/sci/ - Science & Math

This is what happens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6SMxKVD4fQ

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?
Depends on the point in time. When the baby is already out, then definitely yes.

>>12345897
Crazy how the Marxists would advocate for such comforts as abortion. This would totally de-nuclearize the family! Oh wait...

>According to science

Science cannot answer normative claims, brainlet.

>>12345897

It's complicated because we get into the whole "at what point a grain becomes a heap" problem, but worse, since we are talking about consciousness.

In the end the utilitarian position has won: It doesn't matter if it's murder or not. If the woman doesn't want to carry she will get an abortion because she has a say on it and the baby does not.

And don't try to think too hard about the implications in our moral system.

>>12345897
If it's in the womb, it is not murder.

>>12345897
And that's a good thing

>>12346155
bare asserstion

In California it's murder

>>12346155
So let's get this straight, a fetus that's been carried to full term is okay to kill since it's still in the womb, but the baby that was born three months prematurely is off limits? The one that's three months more developed is less human that the preemie?

>>12345897
Technically yeah if the baby was outside the woman killing it would be murder but there's nothing in the definition of murder that says the victim can't be inside another organism so it's still murder inside the mother.

>>12345897
Science is not philosophy. Science is not politics. It only tells you what is.

abortion at 16 weeks is rare

>>12346250
>abortion at 16 weeks is rare
no it's not

>>12346256
less than 4%

>>12346283
That's tens of thousands a year

it's legal murder

and many are very close to that time

>>12346114
>And don't try to think too hard about the implications in our moral system.
When it comes down to it, abortion is a very ugly solution to a very ugly problem, and most people treat it like that while not considering it a topic that should be brought up a lot in polite society. But then there are people who are not content with accepting that and wish to turn every aspect of their life into a narrative of liberation. So abortions gets framed as a human right and as an act of liberation for women, while the whole aspect of murder gets obfuscated by introducing the whole personhood nonsense and "depersoning" the fetus. I think the later aspect is the really perverse part

>>12345897

That's a Philosophy of Law question.
According to the Law (at least in my legislature) a fetus must be "living and viable" to be considered a person. Cases where you are accused of murdering a fetus come in play in legislatures where personhood can be recognized retroactively, in the general interest of society.

>>12346289
>it's legal murder

Murder is an illegal killing. You can't legally murder someone, you just kill them.

>>12345897
yes it's murder and yes woman should have right to do it.
killing an uninitialized human is a waste, but not a crime.
there are certain types of murder that should not considered crime: suicide, abortion, and euthanasia

>>12346346
>yes it's murder
this

>>12346323
Abortion is murder.

If you cause a woman to miscarry that is an abortion, if she did not want to kill her baby then you can be charged with murder. (say if you get drunk and hit her car and cause her to miscary)

It is legally. murder

>>12346402

No it isn't.
Murder cannot be legal. It is by definition illegal. If you kill someone legally, such as in war or abortion, you are just killing someone. Stop being so fucking retarded

>>12345897
This is a philosophical, not scientific question.

>>12346346
Fuck you nigga, if it's like this then kill your self

>>12346346
>killing youth in Asia
t. sweatshop owner

>>12345897
Ask a lawyer retard.
scientists aren't concerned with these kinds of questions.
this is naturally not a scientific question.
It could be murder or not.
not science.
but logically, it depends on the definition of murder. please provide that.
>>12346113
/thread

>>12346402

Actually legally it isn't, and you sound like a fucking retard for saying so. There's no law that states it is, therefore it's not "legally" murder. Cherrypicking some asinine example that would probably never fly in an actual court doesn't help your case either.

>>12346051

Even when we were hunter gatherers the nuclear family didn't exist, children were raised by the whole village, not by two parents - not to mention mortality was so high it was frequently the responsibility of a non-related member to parent the children.

This was the case in medieval times too for peasant life, only with the 20th and 21st century did this insistence on the nuclear family arise. Technically it began with the Puritanism and social reform that gained momentum in the 1880s

>>12347399
see, the big difference between the pre-nuclear and post-nuclear family is that, get this, the pre-nuclear period had communities and local cultures. we live in a society where both of those things are actively being dismantled for the sake of globalism; the state wants children to be raised in schools and daycare systems, not by families or communities, so that they can control what the children learn and believe. if they could, they'd take away your right to reproduction entirely and do it themselves.

