/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14599463
>human fetuses are are not human
>t. strawmeme in my head
Truth is that no one reasonable cares about a blastocyst, even if it's "human".

>>14599463
They are human. They have a brain by week 7 and can move around and feel pain. This is halfway through the first trimester. Most abortion laws allow abortion up to 20 weeks, which is halfway through the second trimester. Pic related is what abortion proponents want you to think of as a "non-human clump of unfeeling cells."

>>14599482
>>>/lgbt/

>>14599476
>blastocyst
Yup, that's what this is. 10 weeks old and still can be legally aborted, by the way. Just a clump of cells.

>>14599484
So it's okay to kill blastocysts? Are they not human? :^(

>>14599489
I think that's an argument that could be made legitimately, but most women don't even become aware of their pregnancy that early.

>>14599516
>I think that's an argument that could be made legitimately
Then why are you making emotional appeals and posting images of muh cute wittle babbys?

>>14599476
if it's human, and it's wrong to kill humans, it's wrong to kill human foeti

>>14599519
Because >>14599476 equivocates a fetus with a blastocyst, which is false.

>>14599523
Is it okay for people not to care about blastocysts, even if those are human blastocysts?

What the fuck bros. Abortion should not only be legal but mandatory on all countries on earth. But you idiots want blacks to overpopulate.

>>14599521
>it's wrong to kill humans
Who said it's "wrong to kill humans" in this broader sense you're trying to establish here?

>>14599521
Tell that to the Russians and Ukrainians

>>14599554
I'd tell it to your jewish-american reptiloid rulers who are actually behind all that, but they don't have empathy centers in their brains.

>>14599476
>no one reasonable disagrees with me because I am reasonable

>Who said it's "wrong to kill humans" in this broader sense you're trying to establish here?

>>14599535
Like I said, I think the argument against caring for blastocysts can be made although I don't personally subscribe to it. After just a few weeks of development it moves past that stage, though.

>>14599584
>I don't personally subscribe to it.
Why? Isn't the blastocyst human?

>>14599568
Yes.

>>14599547
Stop killing babies bitch.

>>14599572
I accept your concession. When most people say "it's wrong to kill humans" they actually mean "it's wrong to kill humans past a certain point of development".

>be me
>resident coomer
>fap 4 times a day
>minimum
>at least a dozen coom jars filled per year
>one day online
>read each sperm has unique DNA
>literal humans living inside me
>mfw killing sperm is murder
>I single-handedly genocide 20+ billion humans every week
>consider fapping five times a day minimum

Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
>Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?
Where is the freedom to kill another person because I feel like it protected in the bill of rights?

>>14599597
>I accept your concession.

Why do you take these arguments so seriously, also all of it is a human

>>14599596
Sperm isn't a fetus lol

>>14599605
>all of it is a human
Yeah, but you've already conceded that most people are actually okay with killing humans under certain conditions.

>>14599607
Yes I support honor killing whores
But babies aren't whores, or criminals or whatever you wanna say

>>14599589
I don't personally subscribe to the idea of NOT caring for a blastocyst. That is to say, I agree it's human.

>>14599596
Sperm isn't human, it needs to fertilize an egg to have a complete set of DNA. The sperm would die and be recycled no matter what you do, too, just like eggs are shed during a woman's period. No cell can live forever.

>>14599607
Sorry I haven't "conceded" this at all. Most people believe that it's not a human until 20 weeks or so. If they thought it were a human they wouldn't.

pro-abortion arguments suck ass, ngl
>women should be able to terminate pregnancies because she can't afford it!
ok so you're fine with killing a 1 month old child that you can't afford?
>well actually, its about valuing consciousness!
ok so you're fine with killing comatose people then?
>bodily autonomy!
what about the bodily autonomy of the child
>what about rape and incest!
ok so you're fine with punishing individuals for crimes they didn't commit?
>what about cases where the mother could die!
what about them
doctors make life and death decisions every day, and they always choose the mother over the fetus

>>14599612
Oh. I see. Is it okay for people not to care about blastocysts, even if those are human blastocysts? "An argument can be made..." / "I personally subscribe..." and other worthless jewish quips don't actually answer this question.

>>14599618
>I haven't "conceded"
You have fully and openly conceded in the most direct terms, and this is on record for all to see. You lost the argument. Now post some more selfies. :^)

>>14599622
I didn't though, see >>14599618
>Most people believe that it's not a human until 20 weeks or so. If they thought it were a human they wouldn't.

>>14599619
Rape accounts for less than 1%, non-issue
abortion happens because the woman would rather kill babies than take responsibility for her actions

>>14599463
>if you make no human male capable of producing sperm, no humans will be born
>all humans will die
So what's sperm if not human?

>>14599627
You really need to take your meds because it says black on white that you fuilly concede. :^)

>>14599631
Oh I recognize you. You're one of the most pathetic posters here. Just accept that you're wrong. They don't consider it humans, to them it's equivalent to ejaculating on tissue paper.

>>14599630
A component of a zygote, not a zygote itself. That's like saying water is hydrogen or oxygen because water cannot exist without either. Also you're defending the castration of all men and don't even see how retarded you are

>>14599635
>i concede fully and i lost the argument
Glad we finally see eye to eye.

>>14599639
>They don't consider it humans, to them it's equivalent to ejaculating on tissue paper.
How is this incorrect

>>14599640
It's incorrect because almost everyone will readily tell you that human fetuses are biolgically human.

>>14599644
That's not true, the argument for abortion is that it's not an actual human until certain age. Until then it's an unfeeling clump of cells.

>>14599621
I would not intentionally kill a human blastocyst, but I would not begrudge someone who did. I think the development of a brain is a more clear objective marker for personhood and that happens 5-7 weeks into development, at which point abortion should be unilaterally illegal. Again, my gripe is with people throwing around the term "blastocyst" as if that's all it is for the entire 20 weeks when abortion is legally allowed, when the truth is it's only a blastocyst for a couple weeks.

>>14599647
>the argument for abortion is that it's not an actual human until certain age.
I'm sure the strawmen in your schizophrenic, sub-90-IQ head actually make this argument. Back in real life, though, the argument is that a fetus is not a person, not that it's not a biological human.

>>14599651
what is your definition of a person?

>>14599649
>I would not begrudge someone who did
Why not? Is a human blastocyst not human?

>the development of a brain is a more clear objective marker for personhood
But alright, I'll allow you to move the goal post like that, just for the sake of entertainment. Why is it an objective marker for personhood?

>>14599651
A biological human is a person. They say that it is a clump of cells. If they were forced to know that it is an actual human like them their opinions would most likely change.

>>14599638
>you're defending the castration of all men
i fail to see the problem

>>14599656
>A biological human is a person
Not according to anybody sane.

>>14599638
A zygote is a component of a human, not an actual human itself. It needs a womb to complete its transition to a human. Simple as.

>>14599654
That's completely irrelevant. I don't write the laws.

>>14599656
>A biological human is a person
Incorrect. You, for example, are a biological human. However you're an NPC and therefore not a person.

