/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12732363
Yes. The soul takes hold at conception

>>12732363
of course
https://rumble.com/vc4rl1-kali-mas-panopticon-wflight-logs.html

Depends at what stage it's done. It should be done as soon as possible, while it's still just a clump of few cells. Generally, it is not acceptable after the heartbeat develops. However, heart develops sooner than the brain forms. No brain=not a person.
>>12732367
>scientific
>soul
Sure thing, shall we rub ourselves with oil and get high so we can talk to DMT elves?

>>12732363
define murder

>>12732381
You've never taken psychedelics stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

>>12732390
No, I didn't, nor did I claim to know anything about it. I was making fun of it because OP asked "scientifically" and souls aren't scientific. You can belive in anything you want and take all the drugs for all I care, doesn't make it scientific. The only scientific part in it is how drugs affect the brain to make up nonsense similar to when you sleep. Not saying you can't get meaning out of it, I myself use Tarot often and preform rituals that help me. But none of it is scientific.

>>12732363
Scientifically it is. The first breath rule in common law existed because there was always uncertainty whether the fetus was already stillborn and therefore dead at the time of the actus reus and therefore not a homocide, to be a homocide you had to be certian that the victim was alive, which was only certain in the pre-modern era once the infant had taken a breath. Modern science can confim that the fetus is alive before the act of abortion by measuring heartbeat, and therefore that it is, scientifically, an act of homocide.

>>12732363
scientifically speaking, <philosophical question>.

this counts as not even wrong, right?

>>12732386
Homocide with intent to kill and without lawful excuse.

>>12732419
Homocide is a scientific question. Science can determine whether a fetus is alive, pre-moderns could not and had to err on the side of the accused that the fetus could already be stillborn before the act. Science can decide the actus reus of homocide where it could not previously be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

>>12732363
all people who consider abortion as murder are anti-science

yes but its still okay

>Abortion is nice as it filters retards from having kids
>At the same time, I will advise against it for a relative who is thinking about it

>>12732444
yes

>>12732444
>anti-science

>>12732363
Define murder.
Adult pigs have more in common with adult humans than human fetuses have yet no one is there to protest when we murder thousands of pigs.
Embryos < 3 months have undifferentiated neurons and other groups of cells, organs barely work. Aborting < 3 months embryo is no more murder than cutting down a tree or removing cancer, there's nothing human other than genome to be found there, embryos at this stage look all similar in almost all vertebrates.

>>12732367
>Yes. The soul takes hold at conception
Define "soul". This is some jewish buzzword.

>>12732444
Technically it is murder, I wouldn't call it anti-science, it is just an anti-human abrahamic cult of death and suffering.
For christians life is important until it is born, no one cares after three-handed brainless "baby" is born.
Also no one cares when adults with Down syndrome need help.
No one cares when single mother with baby from rape needs help.

>>12732519
>opposing murder is anti-human

>>12732444
I mean, if I have to chose...

>>12732401
Do drugs, pussy.

>>12732510
>jewish buzzword.
Wrong Jews do not have souls

>>12732561
Honestly, I would if I had someone I trust and knows their stuff watch me. But I live alone and have severe depression. Drugs might just motivate me enough to rope myself.

>>12732363
no.

>>12732613
>Drugs might just motivate me enough to rope myself.
and thats a bad thing?

>>12732621
You convined me. I'll go order rope.

>>12732537
Opposing euthanasia is anti-human.
Preventing suffering is good, raising always suffering disabled humans for the sake of being a good christian is evil.
Pic related.

>>12732712
We are talking about abortion. Not euthanasia. Stop moving goalposts

>>12732716
Abortion is a form euthanasia.
Aborting severely damaged fetuses is preventing suffering so technically it is euthanasia.

>>12732444
>killing a clump of cells that's about to grow into a baby isn't killing a baby
Science indeed

>>12732422
Define homo

>>12732724
Baby? It would be cool of what you think you protect would be actually a baby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
Also that moment it is a clump of cells.

>>12732748
U r a clump of cells

>>12732721
>severely damaged
So you admit that aborting healthy ones is murder?