>>12345897
murder is merely a spook

>>12346051
Low iq detected, go to your low iq board

>>12347802
>your post
Oh, looks like I've made it.

>>12346910
>>12347300
He's saying that if causing a pregnant woman to miscarry is murder and killing a pregnant woman is double homicide, then women who abort should also be held accountable for killing their kids.
You absolute fucking mongoloids.

>>12345897
I couldn’t comprehend someone killing their own child. I can understand aborting rape babies, but killing my child is a no no

>>12347858

I understand that is what he wants go say, I'm correcting him because he is using the language completely wrong.
However, no, that isn't how the Law works. The legislator must ask himself a series of question whenever a case like this is brought to him and there aren't any precedents. He will consider above all else the current mores, the general interest of society and the preservation of the integrity of Law.
Regardless of how you feel about it, you should be able to understand that in general, modern society is quicker to condemn someone who murdered a baby than a girl who got an abortion, if only because the girl was raised in a society who told her that was alright, while no fucking cunts was ever raised in a society who told him it was alright to run over pregnant women.

>>12348504
You are wrong.

Terminating a pregnancy is an abortion. If. you cause a woman to have an abortion against her will you will be charged with murder.

Thus some abortion is murder

it's not that hard to understand that he is right

>>12345897
Anon, it's not murder if a Woman kills the baby
It is murder if a male does though

don't confuse the two situations

>>12346172
kill yourself if existence is so bad

>>12346313
my dna>your dna
getting rid if the cells it formed with a subhuman I fucked should be my own right. If I was a girl and a nigger dumped his inferior dna to breed, the product has some of my dna and it’s an abhorrent clump of shit that should be purged at my will.

>it's human because it's not in a womb
>it's human because it's been alive a certain number of weeks
>it's human because it has a certain bodily function
>it's human because it doesn't depend on the mother
any other brainlet theories you want to share?

>>12345897
murder is a legal term, it's whatever the government defines it as

>>12348207
Children of rape should be protected the most.

>>12349483
>murder is a legal term, it's whatever the government defines it as
>>12349033

Very enlightening post. I have a few questions:
>At the time of most abortions
But you (presumably) want to ban all abortions or nearly all, so it's not enough to talk about "most" abortions. How many is most, anyway?
>Stabbed to death
Why stabbed to death? Are the bodies so mangled that the police can't tell the woman was pregnant, and then get confused about who the second blood sample came from? Is that what you're talking about here? What does this have to do with anything?
>Drunk drive and hit a pregnant lady
What if I punched a pregnant lady in the stomach?

>>12345897
Here's the thing. I'm all for abortion, but can't wrap around my head on why TF they decide to wait until the fetus is more maturely developed. Are they asking for death or something?

>>12346200
It is murder to kill a person, but babies are not people, so technically it is not murder to kill them. However it is impossible to determine at what point are person comes into existence. So to keep things sane babies are given person status early by declaration, an unwanted baby is an animal, when it becomes wanted it is given honorary person status.

>>12346155
So if forced unbirthing was possible you could murder anyone?

>>12349587
>Here's the thing. I'm all for abortion, but can't wrap around my head on why TF they decide to wait until the fetus is more maturely developed. Are they asking for death or something?
You only find out you are pregnant when you miss a period and take a test. So most women don't even find out they are pregnant till they are 5-8 weeks pregnant (many women miss periods every now and then and it's not like they know after exactly 30 days they are pregnant)

You can't just walk into a dr office and get an abortion. Most places do abortion clinics and only offer abortions once or twice a month. So even if you decide to kill your baby the second you find out you are pregnant you might be 10 weeks along before you get the chance

and most women take a few weeks to decide if they are going to allow their child to live or die

>>12346200
>>12349593
Ok incels

Why is it so hard for women to just shut their fucking legs? It's almost as if they want to be single moms

we don't have to use the biological definition of a living organism (which would include a zygote) in our moral definitions.

