Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:47:35 UTC No. 16305037

Monday 7AM

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:58:00 UTC No. 16305046

>>16305033
After grad school.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:03:33 UTC No. 16305053

>>16305033
Define life. Virus are constantly argued to not be life. If you go by the logic of self repeating stable systems then weather is alive.

Me !!JCTM7tJd6sj at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:04:41 UTC No. 16305054

>>16305033
Morally from a secular point of view you have to either devalue all human life or say that a fertilized egg is a peraon because the line isn't really there. Anything else is double think.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:05:38 UTC No. 16305056

>>16305053
There's been a biological definition of life forever dude

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:18:32 UTC No. 16305067

>>16305056
Then apply the definition to see when life begins. OP can solve his question.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:20:24 UTC No. 16305070

>>16305054
>This moron can't see the process for the result

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:25:14 UTC No. 16305077

>>16305033
>Is there a non-political, scientific means of identifying when life formally begins?
At birth.
Send all those fetuses straight to heaven, come on, why delay.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:33:52 UTC No. 16305088

Once you are a 'baby' once you are a 'life', - Now, I'm speaking of the United States... A once great nation, in Jesus' name, 100%

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:57:19 UTC No. 16305114

>>16305077
That's true from a religious perspective. If you're protestant there's no reason why you wouldn't start working in an abortion clinic and end up sending far, far more people to heaven than nearly any other preacher or holy man. Except of course to selfishly save your own hide.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:03:50 UTC No. 16305120

>>16305033
Life carries on existing from being the living cells of ovum and sperm to that of the eventual baby.
The way to square the moral circle of abortion is obvious: Assume that children are the property of their parents, this entitles the parents to murder their children whenever they see fit. This also solves other moral questions such as age of consent or when alcohol can be served to them; whenever the parents deem their property can do so.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:06:45 UTC No. 16305121

>>16305120
What about pimping them out? Also do you acknowledge that Jesus is Lord?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:26:47 UTC No. 16305145

>>16305033
Science has nothing to do with what common words mean to different people. That's either reactively etymological or proactively political (or legal, which is the intersection of etymology and politics).

If you spell out formally what you mean by "scientiific life," then maybe it would lead to an interesting discussion on what or doesn't consitute it.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:27:39 UTC No. 16305147

>>16305114
>I'm an expert in Christianity because I've never read The Bible, everything I know about Christianity I learned from Hollywood movies and TV shows and from atheist public schools
Why is this fallacy so popular amongst non-Christians?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:50:35 UTC No. 16305169

>>16305147
Aborted fetus don't go to heaven?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 23:56:48 UTC No. 16305174

>>16305169
>go to heaven
Fuck off, we're full

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:19:47 UTC No. 16305189

>>16305147
Atheism is a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder and people with that personality disorder are notoriously prone to being deluded know-it-alls

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:24:56 UTC No. 16305260

For thousands of years it was apostacy to even talk about going up the vagina to look for reasons to believe that God actually gave a shit about fetuses and little kids

But once network TV was invented and evangelical christianity combined recent advances in science and hygeine and vaccinations to allow for a higher standard of survival, and the invention of new technology by engineers and medical scientists, we now can examine a Blastocyst with a monofilament electrodes and detect the first emergence of a differential electromagnetic potential across a membrane and this led some clever scam artists on TBN to start screaming and yelling about fetuses conception and "beginning of life" and fooled several generations of extremely dumb people that life begins at conception as if it means anything, and ultimately led to morons like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saying "All abortions are tragedies" even though, the fetus has no personality, no thoughts, and no experiences, and to be perfectly fair, doesn't really start becoming a human being until around age 2, and as it turns out, it was extremely charitable that the existing moral and law code regarded infanticide at post-partum birth, but apparently facts don't matter when millions of obese, elderly morons in cognitive decline say bad words like "baby killer" while the idiot pro-choice movement rolled over for "good cop" bullshit arguments like "fetal viability" and the picturesque and flowery narratives about how precious and beautiful these new lives are, even as God and circumstances were spontaneously aborting the little bastards at about the same rate as they've always been, and now here we are

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:33:15 UTC No. 16305267

>>16305260
>preventing death creates more life that creates more death
3rd grade insight. The question is whether life can be defined scientifically.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:36:15 UTC No. 16305270

>>16305267
It's a rhetorical question.

The actual answer is found in the blastocyst (the blob of dividing cells that proceed from an undifferentiated, pluripotent state, to the differentiated state in nascent organelles).

I have thus answered the question but you... YOU remain stupid. The quesiton is, why? Why are you stupid? You and I both went through the blastocyst prevolution, and have attained the age of wisdom but only one of is in possession of the facts, and the other is a stammering moron...

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:39:42 UTC No. 16305279

>>16305260
For thousands of years it was apostacy to even talk about Earth not being at the center of the universe. Do you believe that Earth is the center of the universe?
Why do you even care about what Christians used to believe hundreds of years ago? You're not even a Christian. The scientific method which lead to all of the discoveries you're talking about was developed by Christians exclusively for their own use, why do you have a problem with Christians' beliefs changing based on their own scientific discoveries?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:41:28 UTC No. 16305280

The tl;dr is, religious people are wrong about everything, all the time. This is consistent across the world, across cultures, and across time.

And by being wrong, all the time, humanity was held back from any progress, as we can read in "history", a subject they also deem unworthy of study, instead preferring to have schizo voices whisper false bullshit in their ears, as they track lower and lower on the IQ scale, and as time goes on, their brains inevitably decay to a state of cognitive decline and ultimately derangement.

Who will save them?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:44:27 UTC No. 16305285

>>16305270
I'm clear. You're prevaricating.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:45:34 UTC No. 16305286

>>16305279
I was pointing out the way "fundamental" christian beliefs, unlike observable and testable scientific claims, all seem destined to move from the "generally accepted as true column" to the "widely understood to be false" column, whereas science just keeps getting better and better, and when religion needs to rescue their bullshit religions, they co-opt (after brutal persecutions) the findings as doctrinaire.

Astronomy was no different.