>>12732401
Jesus Fucking Christ, are you a troll,??

Yes. Newborn will become an adult in a couple of decades if not killed. Fetus will become an adult in a couple of decades if not killed. They both don't have any raising/education/personality yet, but are identical genetically. So abortion is equivalent to infanticide.

>>12732758
>identical genetically
It's 'genetically identical'. And a foetus is not genetically identical to a baby or adult that's now how life works. So just fuck off when you have nothing to add.

>>12732363
Yes. Even a "clump of cells" (fucking jewish proabortion propaganda) is human life. It has human DNA and its own metabolical processes. Some people would say that using the same logic, cutting a tumor out is murder, but cancer is the result of imperfect cellular reproduction. And a fetus is not such a thing.
Fucking jews making us kill our children.

>>12732770
Are you upset because your infanticide aspirations were exposed?

>>12732748
So it's OK to kill you because you are a clump of cells?

>>12732510
Pigs don't turn to humans.

>>12732775
Except only 1/5 pregnancies end in miscarriage. Abortion wouldn't be necessary if we were all still halve starving.

So fuck off, be thankful for science and let people make their own life decisions.

>>12732757
No, I'm serious.

>>12732792
>Except only 1/5 pregnancies end in miscarriage.
What's your point?

>>12732758
Sperm and eggs will become a person if you don't use condoms. Should we impregnate all women and make sure not a single sperm dies?

>>12732801
Nobody is saying that, retard

>>12732794
Then stop thinking the obvious is clever. Read back your post and try and see how stupid it is.

>>12732801
Sperm or egg are not identical to any human. They also will not turn to adult on their own.

>>12732811
You're not going to convince me (or anyone) like that. If I could see the stupidity in it, I'd chabge my view. So would you mind telling me what I got wrong?

>>12732510
If you have a pig which will gain human-tier intellect in a few years, killing it will be murder.

>>12732815
Nor will the human baby develop nf it's own, it requires sacrifice from the woman carrying it.

>>12732802
If miscarriages were more common, as they must have been historically, then we wouldn't need abortions. For example, one bad winter would kill fertility.

It's too fucking easy to stay pregnant these days.

>>12732803
I'm saying, where do you draw the line?

>>12732821
Just like newborn or toddler or sick adult will die without "sacrifice", so it's OK to kill them, correct?

>>12732801
That's what Catholics say. Can't even jerk off. Fucking stupid.

>>12732833
You Jared of DNR's right? Doctors decide who gets to live everyday.

>>12732828
At the conception of course. Before the conception a specific person with specific genes does not exist. After the conception you need to actively destroy the fetus to get rid of him/her.

>>12732827
Why the fuck do "need" abortion you troll?

>>12732842
Or you know, just fall down some stairs or eat some poisoned seafood or something

>>12732841
Got it, doctors were unable to save a certain terminally ill person, so now any incapacitated human is a fair play.

>>12732846
If you do it on purpose, it's murder.
If you do it accidentally, it's, well, accident.
Just like with actual kid or adult.

>>12732848
When it comes to who gets a ventilator or a specific operation to it does.

Or similarly, not giving a liver transplant to an alcoholic

>>12732856
So what if a woman decides to not give up alcohol and then miscarries. Is that an accident?

>>12732861
So when doctors are unable to save every patient, they can't save every patient. Your point being?

>>12732363
Sure, you stopped the process of life of that living organism. And we are living organisms.

>>12732865
No.

It is if the fetus is pure white.

>>12732750
>U r a clump of cells
So are dogs, pigs, plants, sponges, worms and algae. Your point?
Being a multicellular organism doesn't define humanity.

>>12732782
>So it's OK to kill you because you are a clump of cells?
I have emotions, memories, feelings, embryos don't have that.
Pigs also have emotions, memories and feelings yet no one cries when a pig is killed.