>>14599655
Because that's when it can move independently and feel pain. It is indisputably human life at this point, not "muh clump of cells." For reference, pic related is a fetus at 15 weeks, which is a full month before the cutoff for legal abortion. Do you think that's just a blastocyst or just a "clump" of cells as so many people claim?

>>14599658
If your definition of person is legally recognized individual then there was no transatlantic slave trade as none of the african slaves were recognized persons.

>>14599663
>Everyone who disagrees with me is an npc

>>14599660
It's not a component of a human, it is a human retard. A fetus needs the womb long past the time you arbitrarily consider it a person. I love how leftist fags just try to vomit your words back at you

>>14599666
Irrelevant deflection. The point still stands that nobody sane considers a blastocyst to be a person.

>>14599662
>my point of view is irrelevant
it's nice to know you are not a person.

>>14599666
Tons of people who disagree with me are not NPCs. You, however, are an NPC.

>>14599668
Can you define person then? That wasn't a deflection, it was my attempt to figure out what person means to you.

>>14599664
>that's when it can move independently and feel pain.
So what? What's so special about moving independently and being able to feel pain?

>It is indisputably human life at this point
It is indisputably human life when it's a blastocyst, yet you don't foam at the mouth when people don't care about a blastocyst.

>>14599668
a cell with a full set of human chromosomes has all the rights and privileges of any other human being.

>>14599672
Why?

>>14599670
It's nice to know that you cannot address what I said, and thus fully concede.

>>14599667
>it is a human retard
So you think pic rel is a human?

>>14599681
Was it produced by humans? Will it grow into a human?

>>14599673
>Can you define person then?
No, because I think it's just abstract verbal wank like everything else people like you believe in, and it starts to fall apart very quickly under scrutiny.

>>14599683
Answer the question. Is it a human or not?

>>14599679
you seem to have me confused with some other anonymous poster. but i will cede that it is difficult to tell the difference when you are not person

>>14599685
I'm not taking the bait. That could be a dog, a sheep, or a bat for all I know.

>>14599677
>a cell with a full set of human chromosomes has all the rights and privileges of any other human being.
Is that how it works in your alternate reality? In this one, abortion is legal to one extent or another in most civilized nations.

>>14599689
Hold up. So you're saying you can't even tell what species that thing is? And you want to give it human rights? Fuck off, moron.

>>14599686
You're seething but my point still stands completely undisputed: unless you're willing to defend the absolutist stance that a blastocyst has human rights, it's all down to the subjective feelings of the masses. You lose in any case, either by way of being deranged and absurd, or by way of having your subjective opinion overrided by the subjective opinions of the masses.

>>14599692
I'm saying that if the embryo was produced by two humans it can only be a human. If it's produced by two dogs it's a dog.

>>14599684
Your point was that people are okay with killing humans, then reiterated that as persons, now you refuse to define what person even means.

>>14599696
>two human scientists produce a half-human, half-orangutan zygote in a lab
>put the zygote into a human female womb
>hurr durr it's a human!
that's what your reasoning leads to, dumbass.

>>14599617
>Sperm isn't human, it needs to fertilize an egg to have a complete set of DNA.
You're revoking the human-hood of anyone born missing a chromosome!?
>The sperm would die and be recycled no matter what you do, too, just like eggs are shed during a woman's period. No cell can live forever.
The same can be said about humans. Everyone dies eventually, but you believe that makes it okay for them to be killed before their time? You're a psycho!

>>14599701
>>two human scientists produce a half-human, half-orangutan zygote
You are literally saying it wasn't produced by two humans

>>14599697
>Your point was that people are okay with killing humans, then reiterated that as persons
Both of which are correct, objective observations.

>now you refuse to define what person even means.
Because it's completely irrelevant to my point.

>>14599690
>alternate reality
just because it's legal doesn't make it correct

>>14599705
>two humans produce [x]
>you're literally saying [x] wasn't produced by two humans
oh god. it's retarded.

>>14599708
You said:
>a cell with a full set of human chromosomes has all the rights and privileges of any other human being.
So does it, or does it not? I mean, in actual reality, not in your fantasy.

>>14599706
>Because it's completely irrelevant to my point.
How is that irrelevant? So you're going to make a statement then refuse to explain what the words in it mean?

>>14599709
No, an egg/sperm was produced by a human
Another egg/sperm was produced by a monkey
How fucking stupid are you?

>>14599674
>So what? What's so special about moving independently and being able to feel pain?
If you think this question is valid then you are a fucking psychopath. If someone else feeling pain isn't enough of a reason not to harm them then you're endorsing the harm and murder of any person at any time for any reason.

>>14599711
>How is that irrelevant?
Because the point wasn't about what I specifically believe, but how most people regard this question, and the fact of the matter is that most people recognize that a fetus is biologically human, but don't consider it a person, under whatever their personal definition of a person is.

>>14599710
the fight for human rights has a long and sorted path, the first step to correcting the law starts with recognizing when its deficient

>>14599717
The chicken you had for dinner was capable of moving and feeling pain, so it looks like moving and feeling pain are not criteria for personhood.

>>14599720
>b-b-but muh opinion
Don't care. Point still stands: >>14599718

>>14599721
Anon... where were you trying to go with that one?

>>14599718
They accept that the cells in it are human, but say that it doesn't constitute as a human being. That's their denial.

>>14599724
>laws are irrevocable
also keep track of which anon your replying to

>>14599721
Chickens aren't human. Non-humans do not qualify for personhood.

>>14599725
That you've already conceded that when taken separately, merely being biologically human is not a criterion for personhood, neither is moving and feeling pain. You'll have to forgive most normal people for not seeing how some kind of magic happens when you combine them.

>>14599726
Schizophrenia.

>>14599728
More schizophrenia.

>>14599729
See >>14599731

>>14599735
>everyone who disagrees with me are the same madman

>>14599737
Literally more schizophrenia.

>>14599738
and now you are going around in circles

>>14599741
You lost. Just walk away. >>14599718 stands completely unchallenged.

>>14599677
>I pick off a scab
>It had some live cells in it
>full set of my DNA
BEHOLD FELLOW ANONS! I HAVE CREATED A HUMAN!

>>14599731
But that's a chicken egg. They go forward to obtain chickenhood or roosterhood. A person eating it is just nutrition, not an argument about abortion. Plus, those are supposed to be underutilized or else they have clumps of cells that start to develop into bird.

>>14599747
Literally some schizo word salad, completely incongruent with the post you're replying to. Why are you all losing your minds all of a sudden?

who is the fucking retard saying we should value chicken lives
are we really gonna start this vegan shit again

>>14599743
public opinion can be changed by providing facts. a cell with a full set of human chromosomes its just as much a human being as any one else. it is the beginning of a human beings life.

>>14599749
I meant to say unfertilized.

No one wants Romania. /thread.

>>14599753
The only relevant fact is that most people don't accept your deranged premise that just because something is biologically human, it deserves special protections.