As for "why do I even care..." well, I'm in a funny, jocular mood for no particular reason and so I came to /sci/ becuase it's where moron trolls hang out and I knew there would be an opportunity to refute someone in between eating a snack, genius. Thanks

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:48:29 UTC No. 16305289

>>16305285
I have my opinion on the best/closest answer to the rather stupid and vague and unimportant question posed ("Where does life begin") yet you cannot grasp even the fundamental vocabulary I've presented here, from the authoritative body of work on the question, which is biology, not religion, which held authority in that arena for thousands of years without providing an ounce of insight, for all that time.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:52:52 UTC No. 16305293

>>16305289
>my opinion on the best/closest answer
I didn't ask for your opinion on best/closest (politcal), I asked for someone's opinion on "life formally" (scientific).

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:02:06 UTC No. 16305302

>>16305293
Its okay, I'll hold your hand. Its the blastocyst, what else do you want to know

Just to be clear I can't tell you exactly when God inserts the soul into the blastocyst. Many learned scholars have attempted to answer the question. Citing the historical record, various ages have been proposed, none of which make sense. At birth (post-partum) or up until age 2.

"Viability" (bullshit religious terminology) started off claiming it was the 3rd or 2nd trimester, when a caesarean section was likely to work, made possible by science, and then later as medical science improved, it became possible earlier. Now, the dividing Blastocyst is the end of the line, there is nothing prior besides the soul-insertion step, which is something the religions still have to explain.

But today, biological science can take a cell from your finger, induce the pre-formed pluripotent state, combine genetics, guided evolution, hybridize and all the rest of that crazy wizardry called "the Science" and so, it seems this concept, like all other garbage religious terminologies, are heading to that familiar waste-bin, the one overfull with religious beliefs.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:08:43 UTC No. 16305309

>>16305033
I believe in abortion post birth as well, I believe maddox on xmission.com made the point years ago and it really stuck with me.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:10:28 UTC No. 16305310

>>16305302
>I'll hold your hand. Its the blastocyst
You'll hold my hand? So if you formally define life as a blastocyst, then why wouldn't life begins as soon as there's a blastocyst. I don't get the point of the question.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:15:50 UTC No. 16305316

>>16305302
>God inserts the soul into the blastocyst.
I thought this was a scientific thread?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:18:16 UTC No. 16305323

>>16305316
It's a /lit/ thread but we're all curious about about the point of it, if it's as simple as blastoctyehood

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:20:17 UTC No. 16305325

>>16305323
If you rigorously define a human, then I can tell you when something becomes human. As it stands, it's just IKIWISI and usually that's when the thing starts to look like a baby with hands and feet and faces and all that

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:26:37 UTC No. 16305337

>>16305325
I can't. I'm just curious if people who think they can are able to spell out what they think in an interesting way.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:30:30 UTC No. 16305344

>>16305337
I think that to save the life of the mother, you should be able to terminate at any time. Mother before unborn, sorry kid but better luck next time.
If it's not life threatening, it's much more fuzzy. Perhaps once the brain and nerves form, it's time to call that thing feeling.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:35:00 UTC No. 16305354

As has been demonstrated in this thread the obvious answer is that life begins at conception. The only possible way for a human pregnancy to occur is either via copulation or something adjacent. The only reason why so much air and ink are wasted trying to make it more complicated than that is because people want to able to have sex indiscriminately and not have to deal with the consequences of their actions

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:36:23 UTC No. 16305355

>>16305286
you have no idea what Christians beliefs are, you have never read The Bible and you are not a Christian.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:38:11 UTC No. 16305358

>>16305344
>before unborn, sorry kid
But that's politcal, or at least ageist, neither of which are scientific. To be clear I've never heard a convincing "scientific" argument in either direction.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:39:11 UTC No. 16305359

>>16305354
>demonstrated in this thread the obvious answer is that life begins at conception
It hasn't. Demonstrate it for me.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:40:30 UTC No. 16305362

>>16305358
A majority of zygotes don't make it to term. They're auto-aborted by the body. Sorry kid.
Those that do still suffer miscarriages. Sorry again.
we know the timings for brain and nerve development, once it has those it has feeling, and that's that.
Scientifically, there's no reason not to cause pain, and no reason I should keep you alive. Does that mean I should go kill you?

Fuck off retarded op, this isn't a science thread and never was, you disingenuous faggot.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:43:02 UTC No. 16305366

>>16305362
A majority of zygotes are killed by porn and I've disagreed with OP more than I've agreed. Is there anything more useful you'd like to contribute?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:45:03 UTC No. 16305371

>>16305366
You don't know what a zygote is if you think it's sperm. You're just a grade A moron.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:52:13 UTC No. 16305379

>>16305359
Now, it's interesting to consider that this is in effect two lifeforms combining to form something new, but this is obviously the moment when that eventuality occurs and it's part of a very clear cause and effect related to human behavior

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:53:58 UTC No. 16305382

>>16305371
You don't know what a zygote is if you think sperm doesn't majorize eggs.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:56:45 UTC No. 16305386

>>16305382
>a majorty of zygotes are killed by porn
????
Does porn beam an evil ray into a just impregnated woman's uterus and explode the zygote?
There's literally no coming back for you.
You don't know what a zygote is, you failed freshmen highschool biologoy.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:59:24 UTC No. 16305389

>>16305379
That's a common usage. If your definition of life is simply "two lifeforms combining to form something new," then gangrene is life.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:01:53 UTC No. 16305393

>>16305389
It is. And you owe gangrene an apology for being so human-centric in your conception of life

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:02:31 UTC No. 16305394

>>16305386
Maybe I don't understand your point. Do you agree or disagree that porn causes more aborted zygotes than any other cause?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:07:53 UTC No. 16305401

>>16305394
No, that doesn't make any sense.
How would porn abort a zygote?
Porn is a concept, not a physical thing that can go around punching women in the gut

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:08:58 UTC No. 16305403

>>16305393
We're talking about your conception of life. But it's funny that you reflexively apologized.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:11:34 UTC No. 16305409

>>16305401
Do you know that a sperm and an egg are both zygotes?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:13:15 UTC No. 16305413