>>12732756
>So you admit that aborting healthy ones is murder?
If we're talking about Poland, then abortion of healthy fetuses was already illegal here.
Our politicians made chemical birth control illegal and then they made abortion illegal in cases such as rape, birth defects and when mother's life is in danger.
Anyway, I don't consider abortion of healthy fetuses a good thing, but being a clump of cells doesn't determine humanity.
In first 3 months of pregnancy, embryos are all the same in all vertebrates (including humans, yes humans are vertebrates), pic related.
From biological and and ethical standpoint aborting an embryo before 3 month is fine because the embryo doesn't feel anything and doesn't even have functional organs.
Aborting embryos before third month is as much murder as boiling potatoes or making scrambled eggs.
It is killing from the thermodynamic point of view but nothing more because nothing human other than genome can be found there.

>>12732875
That's a fake quote

>>12732865
Depends on statistics and circumstances. May be murder (if there was a clear intent), manslaughter (if risk was relatively high yet there was a negligence) or accident (if risk was very low, but here she got unlucky).

>>12732877
It's actually not but he later recanted and became a cuck. Still, doesn't matter he was right the first time.

>>12732866
Actually no. They could save more patients, or give them longer to live, but chose not to.

>>12732876
>I have emotions, memories, feelings, embryos don't have that.
It will have them in a few years if not killed.
>Pigs also have emotions, memories and feelings yet no one cries when a pig is killed.
Pig isn't human and it will not become human.

>>12732876
>Pigs also have emotions, memories and feelings yet no one cries when a pig is killed.
Vegans could
>humanity.
philosophical term
>I have emotions, memories, feelings, embryos don't have that.
Disabled people with illnesses also lack those, should we murder them?

>>12732882
Then it well may be murder or negligence.

>>12732363
>Scientifically speaking
Murder is a legal definition

>>12732876
>pollack
Kobieta albo sojowy chłopiec. W kazdym razie niewarto cie słuchać

>>12732876
>doesn't feel anything
Can I kill you if I give u anesthesia?

>>12732890
And it's killing any member of homo sapiens species

>>12732833
Yes, but only if doing so doesn't hurt those close to them (tho, in some cases it may be worse for them as they're keeping them alive to manage their emotional pain). If a human is brain-dead, they're not a person. Sure, genetically they're homo-sapiens, but not a person. I don't see us granting personal rights to chimps because they're incredibly close to us genetically. I don't limit my definiton of person to homo sapiens, it includes general AI and any creature/alien that is self-concious, can think and develop models of reality. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% against abortion when it's not called for. But the world isn't black and white, it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

>>12732835
I agree with you, I think it's a bad argument as well.

>>12732905
No it's a legal definition, not a scientific one. An executioner or missile operator doesn't go to jail for murder

>>12732914
*doesn't go to jail for killing a human

>>12732909
>Yes, but only if doing so doesn't hurt those close to them
No, I'd say that being able to freely kill children and sick people will make a very weird society, and it's not the question of others around them.

>>12732901
Different Annon, but no. Because pain is not the only factor here, brain function is. If it were a brain-dead person with no or extremely slim chances of recovery, then yes.

>>12732932
>with no or extremely slim chances of recovery
That's the point, if you can perfectly recover in a few months, then killing you will be murder.

>>12732926
I'm not saying we shold do it, just that scienticifally there is no backing making it immoral. Same as incest between two sisters or two brothers. You can't come up with a scientific reason why it's immoral, but it's generally shunned upon. Killing children is bad for society, but not bad scientifically.

>>12732941
>scienticifally
>Mixing morals and science
Just stop

>>12732941
>not bad scientifically.
There are no things "bad scientifically". Science is not about bad/good.

>>12732938
Exactly, difference here and with abortion is that a brain-dead person was a person, currently isn't, and IF they recover will be a person again. If they don't recover cognition and self-awareness, they're not a person. And, what type of miserable existance is that? You just produce bodily fluids and get pumped with drugs all the time, others have to sacrifice theor whole life sometimes to care for such humans. Again, not black and white, again, I'm against abortion if it's healthy and the parents can take care of it properly. I think you shouldn't have procreational sex (penis in vagina, and condoms have a faliure rate so still not acceptable) if you're not ready to take care of the baby. How fucking hard is it to have the million other types of intimate physical connection? Again, case-by-case basis.

>>12732947
Exactly! Morals are not scientific, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's abortions are moral, but OP asked "scientifically speaking", and scie.tifically you can't provide an argument it's wrong.

