/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14603435
>If I'm a scientist who can artificially create a zygote in a test tube, and with 100% certainty have it grow into an embryo, a fetus, and eventually an infant, it's viable at all stages by definition.
By some other definition you made up. Viability is a legally defined stage of development.

>Just admit that you don't place any value on embryos or fetuses.
The only value that actually matters is how much the mother values the fetus.

>>14603463
>So can a human zygote/fetus
Not a zygote and not a nonviable fetus, no.

>It needs the exact same care as a zygote/fetus
LOL, no. It doesn't need to be part of the mother's body to survive.

>That's not a sequitur
Yes, thanks for agreeing with me.

>is literally a fact
OK? Still a non sequitur.

>find my a human life that didn't start as a human zygote.
Why?

>>14603358
>but it is certainly a separate organism with its own DNA sequences
Apparently not, because it's not able to function as an individual entity.

>What I do care about is that you're holding tight to Wikipedia articles to prove points.
I'm not the one who started quoting wikipedia articles. Apparently Wikipedia is only reliable as long as it's thought to support the position that person believes in.

>>14603367
>Is you who lying retard
No, you lied by claiming I ignored the defintion when I directly quoted it. You ignored the defintion. Where did I lie?

>An organism may be defined as an assembly of molecules functioning as a more or less stable whole that exhibits the properties of life.
That defines the mother and fetus as an organism, yes.

>"viable" is a worthless nonscientific term
Of that were true then organism would be worthless and nonscientific. They basically mean the same thing.

>Human life begins with the zygote that's what the it says
No, it says the zygote is a stage of development. Nowhere does it say it's a life. It's alive but not a life.

>Alive = life, my hand is life.
Your hand is not a life.

>>14603533
Lying moron.
>Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus.

>>14603546
>Four independent research groups showed that hCG promotes an anti-macrophage inhibitory factor or a macrophage migration inhibitory factor, a cytokine that modulates the immune response during pregnancy, which reduces macrophage phagocytosis activity at the placenta-uterine interface, preventing destruction of foreign fetoplacental tissue [33-35] (Table(Table1).1). Three other groups have shown that hCG may directly suppress any immune action against the invading foreign tissue [36-38]. All told, hCG appears to be one of the numerous factors acting to prevent rejection of the fetoplacental tissue. Most observations suggest that hCG has an inhibitory or suppressive function on macrophage activity. One group, Wan et al. [35] demonstrated that hCG can directly enhance innate immunity by stimulating macrophage function.
https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1477-7827-8-102

Please fucking shut up.

>>14602417
You are sick

>>14603179
So a fetus doesn't count because they're relying on another person's body, but conjoined twins get excluded? How wonderfully convenient. The thread should have ended when the other anon posted that picture.

>>14603568
>Lying moron.
>agrees with me

>>14603595
Point?

>>14603657
How so?

>>14603661
>So a fetus doesn't count because they're relying on another person's body, but conjoined twins get excluded?
Not just relying, part of the mother's body. Twins are conjoined, one isn't part of the other.

ITT: people who refuse to acknowledge that there is no divine moment when a zygote becomes a human being. as such a zygote has always been a human being.

>>14603177
>You're an idiot, you misread "because they cannot live outside the mother's body as" as a statement about all fetuses
It is a statement about all fetuses. You should have said "an fetus is not a human if it can't live outside the mother" but you didn't, ergo my examples disprove your idiotic statement.
>X is not "something," it's a specific thing
BWHAHAHA!!
>When you said everything is dependent on something
Quote me where I said "everything" you stupid liar

>So sperm and eggs are necessarily humans because they are stages of development of a human.
No because they are not developing until they are fused into a zygote. Women's eggs remain unchanged for 40 years in fact: no development at all ergo they are not a stage of (human) development
>How does arbitrarily saying viability applies imply a change of location?
Because you are arbitrarily dictating when viability applies and when it doesn't. You are viable the second you were a zygote, FACT. A few days later you then became dependent on staying in the location of the womb for 5 months.
>So not viable. LOL.
Yes viable, LOL. If you were unviable at any point then you could not be here typing right now, retard.
>You can't involuntarily remove a zygote from the mother's body to make it viable
Meanignless gibberish. One can perform an embryo transplant on a zygote you fucking ignorant moron, that zygote is viable while it is outside the womb for the first 10 day period.
>It's not technology, it's viability
Your definition of viability is 100% dependent on the state of technology. 30 years ago a "fetus would be viable" only after 6 months of being attached to the womb. Now it is 5.
>no more so than you can forcibly remove sperm and eggs to make them viable
I can forcibly remove my viable sperm from my body. You are a clueless retard.
>Defining humans based on religion
I'm defining it based on scientific facts. You arbitrarily, inconsistently, and incorrectly dictate when something is viable.

