>1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.

>>8739178

Yes it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuoepBsv3ZE

The cells are alive, but are completely dependent for survival on the surrogate, by aggressively nesting into the womb.
Do you call something human because it has human DNA? Or do you call it human once it starts become human enough you can call it that? Where is that line? Does killing a bacteria = murder? Do you call the uncountable amount of human cell cultures human?

>>8739194
>Where is that line?
It's when a mother has a children in her womb.
>Does killing a bacteria = murder?
Bacteria isn't human.

just like eating a fucking pear is murder

>1. All living humans are composed of one or more cells
Oh wait it doesnt say that

File: 555.jpg (34KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 338x305px

>>8739194
>aggressively nesting into the womb

>>8739207
Implying humans aren't a fucking organism are u fucking kidding me wtf kiddo just stfu man i really hope your mother shoudlfnrha ve aborted u you dipshite

haircuts are murder
clipping your nails is murder
scratching is murder
ejaculation is murder
spitting is murder

>>8739211
>implying all organisms are humans
I cam ehere to laugh at you

Define living

>>8739220
You don't know logic, go back to aristotle you inbred cunt.

Every human is an organism, not all organisms are humans.

>>8739194
Youcll it murder because scientifically a zygote is

An organism
A HUMAN organism
A LIVING. human organism
A DISTINCT living human organism from the mother.

we know it's species is human. We know it must be a different organism from the mother because half its dna is from the father and no cell ever mutates half its genome to something different (cancerous cells have a few mutations in the genes taht control the cell's 'lifecycle'). We know it is alive because it is metabolising etc.

So SCIENTIFICALLY abortion is murder just like pre-meditated killing of any other living human organism is murder.

If you disagree then get the fuck off /sci/ because whatever you're arguing it isn't science

>>8739212

Hair strands (not including the base of the follicle) are comprised of dead cells.
Same thing with nails.

>>8739222
self-replicating DNA

File: WhyDoesGod.jpg (107KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 450x338px

>>8739178
Does that mean miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter?

>>8739232
How is a zygote an organism? That's a semantics argument at best.
It's a totipotent single cell capable of developing into an organism by deploying gene programs in a carefully orchestrated manner.

Human HeLa cells are human cells
They're living human cells
They're distinct living human cells, from everything around them
Yet they're used in research and used to test drugs on and are manipulated and shit. Shouldn't they get some kind of human rights, the cells coming from a woman with cancer that died in the '50s?

Again, this isn't a scientific argument, it's a semantics one thinly veiled as a scientific one. More specifically, it's a bio-ethical argument.

>>8739178
I mean, I guess, but a few things:
1. If there's no brain activity, it's effectively a vegetable. Your argument strengthens when there's a brain, but doesn't when there's not.
2. If groupings of multiple cells being killed counts as murder, then don't ejaculate, have a period, scrape your knee, or anything to that effect lest you murder yourself.
3. The mother is more valuable than the fetus 100% of the time. It's not rocket science; she can work and produce and provide where as the baby is 100% dependent.

1. Abortion is murder
2. Murder is fine

Problem solved.

>>8739274
>/sci/ attempts philosophy

>>8739255
or RNA i'd say

>>8739276
That fixes that.

>>8739178
>Abortion is murder.
so ?

>>8739255
>>8739281
Damn, you guys really are babbies when it comes to (molecular) biology and defining fundamental stuff.
You need an entire closed system of DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids and sugars before you can actually call something life.
>How does D/RNA replicate?
Oh, y-y-you know, nucleotides form spontaneously and then just kind of complement the other string I guess.

You need at the very least a competent system for replication, then you need energy homeostasis and you need checkpoints with yourself and environment so you know you can safely replicate.

Selfreplicating (bio)(macro)molecules in itself is just organic polymerisation.. how the fuck is that life?

File: No-Poor-Trigger-Discipline.jpg (227KB, 849x565px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 849x565px

>>8739232
> pre-meditated killing of any other living human organism is murder.
So if an intruder breaks into my home with a gun, looking to steal my property, my money and kill my family, it's still murder?

>>8739276
That's pretty much what Peter Singer defends, except "murder" isn't the word. He admits abortion is infanticide and claims that infanticide is ok.

>>8739294
Ofcourse it's murder, just a subset of it, called self defense. Damn you're a thick cunt..

>>8739274

Fuck off to >>>/his/

>>8739292
Is a fetus not a living organism, you retard?