>>12732941
Do u fucking love science?

>>12732885
>It will have them in a few years if not killed.
That's why birth control should be legal, as I said before I don't consider abortion a good thing but rather a necessity in the three cases I mentioned before.

>>12732886
>Vegans could
Yeah vegans but not people who are against abortion. They often don't give a fuck.
>philosophical term
So is good, bad, murder and soul, it isn't helping you in any way to prove your point.
>Disabled people with illnesses also lack those, should we murder them?
Given that you think humanity is only a philosophical term I would say yes because nothing matters then.
Seriously though the point is to make it so they're not born and don't suffer. What's the point of sustaining life that will never be able to live on its own and is forced to either only suffer or lacks humanity at all?
Is it to make you think you're a good person while sentencing someone to suffering until he/she dies?
Fun fact: mother's organism aborts most fetuses having developmental defects or chromosome aberrations, what remains is when the mechanism failed.

>>12732901
>Can I kill you if I give u anesthesia?
My point is that nothing unique to a human being is lost. Killing me even after giving me anesthesia is wrong because these human things are lost.

>>12732894
No arguments detected.

>>12732363
it's a red herring in the discussion whether abortion should be allowed or not. abortion is simply means of getting rid of unwanted children when the amount of suffering they get is minimal.

>>12732959
That's what I'm saying. OP asked about scientifically, other Anons started mixing in non scientific things in. But you can.t say it's 100% wrong all the time either. If the baby a result of a gang-bang, has a severe illness, won't develop properly and will suffer in pain every day , and it would kill the mother while being delivered, is it not moral to abort it while it still didn't develop? Save the mother, give her therapy?

>>12732972
It was clearly OP using a catchphrase to bait us and fit on the science board

>>12732974
No, it's a good model of reality that we use as a tool for advancing our species.

>>12732367
but if the soul is eternal then you cant technically murder it

>>12733027
Huh, I don't believe in souls but this is a good point. I know suicide will get you to hell or whatever, but what about killing baptized children? I mean, the killer still goes to hell, but the baby didn't suicide so it goes to heaven. Isn't this then better for the baby? Should I make an ultimate sacrifice and suffer in hell but give thousands of babies to heaven in the process? Since babies didn't have time to sin, it's a higher likleyhood they won't go to hell, therefore killing adults is not ok.

>>12732363
yeah, probably to some extent, even though I agree with >>12732982

>>12732817
Nothing, you're just talking to a weak-minded faggot that needs religion to cope with his own worthlessness so he's trying to bullshit his way out of the obviously delusional post about "soul" he made.
Don't fall for low-level religion-coping trolls anon

>>12733081
That is most probably true, but I'm currently sick with nothing to do and my hope is at least one Anon reads this and things start to click.

>>12733057
Babies go to hell because they don't believe in Allah.

>>12732381
NPC algorithms typed this

>>12733114
Based muslims, at least the extremist ones are consistent with their belief.

>>12733131
Yes.

I dont give a shit that technically an embryo is a homo sapiens individual, the law needs tweaking if it implies that abortion is homicide, without my willingness that thing wouldn't have even been conceived so if my condom fucking broke I wouldn't be thinking twice
I also have no problem with euthanasia with terminally ill people or people who have lost use of their entire body

>>12732381
neural tube closes in the fourth week tho

>>12733194
Is the brain capable of complex thought at that point and is self-aware?

>>12732367
fpbp /thread

>>12732728
You

>>12732367
>souls
>/v/

The textbook says Wroclaw is the sick man of Lower Silesia

>>12732363
>Scientifically speaking. Is abortion murder?
Yes. Biologically there's no difference between before and after crossing the arbitrary goal post of her vajaja.

>>12733879
>still being a fedora 15 years after the meme
lmao

>>12733511
That is not wrong

>>12734008
Pic related proves it. It's a parasite and should be removed.

>>12734262
But then parents and doctor should be removed from society?

>>12732363
Murder is unlawful killing of a person, so by definition if abortion is legal then its not murder regardless of any other consideration, and if its not legal then whether or not its murder depends on the ethical definition of "person"

>>12732363
Increasing abortion rate to harvest fetus is murder. Abortion out of different social reasons is less murder than that.

