat with 2 entrepeneurs, I'm going to rescue the latter, if there ever came a situation I could save only one.

>>8645776

I disagree. I believe that life ends when its continuation is beyond possibility.

As far as our medical knowledge goes, we know no way of reanimating an individual once he or she has reached below a certain threshold of brain function. In this instance, we can feasibly consider this individual dead. If, however, we developed a treatment which moves this threshold, the current definition of the end of life moves with it.

As such, I would pose that life begins at the point that its continuation becomes feasible; logically, for the individual, this point is conception.

>>8645799
>I'm gonna choose one of the several definitions of human being which most closely fits the narrative which suits my argument
>I'll even admit in my post that these are the bare minimum in terms of requirements for being human
>You can't convince me otherwise because your arguments are anecdotal and cognitively dissonant

wew lad

>>8645783
It hasn't been refuted, it's a perfectly valid framework to work in. It sometimes get a bit edgy, but it's still valid.

>>8645784
I really doubt anyone here has any real experience in that field. If I did I would not risk even discussing it anonymously because of how much trouble it can bring.

Personally I have worked with mouse embryos. Really not much to say about it morally. When it was done it was done professionally and scientifically. I have seen early abortions performed as well. Again not so much the emotionally charged imagery the opponents try to instill.

>>8645812
it's impossible to "prove" or "disprove" any moral philosophy

you cannot, starting only from "is" statements about how the universe works, arrive at an "ought" statement about how things *ought* to be and how people *should* behave

>>8645805
Self-awareness isn't the determining factor of sentience; even fish are sentient

>>8645801
Gotta draw the line somewhere - I would actually draw the line at sentience, or the ability to make lifelong memories, but that's just cruel to kill a toddler ;) Besides - no one can say where that point is. The cut off point I suggested is much more viable.

>>8645812
Read up on Kant's categorical imperative. If a thousand Romans were made deliriously happy by the feeding of one christian to the lions, is it right to feed the christian to the lions? Is it right to forcibly remove blood and organs from universal donors to save patients in need of a transplant? If I invented a machine capable of sucking all the pain and suffering from society and transferring into the body of a single child, would I have made the perfect utilitarian city, or would that be monstrous? I'm with Kant on this, utilitarianism has been comprehensively refuted.

>>8645825
This implies that developing infants inside a womb do not experience sentience
>;)
What is this? Facebook?

>>8645807
Then how were you created?

>>8645810

A zygote is, as you say, following its genetic programming to develop into an individual; further, that genetic programming imperative IS to develop into an individual.

A liver, on the other hand, is following its own biological imperative to function as a liver, and to assist you, the organism, in your survival. And, yes, I would count it as murder if somebody completely removed your liver, as the entirety of your organism encodes you as an individual, and removing that liver without replacement would certainly bring death to you.

>>8645822
I agree with you, I was only sharing my opinion in response to utilitarianism.
>>8645826
See the guy I replied to

>>8645828
Take out the word sentience in my post then if it make you feel better. Point still stands.

>>8645810

Also, if I did remove a quarter of your liver and somehow modified it to operate under the imperative to form into a new individual, yes, it would and should have human rights.

Yes it is, but why do you think it's wrong to kill human beings?

A zygote may be human, but it certainly isn't a person.

>>8645829
No I meant to say yes I was once a zygote

>>8645837

Killing human beings is murder by definition. Perhaps you justify the murder of some classes of humans, but that's another argument.

I do not justify murder.

>>8645817
>>8645812
The classic example of the train derailment according to which you can save a person or ten of them from being hit by the train turns against utilitarianism when you ask if the person is your child to whom you would save. A primitive utilitarian would say that you must save the ten anyway, and it would clearly be morally monstrous. A sophisticated utilitarian will begin to argue that you must save your child because if you save the ten you destroy the institution of the family on which the society is based and that causes more harm. But at the moment when the sum of good and evil already depends on social institutions that do not depend on the sum of good and evil, utilitarianism becomes incoherent because it bases morality on something else, albeit the disguise of utilitarianism.

There are many other objections to utilitarianism, but that is one of the strongest.

>>8645844
What happened to manslaughter?

>>8645835
Well, no, not exactly; the notion that the cut off point should end at the ability to make life-long memories is left to be justified. The reason I brought up sentience being the cut-off point, is because that's why some people are offended at the thought of ending another person's life: they experience sentience. No one other than people that don't understand biology have a problem with killing life that is alive through only chemistry and being able to respond to external stimuli.

>>8645830
If you remove half of my liver I continue living.
The remaining part of the liver can actually regrow on its own, and this sort of thing is often done when someone's liver dies and another offers to be an organ donor.

So, the quarter of my liver that was removed is sitting in a cooler somewhere, but in the near future will be shoved into some poor soul in need of an organ donation.

The quarter-liver can and will follow its genetic programming to develop and grow into a full liver again.
Is it murder to throw that liver in the trash if the prospective recipient waves a magic want, suddenly gets better, and no longer needs an organ donation?
The liver was a living, growing, human thing.

How come its a double homicide if the women was pregnant?

>>8645844
Or self defense? Is that murder?

You're not the only one who can play the bullshit semantics game, hombre.

>>8645852
Yeah its murder, its murder under self defense though. Like if the mother was gonna die if she had this baby, she can murder it under self defense.

>>8645845
This doesn't "refute" utilitarianism, it just suggests that there is more to making decisions when being forced to choose. This just suggests that utilitarianism is not the final step.

>>8645848

The difference between you and your liver is that the genetic expression and set of followed imperatives of your liver does not encode an individual. The expression of the DNA in your liver encodes and manifests as a liver, and its imperatives support this manifestation. Again, if your liver were modified to encode and manifest as an entire person, then your modified liver should have human rights.

You, on the other hand, are an entire organism, and the entirety of your parts express an individual. Similarly, the entirety of the parts of a zygote express an individual, operating under the imperative to develop as said individual.

>>8645847
And my point was that "sentience" is debatable depending on how you define it. Some use the word to mean self-awareness. That's more along the lines of what I was arguing - pardon me for using the term incorrectly.

In any event, one can be certain that an infant at the point of being able to survive outside of the womb is not self-aware by any reasonable definition. Hence it being my safe cut off point.

Anything else?

>>8645851
The justice system is fairly religious.

>>8645853
If it's under self defense than legally it isn't murder. Murder is the unlawful killing, not the act of

>>8645852

Even if you use this argument, it doesn't support murder in the case of elective abortion. In fact, elective abortion would be a textbook case of murder that would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

>>8645859
You're right, I'm fucking retarded.

>>8645853
mur·der
ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More
verb
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
"somebody tried to murder Joe"
synonyms: kill, put to death, assassinate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, dispatch, butcher, slaughter, massacre, wipe out

Note the term "unlawful" in both definitions. Killing in self defense is not unlawful.

See? Bulshit semantics. Do you have a real argument or are we just going to continue playing games?

>>8645860
>>8645862
Abortion isn't unlawful either. At least not for now - you just may get your wish granted in the future, however.

>>8645857
Sentience doesn't have an arbitrary defintion. Self-awareness to the extent of recognizing yourself is something based off of intelligence, not the ablity to experience emotion, to imagine. Feeling emotions isn't subjective either; having an endocrine systen releasing the hormones unique to sentient life is what allows for emotions to occur. While a child may not be "done" completely, the vividity of what they experience is not necessarily as different from a newborn. Then there's the case of premature births.

>>8645866
Omit 'to imagine,' as that is too arbitrary for anyone to argue with.

>>8645845
Utilitarianism is a very broad framework. The fact that people have different interpretations doesn't exactly refute it. The other popular frameworks have the same issue.