>>8739304
A fetus is pretty alive already, yes, but it's still completely non independent from its host.
It's can only keep itself in check when literally all the nutrients are provided to it through a river of blood coming from the mother, which also conveniently disposes of all its waste so it doesn't fucking die.
If parameters aren't optimal, the womb simply expells the zygote. Is automatic abortion murder?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Causes
Most clinically apparent miscarriages (two-thirds to three-quarters in various studies) occur during the first trimester.[19][20][21] About 30% to 40% of all fertilized eggs miscarry, often before the pregnancy is known.[1] The embryo typically dies before the pregnancy is expelled; bleeding into the decidua basalis and tissue necrosis causes uterine contractions to expel the pregnancy.[21]

File: =^).gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

>>8739297
>Ofcourse it's murder, just a subset of it, called self defense.
you seem to be confusing murder with homicide, you dense motherfucker

>>8739321
a 1yo is also not independent from a provider. Your argument is invalid.

>>8739321
>fetuses happen to die
>therefore killing them should be ok

you should give two thoughts to the things you believe before posting

File: Dumbest_people_alive.png (14KB, 1258x474px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1258x474px

>>8739334
Homicide > Murder > Killed by self defense
Damn, you're pretty dumb. Want me show it to you with a picture using sets so you can more easily understand? Fine.

>>8739242
So its basically double murder; or desecration of a dead organism which is probably worse

>>8739360

Back to /b/, kid

>>8739336
It has a provider, it has the capability to dispose it's own created waste and it has the capability to take food by itself, given that it's provided to it. It doesn't need the host any more, per se, because you can just exchange it with another provider. However, you're correct in the sense that it can't live on its own, but that's just because that's just how our evolutionary path has taken us. Other species are completely independent once they are born.

>>8739347
It's not just black and white like that. Like there exist way more arguments than this, it's just one of them.
Are there situations where killing a zygote/embryo/fetus/ is ok?

How can you not see the difference in states during the development of a human embryo? Why is it so difficult to accept that something that has to potential to become a human being, isn't a human being at its conception, but needs a certain developmental stage before it can be considered one?

We should ban abortion and contraceptives to stop the slut culture.

>>8739422

Not /sci/

>>>/pol/

File: fuckbrazil.jpg (429KB, 1322x688px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1322x688px

>>8739297
>>8739348
Wrong. Lrn2dictionary:
> Oxford
> murder
> the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:
> unlawful

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> murder
> the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
> unlawfully

Killing in self defense is NOT murder.
Killing an enemy in war is NOT murder.
Killing a fetus / embryo within the timeline set by the state is NOT murder.

A suggestion? Before you troll someone else' intelligence, find out wtf you're talking about.

School's out. You may gtfo now.

>>8739422
Banning ovaries and testicles is a quicker solution

we just need to grow clones instead of breeding

>>8739201
So a zygote is a child now...

The problem I have with pro life faggots isn't wether or not the fetus is actually life, but the double standard that comes along with it. You fags have no issues with killing farm animals like chickens or lab rats, yet defend aborting a non self aware fetus that could put YOUR life into financial ruin and probably grow up to be a drug addict because of failing parenting.

File: if_the_fetus_you_save_is_gay_pinback_button-r2fa6b0b0c88f4a4f8c307108c1c3b616_x7j18_8byvr_540.jpg (59KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 540x540px

>>8741624
pro-lifers tend to be bible-thumpers or liberals

both of whom don't really think about why they do or believe things, and sure as hell would get an abortion if raped multiple times by a muslim

>>8741699
If the fetus you abort is gay, does that make you a homophobe?

>>8741752
only if you can prove the fetus was gay

but being able to prove it while it's still a fetus
would mean that sexuality isn't a choice.
in fact, I would argue that makes it more of a birth defect or a disability, as it really offers no advantage and lowers their chance of reproducing

>>8739178
By that definition using hand sanitizer is genocide.

>>8739422
Sluts will be sluts reguardless of the consequences. The last thing we need is more slut babies. A better solution would be that everyone is reversably sterilized at birth and must apply for a license to procreate. Of course this wont happen because unnecessary surgery could cause complications, and black people would complain because their only source of money is often a direct result of having shittons of kids and no job. Then the practice would be deemed racist because its racist to call out black people for being retarded, and general consensus becomes that everything the black community says is truth.

>>8739225
are some humans cats?