>>16305403
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but tell me these aren't the cutest little things you've ever seen? They're probably woofing like little puppers while swimming around inside your decaying flesh

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:13:16 UTC No. 16305414

>>16305409
Yes.
You didn't
You thought that sperm alone were zygotes.
That's why I am making fun of you; it's because you're retarded.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:14:07 UTC No. 16305415

>Is there a non-political, scientific
No. Stopped reading there.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:14:40 UTC No. 16305416

>>16305413
Creative writing goes in /lit/. Just say what you mean.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:17:03 UTC No. 16305421

>>16305414
Do you know that a sperm and an egg aren't as easy to find?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:19:03 UTC No. 16305425

>>16305421
A zygote
Is when a sperm and an egg combine
It's not one or the other
It's neither
It's the result of them, when they are both no longer sperm and egg, but zygote.
Did you flunk health class?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:21:40 UTC No. 16305430

>>16305425
>when a sperm and an egg combine
Yes. That's the point. >>16305421

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:23:10 UTC No. 16305432

>>16305430
You made no point, you called a sperm a zygote

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:24:57 UTC No. 16305433

>>16305432
Try quoting it and see how it works out for you.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:33:24 UTC No. 16305441

>>16305033
Life began billions of years ago

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:43:24 UTC No. 16305448

>>16305441
OPs question asked you to define life and make a political statement about it. You made a funny nonpolitcal statement about it. God bless you

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:54:25 UTC No. 16305457

>>16305310
>life begins as soon as there's a blastocyst

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:59:17 UTC No. 16305464

>>16305457
If we agree that's the scientific definition of life, then what's the problem?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:07:10 UTC No. 16305469

>>16305464
what you see through the microscope is non-political. Its not even "scientific", per se, but you can actually watch it "begin". Worms and fish, all of us start basically indistinguishably.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:08:40 UTC No. 16305472

LIFE BEGAN A HALF HOUR AGO

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:14:40 UTC No. 16305474

>>16305469
>Worms and fish, all of us start basically indistinguishably.
I don't think I agree with this and my first instinct is to reject the comparison. But if I were to reject convention, how would the world world look? Worms and fish I can't kill?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:29:59 UTC No. 16305484

>>16305474
You can't NOT kill them you idiot.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:33:05 UTC No. 16305486

>>16305484
If I can't not fulfill your question, then why did you ask it?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:37:32 UTC No. 16305489

>>16305486
To get to a more definitive answer

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:42:03 UTC No. 16305490

>>16305033
first define life

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:42:04 UTC No. 16305491

>>16305489
Of what question? Simply ask a question and I'll answer your question and OP's question separately in terms of your question.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:43:35 UTC No. 16305529

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:48:48 UTC No. 16305534

>>16305491
Pay close attention to line one (Zero).

This is where >I< define Life. It just makes sense. Forget the Blastocyst, forget OP's political/non-political idiocy, forget your prior brainwashing.

Life begins when you achieve Age Zero. In Age Zero your chances of Death is 5/1000 or 1/200.

Now, your chances in any given year won't rise to that level for another 56 years (heading for extinction following disintegration.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:55:05 UTC No. 16305541

>>16305534
How does a row or column define Life?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:08:32 UTC No. 16305553

>>16305541
You'll love this concept: Zero. Antecedent to one. Applied to the Time vector (one way, no do overs) we find a perfect evidentary trail back to the point of initial, exothermic, abiostatic, cell metabolic process and elaboration of the deoxyribonucleic acid translation.

But, for me, its the precise moment your last toe cleared your mother's vagina and you breathed air. Antecedent to that, you were just slimy meat, and pretty much after, too, but being a rational adult, we recognize we have to draw the line somewhere and this is the best point to do so, as our forefathers did, before they begat a few generations of morons who didn't understand that life might begin at Blastocyst, but for all intents and purposes, the reasonable compromise is post-partum, and here we can safely draw the line of infanticide without trampling on civil rights.

No sane society on Earth limits abortion except the backward and idiotic. The implications of this claim is vast, indicting a large portion of the Earth's surface, under the tyranny of their political systems and religious agendas. These areas are broadly known colloquially to the intellgensia that runs the planet as, "The Smoothbrains Zone"

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:19:21 UTC No. 16305563

>>16305114

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:05:08 UTC No. 16305604

>>16305362
>>we know the timings for brain and nerve development, once it has those it has feeling, and that's that.
no proof whatsoever lol

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:12:16 UTC No. 16305612

>>16305563

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:31:56 UTC No. 16305625

>>16305563
This is dumb but it did make me think of something, babies in a womb are not capable of sin as a result of having no free will, so what does that make them?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:42:02 UTC No. 16305627

>>16305033
you cant be ethical consistent while eating animals or being pro abortion, if you are against infanticide

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:03:04 UTC No. 16305632

>>16305054
One possible alternative is fetal viability. Although it's impossible to determine on an individual basis, you could draw the line at birth viability mean time, or even go earlier than that by one or two stddevs. Fertilization is more concrete, though.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:24:17 UTC No. 16305636

life begins when a gamete begins rapidly multiplying in to an embryo. Any other definition is an unscientific cope from women who want to kill their own babies without being seen as bad people for it.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:47:48 UTC No. 16305673

>>16305033
Not really. Its just arbitrary lines decided by hairless apes.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:06:32 UTC No. 16305686

>>16305169
No, they won't experience the grace of God in the same way as saints but won't be punished either. But those that aborted them and didn't repent will suffer eternally.
>>16305625
>not capable of sin as a result of having no free will
They have a free will, they just lack the ability to actualise it. They're still under the effects of sin because human nature is corrupt after the fall.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:08:29 UTC No. 16305687

>>16305632
>This life is le good, but this life is le bad. BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY?! I FEEL LIKE IT!

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:09:25 UTC No. 16305689

>>16305286
>all seem destined to move from the "generally accepted as true column" to the "widely understood to be false" column
Great self-refutation, kek.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:12:17 UTC No. 16305691

>>16305627
>Noooo my animalerinos you can't just heckin' kill this cowerino! That's so mean and unethical!