The REAL issue with it is that causality doesn't happen in a vacuum. Utilitarianism attempts to judge an act by its results. But every result leads to more results, making the sum change in happiness impossible to predict. At some point you've got to make an arbitrary cutoff where you go, "ok, beyond this point I don't care about the effects"

On the other hand, I think it's the framework closest to how humans actually think. It's the results that we usually care about. What's contentious is just which results we care about.

>>8645862

I'm not operating on a legal definition of murder. I'm operating on the moral definition of murder for the purpose of entertaining what the law should be. If I operate on the legal definition while seeking this goal, I can still pose similar questions. Is it illegal to kill my neighbor to save some money? Is it illegal to kill a man who has an accident (not of his doing) which strands him on my property? Yes. Both of these are illegal. So should it be when the victim is an unborn human.

The point of operating under this mode of definition is in order to cause the law to reflect moral truth. This isn't semantics; this is said truth. Elective abortion is murder, unjustifiable, and should be seen as such in the eyes of the law.

>>8645856
But it is not exactly "an individual." You're just taking away the opportunity for that zygote to become one, which is not the same as killing an individual.

>>8645175
Yes and abortion is murder

>>8645866
Are you daft? I told you to forget about sentience. I was talking about self-awareness. I already corrected myself and apologized.

I'll say it again - I have absolutely no problem with a mother choosing to end the life of a fetus which is not self-aware up to the point where it can survive outside of the womb. No moral quandaries about this whatsoever. In fact, I encourage it if that's what the mother chooses to do. That's my opinion.

You can call me a monster or think of me as terribly as you'd like - it won't change my mind anymore than anything I could say would change yours. So this conversation is essentially pointless.

>>8645864

I hope this wish is granted. There's currently a genocide being waged in this world against what is literally the most innocent and least heard group of people which (briefly) inhabits it.

We dehumanize them so that their lives are less important than selfish desires of freedom from consequences; we find ways to suspend their rights so we may do as we wish, throwing them aside because we see them as an inconvenience. I hope for a world where no child is seen as an inconvenience, and I hope for a world where all those who wish death upon the innocent for the sake of convenience are forced to face justice.

>>8645873
>moral truth.
>moral
>truth

And that's where ya dun goofed.

It's moral truth to certain muslims that a woman committing adultery should be stoned to death. Should the law reflect this moral truth? Of just your moral truths?

>>8645880
Don't worry. Jesus will come back someday and smite all us evil "liberals" while you laugh. You can watch us all burn in hell with joy in your heart.

>>8645875

A zygote is an organism with the DNA encoding and expressing the complete form (however small) of an individual. That individual is in the process of growing, developing, and continuing its life.

In the same way taking a new-born's life is more than preventing him/her from being a toddler, in the same way that taking a toddler's life is more than preventing him/her from being a teenager, and in the same way that taking an adult's life is more than preventing him/her from reaching tomorrow, taking a zygote's life is more than preventing him/her from reaching the next form that you recognize: it's robbing him/her of all of those next forms, all of those next days, and all of the parts of the life it would otherwise have. It's murder.

>>8645878
This conversation isn't a "I'm right and you're wrong, anymore." It's a "I disagree with you for the following reasons." I disagree because society doesn't think abortion is wrong because the child is developed. While you may have a different opinion, I was explaining the reasons abortion has such a negative connotation, aside from the incessant demonization.

>>8645885
You don't have to believe in Jesus to agree with that.

I am an atheist and according to my moral convictions all human beings have the right to life.

>>8645887
Well first we need to define what "an individual" is. Is it human that has passed the stage of dependenacy on the mother, or is it the zygote? Your analogy is a false equivalency fallacy; zygotes do not experience sentience, whereas newborns and the following do. Murder has more negativity surrounding it because it's not just preventing someone to go on, it's ending what they've already had.

>>8645884

The law should reflect objective moral truth, whatever that is. An objective moral truth is that murder is wrong. You're moving the goalpost by bringing up the perceived truths of others.

>>8645885

You misunderstand me.

I don't want all "liberals" to be smote or burn in hell; in fact, I would like the genuine liberals, who truly wish for things like peace, hope, and good among men, to repent of these ways and see enough light to realize that the taking of innocent life in any form is injustice. This, the triumph over legitimate evil, is the greatest justice.

It is only those who are hardened in their assertions that it is good to do things such as kill without regard and to seek only self-satisfaction who will face the fire of hell.

It is.

>>8645229
>so human rights are not about humans but rather about persons?
this is 101 ethics, go to /his/ since this a topic for that board

>>8645175
If a zygote is a human being, than so is a skin cell. By killing the zygote you "rob it of it's future" to become an adult just as killing a skin cell robs it of its future to become more skin cells. Either way they are just as aware as bacteria when you commit genocide against them with a chemical weapon called Lysol.

>>8645900
Confirmed for Christfag.

Everything you say is invalid because you believe in fairly tales. Hurrdeedurr.

>>8645904
a skin cell isn't going to transform into a sentient being with feelings, emotions, desires, etc.

>>8645904
Your liver, skin cell, nail, etc etc doesn't have rights.

That zygote does have rights.

At least according to the constitution of my country.

>>8645896

An "individual" is simply the entirety of a human organism. In the case of the zygote, the zygote is the entirety of the human organism, just as, in the case of you, your developed body is the entirety of your human organism.

You are seeking to find inconsistency by claiming this false equivalence fallacy, but you have found none. The logical deduction that abortion is murder from the premise of my definition of 'human' is logically sound. The fact that you do not wish to accept this premise, however objectively correct it may be, does not equate to fallacy.

>>8645900
>objective moral truth
That's quite the oxymoron. You're slandering the defintion of "truth," stop. Now.

>>8645844

Why is murder bad? you can't say "because it kills humans", because that would be extremely circular reasoning. You have to go deeper than that.

Assume that the only truly bad thing is pain. Pleasure = negative pain, and pain = negative pleasure.
Assume that an action is considered a good action if it increases the net pleasure in a system, and a bad action if it decreases it.
Assume that an action that it better than another action, then it is more moral than that action.
Assume that the most moral thing to do would be the action that is the most good, or the least bad.
Assume that the most immoral thing to do would be the action that is the most bad, or the least good.

Now that that's out of the way, let's start with some thought experiments.

Pressing a button causes you to experience 10 pain, and 100 pleasure. It must therefore be moral to press the button.
Pressing a button causes you to experiance 99 pain, and 100 pleasure. It must therefore be moral to press the button.
Pressing a button causes a person other than youself to experience 99 pain and 100 pleasure. It must therefore be moral to press the button.
Pressing a button causes 100 pain to person A, and 1000 pleasure to person B, It must therefore be moral to press the button.

Assume that consciousness is a general awareness of, and the ablilty to perceive changes in one's own internal state.
Assume that a conscious being is a person.
Assume that a being that is less concious is less of a person, and vice versa.
Assume that if one is not conscious, no pain can be exerted, and if one is LESS conscious, then less pain is exerted from an action than normal.

Person A is not conscious and will never wake up. Anything done to person A is not moral or immoral because there is no change in pleasure or pain.
Person A is not conscious and pressing a button will terminate his life. Person B will experience 100 pain due to this, but 1000 pleasure. THE MORAL THING TO GO IS TO TERMINATE PERSON A.

>>8645905

Confirmed for inability to engage in rational discussion. If difference in beliefs during a debate leads you to rely on insults and accept a delusion of intellectual high ground, your perception of reality is even more skewed than you believe mine to be. I find it especially amusing that you unironically commit one of the most common logical fallacies while being so keen on trying catch others doing the same.