>>8739201
The living cells you flush down the toilet in your urine and feaces are, in the blood you wipe off when you bleed, or the mucus when you blow your nose.

>>8739178
>1. Homo sapiens sapiens is the scientific name for humans

Killing people is racist

>Groundbreaking! Anon on /sci/ ontologically redefines species and anatomy in ways unprecedented!!
Some of the most notable points, following the logic:
>Clumps of single dividing cells are humans as long as they are in the womb of a mother
>Curing uterine diseases is now abortion, is now murder.
>Cancer cells growing naturally inside the womb is now holy and protected by hallah (swatbabalooba) or the pope (ave maria).
>Chemotherapy is sinful, as it can kill of absolutely natural cells.
>your macrophages, when they engulf other cells, are simultaneously creating life (from combining two cells, the obvious prerequesite as mentioned above)
>and sinning unforgivably by committing murder on the same cells. A murder that will scale on orders of magnitude as the macrophage receptor array aligns to form a fatwa and declare jihad against the ebin baby cells it just ate.

Oh, but pig is also sin. And touching a woman when she has her period. And eating shellfish. And homosexuality between consenting adults. And also murder is homicide, is self defense.

Glad we got that out of the way, anon.

>>8741798
You forgot to mention the larger chances of dying due to contracting HIV

>>8741835
>everyone is reversably sterilized at birth and must apply for a license to procreate

cucc

>>8741561
First of all, stop playing silly word games. "Zygote", "embryo", "infant" are all just words for (arbitrarily defined) stages of development of the same thing.

Second of all, the phrase "with child" has been used to mean "pregnant" for centuries. The zygote, embryo, or fetus is called the "unborn child". So unfortunately even if you want to play your word game, you're wrong about it. The word "child" has been used to refer to the unborn since a long time ago.

>>8741871
>being against sterilizing other men, thereby increasing the chance of some other man impregnating your wife
actual cuckery is afoot

The bigger question is, why do you give a shit what other people do which doesn't affect you in the slightest?
what a bunch of homos

>>8741903
and you stopped doing whatever you were doing to enter a conversation that doesn't affect you to tell us not to worry about things that don't affect us

>>8741910
Glad, we agreed m8

>>8739261
Miscarriage is when God decides to murder babies. Serious baby shortage in heaven.

> killing a Human is neccecarily wrong.

get cancer. thats opposite of abortion then
apoptosis is fucked up just like your life

Who gives a fuck if someone murders a fetus other than Christians?

>>8739178
Abortion of fetuses is, ebrions isnt

>>8741624
What? How is that a double standard? Animals aren't humans dipshit, it has nothing to do with "self-awareness".

>>8739178
Stem cells are vital... Abortion is not that bad, question is what you do to fetus.

>>8741821
This. Why does it matter what that cluster of cells is going to be one day? Im sure you anti-abortion fuck offs have most likely killed hundreds of bugs, and a few mice in your lifetime. Thats arguably far more cruel than killing a lump of cells because the mice and bugs are consious. After the major organs are devoloped (mostly just the brain) it becomes a different issue i suppose, but only complete morons are morally opposed to first trimester abortions.

>hurr durr if you think abortion is murder that means you also think that masturbation is murder and hair and nails are alive too!
every time
Why is it so difficult to respond to an actual argument rather than the same tired strawman over and over?

>>8739194
>Newborn babies are completely dependent for survival on the parents, by aggressively nesting into their house.
>Therefore, child abandonment and infanticide should be legal.

>>8742426
Only complete morons oppose abortions, period. There is no difference with first or third trimester abortions, hell not even babies are conscious. It all a matter of semantics, abortions should be legal no man has the right to say what woman can do with her body.

>>8742437
So you admit that killing babies would be fine, under the same circumstances where one would have an abortion, for the same reasons?

>>8742435
It doesn't latch on to the fucking furniture like it does to the womb, you complete fucking retard.
Also, if you don't see the distinction between a fetus and a neonate, you should just stop participating in discussions regarding bio-ethics.

>>8742426
I don't kill mice, my cats do.

>>8742447
Yes.

I dare you to come up with a reason that killing a baby is neccecarily bad.

>>8742487
No, that's fine, well, I disagree, but at least you're consistent with your logic, and thus, would treat them the same way.

>notthisshitagain.jpg
Everyone do this http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

>>8742687
>has to bend over backwards up with a completely contrived fantasy like "people-seeds"
Is this a joke?