>>12732466
>he gets his gigachads from duckduckgo and not from 4chan
impure

By definition in Finnish law:


Chapter 21 - Homicide and bodily injury (578/1995)
Section 1 - Manslaughter (578/1995)
(1) A person who kills another shall be sentenced for manslaughter to imprisonment
for a fixed period of at least eight years.
(2) An attempt is punishable.

Section 2 - Murder (578/1995)
(1) If the manslaughter is
(1) premeditated,
(2) committed in a particularly brutal or cruel manner,
(3) committed by causing serious danger to the public, or
(4) committed by killing a public official on duty maintaining public order
or public security, or because of an official action,
and the offence is aggravated also when assessed as a whole, the offender shall
be sentenced for murder to life imprisonment.
(2) An attempt is punishable.


it is a murder. But another law says it is not a murder, sadly.

>>12732363
Murder is a illegal killing by definition. Abortion isn’t illegal, QED, it’s not murder.

>>12734619
>>12735451
>look at my gotchas!

>>12735470
>words don’t matter!

>>12732363
All the countries banning abortion sound like delightful places to live in

Not going to comment on your proposed scientific question, but I will say, western society would have collapsed years ago without abortion.

Children of single mothers are, statistically, non-contributors to society, and that's best case scenario. A good portion of them become violent criminals as well as leaches. They are a nightmarish spawn that worsen everything they touch, and there'd be hundreds of millions more of them without
>women's right to choose

>>12732401
>>12732381

>>12732363
Scientifically speaking, it is factually killing, but murder? Well, what makes a killing a murder is a matter of philosophy. I think it's stupid to try and make moral a distinction between killing someone in the womb at two months versus killing them newborn at 9.5 months.

>>12732363
>Scientifically speaking. Is abortion (legal speak)?

>>12733207
>Is the brain capable of complex thought at that point and is self-aware?
Hard to define. Based on the "mirror test" it's several months up to a few years after birth that humans become self aware. Some ants pass that test.
I'm not sure there really is a reliable test of consciousness. Probably best proxy right now for humans is any form of brain activity. Although I agree any useful definition of murder should involve termination of someone's consciousness.

>>12732977
>Yeah vegans but not people who are against abortion.
There can be vegans who are against abortion
>I would say yes because nothing matters then.
We should kill the disabled and mentally ill like the nazis huh, very good.
>What's the point of sustaining life that will never be able to live on its own and is forced to either only suffer or lacks humanity at all?
What makes you think you are allowed to decide whether they should keep their lives or not, you are just claiming ownership over someone else's body.

>>12735422
Semantics are important in law, I don't see anything in those two examples that say abortion is murder.
>A person who kills another
The question is, how does Finnish law define "person".

>>12732876
Literally kill yourself

>>12732363
If we remove morality from it, then YES.

>>12732363
Scientifically speaking, abortion is only illegal if it's your own kid. Aborting other people's babies is encouraged, however.

>>12736205
Why would a soul have weight? What is it composed of?

>>12736821
Such an articulate argument.

>>12732876
>Our politicians made chemical birth control illegal
No, they didn't.
>and then they made abortion illegal in cases such as rape, birth defects and when mother's life is in danger.
The made abortion illegal ONLY in the case of birth defects.

>>12736999
based

>>12732363
Of course it is murder. Scientists are responsible for the deaths of millions of children.
They are far worse than any religious fanatic.

>>12736999
what if it is your brother's kid?

>>12732748
its the potential at life, you remember potential don't you? It's what your parents always lied about you having

>>12737464
For me it is a violent hate of niggers.

>>12732367
>soul

>>12737615
Sperm has potential too, is it murder too?

>>12738569
No, sperm has only half of human genes and will not turn into human without active measures.

>>12738592
an embryo also won't turn into a human without being attached to the mother
>but babies also need the mother!
yes, that's why this isn't a scientific matter and it's just a philosophical/moral thing, but if you're convinced that a clump of cells that's far less complex than us is worth the same then by all means do keep your accidental child, just don't force your bullshit onto others

>>12732444
Everyone who doesn't consider abortion as murder is anti-science. A clump of cells is still a living organism.