>>12346155
Then once artificial wombs exist women will lose their killing rights.

>>12349618
Someone should edit the meme where the incel doesn't consent but instead it's a dead fucking fetus.
kek.

There's nothing wrong with killing babies to keep the population lower.

>>12349927
There's nothing wrong with eliminating unconscious beings. You're not alive unless you're alive.

>>12346113
this, ifls retards who claim they can are dishonest shitstains

>>12349935
There's nothing wrong with eliminating conscious beings if they're okay with it too.
We should bring back gladiatorial combat because it would be cool.

>>12349625
And yet they won’t open them for you.

how does the body react after the fetus was forcefully removed, like
>oh shit the baby is gone what am I supposed to do ?

It's easier for a politician boomer to waste time on crying about abortion than to put skin in the game by balancing budgets.

Now we spend 340 billion dollars a year maintaining the debt, that's 340 billion dollars that could be used on vital infrastructure such as water treatment plants.

>>12346051
Abortion was illegal in the USSR.

>>12350027
Your pic is racist.

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?
Depends on your definition of life, human and murder.
Surely the fetus is life considering the definition of life based on thermodynamics, but it is less of a human than an average adult pig.
For the first 3 months of development human embryos are closer to fishes than humans.

>>12350027
but there are only like 8 astronauts and there are a billion hungry children

>>12350280
>For the first 3 months of development human embryos are closer to fishes than humans.
lol no

>>12350518
Thats not a baby. It's a parasite. It ruins the lives of girls.

>>12350551
>Thats not a baby. It's a parasite. It ruins the lives of girls.
If you were to punch a pregnant girl and she miscarried you could be charged with murder if she miscarried

murder

>>12345897
It's clearly homocide. Murder is a type of illegal homocide defined by law.

>>12346047
>When the baby is already out, then definitely yes.
The common law first breath rule existed because of uncertainty about whether a child would be stillborn. If the baby was already dead inside the womb then you couldn't convict a person for killing what is already dead, hence the first breath rule. In a modern age we can know with much greater certainty whether the fetus is alive or not.

>>12350647
>homocide
Wait, killing fags is illegal now?

>>12350653
Props for understanding that. I did not expect someone here to know. You are a scholar, Anon.

>>12347399
Not "the whole village", the extended family would raise the children, which is an extension of the nuclear family. Without a nuclear family there is no such thing as an extended family

>>12345897
Murder is a legal definition, not a scientific one.
Not science, take it to /lit/ or something.

>>12350036
Communism was already established.

There should be free and encouraged abortions for anyone under the poverty line, and heavy to moderate discounts up to double the poverty line. Anyone firmly in the middle class pays full price. Pick an arbitrary line for the pregnancy age cutoff. I like up to the third trimester, personally.
Absolute retards will argue against this, but it has to be done.

>>12350518
That's not a real fetus. That's not what a12-week fetus looks like.

>>12345897
>all this fetal tissue all over the uteral floor
Isn't this dangerous? Do the body jannies clean it up afterwards? Doesn't the fetal matter (especially if it has a Y chromosome) potentially trigger autoimmune disorders down the road?

>>12351613
are you fucking stupid?

>>12347488
>if they could, they'd take away your right to reproduction entirely and do it themselves

They are already trying to do it by creating eggs from skin cells and artificial wombs

>>12350653
>In a modern age we can know with much greater certainty whether the fetus is alive or not.
We can also know that a fetus doesn't experience. It may be alive but it isn't a person.

>>12352163
>It may be alive but it isn't a person.
It is exactly a person, if you took his or her DNA you would have the DNA of a unique human being

with a brain and heart

If you stabbed a pregnant woman and the blood of her and her fetus were at the crime scene but you hid the bodies the cops could have the blood of her and her child, and they would think two people were victims because they had 2 sets of DNA

and they would be right

and there would be two charges of murder, one for the mom and one for the baby

>>12352163
>We can also know that a fetus doesn't experience.
Do you believe a newborn baby experiences?

>>12352172
Unique DNA doesn't make you a person. Which is why twins are not the same person.

>>12352193
>Do you believe a newborn baby experiences?
No.