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:43:13 UTC No. 16305745

>>16305033
Cells are objectively alive, so are gametes, so is the zygote. This is high school biology, possibly even primary/middle, I don't think anyone with even rudimentary education would argue abortion is justfied because the fetus isn't alive. It's alive before, during and after conception.

The actual argument is about when personhood begins, and what qualities are necessary for human life to be considered a person. Obviously not all living human cells are considered people, otherwise we could do no treatments that involve killing any cells, no amputations, no surgeries of any kind really, no cancer treatments, hell we couldn't even draw blood, puncture the epidermis for any reason, etc.

This argument will most likely never be solved, because it's subjective. One could argue that one of the defining characteristics of people that make their lives inherently more valueable than those of other organisms is conciousness and abstract thinking. It could therefore be assumed that life cannot be considered a person before these are even able to develop, like before the fetus develops a nervous system, for example. Another person could argue that mere potential to develop a nervous system should qualify life for personhood, and then we can go down the rabbit hole of when said potential begins (every gamete can potentially become a zygote that can potentially become a fetus that can potentially develop a nervous system that can potentially develop conciousness, so is it immoral to jerk off and get a period?) and so it goes.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:52:22 UTC No. 16305752

>>16305636
>life begins when a gamete begins rapidly multiplying in to an embryo
Gametes don't "multiply in to an embryo". A fertilization event between two gametes produces a zygote. A zygote undergoes mitosis, this is the cleavage process, which is itself the first step of blastulation, which eventually leads to the embryo. F, see me after class.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:54:51 UTC No. 16305753

>>16305691
My funko pop is more important than a human life. You can't violate the rights of my funko pop by causing it to not exist, but aborting is fine.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:55:27 UTC No. 16305754

>>16305409
>do you know that Na and Cl are both table salt?
Never change /sci/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:57:47 UTC No. 16305755

>nooo this collection of atoms is le dignified and sacred!!!! but this one isn't!!! because it just isn't okay?!??!?!

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:40:42 UTC No. 16305782

>>16305309
how about husbands aborting wives?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 13:24:44 UTC No. 16305809

Any debate about when life “starts” is a grift and a fallacy of division or fallacy of addition, and should be pointed out as irrational, and ignored.
The question isn’t when life begins, because it does not start, so much as continue. The question is when the life is a life of its own, that can live on its own. That occurs after it is born, and breathing oxygen on its own, or when it can breath oxygen on its own, and take in its own nutrients. There are no other scientific considerations involved. Everything else is about social power.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 13:26:01 UTC No. 16305811

>>16305809
>because it does not start
>when the life is a life of its own, that can live on its own That occurs after it is born,
[proof not found]

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 13:45:07 UTC No. 16305821

>>16305056
>There's been a biological definition of life forever dude
Not really, there's like 5 floating around that no one can agree on.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:04:17 UTC No. 16305837

>>16305033
Life begins at conception when gamete cells combine to create a unique combination of chromosomes.

All the nitpicking and arguing over when an embryo/fetus becomes "alive" is just avoiding the more important, and more difficult, conversation of when and under what circumstances the termination of a life is ethical and justifiable.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:13:24 UTC No. 16305843

>>16305811
I shouldn't feed the trolls but.... You see? Grifters.
This is called "Willful Ignorance" and is a characteristic of the religious and cultural thinker.

Can you breath through your lungs when you are in the womb? No. Proof.
Would you be able to breath through your lungs, and eat with your mouth, and digest your food if you were out of the womb? Yes, that is why we limited abortion in the third trimester.

When that happens -- when that level of development has occurred, you are considered a life of your own.

This was settled years ago, but, like squirrels, Americans have no memory, and so grifters can repeat lies over and over until they form a voting block of the stupid large enough to change policy. The grifters then can get their economic policies or authoritarian cultures in place that aggregate capital and monopolize violence to further enslave the stupid, so that they can change information policy so that scientific thought is not taught, in order that more of their stupid emotional clickbait will work, gaining even more stupid for their voting block or mob, in order to make more stupid people to pick their cotton.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:24:57 UTC No. 16305860

>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9

>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03061-y

Uh-oh, God believers.... Genesis needs a rewrite

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:47:15 UTC No. 16305888

>>16305860
>50 years later
>Uh-oh, Soience believers.... Soience needs a rewrite

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:37:31 UTC No. 16305922

>>16305033
what race is it.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:45:10 UTC No. 16305926

When the organism no longer requires a host to survive. It's why a virus isn't alive. The moment you can take the fetus out of the body and it survive on its own, it's alive. Simple as.

Objective criterias for life don't give a fuck about electrical impulses we call consciousness.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:00:33 UTC No. 16305940

>>16305926
There are many parasitic/symbiotic organisms that are physically incapable of surviving outside of a host that we still consider to be alive.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:15:03 UTC No. 16305947

>>16305169
>>16305174
>>16305686
Most Christian denominations accept that fetuses can go to heaven if someone is baptized for them. If you say fetuses go to hell it's either because you're one of the niche groups of Christians that don't believe that or you're not a good enough person to spare an innocent from purgatory.

>I'm an expert in Christianity because I've never read The Bible and haven't been to church since I was living with my parents, everything I know about Christianity I learned from Hollywood movies and TV shows and from creationism forced into public schools
Why is this fallacy so popular amongst Christians?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:21:06 UTC No. 16305952

>>16305033
Even if there were a unversally accepted scientific definition, it wouldn't take political precedence over the politics of what to do with that definition. Whether certain instances of killing are or aren't sanctioned by the state has always varied by context.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:21:23 UTC No. 16305953

>>16305033
No. First of all reproduction is not a creation of new life, it's a continuation of existing life. A sperm and an egg are both alive even before they touch. What we care about as a society is when an individual begins and that can only be addressed philosophically.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:20:27 UTC No. 16306010

>>16305953
so you're saying that all abortion is murder and that masturbation is no different than abortion

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:37:16 UTC No. 16306023

>>16306010
NTA but murder is a political construct.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:23:14 UTC No. 16306062

>>16305888
Don't you have the Georgia Guidestones to ressurrect, Cletus?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:47:24 UTC No. 16306091

