/sci/ - Science & Math

> Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
No
> Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Yes
> Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
No
> Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Yes
> Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
No
> Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Yes
> Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
No

In summary: No.

if a plant is alive then so is a fetus

A chicken is a living being, you should be asking if a fetus is a person.
Before 20-24 the structures in the brain required for consciousness either don't exist or don't begin communicating with each other.
Around that time is also when the brain begins to dream.

Given these facts, I believe the third trimester is the most logical cutoff point, but pragmatically, the second might be as far as most people would be willing to go.

>>14662479
I meant weeks but if you want, the numbers line up with years as well
GIGACHAD

>>14662476
A plant can survive on its own. A fetus can't.

What are the criteria for the definition of living being? Or human, or person, or whatever you want to define a person as.

>>14662494
Conscious experience and the ability to exhibit preference.

If we don't consider a person worthy of moral consideration after brain death, neither should we consider an undeveloped fetus.
If we do give moral consideration to people asleep or in a coma, because of the assumption that their consciousness will return, why not consideration to a not yet conscious fetus?

The answer is that we are respecting a preference of a conscious being to not be killed, as a fetus has not yet become conscious, there hasn't existed a being to exhibit a preference.

>>14662465
>Is the fetus a living being?
You have to be profoundly mentally ill to think the answer is anything but 'yes', or somehow up for debate.

>>14662485
>A plant can survive on its own
yeah who needs water right

>>14662523
You have to be profoundly mentally ill to think substanceless posts like this are convincing to anyone.

>>14662517
>Conscious experience and the ability to exhibit preference.
So a person who is not conscious, say due to an accident, and can not express preference, has no autonomy? Are people in comas not humans in the same sense that you or i are?

Imagine thinking all this pseudorational philosophizing is even relevant. Rational ethics is a fantasy. Humans are not rational beings, and their ethical beliefs are never rooted in rationality. If a woman believes in abortions, no matter how scientifically and logically solid her points are, all it tells me is that she's an emotional degenerate.

>>14662523
can you stop posting a character from a furry fetish comic while pretending to be an outraged christcuck?

>>14662524
Humans need water too, are we not alive?

>>14662533
I'm not an outraged christcuck. I don't believe in god. I don't even have particularly strong feelings about fetuses per se, but your degenerate social sickness needs to be culled by force because you are part of an ongoing dehumanization agenda.

>>14662531
Read the rest of the post retard.
We don't kill people in comas if we have an expectation that they will wake up.
We do if we don't have the expectation that they will wake up.
>because of the assumption that their consciousness will return

>>14662532
>no matter how scientifically and logically solid her points are
It sounds like you are the emotional one desu

>>14662561
But if we can assume a future state of existence, autonomy, or preference, can't it be assumed that a fetus will one day be a human?

We either see only the here and now, and then only the current conditions of the subject apply, or we can bring in inductive arguments like ''well people usually wake from comas'' or ''well usually fetuses get born healthy''.

>>14662566
You're clearly a poorly-trained GPT bot. Explain, in your own words, what that post was saying, and then explain how the response you vomited out is supposed to undermine it. lol. The absolute and utter state of this board.

>>14662567
Until the fetus is conscious, there is no preference to respect.
We can't respect the preferences of beings that have never existed, or else the logical conclusion would be that pulling out is murder.

>>14662517
>>14662614
Consciousness is not the basis of moral value

>>14662680
It is for me.
Are you vegan?

>>14662465
as someone who has extracted mouse embryos of many different stages during internships in developmental biology labs I can tell you that embryos well bast blastocyst stage (around 2 months for humans) are very well aware of their environment.

I used to cut up E13 (13 days post fertilisation) mouse embryos without anaesthesia (there is no regulation on unborn lab mice). They would start waving their arms and feet while i was opening their cranium to extract their brain. No joke this is standard procedure for extracting primary murine neural stem cells.