>>12350036
Only under Stalin. Abortion became the default method of contraception after Stalin because the state funded it and condoms feel like shit that no self-respecting Slav should have to tolerate. Russians today have one of the highest abortion rates as a legacy.
>During the late 1950s and 1960s, it is estimated that the Soviet Union had some of the highest abortion rates in the world. The abortion rate during this period is not known for sure, because the Soviet Union did not start releasing abortion statistics until perestroika. The best estimates, which are based on surveys of medical professionals during this time, say that about 6 to 7 million abortions were performed per year.

>>12346200
Nobody wants to abort a full term fetus buddy. At that point the choice has been made to keep it. Abortion at that point only occurs if the life of the mother and/or baby is in danger.

>>12351205
Homo - man
cīda - one who kills the noun

>>12351432
Homocide is clearly within /sci/ purview. Is the fetus alive? Is it a homo? These are questions science can answer.

>>12352208
So by your reasoning aboriton is equivalent to infanticide (killing of infants) and should come under the same legal heading?

>>12345897
Abortion is a public crime because it robs from the State a future tax payer and/or soldier.

It's a killing, but not murder. Besides just call it non-voluntary euthanasia

>>12352260
Visa versa, The baby eventually becomes a person and that transition happens after birth. Infanticide has different controlling factors tho. Since you no-longer have the health of the mother to contend with. If a defect is found in the child after birth and it is bad enough to make likely a life of suffering for the child I don't think it is wrong for the guardian and a physician to agree to end the life.

>>12345897
>According to science
According to science there is no such thing as morality. No object has any intrinsic value apart from what we choose to grant it. This is why blind science for science's sake, and materialism in general, is morally-bankrupt and is leading to the decline and eventual destruction of mankind.

Religion was the foundation of our entire ethical and moral codes, the very basic building block of our civilization, and like petulant children we tore it all down without thinking of what would replace it. So now there is nothing there. A big empty void. So we carry on like drones, with no purpose or place. No ultimate goal in life other than transitioning from one day until the next until we eventually expire.

The French Revolution was the beginning of the end of humanity.
Liberal democracy, communism and fascism are all cousins, the materialist annihilation of everything that made life worth living.
The crushing of the aesthetic and the beautiful. The attempt to subjugate and humble the universe itself. An exercise ultimately doomed to failure.

Don't expect /sci/ bugmen to understand any of this though.

>>12352287
So both are infanticide but with some legal defences that are shared and other defences that are unique to only one.

>>12352385
Pre-birth I don't think it's technically an infant. Nor is it cide because it hasn't been born yet. But we are talking about a continuum with some milestones where different facts would be true starting at just a single cell and ending at person.

>>12352342
>According to science there is no such thing as morality. No object has any intrinsic value apart from what we choose to grant it.
Multiple people have stated in this thread that science can't answer such questions, not that it has an answer in the negative. Every time you reactionary faggots open your mouth you show off your own ignorance. The bugman here is you.

>>12352419
You defined an infant in essence as a being unable to have human experiences, an essential quality shared by the fetus.
>cide because it hasn't been born yet
That's the outdated common law "first breath" test to rule out stillbirths, made irrelvant by science. We can know if a baby is alive at the time of an abortion and secure convictions beyond the reasonable doubt of "but maybe the baby was already dead/stillborn".

One point you've missed is that at common law if you assault a fetus who is later born and takes first breath, that then later dies from the injury that you caused it as a fetus, then you can be convicted of murder.

>>12352244
It's called homicide, dum dum.

>>12350575
>>12350647
the law is not science and does not claim to be or have to be scientificly sound since it governs humans who are naturally beings of equal parts rationality and irrationality

the ethics of abortion are complex issue of both /sci/ and /his/, it's very hard to define when a human becomes human since we don't know the exact nature of consciousness and the line between "bundle of cells" to "little human" is very blurred
in my view abortion should be heavily restricted and denied to the population at large and circumstances like rape and where they threathen the mother's life should be individually considered

except niggers we should abort all nigger babies by default hail hitler

>>12350575
Really? You should be charged with property damages desu. Because children are property

Under certain conditions it should be allowed and even encouraged. If the fetus has Down's syndrome, homosexuality, basically stuff that will make it detrimental to society as a person, fucking get rid of it.