>>16305033
alive != conscious

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:51:24 UTC No. 16306099

>>16305953
Sperm is technically not alive because it cannot reproduce unlike other cells in your body. It comes from a special "sperm factory" cell with itself splits into 4 sperm that will never split against and eventually die within your body.
In the name way, an egg is not alive.
Only a zygote falls under the biological definition of life.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:54:20 UTC No. 16306105

>>16306099
In the same way, a zygote can't reproduce.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:56:03 UTC No. 16306108

>>16306105
How do you think you end up with more than 1 cell for your whole body if the zygote can't perform meiosis, cellular reproduction?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:00:04 UTC No. 16306110

>>16306108
>meiosis, cellular reproduction
No.
But to answer the question you wanted to ask, life is denominated by organisms not the number of cells composing them.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:04:23 UTC No. 16306114

>>16306110
By definition, single cells are alive if they have all 7 requirements for life, one of which is reproduction.
Your skin cells are alive, as they can reproduce. Your rod blood cells are not, as they cannot.
Sperm is not, as it cannot, but muscle tissue is because it can.
As a whole, a human is alive because it can also do all the things that define life.
Really, you should have learned this in high school biology

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:06:25 UTC No. 16306117

>>16306114
>high school biology
By definition a zygote can't perform meiosis. Just stop.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:11:01 UTC No. 16306118

>>16306117
I accidentally an entire T, does this invalidate my argument?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:14:13 UTC No. 16306121

>>16306118
Sterility invalidates the argument I think you're making.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:16:15 UTC No. 16306122

>>16306121
>here's a rare exception
>therefore the biological definition of life is wrong
Biology isn't physics, you can't just come up with one definition that fits literally every form of life.
For example, viruses are traditionally considered "not alive," but there's still debate within biology whether they should be accepted as alive.
Basically, I'm saying you don't deserve your GED

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:19:32 UTC No. 16306125

>>16306122
>you can't just come up with one definition
There's the answer I knew you'd get to.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:20:36 UTC No. 16306126

>>16306125
>ignores context
>asserts itself as correct
You are not alive, because you will never reproduce.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:21:27 UTC No. 16306127

>>16306126
Too late for that.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 20:09:41 UTC No. 16306167

>>16305940
Irrelevant to the current discussion. Humans aren't parasites.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:52:27 UTC No. 16306263

Alive = goes against gravity
dead = cannot resist gravity

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 22:19:13 UTC No. 16306279

>>16305033
The kid in the comic is asking a completely different question than the op. "You" didn't exist until a moment ago, and "you" will cease to exist after this moment

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:12:03 UTC No. 16306324

>>16306279
Abortions should just take the fetus out of the mother's body. If it survives its alive, if it dies, it's just a tumorous blob of cells. We don't call it murder when someone dies of old age, no reason to call it murder if a collection of cells doesn't survive on its own.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:26:42 UTC No. 16306351

>>16306324
Parents (and those acting in loco parentis) have a duty to rescue their minor children, so your idea would only kick the can to a different part of the legal code.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:55:21 UTC No. 16306376

>>16305843
It wasn't settled, it was simply asserted by an unappealable court made up of extremely effeminate and emotional liberal feminists, and your argument is completely subjective. Why does not being able to breathe independently mean it's okay to kill you? You don't independently produce the food you eat, is it okay to kill you?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:43:38 UTC No. 16306417

>>16306351
I wonder what would be the legality of removing an embryo and freezing it indefinitely. You're technically not killing it...

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 01:22:10 UTC No. 16306443

>>16306417
Imagine all the money to made! Storage franchises across America, speciality insurance brokers in case of power failure or earthquakes, international reinsurance banks to bail out the insurers, and politicians who own stock in it all to bail out the banksters.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 02:35:54 UTC No. 16306479

>>16305033
yes it's conception. you have your own DNA then. everything else is just subjective rubbish.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 03:33:31 UTC No. 16306506

>>16305033
>life
Begins in the balls.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 03:56:19 UTC No. 16306532

>>16305843
>when that level of development has occurred, you are considered a life of your own.

>>16305837
>important, and more difficult, conversation of when and under what circumstances the termination of a life is ethical and justifiable.

"At the margins" would be the correct answer.

If you go look, in the graveyard little coffins have little headstones and not by accident. If all the headstones were the same size the cemetary would be too crowded

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:24:28 UTC No. 16307389

Are people sentenced to death alive? What about enemy soldiers? People terminally ill and suffering?

Not sure why the being 'alive' thing matters so much in the abortion debate.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:48:15 UTC No. 16307417

>abortion debate
It's a numbers game, not a life game. If your heirs matter financially, you will always have access to abortion.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:03:16 UTC No. 16307638

>>16305280
They don't need to be saved. They'll keep having babies while the "educated" college folk marry at 30 and have like, 1 kid.
They're already replacing you. You're the one that needs saving.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:19:33 UTC No. 16307660

>>16305033
Life began 3.8 billions years ago.
Individual life doesn't exist. The life of a child is the same life as that of its parents, separated from their bodies at birth (for the mother).

Just like a cutting from a plant that lives on as a new individual plant.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:21:55 UTC No. 16307662

>>16307660
You sound like a plant.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:21:58 UTC No. 16307663

>>16305809
>That occurs after it is born
>and take in its own nutrients
Human newborn babies just sit and cry until they die if they're not taken care of. This applies to many species.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:27:21 UTC No. 16307670

>>16307662
I'm not a plant.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:32:57 UTC No. 16307678

>>16307670
I don't believe you. I think your human is away and you're his desk plant, shitposting on 4chan.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:53:32 UTC No. 16307696

>>16307678
Plants can't even type, leaves are too soft, how could I be a plant ?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:58:09 UTC No. 16307702

>>16307696
And yet you are. You tell me.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:07:58 UTC No. 16307710

>>16307638
>I'm afraid of people replacing me
You'll die and be replaced, just like everyone else. Stop worrying about it.
>>16307660
>The life of a child is the same life as that of its parents
t. childless incel