I also saw approx. E20 embryos having spine extracted. Their lungs were already developed so they were actually capable of screaming.

This made me believe that abortion past first 6 weeks should be punishable by death.

>>14662485
That criterion is a little silly, isn't it? A 1-month-old baby can't survive on its own either.

>>14662465
All it takes to convince goyim their own children aren't human is a couple graphs and dehumanizing terminology.

You guys would eat your own family if someone had the right combination of charts and sources to prove it'd solve world hunger

>>14662747
You can take a 1-month old baby away from its mother and have another person raise it.

>>14662475
Retard

>>14662718
Glad we're so morally bankrupt I can murder you in your sleep if it means you stop killing babies

>>14662763
That wasn't the argument though.

>>14662742
How well studied is the brain development of mouse fetuses? Are the stages directly equivalent to human development?

>>14662772
Also, any single one of the "no"s would be enough. It doesn't have its own metabolism. Even the tapeworms in your intestine do. Embryos are less than a parasite.

>>14662759
>>>/pol/

>>14662765
Why can't you engage with the actual argument? Do you have any justification for your position?
What do you value in a human person?

>>14662780
Maybe you deserve to be ruled by jews and murdered by niggers. You sit here faffing about on the legitimacy of your own offspring, ready to throw it in the trash all cuz some news articles said it was okay. How much conditioning do you think you needed before you adopted this suicidal antinatalist stance? Do you think a couple posts whining about rape was enough, or did it require 12+ years of mandatory govt indoctrination? I'm just trying to get a feel for quite how soulless you are.

>>14662780
Using the ability to survive to argue for one or the other is just silly.
>take an organism out of its normal environment and it dies (plant out of the ground, baby away from any adults, fetus out of the womb)
Ok, and?
Why would you make a comparison to parasites in the first place? If you want to justify the convenience of aborting babies you can just make various points about the social utility of abortion. You don't need to argue that fetuses are worthless parasites that should be culled.

>>14662773
no the stages arent equivalent. One can reliably hypothesise that the human embryo, at a similar developmental stage, will have a much more developed brain. At least in terms of brain stem and amygdala. Neocortex develops postpartum in humans, much later than in animals.

>>14662788
I don't need a justification or argument. You kill babies. I don't argue with the demonically possessed. I'm not like you I don't have opinions. I have beliefs and convictions. There is no combination of words and graphs that will make me eat my own offspring. There is for you, though. You have no bottom moral limit. Anything is on the table as long as you can be convinced it's efficient or "moral." You're a weather vane, nothing you say or point to is your own gumption, just something someone convinced you was "right" by some arbitrary metric that says it's okay to commit infanticide cuz you changed the definition if what a baby is

>>14662680
>Consciousness is not the basis of moral value
Sure it is. What is if it isn't?

>>14662786
>kills you in the womb cuz you have no intrinsic value your some shit

>>14662795
>Why would you make a comparison to parasites in the first place?
Because other organisms get their food from external sources and don't just suck on the metabolism of a host

>>14662821
I wish we could do this even after little shits like you left the womb.

>>14662803
You don't have convictions, you have feelings.
You aren't concerned with truth or understanding, only reinforcing what you already believe with no justification or reason.
A person that cannot think critically about their own presuppositions is little more than an animal.

>>14662765
I used to be anti-abortion, but seeing how incapable you are at refuting this straightforward post convinced me. From now on, I'm voting blue.

>>14662798
>One can reliably hypothesise
I reasonably hypothesise your mother is a retard

We can scan the brain of a fetus to narrow down when critical parts of the brain begin to function. This is around the beginning of the third trimester.

>>14662680
A human can be born with water for a brain but still react to stimuli and "feel" pain, is that a person worthy of moral consideration?

>>14662742
>>14662798

nobody focusing on this anon who solved the argument?

this thread is done.