But if its fully healthy then no, it should be treated like murder.

>>12346155
ur mentally fucked

>>12345897
Legally a person is not alive until they are born. So killing a foetus is fine by the law.

>>12353997
>property damages

>>12345897
>According to science
>legal construct of murder
It doesn't have rights to it's own life while still connected to the mother.

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?

Imagine thinking science defines social terminologies like murder.

>>12354993
>murder

>>12345897
Yes. You are technically killing human being, doesnt matter how many cells its made of. However it should be legal in most cases along with euthanasia and death penalty. What other sorts of murder should also be legalized, scientifically speaking? I am in favor of removing genetic defects and leeches.

>>12345897
The person commiting the abortion killed someone without their consent, any people helping would be accomplices. The parent(s) contracted the killing. Technically its manslaughter for all involved.

>>12352233
Why did russians decide to go that way? Surely they realize their greatest strength was always in numbers, even Stalin said fertility was their most outstanding feature

This thread made me lose respect for you guys.

>>12346968
Medical doctors confirm death, not philosophers. Question of when life ends is clearly in the realm of science.

>>12345897
god those crushed pieces look so fucking tasty op. wonder how theyd taste on the grill

>>12355768
IDK, perhaps because the second generation of Soviet leadership were born and raised under the pre-Stalin sexual libertine era of early Bolshevism and came to recapitulate those values. Maybe they lost a grand strategic sense of population being power. Worth reading into because it was a radical shift.

>>12349089
Okay thank anon I really needed that final push

>>12351529
I would personally go as far as to mandate abortion/forced adoption of babies born to people below a certain income with exceptions made for those who show proper planning or desire to raise the child.

Children being raised by complete shitbags is the greatest rot of society

>>12355806
Is Putin afraid of backlash? He is clearly trying to make Russia into superpower again. Ban on abortion would probably mean increase in population by like 20 million in 10 years, right?

>>12353109
>You defined an infant in essence
I never defined an infant, I said that human experience begins sometime after birth.

>common law
We are in a science thread. Common law is not science.

>>12349609
>most women take a few weeks to decide if they are going to allow their child to live or die
What a grotesque sentence

>>12345897
God I wish that were me!

>>12345907
Lmao DILATE non-tranny!

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?

No. God intended for the weak to be culled because so we have to stop letting the degenerate and the malformed and retarded breed.

>>12349495
That would propagate rapist-prone genes. Good thinking. God approves.

>>12355745
Lmao buttblasted wagie go back to cagie

>>12345897
The definition of murder is defined by legislators, not science.

>>12358118
>God I wish that were me!
the doc or the baby?

(or the woman?)

>>12345897
If we discovered cells on another planet, it would be declared life
Humans are fundamentally, a big colony of cells.
The entire reason the fetus is being killed is because it will become a grown human.
We understand time as all happening at once, like a multi dimensional video file; therefore guarantees are considered legally very potent over just potential.

Yes, is it is a killing of life but not an illegal murder of a person. I think it should be illegal to abort without cause, it should require a doctor to approve due to life threatening to the mother or defects. Degrading life is too dangerous for human society or thinking we can simply just murder trespassers on property; rather just have tighter sexual regulations and more availability for birth control. Controlling what we eat, fuck and kill are the things we have to give up if we want civilization.

>>12345897
Life begins at conception.

there is a lot of gray area. nobody likes abortion. but it's important to have the ability to have an abortion for a wide variety of reasons.

>>12359773
>nobody likes abortion
democrats do

>>12359784
there is a difference between liking something and recognizing the need for something.

>>12359784
Go back to >>>/pol/, retard.

>>12347399
>This was the case in medieval times too for peasant life
shut the fuck up retard. no it was not. marriage ended all sorts of polygamy and anything asides from nuclear family in all calses

Abortion is killing.
Murder is wrongful killing.
Whether the killing of a fetus is murder depends on your moral values.
If you value bodily autonomy, then it isn't.
And yes, logically that means a fetus can be removed at any time, but we are also emotional animals, so really late-stage abortions disturb a lot of people on a purely irrational level, which is why there are upper limits.