>>14599746
with enough resources yes.

>>14599754
Why are you sperging off about eggs and Romania? You are legit losing your mind out of impotent rage and I'm loving this. :^)

>>14599753
Underdeveloped in a way that can't sustain even basic biological functions like breathing or shitting by itself until a certain point.

>>14599757
Don't care about "most people"
Kill yourself

>>14599764
define underdeveloped, because it seems to me that that person is developing at just the right pace

>>14599765
>Don't care about "most people"
Tough luck. You live under the brunt of their opinions.

>>14599767
Lol no

>>14599758
With enough resources, you can arrange the atoms/particles of parking-lot gravel into human. #DirtLivesMatter #HumanRightsForDirt

>>14599768
Aboritons are happening all over the place and all you can do about it is seethe and lose the reddit debates you start.

after they've been made a human, sure

>>14599773
Abortion has nothing to do with popular support
Kill yourself faggot

>>14599775
meant for
>>14599772

>>14599776
See >>14599773

>>14599779
You're a delusional subject of the government, you don't write any laws

>>14599766
Developing≠underdeveloped. You're just arguing for the sake of it.

>>14599782
See >>14599773

>>14599782
not that guy but are you a licensed to define mental states?

>>14599786
I accept your concession

>>14599788
Cool. See >>14599773

>>14599785
no, people deserve equal protection under the law.

>>14599758
A scab has human rights?

>>14599792
>delusional subject of the government he lives under
Politicians are under no obligation to carry out the "will of the people"

>>14599793
if you put forth the effort required to clone a human being from sure. unlike natural birth it would be extremely resource intensive

>>14599779
>>14599786
>it's this faggot again
jannies, ban this spammer

>>14599795
they take an oath to uphold the constitution. it's a shame they are not held to that standard. something else that should be changed

>>14599775
So, you're okay with abortion then. Because the material supplied by the mother hasn't yet been arranged into a human.

>>14599792
They really don't. The death penalty is a fine way to remove humans that can't incorporate into society. Abortion systems are abused by both pro-life and pro-abortion laws.

None of you ITT give a steaming shit about human life or potential. You don't care about babies. You don't care about the various stages of development in utero. You care about being right.

>>14599805
Where is the death penalty for babies

>>14599805
personally i'm against the death penalty. implementation of the law is far from perfect. i'm also against the death penalty for individuals deemed inconvenient before birth

>>14599797
See >>14599803

>>14599803
interesting question. what makes a human being. normally sex is involved but cloning is an option. one you start the process to making a clone then yes, the cell involved should have the same rights as anyone else.

>>14599809
>>14599811
What's the end goal though? Larger populations of the malformed is going to be the result. Do people believe that by forcing an anti-abortion strategy that it will ultimately bring everyone closer to god?

>>14599828
>Larger populations of the malformed is going to be the result.
people tried eugenics already, it didn't take.
>>14599828
>Do people believe that by forcing an anti-abortion strategy that it will ultimately bring everyone closer to god?
i don't claim there is a god, for me it's consistency of the application of the law

>>14599828
What the hell are you talking about

>>14599837
There isn't consistency in the law. Each state has their own laws, so by nature there can't be consistency. Aside from that, justice can be easily skirted by power and money.

>>14599847
just because the law isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get as much overlap with justice as we can, despite our disparate takes on what justice is.

>>14599825
>one you start the process to making a clone then yes, the cell involved should have the same rights as anyone else.
Extraction is the first step in the process. Therefore any time you cough, sneeze or remove a scab without getting those cells to a cloning center, you're killing people.

>>14599862
the first step in cloning is actively providing the cell with an environment to mature into full grown human being.

If men carried babies in their ballsacks this wouldn't even be a debate. We'd have Nut Hoover 3000s by the counter at the fucking 7/11.

>>14599855
I understand the justice angle, and wanting consistency within it. Wanting that is a losing battle with what we're given though. We're already involuntarily inundated with substances that harm us. We're just spoiled tax cows at this point.

>>14599867
You need to extract the cells before you can do any of that. Therefore extraction is the first step.

>>14599870
of course it's a losing battle, if you don't try

>>14599873
i'll agree to disagree with you on that.

>>14599881
You just admitted zygotes themselves aren't humans until they're in a womb. I'll take it as a win.
>one you start the process to making a clone then yes, the cell involved should have the same rights as anyone else.
>the first step in cloning is actively providing the cell with an environment to mature...

>>14599897
no, your analogy is closer to a guy whipping his dick out and and demanding to make some babies

>>14599596
>>read each sperm has unique DNA
>>literal humans living inside me
Individual sperms aren't human because there is not enough DNA to become a viable zygote, which is the first stage of a new human being.

>>14599463
Me in the top right

I've never cared much for the abortion debate, because I don't really give a fuck, but I've been paying attention recently because of the supreme court shit, and I just find it fucking hilarious seeing the sheer level of mental gymnastics being used by some pro-abortion arguments, even on /sci/ of all places. some of your garbage (*cough cough* clump of cells) literally on the same level as the absurd, blatantly flawed bullshit spewed by anti-evolutionists and flat-earthers.

literally all the abortion debate is about is that people want the ability to euthanize babies they either don't want or can't take care of, and the disagreement is on whether or not an unborn child deserves rights, and if they do, if said rights take precedence over the rights of the mother. that's it. anything else is an argument in bad faith.

>>14599862

This is clearly you just reaching here. The concepts arent the same and you know it. With your same logic, you could say that:

"Saying killing an adult human is bad => Not going out of your way to prevent serial killers, or any form of murder = killing people"

You could make the argument that not preventing is killing, but what matters is the period and access to killing.

What is better is to make the analogy of the trolly problem, or a scenario where a person has a gun and could chose to kill a person in the moment. For cloning, a scenario similar would to first put DNA into incubation. Without putting it in, it will never grow into anything. Once you put it into incubation is where it becomes a problem. Which is what natural sex does.

Having sex is leading to a risk of incubation. Consensual that is. I;m not the same person, and I think rape cases are fine for abortion. I think the UK's laws are good.

What isn't is if youre a stupid whore and eat dick all the time and then want to split a fetus in half because youre a dumb fuck.

Rape is like someone else putting your dna in an incubation chamber and wanting to stop it.

Having sex and regretting it is like putting the dna in the incubation chamber yourself, acknowledging the risk of it growing, then complaining when it works as intended.

>>14600394
LOL that video is funny. Is that real?

>>14600394
a good example for this debate is canada, which has NO legal cutoff date for abortion; you can legally kill your child as it is coming out of the vagina during childbirth, and as long as it is dead before it comes out, it is classified as an abortion.
despite this,the general medical consensus is that a child's non-legally recognized "rights" take precedence over the mother's rights when the child is "viable" and capable of surviving outside of the womb with medical care, which is currently 24 weeks, and thus few to zero abortion clinics will administer an abortion past that date unless it is deemed a medical emergency.