>>14662857
no you cant. PET-MRI, the technique used here, has very low sensitivity. It can only measure an uptick in brain metabolism if the biomass of the brain is large enough. A smaller, functioning brain of a, lets say, a late first and second trimester fetus would be impossible to measure with PET-MRI. What you measure basically in thrid trimester is that the functioning brain has reached a biomass for PET-MRI to measure something.

>>14662857
second argument doesnt count, because it happens rarely. One doesnt have to optimize ones arguments against abortion for exceptions. If pro-life arguments can solve abortion of otherwise healthy babies those exceptions dont matter.

>>14662475
>No
Yes they maintain homeostasis, their hearts beat for starters. Circulatory systems are a fundamental part of maintaining homeostasis: they deliver nutrients and oxygen to maintain the system state. Before a heartbeat there may not technically be any systems-level macro mechanisms to maintain homeostasis of multiple cells, however the individual cells are absolutely maintaining homeostasis at an individual level. Arguing that doesn't count would be semantics
>No
Yes, they fucking absolutely utilize metabolism. They're fucking growing...
>No
Yes a fetus adapts. They will be born smaller if diet is restricted. If a fetus attempts to grow to full size irrespective of mother's diet there would be massive cell die off due to insufficient energy sources, or it possibly would even kill the mother bc baby would steal all her nutrients and effectively eat her to death, thus many many more fetuses would never make it to term.
>No
Obviously does not apply at this stage. A 5 year old child can't reproduce either.
>In summary: No.
This was a shit list and you still had quite a biased interpretation. Even if one criteria did get a "no" it is meaningless. Worker ants never reproduce by design but they are undeniably living organisms.

>>14662887
>One doesnt have to optimize ones arguments against abortion for exceptions.
You do in order to have a coherent world view.
If you can't pinpoint what it is exactly you value in a fetus, you don't really value anything. You're just going by what feels right without any reason.

Is the human with no brain but a living body a person?

>>14662999
Not him but
>coherent world view
In that case why are you focusing so much on labels? Why does it matter if a fetus is a "person" or not? If being a person matters so much, at what point exactly does a fetus get promoted from living being to a living person? At what point does a person in a coma lose the privilege of being a person?
>You're just going by what feels right without any reason.
That describes what you are doing right now. You are just focused on words and labels but not reasons. I'm not pro-life but I can tell you that you don't have any good arguments.

>>14662999
we disagree on fundamental things. I wont repeat myself but give you an example to better understand the validity of my argument.

Seatbelts, instead of protecting people, on rare occasions are actually the cause of death in an accident. You would say we should abolish the concept of a seatbelt. I say no, seatbelts are still fine because we cannot optimize for the exceptions.

I could give you many more examples. Do you understand now?

a lot of good things in the world that work are based on exception/minority exclusion

>>14662999
>You do in order to have a coherent world view.
>If you can't pinpoint what it is exactly you value in a fetus, you don't really value anything. You're just going by what feels right without any reason.
This one post sums up the rampant mental illness of pseudorationalism and modernity so succinctly it's perfect. Take your argument and apply it to anything you value, drone.

>>14662971
>Yes, they fucking absolutely utilize metabolism. They're fucking growing...
That's a different point, bible belter

>>14663016
>Why does it matter if a fetus is a "person" or not?
That is all that matters. Before consciousness, semen and a fetus have the same moral value.
Consciousness is the only thing that puts humans above all other life, without consciousness we may as well be robots.
>at what point exactly does a fetus get promoted from living being to a living person?
At the point we can detect the structures that are necessary for a conscious experience exist and are active.
We know this to be 20-24 weeks, depending on the fetus.
>At what point does a person in a coma lose the privilege of being a person?
When we can say with reasonable certainty they will never awake.

>You are just focused on words and labels but not reasons.
I'm explaining my reasons.
My base belief is that I value consciousness, therefore no consciousness = no value.
There is no ultimate particle you can point to in the world that tells you what you should value, but I think you should be cognizant and consistent with whatever it is you do value.
You should be able to point to something and say "this is the thing that gives X value to me", and be consistent with that, even if it's something you can never prove, like a "soul".