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 03:52:03 UTC No. 16308063

>>16307638
I pay for health insurance that goes toward someone receiving a half months supply of Ozempic and I hope they get it, it might change their life... hell it might even SAVE their life.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 05:09:18 UTC No. 16308117

>>16305033
Life is continous. It never stopped.
The living germ cells directly create the living zygote.
If the cells of the germ line were dead, then it would stop, so they never die.
Our entire organism is built around them like a generation ship.
you want to ask a different question.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:11:30 UTC No. 16308355

>>16307710
We'll all be replaced by Christians, always. Your basedboy atheist utopia will never come to be because you're all hedonists who can't handle the duty of having children and would rather fuck 2000 hoes.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:49:17 UTC No. 16308398

>>16308355
Atheism and childless incels like yourself can only exist in a westernized Christian society. You're far more likely to be replaced by Islam.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 14:51:53 UTC No. 16308507

>>16305033
>Viruses are alive
>Human embryos are not
Do you ever get the feeling that the baby-murderers are actually in a satanic cult?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:24:53 UTC No. 16308548

>>16305033
at conception, no debate.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:30:12 UTC No. 16308556

>>16307662
Plants cant write or talk so he cant sound like a plant. You are delusional

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 16:37:40 UTC No. 16308624

>>16308548
if sperm and eggs are both alive, life begins before conception.
I measure the value of a lost human life by the size of the hole it leaves behind in other peoples' lives. Losing a teenager is worse than losing a baby.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 16:49:55 UTC No. 16308645

>>16308624
The moral hazard must be acknowledged. We all know babies are less important than adults. And we know kids are systematically oppressed (second class citizens, discriminated against, base prejudice, basically chattel, etc.)

School shooters reflect these values. Whereas Pro-lifers merely want their slaves to live to be oppressed, and school shooters ironically destroy them to reinstantiate systemic prejudice in mindless fashion, Pro-choicers have the empirical upper hand: there is no life experience and no real personality in a fetus. When Robert Kennedy says, "All abortions are tragedies," he's engaging in causistry of the kind he brings to every issue and preaching to a chorus that doesn't recognize the water we swim inn which is widespread prejudice against children. Conveniently for this rhetoric, children don't vote.

Societies can be measured by their treatment of children. Because this is a moral touchstone, Pro-lifers want to own the territory, and extend this to absurd lengths, forcing women to give birth and extend the (false) pretense of equal rights to a fetus, when in fact they're lining up behind rapists and douchebags, and all manner of self indulgent adults who are motivated to believe in their own goodness and the rightness of the existing status quo, which instantly elevates the parent, granted unearned esteem and social status.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 20:14:05 UTC No. 16308857

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 20:23:10 UTC No. 16308871

>>16308645
Sounds like baby murder propaganda to me.
Meanwhile, the last 60 years of progressivism has not curbed a single problem. Murdering their babies hasn't done anything but turned their murdered corpses into strange alchemy fluids used for other perversions of Satan.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 20:54:31 UTC No. 16308908

>>16305033
Life doesn't 'begin'. Everything involved is alive. There is one continuous process, and at every stage life is happening.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 20:59:58 UTC No. 16308918

>>16305033
Our rhetoric is so unevolved that there is no distinction between life and sentience. It's a flawed premise that shows the intellectual dearth of America since the 60s.

Life begins at viabie survivability outside of the womb, this is as nature decreed for natural selection. The rest is pomp and moralism. For humans and sentience, it is an emergent property that doesn't really have the potential to start otherwise. For humans with moral qualms, such lives arent worth living if they never had a chance at a happy future to begin.

But we like our chattel slaves.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:29:35 UTC No. 16309011

>>16306099
>Sperm is technically not alive
your brain on semantics
Dead sperm doesn't work, living sperm does.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 02:53:58 UTC No. 16309284

>>16308871
How come babies' dead dismembers body parts are so valuable? Why are scientists willing to pay so much money for dead baby parts?

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 21:39:11 UTC No. 16310260

The same people who think abortion is fantastic will all chimp out over seeing picrel

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 22:23:41 UTC No. 16310300

>>16305033
a fetus's brain isn't able to be aware of itself and it's own existence until 20-24 weeks. the exact moment varies from fetus to fetus so we will just say 20 weeks is the cutoff of when a fetus becomes a person and is, at that point, not ok to abort it unless medically necessary to save the mother's life.
but before 20 weeks it's just a pile of goop so you're clear to TOSS IT INTO THE TRASH LMAO

footnote:
the argument about "life" is retarded and we should focus on when a person is aware of itself being alive. (hence why everyone is already okay with pulling the plug on braindead people with 0% chance of recovering)

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 23:21:26 UTC No. 16310342

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 00:55:01 UTC No. 16310417

>>16305627
What if I'm anti abortion but pro infanticide? You should at least give them a chance to make their case before you murder them.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 01:19:40 UTC No. 16310441

>>16310300
Finally someone with some genuine fucking morals holy fuck

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 01:40:01 UTC No. 16310459

>>16305033
The zygote is "alive" and "human" but that's problematic so might as well use some other criteria

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 02:11:28 UTC No. 16310479

>>16310300
But as you say people would only condone pulling the plug if they were sure the person wouldn't recover. Couldn't you apply the same logic to the fetus? That it would only be moral to have a abortion if you were sure it wouldn't survive? I think most people would say that a future sentience counts for something.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 02:54:49 UTC No. 16310497

>>16310479
>they were sure the person wouldn't recover. Couldn't you apply the same logic to the fetus?
no because a 20 week old fetus isn't REGAINING the conscious experience, it is ACQUIRING it for the FIRST TIME.
if a doctor does the "fetus deletus" spellcast at 19 weeks then a sentient being has never ever existed and it's like nothing ever happened at all

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 03:18:26 UTC No. 16310509

>>16310497
>muh semantics justifying murdering babies

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:40:31 UTC No. 16310636

>>16310479
>I think most people would say that a future sentience counts for something.
a 5 year old will be 18 in the future. Should they be treated as an adult and allowed to drink alcohol/vote now, or when they're actually 18? Similarly, should something with a potential for sentience be considered sentient and enjoy the right to live now, or when it actually develops sentience?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:43:14 UTC No. 16310640

>>16309011
>Dead sperm doesn't work, living sperm does.
Are you going to argue viruses are alive too?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:51:13 UTC No. 16310686

>hmmmm, should i propagate my dna to the next generation and raise healthy children to continue my lineage forever because i have good genetics worth preserving?
>no, i should murder my baby

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:26:34 UTC No. 16311021

>>16310686
It makes more sense when you realize it's overwhelmingly niggers that get abortions. They know their DNA isn't worth propagating.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:51:08 UTC No. 16311315

>>16310636
Then if future sentience counts for nothing why is it wrong to pull the plug on comatose patients who probably will recover?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:25:30 UTC No. 16311438

>>16305745
>>16305260
>>16305837
>>16306324
>>16308645
>>16310300
>>16310497
Fetus literally means early life, they just use the term because they don't know what it means and they think it dehumanizes the unborn child and justifies murder.