I'm going to go with the doctors on this one and say that abortion should not be practised past the point where the child is "viable" and can survive outside of the womb. since the life of the child is no longer, as a necessity, interfering with the mother's right to bodily autonomy, killing it is unnecessary and should not be considered outside of emergency circumstances.

>>14599463
>Is abortion murder?
Yes
>Is it okay?
Also yes

>>14600400
Yes it's real, as you can see it can move around independently and feel pain.

>>14599463
A collection of non-conscious non-sentient cells

>>14599660
At what point does a fetus undergo it's metaphysical transformation into humanness?

>>14601375
You really didn't need to describe yourself in so much detail

>>14600618
There it is

Let's say that your bone marrow can keep alive a man with cancer. Does the government have the right to strap you to a chair and forcibly take your bone marrow?

Let's say your kidney can be used to save someone's life. Does the government have the right to shoot you with a tranquilizer dart on the street and steal your kidney?

Let's say an unborn infant requires your blood to survive. Does the government have the right to force you to give up your body and blood to the unborn child? Or do you have the right to an abortion?

This is all the same question and only idiot Republitards don't understand.

>>14599463
>>if you kill all human foeti no more humans are born
>>but foeti aren't human and abortion isn't murder
Yes. Is there supposed to be a contradiction there? Is not having sex = murder?

>If they aren't human what are they?
You're conflating two different things. Your hands is human because it's part of a human. But it's not a human being.

>>14599606
A fetus isn't a human being LOL

>>14601433
It's a not a random stranger. It's your own kid. If a mother is not responsible for taking care of her own children, who is?

>>14600329
Fetuses aren't human beings because they cannot live outside the mother's body, which is the first stage of a new human being.

>>14601443
Then what species is it? A dog? A cat? A whale?

>>14601447
What species is your hand?

>>14601449
My hand is made of human cells, however it's not my complete body, so it us not an organism and doesn't have an species. A human fetus comprehends a complete multi-cellular organism. What species is it? You avoided the question.

>>14601449
>filtered by Aristotle

>>14601449
Glad to know pro-abortionists are not actually evil but just very ignorant

both pro abortion and slavery "morality" arguments are contingent on dehumanization.

Just extract the fetus from anyone wanting an abortion, and forcibly implant it into a random pro-lifer. If the pro-lifer didn't want it, then too bad!

>>14601464
>A human fetus comprehends a complete multi-cellular organism.
No, it's part of the body, like your hand.

>You avoided the question.
You answered the question by yourself. Good job!

>>14601482
How so?

>>14601579
>10 weeks into development
>brain
>eyes
>nervous system
>arms, legs
>hands, feet
>fingers, toes
>BUT THERE'S AN UMBILICAL CORD SO IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM A KIDNEY!!!
The absolute state of abortionists. How do you live with this level of cognitive dissonance?

>>14601579
Ah, sorry, I didn't know you failed middle school biology and don't know the difference between an organism and part of it. My mistake for engaging with you.

>>14601443
A fetus can be a human being
Other species also begin life as foeti

>>14599463
There's more to being human than biology.
There is more to life than to exist.

>>14601433
>if the government does not protect my fake right to kill my baby without harming myself, it is forcing me to have a child
The only way a woman could be forced to have children is if she were raped and abortion has nothing to do with that. No one is forcing her to get cummed in raw
Women are so dumb

>>14601620
>Trust the science! Except when I don't like what the science says!
If you are going to say there's more to being human than biology, you can easily arrive at things like blacks not being human. Nobody cares what your fleeting definition of a human is, that is probably as stupid as "a featherless biped".

>>14601581
>he hasn't even read the categories

>>14599463
>if you remove all oxygen, no more humans are born
>but oxygen molecules aren't human
Other things that aren't human: Water, grain, livestock, OP's mom.

>>14601595

>>14601602
>Ah, sorry, I didn't know you failed middle school biology and don't know the difference between an organism and part of it.
The fetus is part of an organism, the mother. You're the only one who confused the two.

>>14601617
>A fetus can be a human being
If it's viable, sure. But a fetus is no more automatically a human being than sperm is.

>>14601815
Elaborate.

>>14599482
>can move around and feel pain
Like animals, are you vegan?

>>14601964
See: >>14599729
Non-human animals are not people. We're discussing the personhood of humans. Do you think killing animals for nutrition means you should be allowed to murder humans?

>>14601988
>We're discussing the personhood of humans.
Fetuses, not humans.

>>14602006
Human fetuses.

>>14602012
Human fetuses are not humans.

>>14599463
I think the brainlets are saying they arent conscious but a sleeping person is also not conscious and a drugged up person also isnt conscious so theres nothing wrong with killing them if they inconvenience you am I right WOMEN?

>>14602014
At a minimum, they are human once their brain develops, 7 weeks in.

>>14602017
They also really love the "viability" argument as if a newborn baby would survive on its own if you didn't constantly watch over it. There's no real difference between a fetus relying on nutrition through an umbilical cord and a newborn relying on nutrition through a teat.

>>14602020
No. At a minimum it's once they're viable.

>>14602028
>There's no real difference between a fetus relying on nutrition through an umbilical cord and a newborn relying on nutrition through a teat.
The difference is that the former means the fetus is part of the woman's body while the latter does not.

>>14602035
Fetuses are their own unique genetic construct not part of mommy's body you fucking retard.

>>14602033
Why?

>>14602035
How many body parts of yours have unique DNA from every other cell in your body?

Abortiontards do realize they are essentially calling all mammals that have ever existed parasites right?

>>14602037
>Fetuses are their own unique genetic construct not part of mommy's body you fucking retard.
Doesn't follow. Ever heard of chimerism?

>>14602061
>Uh uh but this outlier!

Denied

>>14602045
>Why?
Because then they can separate from the mother's body.

Why would it be when their brain "develops?"

>>14602045
>How many body parts of yours have unique DNA from every other cell in your body?
I'm not sure, I've never checked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

For pregnant women, it's at least one.

>>14602065
>o-o-outlier
OK, if it makes you feel better you can call pregnancy an "outlier."

>Denied
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting your logic was faulty.

>>14602066
>Why would it be when their brain "develops?"
How many people are in this picture?

>>14602082
A more relevant question would be how many bodies are in the picture.

>>14602089
No, I asked the question I did for a reason and your dodging of the question shows you know exactly why. How many PEOPLE are in that picture?

>>14602095
>No, I asked the question I did for a reason and your dodging of the question
I didn't dodge the question. The answer is obvious and non-controversial. I simply gave you a more relevant question

>>14602028
Agreed, abortion should be allowed up to 6 months after birth. It'd arguably be less traumatic because at that point you can use a helium hood.

>>14602098
The answer to the question would be a number, which you refuse to provide. That's dodging the question. How many people are in that picture?

>>14599463
>>but foeti aren't human and abortion isn't murder
that's how women cope with killing their own offspring, the the majority are too retarded to comprehend how they are literally killing their child, society goes along because it's nice to have women working instead of at home caring for children, if need more workers just open borders, no need for no fucking babies, unless you are rich, if you look closely you will see the rich are having a lot of children, because that's our biological imperative, abortion as a choice is decadent...