>>12359773
>nobody likes abortion
I'm all for it though, especially in places where people breed too hard, like certain Asian and African countries. We should invest in free abortions in those places.

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?
It depends entirely on the stage of development. The clinical and legal definition of human life is based on the level of activity in the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex hasn't developed until the third trimester, so before that the fetus is not a living human being clinically, legally, or morally.

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?
Let me ask you guys a question, the more you learn about abortion has your opinion changed?

>>12360909
>Let me ask you guys a question, the more you learn about abortion has your opinion changed?
I use to be pro-life, because I lived in a conservative area and the only information I was ever exposed to was the pro-life shallow feelie crap you see in these threads. And it seemed reasonable that because you can't have any other rights if you're not alive the right to life would take precedence. But eventually I met people who had better arguments than screeching "HANDS OFF MY VAJAYJAY" and that prompted me to start reading up on fetal development and neuroscience and I came to realize most of the pro-life talking points were incoherent. Now I'm mostly pro-choice, but I'm still amazed at how bad the left is at communicating the pro-choice position.

I think the fact that abortion is commonly seen as "a good option" speaks volumes about the society we live in.

Imagine you lived in a tropical island paradise with abundant food and resources and there you had copious amounts of sex with a woman there. Abortion wouldn't even be a thought in your mind.

Fact is, we live in a place where abortion is good

>>12360909
>Let me ask you guys a question, the more you learn about abortion has your opinion changed?
Yes, not even kidding.

I used to think abortion was just a few cells that looked like a tiny tiny lump of fish eggs. I thought that a woman took a pill and it just went away too small to notice.

But that is a lie, the vast majority of abortions happen at 5-12 weeks and are more like OP's pic. The woman has to have an operation and the doctor has to dismember her child and stop his beating heart.

>>12360881
Ok, so what kind of life is fetus in the first and second trimester if not human? To which species does it belong and how does it magically switch to ours at some arbitrary point?

>>12360909
Yeah I realized the only objective start of human life can be conception and all the rest is just cope so women and sometimes men avoid responsibility

>>12361846
>Ok, so what kind of life is fetus in the first and second trimester if not human? To which species does it belong and how does it magically switch to ours at some arbitrary point?
These sorts of facile, semantic arguments demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the pro-life movement is. A fetus is "alive" on a cellular level same way your liver or a tumor or a brain dead patient are alive, but none of those are considered living HUMAN BEINGS. The liver is made of human tissue, a tumor has unique DNA distinct from it's host, a brain dead patient has a beating heart, but none of them are actually humans because human beings are defined by cognitive function.

>>12361718
Abortion is thought of as a good thing because raising a human child is extremely fucking difficult, time consuming, expensive, stressful, and an overall pain in the ass with basically 0 reward, only detrements. Combine that with the capitalist dystopia we live in and it makes the idea close to a complete fantasy even for those who might want to go through with it

>>12361736
A heart beat isn’t important. Consciousness comes from the brain. Anyway you’re an idiot manipulated by superficial differences and almost certainly from pol where the posters don’t even have dog intelligence so w/e

>>12360980
>I'm still amazed at how bad the left is at communicating the pro-choice position
it's a complicated and difficult issue, and people have short attention spans, so people concentrate on individual points, which is much less convincing

>>12361846
you are looking for black and white definitions that do not exist, nor will they ever

>>12361846
>the amount of importance halfwits place on labels
as someone who despises pol it’s so satisfying to see that all of you do this. proves beyond any doubt (along with half a million other things) that you really are as inferior and stupid as people say

>>12345897
murder is a social construct

>>12362414
And what kind of cognitive function are we discussing here? If you are talking about consciousness white babies dont pass mirror until 18 months. Should we be able to abort them until then?
Face it, any criteria for cognitive function you make will be completly arbitrary. Might as well say you arent human being if you are sub 90 IQ, arent fluent in 3 languages and dont gave firm grasp on trigonometry and it will be just as valid as anything you make up. There cant be any objective cognitive criteria on what makes a human being since it is complete social construct.
>>12362508
I am perfectly fine with legality of it being in question since that is for society to decide, however the fact that the act itself cant be distinguished from murder (as in ending human life on purpose) is very clear
>>12362517
the only time I visit /pol/ is to make fun of Americans during their elections. Besides im pretty sure they support abortion since it keeps the number of blacks low

>>12345897
>life matters
is the biggest lie out there. although, there are a lot of people who apparently get off on babies being killed in the womb, which i find kind of weird.