>>8742735
The creators of the experiment didn't want people to catch on to the fact that it was about abortion, besides, if the base suppositions are the same, it doesn't matter if it's a made up concept, this way you could remove biases that appear when the topic is about human fetuses (at first) and test people's consistent logic. I don't see what's wrong with it.

>>8742742
It's retarded because it says that basically no matter how hard you try you will always get people-seeds all the time and now you have to handle them, which would obviously enormously influence people reactions towards them as opposed to the actual reality, where you can totally and easily not have children by abstaining from sex, and even if not, with contraceptives can make the chances virtually nil.

Yes, if people sprouted up like weeds in a week from every fucking corner, sure, we'd probably treat human life with a little less value, but we don't, so it's a completely worthless situation to consider.

>>8742753
Except people do keep getting pregnant even though we pretty much all have access to condoms and birth control.

Of course a lot of those people are stupid and just didn't try to not get pregnant. But it still happens

>>8742753

>it's regarded because it says that basically no matter how hard you try you will always get people-seeds


>People-Seeds*

>You live in a house that tends to get very warm. You could choose to live in the stifling heat with your windows closed, but you'd rather not, so every now and then, you open them. But there's a problem. Outside your house, things called "people-seeds" drift around in the air a bit like pollen. If a people-seed gets into your house through an open window, it will settle on your carpet, and over a period of months grow into a human child. You don't want children, so you attach mesh screens that are designed to repel people-seeds to your windows. Unfortunately, these are not 100% effective, and once in a while a people-seed will drift in and take root. If this happens, does the person-plant that develops have therightto use your house - and it will not live if it does not use your house - for the time it takes it to beome a human child (in other words, is the person-plant entitled to use your house even if you'd rather it didn't?).

Who is the retarded one here?

>>8742759
Of course they do, but that's their choice, and their kids shouldn't be paying the price for their parent's retardation.

File: pence_homo.jpg (69KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 720x720px

>>8742094
>>8739261
>fetus funerals

>>8739178
By your logic, masturbation is murder

>>8742765
Is there some reason you're posting that? As you can see, the question basically forces you into getting the people-seeds into your house (even though you apparently had a fool-proof alternative), and says all your other defenses don't work, tough shit.

>So, you decide to go out on the town and fuck a bunch of dudes for no reason and also don't use birth control because you don't feel like it. So, Mr. Pro-Life you wouldn't be so happy to keep those kids now, huh?!

I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would, and it's a stupid situation to consider because if I was pro-life why the fuck would I be going around having as much unprotected sex as possible in the fucking first place?

>>8742782
>you could choose to live in the stifling heat, but you'd rather not.
Are you actually retarded? Do you have problems with understanding analogies?

>>8742183
Me, i think killing people is wrong you know. I mean, bitches can play their song thinking they are not killing anyone, but they are, and should wear a shirt stamped with "i kill defenseless unborns in cold blood" twice a week during their days

>>8742785
Are you actually retarded? Do you have problems understanding when an analogy is flawed? The question is TELLING me that FOR SOME MAGICAL REASON a fucking hot house is worse to me than having to raise a fucking human child for several months???

If your fucking analogy has to partially dictate my actions in its already contrived made-up fantasy world, hmm, doesn't it seem like perhaps, maybe, your analogy might be going a little too far to attempt to prove its point? Even if you did manage to do it, you'd have done it in a completely worthless and inapplicable situation that has no bearing the actual reality problem at hand.

File: 1365556980482.gif (732KB, 303x270px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 303x270px

>>8741798
two stoneage dudes get funky, rape some females, steal the kids
let them grow up protected by two males, in a territory protected by two males, healthier and better fed
genes passed on
>no advantage

Not even talking about social advantages of a group that has dudes you can fuck to relieve stress and make better social bonds.

Its easy to imagine a lot of advantages like this. Not that anyone could prove it either way.

>>8742805
It says "you'd rather not" as an analogy for someone who would rather not abstain from having sex at all, the window screens are supposed to be an analogy for the condoms and birth control. If you don't assume that the person in question would rather have sex than not have it, then this isn't really an issue, since no fetuses will ever be conceived. You have to assume someone has been impregnated to discuss the internal logic and views of people on abortion.

>>8742816
Now you understand the pro-lifer solution to this problem is to simply quit having unsafe sex. If you'd rather have it than not, then yes, like I said, the kids shouldn't be paying the price for their parent's retardation.