>>12738966
Nothing wrong with killing a clump of cells tho

>>12738956
>an embryo also won't turn into a human without being attached to the mother
Just like child will die if thrown into the forest (and same will happen with most adults).
> just don't force your bullshit onto others
Don't kill children then.

>>12732363
Yeah and even invertebrates want to see their children thrive

>>12732363
It's definitely a living being, but so are sponges. You can argue ethics like a moralfag if you want. I will be enjoying some fetus soup.

>Biologically speaking
It isn't an independent organism

>Morally speaking
If you could save someone by donating your organ to them but you didn't want to do an organ tranfusion operation, should you be forced to? Most people would say no as they believe in bodily autonomy. Even if you were the person who stabbed them it would be wrong for the state to force you to undergo this operation. Well now replace organ donation with the permanent impacts of pregnancy on the body and the significant risks of death associated with it, and the dying man with a fetus that has never breathed an independent breath. There is 0 moral or biological basis to force someone to undergo unwanted pregnancy.

"prolifers" pls fuck off to Poland

>>12739735
>If you could save someone by donating your organ to them but you didn't want to do an organ tranfusion operation, should you be forced to?
If you already donated it, you can't cut it back from the recipient.

>>12739735
If "pro-life" is bad, then why protect lives of pro-abortionists?

>>12739735
>It isn't an independent organism
You will die if kicked out of society into the woods. So it's OK to kick you out.

>>12734262
Yeah but feminism keeps us from naming women as the parasite to the great misfortune of mankind.

>>12734262
>>12739822
Kek.

'pro lifers' (misleading name that attempts to make them look like they're the nice guys) think it's all either black or white and there's nothing more to it and that's already a dead giveaway of what kind of people they are...

>>12732363
>Is killing humans murder?
Yes, except if you live in dying western society that wont exist in next 25 years

Defining if fetus is "human" is a philosophical question not a scientific one, and should be left for parents of the child.
This allows you to stop pathology like mothers drinking alcohol i countries that banned abortion to get rid of it.
What's even worse the "home made" abortions often fail and the child still is born but as an absolute retard(because of the alcohol during pregnancy) which then is parasite on the society.

>>12732367
>soul
I still find it funny how christians are talking about this voodoo shit unironically.

>>12732561
dont have money to buy drugs

>>12732363
murder is good, so abortion is good

>>12732363
Murder is a legal concept. Scientifically speaking it is killing.

>>12732363
Liberals will abort millions of black babies then complain that you are physco go if you want to get homeless people off the streets. They will cite your lack of “humanity”, LOL

>>12732363
scientifically speaking, murder is just a social construct

>>12736641
Finnish law is not a wordbook. It defines laws, not words. So judges use logic to figure these things out.

>>12740692
>think it's all either black or white
A claim devoid of any sense.

>>12732363
Depends on the race

>>12741447
>muh heckin poor niggerino

>>12732367
>soul
lmao imagine believing this

>>12739735
>"prolifers" pls fuck off to Poland
pls no, I don't want even more of them here

>>12732363
Murder is a legal/ethical term, you must use legal/ethical arguments one way or another to answer the question

>>12732363
Is plan B murder?

>>12732401
>souls aren't scientific
Why do you say that? Wait let me guess, it's because you are too stupid to define "soul" in a way that is positivistically meaningful. Must be tough having so little light up there.

>>12745236
because it is untesteable and unfalsiable and undefined, basically a buzzword

>>12732363
About as much as eating meat.

>>12745268
>because it is untesteable
what do you mean?
>unfalsiable
huh?
>undefined,
nevermind, this point negates the meaning of the previous two, you are just an idiot stringing words together until you can define your terms, lamebrain. The notion of "soul" has a perfectly reasonable and precise definition, but you need to restate it specifically to be comprehensible to the logical positivist.

>>12745277
Human meat.

>>12745236
>it's because you are too stupid to define "soul" in a way that is positivistically meaningful
If it's so easy, why don't you do it?