For the record, yes, I am a Christian. If you're interested, I also hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in a STEM field from a well-reputed university. My core education was well-rounded, including many aspects of biology, chemistry, physics, and other physical sciences. My own field requires intimate knowledge of logic. If my paper credentials are not enough to merit continued discussion, you're welcome to continue in your attempt to write me off.

>>8645913
No, the zygote is the first cell that was you. It is the first cell that was all of us. While you can define murder to expand over what is, us. It isn't the same as murdering a child. That child experiences sentience, that's what is heartbreaking. Someone took away their ability to feel things forever, concurrently ending the opportunities they might have had. A zygote's experience is just as vivid as that of bacteria. You're ignoring the "what was ended" in favor of "what COULD have been." That's the fallacy, zygotes do not experience sentience, which is why they are not the same.

I saw this same thread on /pol/

I can link it if you guys want?

>>8645946
here ill link it anways

>>>/pol/110379665

>>8645946
I'm interested to see if there is any actual difference in terms of discussion and debate between here and /pol/. I do know that there are far more "muh sky daddy"-fags there.

>>8645926

Why is anything "bad"?

>Assume that the only truly bad thing is pain. Pleasure = negative pain, and pain = negative pleasure.
>Assume that an action is considered a good action if it increases the net pleasure in a system, and a bad action if it decreases it.

Your set of premises and "thought experiment" rely critically on the notion that pleasure equates to goodness. This is precisely the opposite of the version of objective morality for which I am arguing, and I explicitly reject the notion that the "most good" action is the one which brings the most pleasure.

You're also forcing a set of premises which directly nullify the argument. For example,
"assume a conscious being is a person."

For the sake of humoring the thought you put into this post, under this logical system, termination of an isolated person can neither be moral nor immoral, since said person cannot experience pleasure or pain (and is, in fact, not a person). However, there exists a hole in your experiment when we consider non-isolated persons: if the act of terminating human A causes an overwhelming degree of pain to a single (possibly remote) conscious being, this pain caused, under your formulation, is enough to cause the termination of said person A to be immoral. You need to add an unnatural degree of restriction to the system to logically deduce that termination is unconditionally moral.

>>8645935

I gave you my definition of human as the premise for the logical deduction of my stance. I never once required sentience as a requirement for humanity in this premise.

You're currently saying, "No, your statement is inconsistent because your premise should be [x], not [y], so your conclusion is incorrect." You're creating inconsistency by contradicting my premise and then pointing the finger back at me. You're allowed to reject my premise, but you can't brazenly modify it and then complain when the conclusions no longer follow. That's patently absurd from the perspective of formal logic.

If you want to argue that sentience should be required to define humanity, sure--I'll hear that argument. Why should sentience be a part of the definition of 'human'?

For the record, the zygote being the first cell which is you is enough for me to classify the zygote as you, therefore human, even before you were in a recognizable (or sentient) form. The potential for sentience is sufficient for me.

>>8645931
You eschewed rationality the moment you learned science and continued to hold beliefs in magical Jewish carpenters. A person with your credentials who continues to hold such beliefs is the definition of cognitive dissonance - a term which you seem to enjoy throwing around.

I would hope the irony isn't lost on you, but I'm smart enough to know better.

>>8645175
Does it matter? It has human DNA, but assigning moral significance to that alone seems pretty silly.

>>8645986

I did more than learn science: I've actually published and solved open problems in my field--I've contributed to the body of knowledge. I'm not the first like this, either. Plenty of mathematicians and scientists more intelligent and capable than myself were also devout Christians.

In case you're interested, my faith and my education have actually interacted harmoniously. The things I learned while in school actually reinforced my faith and helped to explain things I could not understand; similarly, my faith then encouraged me to pursue my studies with greater effort.

I have not once had to reject any sound, proven principle taught to me during the course of my education for the sake of my faith. You might believe that you're 'smart,' but I can very clearly tell that you lack the experience, the knowledge, or the willingness to see that faith and understanding are not mutually exclusive. I understand that this will probably garner a negative reaction from you, but that's expected. This perspective is all you know.

>>8646000
>In case you're interested, my faith and my education have actually interacted harmoniously. The things I learned while in school actually reinforced my faith and helped to explain things I could not understand;

And there's that cognitive dissonance hard at work once again. Gotta love how scripture is obscure to the point where you can bend it just enough to reinforce nearly any belief you're unwilling to let go of.

You realize there's highly educated Jews, Muslims, Daoists, Hindus, etc. who say the exact same thing you're saying, no? But of course, you're the one who right. How could you not be?

And you have the gall to say that my perspective is all I know, as if you've ever truthfully and/or seriously considered atheism or any other faith as a viable alternative to your own. Please.

>>8645954


>Your set of premises and "thought experiment" rely critically on the notion that pleasure equates to goodness. This is precisely the opposite of the version of objective morality for which I am arguing, and I explicitly reject the notion that the "most good" action is the one which brings the most pleasure.

I've given the alternative some thought, but I've realized that while there may be some things that seem good even though they cause an APPARENT decrease in pleasure (I.E, self-sacrifice, masochism, etc..), nobody would do it unless they understood (or had some belief) that the action would result in a net pleasure greater than all (or most) of the alternative actions. I understand that hypothetically, God could suffer tremendously when you do something he deems immoral, and experience infinite euphoria when you do something he deems moral, but ultimately that is a silly viewpoint to have. I could just as easily assert that there is an Anti-God that suffers twice as tremendously whenever someone does something 'immoral' and derives twice as much extreme pleasure from the inverse.

>if the act of terminating human A causes an overwhelming degree of pain to a single (possibly remote) conscious being, this pain caused, under your formulation, is enough to cause the termination of said person A to be immoral.

Thanks for saying this, as I was meaning to earlier but I decided to leave it. If person B were to experience 1000 pain and 100 pleasure, then pressing the button would indeed be immoral.

> You need to add an unnatural degree of restriction to the system to logically deduce that termination is unconditionally moral.

I never tried to argue that termination is unconditionally moral. only in the specific situation that I mentioned (and a small range of others) would the termination of person A be completely moral. The scenario that I proposed was only intended to demonstrate that there are some situations where killing a human being can be moral.

>>8646014

I have considered atheism; I have also explored other religions (and I also studied them in a classroom environment as an undergraduate). My family includes Christians, agnostics, Muslims, and Buddhists, and I always entertain discussion from people of varying backgrounds for the sake of (among other things) understanding these other perspectives.

>you believe you're right

Do you not believe you're right? That's like saying, "Oh, wow, I bet that water you drink goes into your stomach! Get a load of this guy!" If you don't believe you're right, what reason is there for me to entertain anything you're saying?

You seem to have a hard-set desire to confirm that I am, in fact, suffering from cognitive dissonance. Would you please justify this? Which of my beliefs are dissonant?

>>8646019

>infinite pain or euphoria of a God-like figure is a silly viewpoint

But this viewpoint is still 100% valid (logically) within your system. In fact, it doesn't need to even be God; you just need a "most feeling" human or group of humans to exist in order for this same, and, with your legalistic approach of defining goodness with respect to pleasure, you only need a strict majority of pain over pleasure in order for the act to consider immoral. You're also right in that there could exist an Anti-God. The problem here, however, lies in uncertainty as to which exists; therefore, your system doesn't discount the existence of an objective good defined by a God who is the maximally feeling being in the universe.

Overall, I understand your argument; I would say that your conclusion is logical given your premises, but your premises also leave room to doubt (as does the scenario discussed above).