>>16305947
Why do you baby-killing psychos force the topic onto Christianity all the time when you want to murder babies? Go abort yourself.
>Verification not required.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:27:18 UTC No. 16311442

>>16305947
There's also no purgatory, you idiot baby killer.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:48:51 UTC No. 16311471

>>16305389
>gangrene
the science is pretty clear on gangrene not being a growing human being.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 06:24:34 UTC No. 16311864

>>16311471
Cancer is a growing human thing. Is cutting out tumors immoral?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 06:55:01 UTC No. 16311889

>>16311315
Because the consciousness developed and is merely suspended, rather than never existing in the first place. The person will have a connection to that already developed consciousness when they wake up. Fetuses have nothing to wake up to, there was never a person to begin with.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:43:08 UTC No. 16312130

>>16309284
Never expect a scientist to discuss why there is an open market for dead baby parts. They haven't changed in all of these years.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 19:04:10 UTC No. 16312495

>>16310342
lol, they really do be like that

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 19:24:43 UTC No. 16312515

>>16305033
At conception.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:31:42 UTC No. 16312576

>>16305033
Life never begins. We are all just machines. There is nothing wrong with smashing a newborn’s head except that we don’t like it when people do that because it indicates they are psychos and hence a danger to the rest of us.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:07:23 UTC No. 16312734

>>16307417
>t. Joseph Stalin

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 00:11:12 UTC No. 16312800

>>16308645
This is some next level leftist schizophrenia.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 04:25:01 UTC No. 16313015

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 05:02:22 UTC No. 16313051

>>16313015
That statue would look way different if he ever actually interacted with women

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:13:30 UTC No. 16313181

>>16306091
So if I kill you while you're knocked out it doesn't count as murder?

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:15:25 UTC No. 16313182

>>16307670
leaf hands typed this post

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:32:14 UTC No. 16313193

>>16305033
Yes, life on earth began about 3.7 billion years ago. Since then it is in a constant state of living and dying. If you asking about the exact moment sperm and egg become "life" then there's none because they are always "life" in a broad interpretation. The question when does fetus starts to have human rights, however, is completely political.

Killing your own children is, unfortunately, not a rare thing in nature. I think you should ask yourself would you rather be born in a family where your mother wants to kill you, or to be not born at all.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 09:24:46 UTC No. 16313212

>>16305114
Abortion doctors sacrifice their own soul so that hundreds of humans go to heaven, without ever having the chance to deny god and sin. They are saints when you think about it. Same with unwed mother who abort, better to abort and guarantee your child gets into heaven that to let if grow up and most likely go to hell.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:26:39 UTC No. 16313285

>>16305632
viability is distinct from what is the more general question of "what is a life." an non-viable fetus still had unique genetic makeup, a physical form, and depending on gestation time, other, more impressive, features. viability has to do with whether the fetus is already dead, about to die, dying, or chance of survival if we start labor and treatment.

to your point, though, one thing important to consider in these discussions is
>part of knowing what something is would be knowing what it isn't
what is it about things that aren't alive that makes them so? one part of being Alive is not being dead. I think that's reasonable and I'll assume you agree. but, we have no reason to believe that we are dead before being born - non-existence is distinct - one is only dead after one dies. because 100% of dead people were alive at some point, then to even use the term "fetal death" acknowledges that life, or at least, the loss of it. viability seems more appropriate for "odds of survival" kinds of questions, not "is this alive" questions.

I think fertilization is the most reasonable place to consider that it's a life. it may still be dependent on mom for nutrition, oxygen, protection etc while developing, but embryogenesis is self-directed besides that.


>>16305054
logically, yes. but there are other considerations. it may be alive, but does it have a name, legal ID, a face, a personality? is it a person, or just alive? without invoking the
>it eventually becomes a person
so do individual sperm and eggs, but ejaculation nor ovulation are seen as a loss of life. I'm not sure I would equate a person to a recently fertilized embryo, but it's important to recognize both as alive.

>>16305033
I don't know if there is much actual debate about when life starts in this context. to many, "when life starts" is a pretext for the question "how long do I have before I abort"

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:42:26 UTC No. 16313298

>>16305056
Yet it is not a consistent enough definition to determine whether a virus is life.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 16:16:37 UTC No. 16313571

>>16305054
what about zygote that take the abomination path instead of humanoid? Fertilized egg can literally turn into cancer, so it's more realistic to consider it a person when it becomes a viable infant

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9643329/

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:25:41 UTC No. 16313796

>>16313298
That's not the issue people have with it
The issue is under the definition a virus is not alive, so some people think it should be changed so it should be.
The definition is 100% consistent, and 100% excludes viruses.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:36:52 UTC No. 16313823

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 19:11:03 UTC No. 16313908

>>16313298
viruses arent alive as they cant self replicate. they need cuckcells to make their stupid little proteins and their stupid little dna or rna

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 19:34:00 UTC No. 16313942

>>16313908
I can't self replicate either. I need your wife for that.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:29:26 UTC No. 16314047

>>16313942
Your body's cells self replicate so your human body is alive
'You' don't exist as far as I'm concerned
Viruses do not self replicate

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:46:19 UTC No. 16314140

>>16305033
The only metric that matters is brain development. Does the fetus have a working brain yet? If the answer is no, then there is nothing wrong with aborting it.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 02:08:06 UTC No. 16314484

Its hilarious how the people who want to murder human babies will also chimp out over someone eating veal or someone shooting a baby deer to eat.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:50:39 UTC No. 16314993

>>16314140
That means you could legally kill half of 4chan...