>>12346211
Science is a subfield of philosophy you fool.

>>12362553
society attaches different labels to killing things. murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of a person. execution is the lawful killing of a person. manslaughter is unintentionally causing the killing of a person. slaughter is killing something for food (typically animals, but doesn't necessarily exclude people). Euthanasia is the merciful killing of something terminally ill.

you attach the label "person" to fetuses.
you also define killing a fetus to be unlawful, and hence murder.

those are both you opinions, not objective facts, and many people disagree with those opinions.

the core of the issue is you want clear cut definitions for things that don't have them, and if you try to force a definition onto this gray area, you're going to find exceptions and corner cases that don't fit such simplistic thinking.

>>12345897
It's murder, and as i see it, if it's black or has any sort of deficiency it should be mandatory.

>>12362553
>And what kind of cognitive function are we discussing here?
I'll settle for any kind.
>If you are talking about consciousness white babies dont pass mirror until 18 months. Should we be able to abort them until then?
The mirror test is a test of self awareness, and not a very good one at that. A newborn has measurable evoked potentials triggered by environmental stimuli, ergo it is conscious.
>Face it, any criteria for cognitive function you make will be completly arbitrary.
Just because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about doesn't make it arbitrary. It's true there are unanswered questions about what cognitive process specifically makes a morally relevant life, and it is best to play it safe when it comes to preserving a morally relevant life, we can say with certainty that no cognition of any kind can occur before the development of the cerebral cortex, which occurs in the 3rd trimester. It's likely that meaningful cognition isn't likely until after the formation of the thalamo-cortical bridge, which occurs well into the 3rd trimester, but the most basic architectures for cognition are developed in the early 3rd trimester, so that's a very conservative cutoff point if you want to be totally sure you don't kill any babies.
Using DNA or metabolism or whatever as your definition of human being is far more arbitrary, since there are many things with human DNA that undergo cellular processes that qualify for some definitions of life which are decidedly not human, ie organs, genetically modified chimeras, tumors, the brain dead, etc.

>>12362661
Idk, maybe its the language barrier but in my country euthanasia and death penalty are basically considered legalized murder since you terminate human life but you do it inside the boundary determined by the law. I would put abortion in the same category, as opposed to me going out and killing someone without the states consent which would be "illegal murder".
The whole lawfulness aspect to murder definition seems weird because it would imply that by moving to poland abortion would suddenly become murder or by moving to north korea killing political prisoners would stop being murder.
Also I didnt say fetus is person but it doesnt become a person in third trimester or even after birth either. Its a long process so its impossible to put an arbitrary cut off point to it. Also people can lose their personhood after brain trauma or when they get severly demented, so again it just seems to be a poor criterion for judging if you are human being or not.
So overall I can definitely see gray area when it comes to legality but not when it comes to biology.

>>12362498
The formation of a brain and heart and rest of the body in a unique human

Is not a superficial difference between that and a zygote

idiot

>>12362739
>I'll settle for any kind.
Thats probably because you realize there isnt consistent set of them that would fit neatly in your worldview
>A newborn has measurable evoked potentials triggered by environmental stimuli, ergo it is conscious
By that definition every animal with even the most rudimentory nervous system is conscious. Literally nobody agrees that any electrical current in biological lifeform triggered by external stimuli=consciousness.
>Just because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about doesn't make it arbitrary.
I had my embriology course last year, I know how nervous system devolops. The point is that picking that as the start of human life suits you. All individual cells react to external stimuli why would it be and different when the nerve cells do?
Using conception as starting point is far more objective since the fusion of gametes gives you unique human DNA that contains blueprint for all the structures you mentioned and more. I know a lot of feminsts like to equal fetus to tumor but that is just out of control cellular proliferation which wont result in anything but death of its host. So I never quite understood the connection