>>8645759
Your understanding of biology is obviously poor.
I just scratched my arm, killing likely millions of epithelial cells, in which each holds the DNA for my entire organism. Is this mass murder in the same sense abortion is due to your "minimum requirements"

>>8645175
You're probably a good argument for the right to choose.

>>8645935
Provide me with some evidence of the perceptive power of a zygote?
No studies have been done to measure that 'lump of cells' ability to perceive its environment.
Your making assumptions based purely of bias

>>8645912
This may be the single poorest retort I've ever witnessed

>>8646039
>defining good and bad by pleasure and pain.
>so if I feel 100% pleasure and 0% pain when murdering someone does this make it good?

>>8645972
I don't deny that a zygote is human, but that's not the reason why abortion is looked down upon. It isn't so much killing what is human, our gametes are human, it's seen as murder. Why most do not like the fact that a human child's life has ended is because it ends sentience. Humans feel sympathy and pitty, and sentience being ended triggers our brains. Killing a zygote isn't killing the same thing as killing what we intuitively think of as a human being. That's some nice mental gymnastic denying your false equivalence fallacy. Zygotes do not experience sentience, whereas every other example does, and sentience is a major part of the negative connotations that come from murder. This is indisputable; you're analogy fails. Murder is not only frowned upon because they didn't get to acheive something, or missed out on something, in a more general sense it's ending their experience. So both of these are true, you're just being too specific ignoring the rest of what is true. What is implied from ending one's existence? Missing out. But you need to also account for the fact of WHAT was ended. Do you understand now?

>>8646050

As I said previously, no single body part independently composes a human organism operating under the imperative to survive.

Your (living) epithelial cells are...

>1. living
>3. maintaining homeostasis (some biological mechanism survival)


However, hile your epthielial cells contain your complete set of DNA, they do not contain the information required to encode you as an individual, as the expression of the genes within them encode only a single component of your being (namely epithelial cells) and contain only the necessary information required to produce the proteins to function as epithelial cells.

Since your epithelial cells contain only enough information to encode your epithelial cells, they fail requirement 2.

A zygote (or, perhaps, a significantly modified epithelial cell) contains the information to encode, develop, and function as a complete human organism; therefore, it also meets requirement 2. Human.

>>8645912
So if not stored in my body parts, where are my Rights, is there a specific limb or organ I have to cut off to take away your rights?
Or do your rights not extend to every part of you, including your skin cells liver ect. That or there really is a limb or organ I can take that would constitute as your humanity so as to take your rights

>>8646077
A zygote is human, so what? It's just another stomatic cell, the only difference is that it is the first. It has nothing more special when compared to stem cells, besides being the first. While it's true you are killing a living organism, that isn't the source of the controversy surrounding abortion. What are you killing? There is a significant difference in a zygote when compared to a fetus.

>>8646072

I understand that you require some semblance of sentience to feel empathy, and I understand that you base your moral judgment of murder as "wrong" out of your ability to feel empathy. Since sentience is a requirement for you to empathize, you only view murder as wrong when it affects a being with a recognizable degree of sentience.

My definition requires only the potential for sentience (implied collectively by requirements 1, 2, and 3 in my definition of 'human'). I define murder as the premeditated taking of innocent human life. Since a zygote is human, killing a zygote is killing human life. Since abortion kills the zygote, abortion is murder. There is no false equivalence; there is only strict application of my precisely formulated definitions.

>>8646090

Murder is the premeditated killing of a human.
A zygote is human.
Abortion is premeditated.
Abortion kills a zygote.
Abortion kills a human.
Abortion is an example of the premeditated killing of a human.
Abortion is murder.

>>8646095
It's false equivalence because zygotes do not experience sentience. You are "murdering" a zygote, which is just as detrimental as "murdering" bacteria. I never denied this, but referred to why murder is seen as morally wrong. There is a reason why murdering plants goes without prosecution. Abortion being murder also needs explanation on what it is that is being murdered, a single stomatic cell, or a sentient developing child. Do not pretend that they are equal.

Women shouldnt be forced to carry a baby to trim off they don't eat to. Our technology is still crude though, so this decision currently means killing the fetus.
A better solution would be to extract the fetus and incubate it outside of the mother. Until that time, I think we would value the will of the mother over the "will" of the fetus, since out definitely does not have "more" sentience than a pig or a dog, or an African, which we have no qualms about killing.

>>8646103
See here >>8646110

>>8645673
Are you contesting that words are made up?

>>8646117
Most abortions occur through a pill

>>8646110

I state only that humans must fit the three given conditions. A zygote fits these three conditions exactly, and so it is human.

Here is the distinction: Bacteria is not human. Plants are not human. A bacterium is not equal to a human. A plant is not equal to a human. A human is equal to a human.

A zygote is developing sentience. The fact that it has not progressed much is irrelevant to the fact that it is human. The premeditated killing of humans is murder.

>>8646133
Ambiguity fallacy, human is being used both in the context of being related to the species, and being what taxonomy looks at to determine what a human is. You're still ignoring of what is being murdered, which is just as important. A zygote alone has the same significance in terms of how it interacts with the world as any other unicellular organism, the fact that it CAN become something more is irrelevant. Preventing the zygote from reaching maturity is not the same thing as killing the mature state of that zygote.

>>8645873
If someone comes to your property and refuses to leave, you can legally remove them by force. Abortion is the same thing. Even if the man dies in the cold because of your eviction from your property you are still legally and morally justified.

>>8646144

"Ambiguity fallacy" is not applicable here. The right to life is defined by the threshold of humanity. What is being murdered is a zygote. The point of development is irrelevant to the fact that the threshold of humanity has been met.

>>8646145

This is a false equivalence fallacy. In a more accurate parallel, the man was brought into the property and made to stay by the choice of the owner. The man has no ability to leave of his own will because he's caged, but the owner decides to kill him anyway because he's inconvenient.

It's murder.

>>8645511
This is an interesting statement because viability date keeps shifting back. As technology improves, we can make younger fetuses viable. This doesn't really pose any ethical quandry to someone who says "you get human rights when you are viable", but it does pose serious questions for anyone who stakes human rights on any other milestone.

Now, personally, I like brain function as a milestone but we simply cannot make an 11-week old fetus live outside its mother with current technology. Maybe that will change one day. How exciting that will be to observe, a glorious day for science.

>>8646110
Please refer me to the studies conducted on zygotes proving lack of sentience
As far as I am aware they meet the requirents tobbe called sentience

>>8646144

>b-but, your honor, I was just preventing that toddler from reaching adulthood! I shouldn't go to jail!

>>8646149
>the threshold of humanity has been met
How so? You haven't contradicted my claim that preventing the zygote from reaching maturity is not the same thing as killing the mature state of that zygote. Which you are pretending it has. That is in fact an ambiguity fallacy you have comitted, and I have provided an indisputable explanation.
>A zygote fits these three conditions exactly, and so it is human.
Human is being used of relating to the species, in the same sense human hair is human, in the sense that any human cell is human.

>A bacterium is not equal to a human. A plant is not equal to a human. A human is equal to a human.
You're referring to what a human is; how taxonomy classifies homo sapiens.

>>8646156
>b-but honor, I was preventing my sperm from becoming a zygote
This is where your logic fails. This also implies someone will be put on trial for killing a zygote, which doesn't happen, for the same reason you don't get put on trial for killing a plant, despite the fact that it is living.

>>8646155
Sentience requires an endocrine system, and if you've never seen a cell, they quite clearly lack it. This is very basic biology.>>8646156

>>8646159

I have disputed your claim. Murder is strictly defined as the premeditated taking of human life. A zygote life is a human life. Abortion is murder. Ambiguity with respect to the circumstances of the human is irrelevant to the definition of murder because murder is not defined with respect to those circumstances. Again, murder is the premeditated taking of human life.