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 14:27:32 UTC No. 16315102

>>16314140
Why is a "working" brain significant in determining life?

/r/ at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 19:48:19 UTC No. 16315539

>>16305033
I wouldn't even call it "beginning of life". The sperm and egg are alive well before copulation. Rather, I would call it something like the "beginning of human potentiality". That is, once haploid DNA from sperm and egg are combined, the result ha the potential to grow to a mature human. That's the first point when that happens. Thus, I would conclude that when DNA from sperm and egg combine is what we should term the time when "life formally begins". Though, as I said, I would call it the start of "human potentiality".

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 21:10:19 UTC No. 16315630

>>16315102
Because life without any capacity for thought is worthless, like an amoeba or bacteria. They can't think or feel emotions. They can't even recognize that they're alive.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 07:35:19 UTC No. 16316455

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFFtBsl5ps
he was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was Pauline, she lived in a tree

She was a no-one who killed her baby
She sent her letters from the country
She was an animal
She was a bloody disgrace

Body, I'm not an animal
Body, I'm not an animal

Dragged on a table in a factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming

Body, screaming, fucking, bloody mess
Not an animal, it's an abortion

Body I'm not an animal
Mummy, mummy, mummy, I'm an abortion
Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess

I'm not a discharge
I'm not a loss in protein
I'm not a throbbing squirm

Ah! Fuck this and fuck that
Fuck it all the fuck out of the fucking brat
She don't wanna a baby that looks like that
I don't wanna a baby that looks like that

Body, I'm not an animal
Body, an abortion
Body, I'm not an animal
Body, I'm not an animal
An animal
I'm not an animal
I'm not an animal, an animal, an-an-an animal
I'm not a body
I'm not an animal, an animal, an-an-an animal
I'm not an animal
Mummy! Uh!

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:55:28 UTC No. 16316523

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:27:01 UTC No. 16317460

>>16315630
When can we start aborting women and invalids?

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:53:21 UTC No. 16317507

Why does the IFLS crowd seem to love murdering babies so much? Is it their complete lack of morals or do they find babies threatening in some way?

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 23:46:15 UTC No. 16317854

>>16316523
not gonna waste my time validating this but i'm pretty sure the majority of pro abortionists are okay with a late-term abortion ban.
(unless this image is implying a 7 week old fetus is a late term or something retarded like that)

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 00:18:11 UTC No. 16317909

>>16317854
They don't operate on any principles. It is okay to murder when the party tells them too.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 03:04:45 UTC No. 16318107

If unborn babies aren't human beings then why are scientists and doctors so eager to harvest organs from them?

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 03:29:50 UTC No. 16319466

Life begins at the same point as the shrinking pile of sand stops being a heap.

In other words; who cares, this question has been asked on /sci/ every other minute.

Dave at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:00:38 UTC No. 16319625

>>16305189
>Atheism is a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder and people with that personality disorder are notoriously prone to being deluded know-it-alls

lol cope harder

Christians are prideful retards

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:54:40 UTC No. 16319675

>>16305033
sub 12% body fat

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:52:59 UTC No. 16320087

>>16305922
you don't look like that

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:17:32 UTC No. 16320231

>>16305033
I think no. But the problem might be that once again we separate a part of a whole and present it as something unique.
If we consider that its not life it self but rather a specific form of it we have a clear answer that it starts the moment two gamets binde in process of fertilization.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:37:23 UTC No. 16320282

>>16311442
So where do the aborted fetuses go?

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:38:30 UTC No. 16320284

>>16313051
Yep. They're not just trying to avoid responsibility, they find the abortion itself enjoyable.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:06:01 UTC No. 16320325

>>16305033
i never see the point of this comic really addressed. if you have legislation that lets people abort when the fetus is N weeks/days old but puts you in jail if you do it at N+1 days, isn't it retarded? obviously it is exactly the same morally, because 1 day makes literally no difference as far as anyone person can discern. so are we sending people to jail (or whatever it's done) in one case but not the other if they are morally the same.

regardless of if it makes sense, i think it has the side effect of making people cruel and arbitrary and arrogant, giving us an easy way out of ethical thought, we don't have to think about moral implications or if we are doing the right thing, or think about our actions (take extreme care not to get pregnant) or anything. law says i can do it as long as it's not after day N, therefore it's fine. this must be bad for people and society and so on, no?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:48:21 UTC No. 16320378

>>16305033
The problem with telling when human life starts is not an identification problem, it's a definitional one. The issue is to decide when "life" becomes "human life". But while while we can separate obvious humans from obvious humans, reality isn't as clear cut as our definitions, so it's bound to be some grey area where it's hard to tell. And while we could set some landmark to define it (e.g. starts at conception, starts when the nervous system is formed, etc), it's still a definition. You can define things however you want, but nobody is obligated to agree.
Think about aging. You can set apart a baby from a kid, a kid from a teen and a teen from an adult, but pinpointing exactly when a person go from baby to kid and from kid to teen and so on is not clear. It's a grey area, and we just set "reasonable" turning points because we need to clearly define when one stops being another for legal reasons.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:51:34 UTC No. 16320384

>>16305033
The problem with telling when human life starts is not an identification problem, it's a definitional one. The issue is to decide when "life" becomes "human life". But while we can separate obvious humans from obvious nonhumans, reality isn't as clear cut as our definitions, so it's bound to be some grey area where it's hard to tell. And while we could set some landmark to define it (e.g. starts at conception, starts when the nervous system is formed, etc), it's still a definition. You can define things however you want, but nobody is obligated to agree.
Think about aging. You can set apart a baby from a kid, a kid from a teen and a teen from an adult, but pinpointing exactly when a person go from baby to kid and from kid to teen and so on is not clear. It's a grey area, and we just set "reasonable" turning points because we need to clearly define when one stops being another for legal reasons.