>>14603882
>Twins are conjoined, one isn't part of the other.
Conjoined twins can share organs, how are they not a part of each other?

>>14603871
That the maternal body has to be immunosuppressed to keep it from recognizing the DNA from the placental attachment to the blood supply in the uterus. That's because it's different DNA. A separate entity. The amniotic sac, placenta, umbilicus, eventual baby. Those are all parts of that organism. Not the mother's. It's only connected to the wall, which is why conditions like placental detachment can easily become a loss of pregnancy. That different DNA can eventually cause problems in the maternal body via microchimerism. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fbies.201500059
It's why women with rh negative blood pregnant with rh positive fetuses end up requiring rhogam to keep the body from immediately developing antibodies and rejecting subsequent rh positive pregnancies. https://www.tampabayabortionclinics.com/resources/rh-sensitization/

>>14604069
The moment the fetus becomes an organism it becomes a human being. A zygote is no more a human being than sperm.

>>14599463
>>14599482
you guys would agree that there is a meaningful difference between a plant and a human right? and that a blastocyst is not on the human side of this difference right? then how do you not agree with "abortion" as long as its before that point? it seems like you guys are secretly making a religious argument, which relies upon having faith, which means anybody that doesn't have faith isn't going to believe what you do, so the position your opponent is taking should be completely obvious, so no questions need to be asked

>>14604092
>It is a statement about all fetuses.
It's a statement about non-viable fetuses. Not my problem you can't read.

>BWHAHAHA!!
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you incorrectly generalized to dependence on anything.

>Quote me where I said "everything" you stupid liar
>all humans are dependent on something.

>No because they are not developing until they are fused into a zygote.
Exactly, therefore they must be fused into a zygote or you're murdering humans. You can't just stop the development of a human.

>Women's eggs remain unchanged for 40 years in fact: no development at all
I know, it's a travesty. Women should be forced to continue the development of their egg humans.

>Because you are arbitrarily dictating when viability applies and when it doesn't.
False and doesn't answer the question. How does arbitrarily saying viability applies imply a change of location?

>You are viable the second you were a zygote
Wrong. You already said it's not viable because it would need to be transferred to someone else's body.

>If you were unviable at any point then you could not be here typing right now
How so?

>One can perform an embryo transplant on a zygote you fucking ignorant moron, that zygote is viable while it is outside the womb for the first 10 day period.
You're conflating two different meanings of viable. I'm talking about a developmental stage and you're talking about how long cells can be in a petri dish. And you completely missed the point. Are you going to forcefully remove zygotes from people? What a psycho.

>Your definition of viability is 100% dependent on the state of technology.
Your definition of life is 100% dependent on what some guy in a silly hat says. I can make shit up too.

>I can forcibly remove my viable sperm from my body.
>I can will myself to do something against my will
Wow, you're a dense retard.

>>14604092
>I'm defining it based on scientific facts.
A scientific fact is that an organism functions as an independent entity. The fetus is not an organism, it's part of the mother.

>You arbitrarily, inconsistently, and incorrectly dictate when something is viable.
How so?

>>14604186
>Conjoined twins can share organs, how are they not a part of each other?
How does sharing organs imply one is part of the other?

>>14604322
>That the maternal body has to be immunosuppressed to keep it from recognizing the DNA from the placental attachment to the blood supply in the uterus. That's because it's different DNA. A separate entity.
Doesn't follow. It implies that the body prevents its immune system from attacking itself.

>>14604441
Nope. Two separate entities. Parasitic relationship. You're not correct, no matter how many times you attempt to refute me on it chromosomelet.

>>14604435
>How does sharing organs imply one is part of the other?
Describe to me how sharing a liver does not make them part of each other. If you separate them, how well do you think the one who doesn't get the liver will do?

>>14604451
So you actually had no point, you just told me the body protects itself. Now back to the original point: the definition of organism clearly does the non-viable fetuse is not an organism. It's part of the mother organism.