>human hair is human; any human cell is human

False. They fail requirement (2) of the definition of human life. We've gone over this. Are you being willfully ignorant of things which have already been stated in this discussion, or did you honestly forget?

>you're referring to what human is

I am referring to what human is. A zygote is human, and aborting it is murder.

>>8646166
Forgot to add: you may also be put on trial for murdering a dog.

>>8646166

So we can kill toddlers now, right? That's the gist I'm getting.

>>8645175
Muh human condition will trump any reason against abortion ultimately.
I mean seriously if it doesn't look like us, talk like us and think like us we tend to kill it.

>>8645175
Mods are being ultrafaggy today.
This post is cancer. You are cancer, OP. Die.

>>8646170
You're generizing too much to say "abortion is murder," because murdering a zygote versus murdering a sentient developing child ARE NOT equal. You're suggesting they are, failing to recognize that what is being murdered had different pentalties. Murdering life is not the same as murdering sentient life, which is not the same as murdering sapient life. While it may all be "murder," each are not the same situation. In the first usage of human, being what is human, I shouldn't have used hair, as they are not cells themselves. Every single cell on your body is human, all trillion. Using the term of being related to the species. Suggesting that a zygote can be classified as homo sapien through taxonomy alone represents a lack of understanding of taxonomy.

>>8646175
No; strawman; tolders are not only setient, but sapient.

>>8646193
sapience is being used as in actual man, the ones that have the mental aspect of human.

>>8646168
Zygote isn't a cell though, its many, one might call it an organism, due to its complexity.
To kill/destroy/abort a zygote is taking a life, it is take the potential off of a developing being for selfish purposes. A lack of understanding of life causes one to see a zygote as a parasitic thing. It is the forming of life. What makes time a factor in morality? What make it okay to end a life in its developing stages and not at any other point, what makes it okay for any being to choose weather another livesnor dies at any point in its time line.
>thinking life determined by it position in time
>in that case it wouldn't be genocide to go back in time abort the mutating zygotes that led to the human race.
>thinking your point in time give you superiority
>muh human condition I r best ape in world, uhh uhh me kill

>>8646225
A zygote is by definition a cell, the cut off point being at sentience is due to the fact that ending sentience is why killing something is a touchy subject. Although some will justify not feeling anything. You shouldn't have any reason to feel pitty for a zygote, or any cluster of cells yet to develop sentience, because it is just that. There's nothing more to those cells, whereas with man we are more than just cells, we have sapience and self-awareness

>>8645946
Mods keep deleting my responses to these fucking cancer threads.

>>8646236
In human fertilization, a release ovum (a haploid secondary oocyte with replicate chromosome copies) and a haploidsperm cell (male gamete)—combine to form a single 2n diploid cell called the zygote.
After approximately 30 hours from the time of fertilization, fusion of the pronuclei and immediate mitotic division produce two 2n diploid daughter cells called blastomeres.

So in fact by the time its what people would call an abortion it is no longer a zygote, I was just using it as most people here, where the better word would have been fetus

Well it is human. But it's not a human being.

Obviously you actually need to be a person to have rights.

That said, abortion isn't value neutral. It is a social question, because the only way human civilization will ever continue to exist is if women choose actually want to have children, and if they don't we're obviously fucked.

>>8645175
Embryo has a full and unique set of human DNA, so I would class it as a human being, yes. But the argument is not about the validity of its genes, it is about whether or not it deserves the same rights and protection as a grown human being.

I believe abortion to be wrong because of the respect we should have for all life, especially human. The fact that an embryo isn't conscious yet bears no significance to me. If you have free reign to destroy a human being because it has not yet gained consciousness, then why not kill someone while they sleep?
And for that matter, what really distinguishes a baby from an embryo? They are still completely unaware of themselves and their surroundings.
Truthfully, people like to draw an arbitrary line because eventually babies take on characteristics that invoke feelings of empathy (naturally encoded response), when only months before, the being was "just an embryo".
I like to draw my lines more concretely, like when the egg is fertilised and possesses a full and unique set of DNA. At that point, you afford it all the basic human rights it deserves.

>>8646284
>being because it has not yet gained consciousness, then why not kill someone while they sleep?
because in principle they are conscious and self aware

IF it's a displosable being THEN, by the same argument, so are you, you liberal worthess pile of cells.

>>8645221
>The argument needs to be is how important is any life over another.
this
most ethical hypothetical problems bool down to this
we need a scale for atleast non human life.

>>8646291
Let's look at the important things here. Firstly, both a sleeping person and an embryo are not self aware at that point in time. Given more time, they will both become self aware. With a sleeping person, that happens much sooner, but the crucial fact is that they BOTH in principle are self aware, in that they both have the capacity to be so at a later point.

>>8645175
define "human being" you conservative fucktard.

>>8646077
So lets extend this. Say we develop the technology to make any of our cells totipotent (like plants) so that any cell could, with nutrients, develop into a whole new organism. Would the death of skin cells, or even the disuse of this technology then also be murder?

>abortion is MURDER

There's two ways you could be using the word "murder." In the legal sense, meaning the unlawful killing of a human being, or for shock value.

Using it in the legal sense would be correct if abortion is illegal where you're talking about it. If it's legal, then you'd be wrong, because you don't have the "unlawful" part of the definition.

If you're using it for the shock value (most common), then you're committing an appeal to emotion fallacy.

>>8645175
No. I draw the line at birth. You are a human being once you are born. Simple and neat.

>>8646110

so you admit that it is, in fact, murder. Got it.

File: Common-Sense.jpg (3MB, 3000x2251px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2251px

>>8645225
>But the Embryo has DNA that of a human being.
>A different human being from yourself
So does sperm.

So does an unfertilized egg.

So does every cell in in any human body other than yours.

Do they all get to vote? Do they all qualify for welfare? Do they counted individually by the census?

Add a little electricity, and that unfertilized egg has the potential to be a whole human as well - does this mean women are committing murder every month that they bleed?

You can't really make a dependable scientific delineation between potential personhood and actual personhood, that doesn't risk including a whole lot of insanity no one intends.

So either you make a non-scientific, simple to follow rule, as they did back in the day, such as "a person is ensouled when they take their first breath", or you stop trying to make hard-and-fast rules that are ultimately nonsensical, and instead have some common sense rules. Like yes, you can have an abortion if you've been raped or the baby puts your life in danger, particularly if it's going to be stillborn, but no, you can't use it as a substitute for birth control.

But alas, the inability for most anyone in charge to take a sane position on the subject means we gotta constantly be on the lookout for this slippery slope crap, rather than have practical and sensible laws regarding this drek.

>>8646193
>>8646638

Gametes (sperm and eggs) contain only half of the DNA required to define a person. As others have pointed out, skin cells (and any fully specialized cell of the human body) are also not human, because they contain just enough genetic information to activate the function of said specialized cell.

Yours also is not a biological argument. I think this was basically the argument put forth by Bill Nye, one of the meme science guys.

this thread is full of theists performing some impressive mental gymnastics to rationalize their support of the extermination of a handful of cells.

>>8646482
Simple, sure, but not neat. You can't tell the difference between a baby that was killed in the womb and a baby of the same age that was killed postnatally, yet one would be murder and one not in your view. It also won't stand the test time, given that artifical wombs may some day become a thing. Judgments based not on state but on history are not a good definition.

>>8645175
depends on the definition of a human being

>>8646651
It's not always just the "extermination of a handful of cells", because not all countries have limits on abortion.

In Canada you can literally abort the day before birth.