>>12349589
this is the single most retarded post i've read in my life

>>12349618
refute the point

>>12362742
it looks like you are starting to see how things are a little more arbitrary than they first appear

i personally do physics and electrical engineering research. you'd think a bunch of PhD students in a lab studying something well-understood like electromagnetism would agree on things all the time because they are investigating objective reality and can measure that objective reality when in doubt. actually, it's quite rare we come to a consensus on anything.

extrapolating to scientific fields like biology and especially to soft sciences like psychology, it is even more challenging to find consensus because it's often difficult to even define useful metrics to quantify these fields by, looking past the fact that there is still a tremendous amount we don't understand about the complicated systems these fields investigate.

>>12362838
>Thats probably because you realize there isnt consistent set of them that would fit neatly in your worldview
No, it's because any cognitive process is cognition. I never claimed that there was a threshold of cognition that someone must be above to qualify as a human being. Any cognition is enough.
I could say that you are probably resorting to equivocation and pedantry because you realize the facts don't fit neatly in your worldview, but I'm not going to resort to inane personal assumptions and neither should you.
>By that definition every animal with even the most rudimentary nervous system is conscious. Literally nobody agrees that any electrical current in biological lifeform triggered by external stimuli=consciousness.
Okay, you caught a mistake. I misspoke when I used "evoked potentials." I meant to say event related potentials specifically. I admit I get those two terms confused a lot.
That said, I never claimed consciousness was what qualified a human being. Many non-human animals are conscious, since "consciousness" is a vague terms that just means awareness. I was merely pointing out your assertion that infants are not conscious is wrong.
>The point is that picking that as the start of human life suits you.
Yes, it suits me because it is consistent with science, history, philosophy, law, and logic.
All individual cells react to external stimuli why would it be and different when the nerve cells do?
>Using conception as starting point is far more objective since the fusion of gametes gives you unique human DNA that contains blueprint for all the structures you mentioned and more.
Every cell in your body contains "unique human DNA" and the blueprints for the human body. That's how cloning is possible. Are all your cells individual human beings?

>>12345897
>According to science is abortion technically murder?
No, because murder is defined by law and philosophy, not by science.

>>12363462
>philosophy

>>12363148
>No, it's because any cognitive process is cognition
>I meant to say event related potentials specifically
I admit I was being rude. I just dont see anything special in some basic cognition. It isnt rare and most mammals vastly outperform fetuses and babies in that area. Same with depolarization caused by external stimuli, very common stuff, you cant have cognition without this anyway.
I mean I do find all the steps in human development fascinating I just dont see why this should be considerd some sort of a treshold for fetus to become moral agent or whatever and be bestowed with human rights, because its nothing particulary unique to humans. Someone could say the cut off is the start of organogenesis and he wouldnt be more right or wrong.
> Many non-human animals are conscious, since "consciousness" is a vague terms that just means awareness.
I often conflate consciousness with self-awarness, which isnt right I guess. But as you said awarness is present in many species, and even self-awareness that comes later isnt unique to us.
>Yes, it suits me because it is consistent with science, history, philosophy, law, and logic.
But abortion wasnt legal for most of human history. Even in the original hippocratic oath its explicitly forbidden. Idk Im sure you have your reasons but this almost seems a point anti abortion person would make.
>Every cell in your body contains "unique human DNA" and the blueprints for the human body.
Doesnt that sentence contradict itself? I mean every cell in your body has the same DNA barring some random mutations. Embryo only really has unique DNA before it first replicates it. And isnt killing in essence just removing enough cells to cause organism to malfunction and die? So the smaller the organism the less cells you have to remove (if you go far back only one).

>>12363148
>>12363654
If I would paraphrase my argument more coherently it would be something like this: There doesnt seem to be possible consensus on when fetus becomes human being, as reflected in the fact that even developed nations have very different limit on time of legal abortion. So in absence of that the most logical thing would be to return back to first point in timeline of human development where the termination of human beings (or potential human beings, if you prefer), becomes possible, which is conception.

>>12345897
Murder is not a scientific concept you fucking retard.