>>14602105
>The answer to the question would be a number, which you refuse to provide.
Wow, you're dense. You should be able to figure out the answer from my post. Move on.

>>14602116
I know exactly what your answer should be and I want you to actually say it. You're avoiding the question and refusing to participate in actual discussion because the answer makes it painfully obvious why the development of a brain would qualify a fetal human as a person regardless of viability.

I'll cut right to it since you're too pussy and/or dishonest to actually face/admit the truth head on: Abby and Brittany Hensel are two people. One cannot be separated from the other and still live, yet we don't consider one to be a mere body part of the other and they are treated as distinct individuals under the law. Why is this? Because they have two independently functioning brains and can feel and express and move separately from each other despite sharing a single torso.

An independent brain is what makes you a person separate from other people, and a 7 week old fetus possesses that, albeit less developed than an older human, but that's no different than all the ways in which babies are less developed than children who are less developed than teens who are less developed than adults and so on. Your organs do not have independent brains, that's why they're all considered part of you and not separate living people.

Even under the most materialistic, atheist worldview we recognize that a person is at minimum the brain in their skull, and 7 week old fetuses have exactly that: a brain. If that's not enough to consider them a person, then no one is a person and murder should be legal, it's just a solipsistic free for all at that point.

>>14599463
I'd rather have been flushed if it wasn't conducive to the already living. Oh the fucking tragedy if I can feel what a fish feels, snap my unaware non existent neck. If you're using your time on this instead of for the starving and diseased, you're barely even here. Redundancy at its finest

>>14602145
>I know exactly what your answer should be and I want you to actually say it.
It doesn't seem like you do. I find your whining too amusing to acquiesce.

>One cannot be separated from the other and still live, yet we don't consider one to be a mere body part of the other
Why would we? They're on equal ground.

>Because they have two independently functioning brains
Please show me which law bases their personhood on the development of their brains. When they were fetuses they were no more persons than any other fetus regardless of their brains.

>An independent brain is what makes you a person separate from other people
It certainly makes you separate but it doesn't make you a person. It's irrelevant.

>>14601446
>Fetuses aren't human beings because they cannot live outside the mother's body
>doesn't know about embryo transplants
>doesn't know about premature births where "fetuses" live outside womb
Firstly if it's outside the womb it's no longer a fetus. Secondly, dependency on X arguments are easily deboonked because all humans are dependent on something. Unborn children are dependent on their mothers' womb and dependent on other things after birth etc.
>which is the first stage of a new human being
No, a human zygote is necessarily a human hence that is the first stage of human development. A change of relative location (exiting womb) has jack shit to do with developmental stages.

>>14602012
Which is still simply a fetus, and a nonviable outside of the womb one too.

>>14602152
>instead of for the starving and diseased
I do. How will you cope with that?

Trying to rules lawyer this shit is always going to be intractable, this isn't science or math. It's a disagreement where one side thinks morality is extrinsic and the other thinks it's intrinsic.

>>14602195
>>14602233
Is a human on life support not a person? Since personhood seems to be predicated on independent viability, does that mean if I can't live without being hooked up to one machine or another at all times I should be stripped of my rights?

>>14602252
>biology isn't science so will you CHUDS just stop posting facts already?

>>14599463
>If they aren't human what are they?
An organ. Here's the definition of "organ" from Marriam-Webster's online dictionary:
>a differentiated structure (such as a heart, kidney, leaf, or stem) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism
In this case, the "specific function" is to create an inexact copy of the organism.

Should you be legally required to give indefinite CPR to any injured person you come across if you engage in activities that often produce life threatening injuries like driving a car, sports, or being American?

>>14602260
It's not a about biology. Only absolutely insane fools think fetuses aren't human. It's whether or not they're a "person" which is a philosophical debate. Because the left loves semantics, they'll use "human" meaning "person" since it gives them plausible deniability on justifying their moral abhorrence.

>>14602277
>or being American?
If you don't live around blacks then being American is very safe.

>>14602293
The pilpul is honestly incredible
>does that mean skin cells are human?
>is my arm a human?
>is sperm human?
But we still are discussing biology

Iktfb

>>14602326
It's because they know for a fact that their argument is indefensible without dishonest tactics that enforce cognitive dissonance. They know they're lying.

>>14602263
at what point does it become a human for you

>>14602226
>>doesn't know about embryo transplants
>>doesn't know about premature births where "fetuses" live outside womb
OK? Neither refute what I said.

>Firstly if it's outside the womb it's no longer a fetus.
OK? We're talking about fetuses.

>Secondly, dependency on X arguments are easily deboonked because all humans are dependent on something.
"Dependent on something" isn't the criteria. You just seem to be spouting a bunch of non-sequiturs.

>No, a human zygote is necessarily a human
Proof?

>A change of relative location (exiting womb) has jack shit to do with developmental stages.
I didn't say it does. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Viability is a stage of development and doesn't require the fetus to exit the womb.

>>14602257
>Is a human on life support not a person?
Who said they weren't? A person on life support is not part of someone else's body.

>>14602417
A person on life support is not viable away from the machine, so they must just be a part of the life support system now rather than a person.

>>14602426
>so they must just be a part of the life support system.
Incorrect, and doesn't even imply they stop being a person.

>>14601433
Where do rights come from

>>14602014

>>14602461
So if my continued life depends on being connected to a life support system I'm still a person and retain all my rights related to personhood, but if a fetus' continued life depends on being connected to its mother it's just a part of the mother's body and not a person? What's the difference? I thought if someone depends upon some external system to continue living that means they're just a PART and not a person.

>>14599463
If you abort you are murdering human life

>>14602473
>What's the difference?
There are several. The fetus was never a person to begin with. The life support system isn't a body.

>I thought if someone depends upon some external system to continue living that means they're just a PART and not a person.
No one claimed that. You're just generalizing. Like claiming sperm is a human being if fetuses are.

>>14602478
If you masturbate you are murdering human life.

>>14602500
Human life begins at conception, you need a man and woman to create human life.

>>14602497
The fetus is an alive growing organism that's separate and unique from the woman, thus it is a person

>>14602500
not really, that sperm is useless without an actual egg
so unless we lived in a society where women are basically mandated to have sex with men, there is no real reason to preserve that semen

>>14602402
>for you
You mean by definition? Whenever it ceases being an organ, and becomes an "organism:"
>an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

>>14602578
so when exactly does that happen
when the fetus develops a consciousness?
when the fetus exists the womb?
when the cord is cut?

>>14602578
>an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
A fetus of 7-10 weeks development meets all this criteria regardless of viability outside the womb.