>>8645175
every act taken by potential fathers and mothers that can cause harm to their germ cells should also be considered murder? since those are also a person by the same defnition
why stop there though. how about building blocks of those cells, mistreating all carbon based nutrient should be a punishable offense.

>>8645175
It's.

File: 1463041184821.jpg (28KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 375x523px

>>8645213

>>8646645
Actually, you can gestate an entire human from just an egg, so an egg is still a potential person. Sure, it requires some tweaking and it ends up a clone of the mother, but it's still a potential person. Further, all a sperm is missing is an egg, so it's still a potential person. And there are cells with sufficient information to clone a person with, so even if there's almost no natural way for that to happen, each is still a potential person.

There's no real end to it, if you're going to declare the prevention of potential persons murder, particularly as technology progresses, and gives you more ways to potentially make people, with less and less base materials.

At some point you gotta draw a line that says this actual person's life is worth more than a potential person's life, as if you can't, you might as well chop everyone's balls off and put all the women into cryofreeze before their first ovulation.

I'd be all for laws that prevented abuse of abortion for folks who just had an inconvenient failing of birth control and the like. There should be a damn good reason for an abortion, preferably a medical one. But then we have people running about and declaring the "morning after" pill murder, and forcing hemophiliac women to give birth to dead fetuses, making rape a valid way to pass on your genes, and so on and so forth.

Granted, I'm a bit bias, as my cousin's wife died recently when she was forced to give birth to a dead Potter's syndrome baby while her kidneys were bleeding, thanks to some stupid Ohio anti-abortion laws that just prove ya can't trust people not to abuse their authority and make idiotic absolutists regulations.

File: kiddo.png (63KB, 394x440px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 394x440px

>>8646868
>There should be a damn good reason for an abortion

>>8646868

As long as the egg has not been tweaked, it's not a person. The egg is also 'tweaked' when the sperm enters.

A zygote is a person, as is the egg which has been tweaked to gestate on its own. The moment a single cell is working to develop into an individual is the moment that single cell is a person. That's the line.

>>8646889

>there should be a damn good reason to kill anybody
>LEL WRONG KIDDO

I can be edgy too!11

>>8645175
Technically any independent living lump of cells with human DNA is a human being.

That's why you should protect human minds and not any mindless lump of human cells. A fetus doesn't even have brain activity for the first 12 weeks and no brain waves (thoughts) before the 24th week. You wouldn't get angry about killing a brain dead patient, so why get angry about killing a zygote or mindless fetus?

File: Terri-Schiavo-2.jpg (21KB, 396x549px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 396x549px

>>8646907
>You wouldn't get angry about killing a brain dead patient
Ummm...

>>8646897
fuck you I'm hilarious

>>8646916
Was she ever actually brain dead though? I thought she was just lost control over her body and then became comatose in the end.

>>8645225
so what. You can draw a bunch of binary numbers on 4 pieces of paper, but that doesn't make it a functional program, just the blueprints for one that won't be developed because it's unwanted.

>>8646925
Just about as much as you can be and still be kept alive on life support:
>The brain itself weighed only 615 g (21.7 oz), only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive number of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost.

Granted, in extreme cases, you can scoop out just about half of someone's brain and they'll still function, but that rather assumes the remaining gray matter is not only well intact, but in the developmental stage.

Not that I don't agree with your assessment, just pointing out, this is the same group of people who kept this woman in that state for seven years against both her written will and her still living husband's will. In the end, logic doesn't really enter into the position.

>>8646894
>zygote is a person
It's still a *potential* person. It can't do anything to qualify it as a person, beyond that which any other lump of cells can do - save that a lot of those lumps can do more, namely survive independently.

Not that a potential person doesn't have some value, particularly as it nears fulfillment of that potentiality, but if you have to choose between the life of an actual person, with family, loved ones, occupation, relationships, with a life that's already impacted perhaps thousands via cascades of interactions, and will continue to do so, vs. a couple of cells that haven't done any of said, the choice should be obvious.

I'm entirely willing to "inconvenience" someone for the sake of a potential person, maybe even quite a bit - but when you state that a potential person and an actual person are equivalent, and are willing to risk sacrificing the actual person's life for the potential's sake, that's when you've gone from fairly concerned to psychopathic behavior, and calling the woman defending her life a murderer, at that point, is a bit beyond the pot calling the kettle black.

>>8645175

If a woman has a miscarriage does it count as manslaughter?

>>8646970
>I'm entirely willing to "inconvenience" someone for the sake of a potential person

Why? People are fucking horrible, there's far too many of them.

>>8645175
It isn't.
Homo sapiens don't become humans until their mid-20s

>>8646337
>Given more time
I see where you're coming from but I would disagree that a zygote is in principle self aware. The sleeping human at that moment in time has the mental capacity to be self aware despite it being dormant. The zygote must develop the necesarry cognitive and nervous features it needs to be self aware.

>>8646970

I do believe a zygote to be equal to any other person.

When it's the life of the zygote versus the life of the mother, then there's room to justify termination. When it's the life of the zygote versus the convenience of the mother, that's when there is no room for justification. The zygote's human right to life outweighs the mother's desire to be free from consequences.

>>8647111
what about right to a good life though?

>>8647012
And sometimes, not even then.

>>8647116

Nobody is guaranteed the right to a good life. Everybody has the right to pursue a good life, but the pursuit of happiness is limited to only those actions which do not affect the rights of others.

Killing another human for the sake of your own happiness is not included in these rights.

>>8647123
If someone is unwanted though, is it not more humane to free them of the burden of life

>>8647116
Humanity is at its best when its struggling.

>>8647135
I don't particularly want you -- will you kill yourself?

>>8645494
Human is just a phenotype, a formal definition may be inadequate since there are thousands if not millions of variables, but brains are particullary good at this kind of pattern recognition, so even if we can't formally define the concept, we can easily identify it.
That's also why races are real, just because you can't mathematically define a race, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, human races exist as much as chairs and baloons exist. Just not in the mathematical world.

>>8647183
You're not responsible for me though. Plus I'm already grown now and I'm self aware.

Abortion is a necessary evil. It benefits society greatly. It is definitely murder, but it causes far more good than harm.
I'm only angered by sociopaths who try to deflect using "muh clump of cells" shit. It's incredibly evil to make such sweeping dehumanizing statements like that and trying to diminish an incredibly complex moral argument with edgy teenage nonsense.

>>8645585
>pro-life supporters imagine it being pulling and ripping a baby out of the womb; but that isn't even the case the majority of time
It's not ripped out, it is hemorrhaged out out of the course of 48 hours, placenta and all in various sized clumpse, and blood, lots and lots of blood. The severe bleeding turns into a trickle after that and after about 2 weeks your pussy will stop bleeding profusely daily.
t. witness of one

>>8646868
You lack the understanding of the word potential.
If I have a flat bettrry it holds no potential difference
If I have a charged battery is potential difference is the voltage measurable at each terminal.
The flat battery has potential for potential, but until charged it has no potential. The egg and the sperm hold potential for potential but until fertilized do not hold potential.

>>8647420
I'm only angered by simpletons who try to deflect using "muh edgy teenage nonsense" shit.

>>8647420
>>8647474
>I believe it's murder
>murder is definitely ok
I hope you realize the fault in your logic eventually. Murder is wrong because it denies the right of personhood of the individual. it's easy to defeat your position without even using religion.

>>8645221
You only argued that it is life, not that it is "a human being". I consider this to be much more of a philosophical question than anything else.

>>8645175
Why are conservative s so anti abortion ?
If a nigger raped your wife into getting pregnant wouldn't you want abortion ?