>>14604456
>Describe to me how sharing a liver does not make them part of each other.
You keep misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say "part of each other," I said "one is part of the other." Now please answer the question.

>If you separate them, how well do you think the one who doesn't get the liver will do?
Point?

>>14604476
>I didn't say "part of each other," I said "one is part of the other." Now please answer the question.
There's many instances where one conjoined twin holds the majority of the organs and is supporting the other twin. So...how is that different from a mother supporting a fetus?

>Point?
Apparently you're not using the ability of the fetus to survive on its own as a proof of being human. That's good, glad we're clear on that.

>>14604486
>So...how is that different from a mother supporting a fetus?
The difference is that the fetus is part of the mother, as I already said. Conjoined twins are just fused together.

>Apparently you're not using the ability of the fetus to survive on its own as a proof of being human.
Not just that, no. See >>14603882

>>14604525
>Conjoined twins are just fused together.
No, they're not. It's not like they were stitched together, they literally share organs, feel sensations of the other, etc. You have to be trolling at this point.

>>14599463
>if you kill all human sperm no more humans are born
>but sperm aren't human and masturbation isn't murder
>same applies for cancer cells. What are they?

>>14604340
Different words, same problem. There is no mystical change from one to the other.

>Not a zygote and not a nonviable fetus, no.
I don't care what you call viable or not, a human zygote/fetus is a separate individual organism from the mother
>>14603538
>It doesn't need to be part of the mother's body to survive.
It needs the body of everyone around him to survive instead, it cannot survive on its own exactly the same as a human zygote/fetus, they are both dependant human life.
>Why?
A human zygote/fetus is the beginning of human life, abortion is murder.

>>14603563
>No, you lied by claiming I ignored the defintion when I directly quoted it. You ignored the defintion. Where did I lie?
You are ignoring the definition of your own wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism#Definitions
An organism may be defined as an assembly of molecules functioning as a more or less stable whole that exhibits the properties of life. Dictionary definitions can be broad, using phrases such as "any living structure, such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium, capable of growth and reproduction".[14]
>That defines the mother and fetus as an organism, yes.
The fetus is a separate organism on its own, and the mother is another organism, yes
>Of that were true then organism would be worthless and nonscientific. They basically mean the same thing.
No they don't, "viable" is a worthless term
>No, it says the zygote is a stage of development.
A stage of development of life, the beginning of human life, yes.
>It's alive but not a life.
Life and alive are the same thing
>Your hand is not a life.
Yes it is is part of everything we call life, anyway the zygote/fetus grows into adult humans, a hand will never do such thing, a hand =/= zygote/fetus
You are comparing apples to pears

>>14601446
And you cannot live outside your mother’s basement.

>>14604433
>A scientific fact is that an organism functions as an independent entity
The fetus in an individual entity, the same way a baby is an individual entity, both are dependant on others to survive and function as humans though
>The fetus is not an organism, it's part of the mother.
The mother is not an organism, is part of the human fetus.

>>14601842
dilate tranny

>>14599619
You need to think further ahead.
What will come of a child raised by irresponsible parents that didn't even want them? Or forced into a foster home?
Bringing pain into the world isn't morally right.
Not to mention, allowing abortions makes for some good gene selection for the overall population.

>>14605278
>What will come of a child raised by irresponsible parents that didn't even want them? Or forced into a foster home?
>Bringing pain into the world isn't morally right.
Why not just kill unhappy people, then?

>>14605286
Not a really good point anon, truly unhappy people kill themselves anyways.

>>14604402
I'm willing to agree that a blastocyst can bee argued as non-human insofar as it doesn't possess distinctly human characteristics such as a brain, nervous system, limbs, etc. So I would be willing to open the door for the abortion of a blastocyst as a compromise. What people like you who argue this don't seem to realize, however, is that a developing zygote ceases to be considered a blastocyst at 4-5 weeks after conception and that the heart and all 3 separate parts of the brain are in distinct functional development by 7 weeks after conception. So abortion should only be allowed at MAXIMUM up to 5 weeks after conception, BEFORE it develops a brain and heart, rather than the currently accepted 20 weeks.