>>14602410
>OK? Neither refute what I said.
Yes of course they do. Some fetuses can live outside womb which directly violates your sentence.
>"Dependent on something" isn't the criteria
yes it is. You said can't live outside X, ergo being in X is a criteria and the baby is dependent on that criteria.
>Proof?
A human embryo is a human the same way a human child is a human. They are both stages of development of a human. This is basic english.
>I didn't say it does
Your argument relies on location because you are doing nothing more than arbitrarily saying viability applies when you feel like it, doesn't matter if you deny this.
>Viability is a stage of development
You were viable the instant you became a zygote. You could have been removed from your mother, kept growing in a petri dish for up to 10 days or so, and then implanted into another woman. Once a little 1-10 day old human attaches to a uterus he/she is then dependent on that attachment for at least 5 months with current technology.
>and doesn't require the fetus to exit the womb
Well then it's meaningless as soon as we develop technology to eliminate the 5 month dependency stage. You will have to admit viability exists as soon as a zygote exists and a zygote is therefore a human.

Defining humans based on technology is nonsense, so it only makes sense to acknowledge a zygote always was a human.

>>14602014
>Human fetuses are not humans.
So they don't have the dna of a human?

>>14602066
>Because then they can separate from the mother's body.
>>14602082

Freaking wrecked.

>>14599463
Embryos and fetuses are metamorphs: alien parasites that feed on placenta and then morph into humans to replace their hosts in the future. But if you were to believe that, then all humans are actually alien parasites and there are no real humans left.

>>14602504
Nice try baby murderer. Human life begins with sperm and eggs.

>>14602507
>The fetus is an alive growing organism
Wrong. It's part of an organism.

>>14602573
>not really, that sperm is useless without an actual egg
Life isn't "useless," it's precious. Stopping the sperm from reaching an egg is murder. Why do you murder unconceived babies?

>so unless we lived in a society where women are basically mandated to have sex with men
Exactly. Now you're getting it.

>>14603151
Is an individual organism which is why it has 46 chromosomes

>>14602836
>Some fetuses can live outside womb which directly violates your sentence.
You're an idiot, you misread "because they cannot live outside the mother's body as" as a statement about all fetuses rather than a condition for fetuses to be considered human beings. You said contradicted what I said.

>You said can't live outside X, ergo being in X is a criteria and the baby is dependent on that criteria.
Exactly. X is not "something," it's a specific thing. When you said everything is dependent on something you incorrectly generalized to being dependent on anything.

>They are both stages of development of a human.
So sperm and eggs are necessarily humans because they are stages of development of a human.

>Your argument relies on location because you are doing nothing more than arbitrarily saying viability applies when you feel like it
Those two claims are not even logically connected. How does arbitrarily saying viability applies imply a change of location? The fetus reaches the stage of viability regardless of its location.

>You could have been removed from your mother, kept growing in a petri dish for up to 10 days or so, and then implanted into another woman.
So not viable. LOL.

>Well then it's meaningless as soon as we develop technology to eliminate the 5 month dependency stage.
You can't involuntarily remove a zygote from the mother's body to make it viable, no more so than you can forcibly remove sperm and eggs to make them viable.

>Defining humans based on technology is nonsense
It's not technology, it's viability. Defining humans based on religion is nonsense.

>>14602838
Your hand has the DNA of a human but is not a human.

>>14602843
Which of those is the mother, my retarded friend?

>>14603164
Every part of you has 46 chromosomes, unless you're a Downy.

>>14603181
The fetus has 46 chromosomes, is an individual human life and the woman carrier of the baby has 46 chromosomes. You were saying it is merely a part of an organism, that's incorrect because humans can't have 92 chromosomes.

>>14603185
>The fetus has 46 chromosomes
Correct.

>is an individual human life
Incorrect.

>You were saying it is merely a part of an organism, that's incorrect because humans can't have 92 chromosomes.
Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Anything else?

>>14603177
You can remove viable (as in they'll fertilize. Hopefully.) eggs and sperm though. That's how they retrieve eggs from donors. Sperm can be aspirated in instances of vasectomy.

>>14603191
>You can remove viable (as in they'll fertilize. Hopefully.) eggs and sperm though.
Yes, by choice of the body containing them. According to you they must be forcefully removed and made viable.

>>14603190
>Incorrect.
Yes it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
Chimeras don't grow human life, is irrelevant to the human life topic.

>>14603193
>according to me
Bitch, I just replied to your post because it didn't account for an important detail. Don't jump to conclusions because you're assblasted in an argument with another anon here.

>>14603195
>Yes it is
Thanks for admitting that.

>Chimeras don't grow human life
Of course they do. Bizarre claim.

>is irrelevant to the human life topic.
If it's irrelevant why did you claim they don't exist?

>>14603197
>Bitch, I just replied to your post because it didn't account for an important detail.
No, you replied because you didn't understand the post. Nothing I said implied you can't remove sperm and eggs. In fact it implied the opposite. I said "forcibly remove." Learn how to read.

>>14603199
>Thanks for admitting that.
You don't know english, the fetus is an individual organism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
>Of course they do. Bizarre claim.
They don't, the fetus is not a chimera, it has nothing to do with human life.
>If it's irrelevant why did you claim they don't exist
Who doesn't exist? Chimera has zero to do with conception or the fetus.

>>14603202
>You don't know english, the fetus is an individual organism
>In biology, an organism (from Ancient Greek ὄργανον (órganon) 'instrument, implement, tool', and -ισμός (-ismós)) is any organic, living system that functions as an individual entity.
You don't know English. A nonviable fetus does not function as an individual entity. It's not an organism.

>They don't, the fetus is not a chimera
I never claimed the fetus is a Chimera. Another failure to read.

>Who doesn't exist?
You claimed humans with 92 chromosomes don't exist. Do you have ADHD?

>>14603201
>You can't involuntarily remove a zygote from the mother's body to make it viable, no more so than you can forcibly remove sperm and eggs to make them viable.
>no more so than you can forcibly remove sperm and eggs to make them viable
>to make them viable
They're as viable as they're going to get as individual gametes if they're coming directly from the pipeline. When I say viable, I'm using the term from a biological perspective, not a defending my argument about abortion on 4chan perspective. It can technically be done forecefully, as it doesn't require cooperation from the body it's being removed from. Do you want to clarify what you're being pissy and defensive about here?

>>14603205
>In biology, an organism (from Ancient Greek ὄργανον (órganon) 'instrument, implement, tool', and -ισμός (-ismós)) is any organic, living system that functions as an individual entity.
Sourceless claim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
The word ontogeny comes from the Greek on meaning a being, individual; and existence, and from the suffix -geny from the Greek -geniea, meaning genesis, origin, and mode of production.[6]
A fetus is an individual organism.
>I never claimed the fetus is a Chimera.
Then why you bring up a worthless term to the conversation
>You claimed humans with 92 chromosomes don't exist.
Humans with 92 chromosomes don't exist.

>>14603206
You again failed to read. I didn't say it can't be literally done, I'm saying you can't legally/morally do it. Read my post again until you get it.

>>14603209
>Sourceless claim
Wrong again.
>[1] Mosby's Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Health Professions (10th ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier. 2017. p. 1281. ISBN 9780323222051.