>>8647568
What's it matter if its a human life or any other form of life? Does being part of the human genome somehow pass you right to take life as you please?
People justify slaughter of non-human species because well they are not human, and if a human were subject to the same treatment it would be viewed as horrifically imorral. To be human is to possess the human condition, the human way of thinking that one species is create and can hold dominion over all others, the predisposition towards selfishness even in the persute of selflessness. Where there are humans there will be needless suffering period.
This is why I say the question needs to be what value does one life have over another?
Does the mother have anymore valuable contributions to society, or would the child be a more valuable asset to society? Since no-one seems to value life, what does it matter if its human or another species. If we are going to terminate pre-human life why not weigh it up against the life of the mother and evaluate which has more to offer?

>>8647599
This

>>8647599
>>8647606
>if a nigger raped your wife
The solution of course is to not allow your wife to run around town by herself without a ccw, or to make sure she knows the dangers of dressing like a whore. But that's more of a /pol/ discussion. The middle east solves this conundrum you presented by requiring said accompaniment and also coverings. There are many such solutions to the problem of "Not having your wife around feral niggers".

>>8645175
>Human
Yes
>Being
No, you need consciousness to imagine self worth and view yourself as something that exists.

>>8645213
>>8645221
All this mention of the babys rights as a human being, while completely ignoring the human rights of the mother.

If it is a human, why does its rights matter more than our own? Even if it is a human being, why are we forced to live in accordance with the religious beliefs/moral attitudes of others? inb4 murder, selfish, reeee. I'm the one who has to raise the shit, I'm the one who has to pay for it after your politics force me to have it, and I'm the one who's stuck with it for the next 18 years. Once the fucking thing is born, its no longer your fucking problem. So I'm allowed to be selfish, you fucking cunts. If I say I can't afford this baby, and you force me to have it anyways, I will be forced to apply for federal assistance to support it. "I can't afford this baby." "HAVE IT ANYWAYS" "Ok help me support it after its born" "STOP LIVING OFF MY TAX DOLLARS REEEEEEE". Can't have it both ways, lads. You can't care about life and then stop caring about it once its actually born. Doesn't work like that.

>>8647600
>What's it matter if its a human life or any other form of life?
The question was if it was "a human being". That's not just asking if it is life in the strictest technical way.

There is a point somewhere between conception and birth where the human life is considered to also be a human being.

>>8647633
You should be asking yourself how you ended up pregnant with a child you can't afford with all the contraception available? Can afford condoms? Can't get your tubes tied? Can your partner get his testies tied, can afford the pill?. What excuse could you have for being unprepared for you pregnancy other than lack of preperation.

>>8647658
Ahh, there it is. "If you can't support it on your own, you're a dumb whore with no job."

>>8647658
>contraception available
States are defunding planned parenthood left and right. There is very little access to birth control because of this debate.
>Can't get your tubes tied?
No because I might be in a better position to have kids later on.
>Can your partner get his testes tied?
Same issue.
>Can afford the pill?
Not if I don't have access to it, no.
>What excuse could you have for being unprepared for a pregnancy?
..you yourself were probably an "unexpected" pregnancy, faggot. Mistakes happen all the time. And its really none of your concern, why I would be choosing to have the abortion in the first place. Its not your body, its not your life being put on pause, its not your fucking problem. You do not get to dictate what I do with my life, or what I do with my body, just because you think its murder. And you don't get to discount my human rights in favor of the life growing inside of me (that I don't even want). It's none of your fucking business.

>>8647662
Not what I was imply, just that there are ample forms of contraception, one can not have an 'unexpected' pregnancy only an unwanted pregnancy.
If you get pregnant because you choose not to utilize a form of contraception then it is entirely your fault, and abortion would be more moral in such a position because it is being used as a form of post contraception by lazy fuckers.
I support abortion in the few cases it it is a mothers life over the child, but for no other reason... Inb4 muh rape, morning after pill
/thread

>>8647675
>>8647669

>>8647675
Matter of fact, I'm scared shitless to even go to my local planned parenthood because
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
this happened.

>I might get shot if I try to get birth control.
That's how fucking ridiculous this argument is. "Just get birth control kek". We wouldn't be pissed if it were literally that fucking easy.

>>8647669
Tied means they can be tied you nimrod.
But no you would rather run around and have unprotected sex and aborting/taking the life of another because you are too selfcentred and pleasure driven to practice safe sex

>>8647682
just get birth control kek

>>8647682
So your telling me you can't go see a go and get them to prescribe you the pill, you can't go down to a pharmisist and buy condoms, you can't see a doctor to have tubes/testies tied?
You seriously need someone to help you plan not wanting kids?

>>8647696
GP not go

>>8647618
That's not the answer anon
If the dirty deed is already done what then ?
What your saying sounds like if you have a headache don't take a pill but rather be carefull and don't engage in any activities that would result in a headache.

>>8647696
>General practitioner
They do not prescribe birth control. They refer you to a gynecologist every time, and those gynos are located at places like PP. See >>8647682 again.

Believe it or not, general practitioners will refer you to other doctors for a lot of things. And those doctors offices are ALSO boycotted like PP is. You'd know that if you had actually been through any of this shit. But you haven't, because you're a man trying to tell a woman what to do with her own body. You have no experience with this, no basis for comparison, no concept of the complications involved, yet you're still trying to pretend like you know more about our bodies than we do. That's not how that works, kids. You will never know more about the female body than a fucking female. That'll never happen in your lifetime. Accept your ignorance gracefully.

>>8647710
Don't tell me what to do.

File: blastocyst.jpg (15KB, 290x268px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 290x268px

A zygote is technically a "person" in the sense that it is the only human cell (not counting sperm and eggs) who's purpose is to develop into another human. I find it difficult to have sympathy for the simple zygote or blastocyst, as over half of them fail to implant in the mother's uterus in the first place, and are clearly not sentient (no nervous tissue).

The problem begins when you have people terminating their pregnancies when the blastocyst goes beyond gastrulation and actually begins to develop into a person (organogenesis, reacting to stimuli, etc.). Mid to late term abortions could easily be prevented through birth control and early abortions within the first few weeks. It is less of a burden to the taxpayer to pay for another person's morning after pill than an entire abortion procedure. I think it would be better to continue making birth control cheaper and more easily accesible instead of pushing late abortions.

>>8647710
I only have Australia to base my argument off, birth control can be prescribed by a gp, contraception is readily available and abortions are illegal.
Still use of condoms solves most issues.
Abortion should never be used in place of contraception.

>>8647724
The people who argue that birth control is being used in place of contraception are falling for scare tactics. Its sensationalism at its finest. We don't wake up one day and say to ourselves, "Hmmm I think I don't want this baby xD I'll just hop on down to the abortion store and get it removed!" Most times, we hear that we're pregnant and have a 2 month long existential crisis about what to do with the kid we aren't prepared to have, and once we decide that we can't give it the lifestyle it deserves/needs we try to terminate the pregnancy
>in the best interests of the child we could potentially have

Forcing someone to carry a baby to term under the assumption that we're just looking for an easy way out might end up harming the child itself. If we're getting a painful, psychologically scarring procedure to terminate a life, trust us when we say that we have VERY good reasons and we're not just doing it for shits and giggles. Moreover we shouldn't have to explain that to anybody anyways. You don't need a background check and my lifes story, you just need to know that terminating a life is a big fucking deal and I'm not doing it for fun. It hurts, we have long recooperation times, and its traumatizing from start to finish. And unfortunately, Australia is a lot more "liberal" in its views on health care in general.

>>8647740
Again contraception fixes that problem?

File: 1485823163678.gif (180KB, 404x416px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 404x416px

This is all very unscientific and biased by emotion at this point.