For reference, pic related is a fetus 7 weeks after conception. It is at this point a human fetus with a human brain and a heartbeat and it is NOT a blastocyst (as noted by its distinct organs such as a functioning heart and nervous system, however rudimentary). This idea that a developing baby is simply an indistinct clump of cells (blastocyst) until the third trimester when it instantly becomes a baby is absolutely incorrect, misleading, and manipulative.

>>14600415
Viability will change as technology progresses. If we ever make artificial wombs, viability will start at at conception. What about then?

>>14601433
An unborn child is the consequence of the actions of the woman bearing it, in any of the other cases it is not, therefore she has a legal responsibility to care for it. eg: if you don't feed your child, you can go to jail for that.

>>14604619
hum, i guess that for me to live in denial of the fact that i have murdered several million humans i'll have to make a leap of faith and believe in virgin birth. Praised be Jesus.

>>14604424
>It's a statement about non-viable fetuses
It's not. All healthy fetuses are viable by default. They BECOME unviable if their location changes within the 5 month period.
>Not an argument
Your stupidity did not deserve an argument. "Something" is perfectly allowed to be "a specific thing."
>>all humans are dependent on something.
Not seeing the word "everything" there so you are a liar
>Exactly, therefore they must be fused into a zygote or you're murdering humans
HAHA WTF??? It's not murdering UNTIL they become fused and turn into a human you absolute mouth breather. You are literally saying once they're fused it's not murder HAHA
>You can't just stop the development of a human
You can if you abort the zygote (human). Youmake the most trivially invalid statements.
>False and doesn't answer the question.
It's true and does
>How does arbitrarily saying viability applies imply a change of location?
You are arbitrarily saying when viability applies.
A healthy zygote is viable by default.
If it exists the womb in 5month period it becomes unviable, ergo your argument relies on location. Very simple.
>Wrong
It's fundamentally correct
>You already said it's not viable because it would need to be transferred to someone else's body.
I said once it's attaches it needs to stay there. I never said needs to be transfered retarded liar. We could already have artificial wombs if we wanted, the tech is not that hard.
Dependency does not dictate viability, retard.
Why would women have UNVIABLE embryo's transplanted into them????????????????? Answer that.
>How so?
Are you this fucking stupid? If were are unviable at some point it means you would have shortly DIED soon after. Do unviable fetuses live?

>>14604433
>You're conflating two different meanings of viable.
No you are pretending there are 2 different meanings.
>I'm talking about a developmental stage and you're talking about how long cells can be in a petri dish
Viable = capable of living. A healthy zygote is capable of living the instant it is created ergo it's a fact it is viable. It may become unviable if the location is changed during the 5 month dependency stage (technology will elminate this dependency stage to 0 some day)

>Your definition of life is 100% dependent on what some guy in a silly hat says. I can make shit up too.
Another pathetic lie.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/viable
"able to continue to exist as or develop into a living being"
Your definition is 99% dependent on what some jews in a court said (and 1% location ROFL!!!!). Zero to do with science.

>Wow, you're a dense retard.
Force has nothing to do with will you moron

>>14604433
>A scientific fact is that an organism functions as an independent entity
HAHAHA!!!! No. Parasites can be fully dependent on another organism. Viruses are a perfect example of orgnaisms 100% dependent on other organisms. Zygote-stage humans are not parasites but you get the idea. You are completely ignorant and should not be on this board you retarded tourist.

>How so?
Because a 1 month old fetus is capable of continuing living as a being. It's not capable of living outside the womb yet with current technology, sure, but that does bestow unviability on him/her if it stays inside the womb for the 5 month dependency period.

A person on a respirator for Covid for 5 days is capable of continued living but is dependent on that respirator temporarily. It does not mean if a person is on a respirator that person is "unviable" the way you desperately pretend a fetus/human is unviable if they are dependent on the mother's womb for 5 months.

>>14604424
>eggs remain unchanged for 40 years in fact: no development at all
>Women should be forced to continue the development of their egg
You're a complete retard. You simply must pretend the opposite of reality is true for your nonsense to connect in your little brain.
Eggs never "develop" ergo women can't "continue the development" of them. Development of a new (human) entity begins once the egg fuses and becomes a zygote, ergo no longer being an egg.

>>14599463
Foeti

>>14601964
Yes

>>14599681
>>14599685
>>14599692
>>14599701
>>14599709
Goddamn you got BTFO
Posting that dog fetus like a bitch

>>14599596
50 IQ strawman