>The word ontogeny comes from the Greek on meaning a being, individual; and existence, and from the suffix -geny from the Greek -geniea, meaning genesis, origin, and mode of production.[6]
>A fetus is an individual organism.
Wrong. See >>14603205

It's hilarious that you're attempting to use Wikipedia to prove organism means something other than what Wikipedia defines it as. Please post more mental gymnastics.

>Then why you bring up a worthless term to the conversation
Because you claimed chimeras don't exist.

>Humans with 92 chromosomes don't exist.
Wrong again. See >>14603190

>>14603210
I read your post several times ready to accept my defeat if needed, but you didn't mention shit about legality or morality. Only force. No, I'm not reading the entire post stream, we're on an anonymous board, not goddamn Reddit.
>>14603209
They do exist, they're just usually profoundly fucked with congenital maladies. Tetraploidy.

>>14603213
>Wrong
No you are wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
>Ontogeny (also ontogenesis) is the origination and development of an organism (both physical and psychological, e.g., moral development[1]), usually from the time of fertilization of the egg to adult.
>The word ontogeny comes from the Greek on meaning a being, individual; and existence, and from the suffix -geny from the Greek -geniea, meaning genesis, origin, and mode of production.[6]
The fetus is an individual organism
>Please post more mental gymnastics.
My wikipedia page agrees a fetus and zygote from conception is an individual organism see above.
>Because you claimed chimeras don't exist.
>Wrong again.
Show me one human case that has 92 chrosomomes

>>14602507
>The fetus is an alive growing organism that's separate and unique from the woman,
>, thus it is a person
conclusion does not follow from the premise

I really do not get why some people are so hung up on abortions. Is it misogyny? Trying to "own the libs"? Being contrarian? Brainwashed by conservative christians?
It is not "caring about human life" because most of these people are incredibly hateful to other humans.

>>14603217
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepo.2013.06.002

>>14603214
All you needed to read was this sentence: You can't involuntarily remove a zygote from the mother's body to make it viable, no more so than you can forcibly remove sperm and eggs to make them viable.

You misread this as a statement about what can physically be done when it's clearly a statement about what you can legally do. And instead of admitting that and moving on, you're trying to project your stupidity onto me.

>>14603220
Ok so there's this disorder with extra chromosomes but it has nothing to do with with the beginning of human life as individual organism

>>14603221
I don't have to project anything. You're doing all the work well enough on your own.
You can't expect people to read your mind and understand text that you didn't type out. Communication requires all parts for full understanding.

>>14603223
>Show me one human case that has 92 chrosomomes
This is what was requested, and lo. There it is.

>>14603217
>The fetus is an individual organism
Nothing your quoted changes the definition of organism. The fetus isn't an organism by definition.

>My wikipedia page agrees a fetus and zygote from conception is an individual organism see above.
No it doesn't. It says the fetus is a stage of development of an organism. But that doesn't mean it itself is an organism. By definition it's not. Move on.

>Show me one human case that has 92 chrosomomes
OK, Karen Keegan. Are you denying human chimeras exist? LOL.

>>14603224
>You can't expect people to read your mind and understand text that you didn't type out.
LOL, I can't expect you to rationally understand text and context? Not my problem. Here's a hint: when reading, don't assume that the author is as dumb as you and don't interpret everything in the dumbest, most literal sense.

>>14603237
>The fetus isn't an organism by definition.
Yes it is, if is not then what is it according to you
> It says the fetus is a stage of development of an organism. But that doesn't mean it itself is an organism.
Is an organism but is not an organism lmao, are you 5 years old? Is an individual organism, move on.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

Move on, is individual organism.

>>14603242
>pulls out the capslock
>I didn't type out anything having to do with legality or morality in my post, but I'm a pompous ass and expect everyone to read the context clues I didn't leave
Yeah, whatever. Waste your energy attempting to shit on my intelligence, I'm not wrong and I will die on this hill.

>>14603248
>Yes it is
Wrong. See >>14603205

>Is an organism but is not an organism lmao
Not what I said. Learn how to read.

>"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
None of this says the fetus is an organism. It isn't by definition. You're being a hypocrite by attempting to use Wikipedia to prove your claim and then running away when it directly disproves your claim.

>>14603251
>I didn't type out anything having to do with legality or morality in my post
I did, if you just use your brain and read my post, without assuming that I don't know you can legally forcefully remove sperm and eggs. Not everyone is an idiot like you.

>>14603256
>Wrong.
Wrong. If a fetus is not an organism then say what it is, go ahead lmao
>Not what I said
Is you don't know how to read, it says very clear it is a new individual organism is born after conception.
Ontogeny (also ontogenesis) is the origination and development of an organism (both physical and psychological, e.g., moral development[1]), usually from the time of fertilization of the egg to adult.
>None of this says the fetus is an organism.
That's right because that citation is talking about the zygote, the human zygote is also an individual organism and the beginning of human life.
>Wikipedia to prove your claim and then running away when it directly disproves your claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
It says human life begins at conception, I'm not running away from anything lmao

>>14603261
Copy and paste it into a word document. Do a search for either of those words, and see if they're there. Go on, I'll wait.

>>14603264
>Wrong.
Not an argument. See >>14603205

>>If a fetus is not an organism then say what it is
Part of an organism.

>Is you don't know how to read, it says very clear it is a new individual organism
Where?

>That's right
Thanks for admitting that your citation is irrelevant.

>It says human life begins at conception
Mmmm no, I just read it again and it doesn't say that either. You're grasping at straws that don't exist. It's just talking about developmental stages. The fetus is a developmental stage but it's not an organism itself because it doesn't function as an individual entity.

>>14603272
>Do a search for either of those words
>don't interpret everything in the dumbest, most literal sense.
Your really need to take my advice

>>14603280
>Not an argument.
Not an argument
>Part of an organism.
An individual human organism yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
The word ontogeny comes from the Greek on meaning a being, individual; and existence, and from the suffix -geny from the Greek -geniea, meaning genesis, origin, and mode of production.[6]
>Where?
See above
>Thanks for admitting that your citation is irrelevant.
Is not irrelevant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
Is all about the zygote and fetus lmao, human life begins at conception.
>Mmmm no,
Mmmm, yes.
>It's just talking about developmental stages
Yes because life is exactly that, developmental stages, dumbass.
>The fetus is a developmental stage but it's not an organism itself because it doesn't function as an individual entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
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]
According to your own wikipedia page, a fetus is an organism. You lost the argument.

>>14603284
Would probably rather not. As it stands, one of the people here is arguing that a zygote is not an organism that has a complete set of its very own DNA instructions that qualify it as a separate organism. I can't tell if that person is you, so I'm going to hold off on that.

sometimes it's just ok to kill a human

>>14603290
>Not an argument
There's no argument to respond to, so why would it be an argument? My argument is here >>14603205

>An individual human organism yes
The mother is an individual human organism, yes.

>Is all about the zygote and fetus lmao
All about them and doesn't say it's an organism. In fact, if you click on the word organism it shows you they're not organisms.