>>8647743
Again >>8647682.
>I might get shot if I try to get birth control.
>That's how fucking ridiculous this argument is.

Now we're just going in circles.

Birth control would solve that problem. That's why we keep fighting about this. Its a simple solution thats also being attacked by Republicans because they also count that as "baby killing" somehow. Its a VERY simple solution. I don't know why we're getting this much resistance. It solves almost everything. That's why we keep fighting to keep it. In our minds, legalize one to prevent the other. If we have birth control, we don't get pregnant. If we're not pregnant, we don't require abortion. Its VERY very simple.

>>8647748
Sorry, thats my last bit. I don't normally do this. I'll leave now.

>>8647754
Fuck so you you can't get condoms without being shot? I'm surprised america isn't in a state of national emergency if its that bad.
Holly shit I give up. Go murder you unborn children, I don't give a shit. Not my children, and they won't ever have the chance of running into mine and spreding your Babylonian tier stupidity, since they won't exist.
Good day to you miss brick wall

>>8647777
checked those pro-life quads

>>8645175

A zygote is a zygote. It is not a human being. Fuck off.

>>8647797
>pro-birth

Fixed that for you.

Human genetics do not necessarily add up to personhood. Human genetics aren't even a requirement for personhood.

>>8647765
I think there are some downsides to birth control. Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure birth control can render women infertile in some cases.

In the developed world there's birth control, condoms, vasectomies, tube tying, morning-after pills and abortion. Am I missing anything?

>>8645175
It has human dna so it is human, but whether you consider it to be a human 'being' is ultimately a subjective conclusion you should come to after engaging in moral philosophical debate with yourself, literature and your peers. You should also consider the implications of the conclusions you reach.

For instance, if you were to say a Zygote is a human being simply because it contains human DNA, then what makes your individual sperms, skin cells, or cells in general less human and deserving of life than a Zygote? Why should you be allowed to masturbate and waste semen? Why shouldn't you be kept in a cell and have your balls forcibly removed and held on ice to ensure every sperm gets its chance at life?
If you posit that human life starts at insemination of the egg, meaning the genetic crossover has occured, then where does this leave rape victims who have been forcibly impregnated or women who's bodies cannot handle pregnancy? If you posit that a person must be willing to be a host to any clump of cells with human DNA, does this mean that you don't have a right to fight viral infections that do a genetic crossover with your own cells? Or cancer?

>>8647184
So do unicorns exist since we can identify those too?

>>8645175
A zygote is a developing form of a human being that contains the genes necessary to develop into a person.

However, it is not a person until it develops self-awareness.

>>8645175
Can you not find an actual picture of a zygote, OP?

>>8648000
is a newborn baby a person?

>>8647184
>even if we can't formally define the concept,
>we can easily identify it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

>>8645731

Good post. Is the 75% figure accurate/accepted?

I guess the counter-argument would be that to find out you are pregnant, have to have already made it past the 1 in 4 odds. Indeed, you could make that the case that only 1 in 4 zygotes making it that far makes it more important to keep them once they have made it.

I tend to think that if we regard brain death as being the point where you can turn off somebody on life support, then you can accept the reverse - that the human is not a person until brainwaves begin.

>>8647740

Deciding 'one day', if that's early on, seems far more sensible than 2 months of thinking it might be feasible to have the child and THEN aborting in the end.

>>8647835
>Why should you be allowed to masturbate and waste semen?

Because your body will naturally 'waste' semen all the time anyway.

>>8648721
Even more reason to forcibly remove them from you and keep your testicles on ice. Those are human lives being lost.

>>8648682
The reference for the claim is Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation". I dont have the text handy at present. Sam goes on to say that god is "the most prolific abortionist of all time".

>>8645175
It depends on your definition of "human".
Purely genetics?
Heartbeat?
Brain activity?
Emotion?
Goals, dreams?
Experience?

wherever the line, it makes no sense to say "once it exits the womb" as that's not really what we're looking for in child development.

>>8645175
according to scientists from the Vatican, soul only comes to the zygote when it has at least 128 cells.

>>8648960
is that some magical number?

File: C22yhllW8AA9ML6.jpg (136KB, 801x1200px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 801x1200px

its not even a science question. in a court of law, if there is any doubt, you walk.

>>8648960
if you are at 128 cells, and one dies, does the soul pass on, with a new "ensoulment" when the cell is replaced?

>>8649632
Which is why women who abort are not convicted of murder.

oh my god it's still alive

>>8645742
Sorry I didn't see this earlier. The citation is "Letter to A Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. I don't have the text on hand so I can't give you the page number. I'm quoting from memory; I used to listen to the Audiobook while I was at the gym.

>>8649993
thats not what i meant

>>8645175
A zygote is definitely an organism different from that of the mother, but what constitutes a "human being" is in the realm of philosophy. For comparison, let's consider a sack of potatoes and a corpse. Neither are living Homo sapiens, but you feel that the sack of potatoes is not a "person" whereas the corpse is definitely of a former "person". You would respect the corpse more than the sack of potatoes; you would rather be forced to trample over the sack of potatoes than the corpse. You still feel some degree of respect and sympathy to the corpse even though it's just a lifeless pile of flesh. What constitutes a "human being" extends far past the definition of a living organism.

>>8645743
>>8645758
>>8645775
samefag

trolls trolling trolls

the true answer is that human life isn't special and mommy's rights also aren't special

kys

>>8647724
Hang on, abortion is legal in this country

>>8647633
I'm actually pro-choice, but I really have a problem here. You are essentially asking at what point does the mothers rights outway the childs; which makes the assumption that you have the right to an abortion. If the precept of the conservatives is correct, and abortion is murder, then the foetus rights do not have to outweigh your own; abortion is murder and you have no right to murder.

If you are concerned about having to raise a child to adulthood, don't have sex.

Again, I disagree that abortion is murder, as I believe it takes more than DNA to make a moral agent with rights, but lets at least be consistent from our side. You couldn't drown your 1 year old and argue in court "well, I'm the one that has to raise the shit, why should it's rights outweigh mine".

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post, conservatives love to talk about right to life before birth, but afterwards they tend to stop caring. But your playing a dangerous game. What happens when a conservative with consistent views comes along and tells you that he has no problem with support for single mothers, and therefore you have to have the child? Your stuck and he has you. Lets just attack the precept that a zygote has rights by the mere virtue of having human DNA. It's more fruitful.

>>8650261
> shellfish is wrong

>>8645175

>283 replies

Come the fuck on, /sci/.

>>8650755
Why, whats the problem? Isn't the idea of /sci/ to have a place on 4chan where we can discuss ideas like the personhood or lack thereof of a zygote?

File: 1325295198003.png (3KB, 106x77px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 106x77px

What's your opinion on third trimester abortions /sci/?

>>8650790
I'm fine with them. DESU, I just wish we'd quit being babies about it and move on.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

>>8650814
Can an acorn develop in anything but a tree?

>>8650839

What?

File: brony baby.jpg (30KB, 444x554px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 444x554px

>>8645258
Do pro-choice people actually use native american genocide as a comparison to justify abortion?

>>8650839
Yeah, acorn cakes

>abortion is murder, zygotes,embryos, and fetuses should have the same rights as born human beings DDDD:
>can't wait for the race war to happen though, all these minorities aren't human anyway :DDDD
> t. /pol/
An impetus for reflection...

>>8648416
Not until it develops awareness, no. It is a human being, though, and has much greater potential for personhood than anything else that is not already a person.

>>8649983
we are working really hard to solve that question.

God has an habit to not respond questions directly so we are having trouble with our research.