>>8742819
I don't consider them to be kids before they're born, or whenever, it's really an arbitrary label, you're just arbitrarily assigning the label "human" from the moment of conception. That solution is obvious and trivial, the real question is what would you do if you were to conceive an unwanted child, and why. I think it's retarded to force your partner to have the kid just because of your arbitrary moral values.

File: wire_coat_hanger.jpg (19KB, 899x600px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 899x600px

>>8739178
Abortions are going to happen either way.

You can prevent dangerous, illegal ones from happening by providing access to medically safe and legal ones, along with contraceptives, not being retarded about sex ed, etc.

1. its ok to force women to let their body be used by another person so that person can live
2. its ok to hunt people at force them to donate part of their liver to another person so that person can live

both, or neither

maybe parts of their skin too, or one lung

it would for sure be 100% ok to hunt people with tranq-guns, pump some of their blood while they drool on the ground, then move on

it saves lives you guys

>>8742823
Well, I do consider them kids, feel free to substitute 'fetus' in if you like. And to me what you said just sounds like "I think it's retarded to stop your partner from murdering an innocent bystander because of your arbitrary moral values"

Is not murdering adults also arbitrary? If not, why? Why is it arbitrary when talking about fetuses? What exactly changes between the moment where the fetus is in the womb and the moment later when it is born that it suddenly gets rights?

At conception you've suddenly gotten completely unique DNA, that, in normal circumstances, will grow into a new human being. The egg and the sperm before had only partial DNA, certainly not "proper" human DNA, and definitely not functional anyway other than to facilitate conception. At least this line, seems fairly clear-cut to me.

>>8739194
Small children are also clusters of cells that are completely dependent upon their mothers for survival.

That's why I've long favored the post-birth abortion.

Abortion is a legit way to control population if you disagree you are a subhuman ape

>>8742842
no, they can be perfectly well sustained by a multitude of other means
like surrogate mothers even
or like, an IV drip

>>8742840
You assume I don't think murdering adults is arbitrary as well. Which is why I think morals are arbitrary too. Humans are inherently selfish beings, so your morals only exist to make you feel better.

>>8742837
This, too.

>>8742836

it's funny how uou only mention the cons what about the pros like:

>cheaper
>can be done anytime

>>8742849
>Pro choice activists want to ban women from getting abortions after the fetus is viable.

>>8742851
Well, that's fine then I suppose. It doesn't really give us much to discuss though. Morals, while yes, technically all pretty much whatever most people agree upon at the time (and extremely subject to change), at least they give us a common framework to approach problems like these.

>>8742687
This is biased and flawed as shit, because circunstances and hability to take decisions are the key - you shit all over these things. You are falacious lad

>>8742870
I'd be happy to discuss this under the assumption that murdering innocent human beings is wrong, but it'd have to be another day. Nice talk, have a nice day/evening.

>>8742851

is this you Joey Tribbiani?

>>8742873
You're assuming I created this or that I think this quiz is objective and absolute and not that I simply wanted to use it as a means to further the discussion. Who's the fallacious one here?
>>8742875
Literally who

>>8739178
honestly do you think a baby would care if it wasn't brought into this world? it wouldn't be taking a life since it had no life to begin with. killing someone is different because you are stealing their life as well as giving them pain.

this is why i think abortion should be capped at around 18 weeks, this means no pain is felt at all. they won't benefit from living in a world where they were almost aborted.

>>8742851
>morals
>arbitrary
>fairness and equality, empathy and compassion are random and "just opinions"
this whole "without a god there are no morals" is a leftover from a theocratic history, and fucking retarded
people can be selfish, not everyone is
and what humans find moral or not is certainly not arbitrary

>>8742879
>or that i think this quiz is objective and absolute and not that I simply wanted to use it as a means to further the discussion
You used this falacious quiz as an argument implicitly expressing your point of view, therefore your argument is falacious. You cant run bitch, you are full of shit, as you try to tip, i get you on it!

>>8739178
>All living organisms are composed of one or more cells

But not everything that is composed of one or more cells is a living organism.

Furthermore, a debate on abortion is largely not a debate about whenever a fetus is dead or alive - it is a debate about whenever or not it is a person.

so what if it's murder?

is that supposed to be an argument

>>8739178
>1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.

>>8739222
living = not virus
I not virus => I living