>human life begins at conception.
The article doesn't say this. Trying to shoehorn in your religious dogma is not going to work.

>Yes because life is exactly that, developmental stages
The zygote and fetus are developmental stages preceding the functioning individual entity. They're "alive" but not a life.

>According to your own wikipedia page, a fetus is an organism.
Wrong. See >>14603205

>>14603301
>As it stands, one of the people here is arguing that a zygote is not an organism that has a complete set of its very own DNA instructions that qualify it as a separate organism.
That seems to be correct, because it doesn't function as an individual entity.

>>14603309
>My argument is here >>14603205
Your argument is wrong, a fetus is an organism by definition see >>14603290
>The mother is an individual human organism, yes.
And the zygote/fetus is an individual human organism, yes.
>All about them and doesn't say it's an organism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information of a new individual organism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
An embryo is the early stage of development of a multicellular organism
Yes they are individual human organism
>The article doesn't say this
Yes it does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
usually from the time of fertilization of the egg to adult.
In humans, the process of fetal development starts after sperm fertilizes an egg and they fuse together, kickstarting embryonic development.
>The zygote and fetus are developmental stages preceding the functioning individual entity. They're "alive" but not a life.
They are alive and life which is the same thing.

>>14603313
What is an individual entity? A 1 month baby? Can he live individually on his own without the care of no one? A zygote is a human, as much as 1 month baby is a human.

>>14603323
>Your argument is wrong, a fetus is an organism by definition see >>14603290 #
That doesn't even give a definition of organism. The defintion is here >>14603205 and shows I'm right. You have no argument, you're just ignoring the definition.

>And the zygote/fetus is an individual human organism, yes.
Wrong. See >>14603205

>contains all of the genetic information of a new individual organism.
Right, the organism it may eventually develop into once it can function as an individual entity.

>An embryo is the early stage of development of a multicellular organism
Right, an early stage preceding the functioning individual entity.

>usually from the time of fertilization of the egg to adult.
>In humans, the process of fetal development starts after sperm fertilizes an egg and they fuse together, kickstarting embryonic development.
None of this says life begins at conception. Try again.

>They are alive and life which is the same thing.
Not the same at all. Your hand is alive but not a life.

>>14603326
>What is an individual entity?
A functioning individual entity is a viable fetus and beyond.

>A zygote is a human, as much as 1 month baby is a human.
No, a zygote isn't viable.

>>14603219
I'll say it before and I'll say it again it all just simply boils down to punishment for these people. If they actually cared about life then they'd be enacting policies that improves the lives of the average citizen and ensuring future generations that they can grow up happy and healthy, but they don't. It was never about morality or helping anyone for that matter. They just want to ban abortions because they want to punish other people for having and enjoying sex. They can't stand the idea that others are doing things they can't so if they can't have it, no one will. Of course they aren't exempt from it themselves either, even if they are against abortions they'll get punished for it all the same but so long as the other side suffers they'll be fine to wallow in their own misery too. They do not have a vision for the future, they don't cling to the past. They just simply hate you and will do anything to ensure your continued misery.

>>14603333
>you're just ignoring the definition.
No i'm not, is you who is ignoring it
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]
This is the definition, a fetus is an organism
>Right, the organism it may eventually develop into once it can function as an individual
>Right, an early stage preceding the functioning individual entity.
Is an individual entity/organism already, it says it right there in the text, can't you read.
>None of this says life begins at conception
Fertilization of the egg by sperm is the conception, are you braindead or just pretending. Is literally on the text.
>Your hand is alive but not a life.
A hand will never grow a human being, nonsequitur. Fetus and zygote are life.

>>14603342
>No i'm not, is you who is ignoring it
Ridiculous lie. I directly quoted it and proved my claim. You've ignored it.

>Is an individual entity/organism already
No, it's not viable.

>Fertilization of the egg by sperm is the conception
No one said otherwise. The article doesn't say life begins at conception.

>A hand will never grow a human being
Non sequitur. Alive =/= a life.

>>14603336
>a viable fetus and beyond.
Show me an example of a "viable fetus and beyond", a 1 month baby? Can he function individually without the care nobody?
>a zygote isn't viable.
There is no human life without the human zygote.

>>14603313
Much like a parasite, it functions by using the mother as a source of nutrients, oxygen, other necessities, and a housing pod to wait out the consecutive development period, but it is certainly a separate organism with its own DNA sequences.
I'm not debating about personhood, viability, the rights or wrongs about abortion. Outside of the viability outside of the uterus before term, those are separate issues more relagated towards ethics. I don't give a shit about ethics right now, have a thousand abortions. What I do care about is that you're holding tight to Wikipedia articles to prove points. Or one of you is. That's unforgivable and you've proven that you have a rudimentary understanding of human anatomy and physiology at best.
It doesn't matter what your opinions are about abortion procedures, or whatever fuels your decision to feel that way. It's an organism separate, yet dependant for survival. That's science.
Cope. Seethe. Chelate.

>>14603354
Is you who lying retard
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]
This is from your wikipedia page, any living structure that is capable of growth fits the description of what a fetus is, thus the fetus is an organism, you lost the argument
>No, it's not viable.
"viable" is a worthless nonscientific term, a zygote/fetus is an individual organism scientifically.
>The article doesn't say life begins at conception
Human life begins with the zygote that's what the it says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny
Ontogeny (also ontogenesis) is the Origination
>Non sequitur. Alive =/= a life.
Alive = life, my hand is life.

>>14603356
>There is no human life without the human zygote.
there is no human life without sperm or eggs

>>14603400
Yeah ofc the human zygote is the result of those two coming into contact

>>14603403
so a human sperm and a human egg makes a human zygote

>>14603356
>Show me an example of a "viable fetus and beyond"
You.

>a 1 month baby?
Of course.

>Can he function individually without the care nobody?
He can function as an individual entity. That says nothing about what care he needs.

>There is no human life without the human zygote.
Non sequitur. A zygote isn't viable.

>a zygote isn't viable
Dishonest hogwash. 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. Yet I'm also 100% you "pro-choice" faggots who say abortions are purely about women's autonomy and health would support slamming that ABORT button which shreds the embryo cell by cell. Just admit that you don't place any value on embryos or fetuses.

>>14603427
>He can function as an individual entity.
So can a human zygote/fetus
>That says nothing about what care he needs.
It needs the exact same care as a zygote/fetus because neither can actually live individually on its own, they are both human life.
>Non sequitur. A zygote isn't viable.
That's not a sequitur, is literally a fact, find my a human life that didn't start as a human zygote.

Can you American racemixed niggers shut the fuck up. You are all shitting up internet. Kill yourselfs

>>14603465
>browses American board
>sees content written by Americans
>surprisedpikachu.jpg
>lashes out in anger
Go browse some Brit boards. Maybe try /int/. Dumb fuck.

>>14599463
Parents know what's best for their children. And sometimes what's best, is not coming into this clown world.

>>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