>>14663020
What is it you value in a fetus?

>>14663069
>Consciousness
Meaningless term. What's the difference between a being with consciousness and one without?

Who cares about the scientific definition of living. We dont care about living things in general. You probably eat cows and pigs and that are living. There is a different property you value.

>>14663080
^^^^^^

>>14663078
A conscious experience.
Self awareness and higher thought. We can't really see or prove this exists before ~2 years old, but we can see the that the necessary components do exist.

I can't prove that you are conscious, either, but because you have a functioning brain I'm going to assume you could be.

>>14662971
>Yes, they fucking absolutely utilize metabolism. They're fucking growing...
Bible belt "education."

Pragmatically I'd draw the line at "if the person looks pregnant, it's a baby, and if they don't, it's not"
Any facts about the fetus are basically statistics, a window in which people format their already existing beliefs. Like literally any minor development of the primordial flesh puppy has no purpose in the argument of whether or not that's technically a human, since the fetus already fails at most people's consistent definitions in the first place up to some gay, arbitrary point. Drawing the line at observable factors is therefore more reasonable to me.

>>14663102
That is the least reasonable argument
I may as well say that abortion up to 6 months is ok, because before that the fetus is ugly

>>14662465
MUH ABORTION THREAD.... but god don't you dare talking about stem cell research and how planned parenhood supports it with big cash

>>14662532
Yep, that faggot that said that humans were rational beings clearly lacked neurons.
To be honest i really feel like we are a bastardized hybrid of hominids from this planet with some alien race. For what purpose did they do it? Doesn't fucking matter at this point. They did it anyways. Most probably cheap labor or feeding off humans etc idc

>Bomb literally millions of civilians
>Political assassinations around the world
>Start violent regime changes
>Have death penalty
>Torture Muslims to death, but it's ok because it's in Cuba, right?
>Let people die because their credit card bounces in hospital or they can't afford their medication
>Literally tens of thousands of gun deaths every year
>Gunshot wounds are responsible for a third of all child deaths
But dear god, no, please don't let people abort a bunch of cells, life is sacred!

>>14663116
>But dear god, no, please don't let people abort a bunch of cells, life is sacred!
Your diseased worldview and ideology are getting erased as we speak. Sorry. Cope.

"""Life"""" isn't real smoothbrains, we just retroactively made up the concept to describe ourselves in our hubris.
Consciousness/awareness is the better argument and that is still muddy as fuck.

>>14663065
>That's a different point, bible belter
No, they metabolize. That's a "scientific fact" smoothbrain and it's a direct requirement on that list. Hence according to that list a fetus meets all criteria for living.
>>14663099
Growing requires energy, utilizing energy requires metabolism, you double smoothbrain.

>>14662465
um yes. i'm well-informed on the issue thanks to a bronze age sun god and the internet.

>>14663240
Then why does the list include both growing AND metabolism?

Why is anyone taking this poster >>14662475 seriously? You do know where this list is from, right? It's a very specific definition of life that you'd use for example to say that viruses aren't living organisms but bacteria are. You can't apply the criteria from the list to individual organisms, that's stupid. Human fetuses aren't a different species from humans.
If you are stupid enough to employ this definition in the discussion of abortion then infertile men and women are not alive either.

>>14662465
No, it's just a clump of cells.

>>14663356
>then infertile men and women are not alive either.
That is correct. What do they have to offer for society? It should not be considered murder to kill them.

>>14663286
Because the list is trying to exclude viruses as living beings. A virus can grow, ie it cycles from DNA into various more complex structures involving capsids, spike proteins, and even tails to anchor drilling mechanisms, but it does not metabolize.
Obviously, when I said "growth requires energy and energy requires metabolism" I was referring to cells because there is literally only one exception to that rule: viruses.

>>14663123
For every pregnancy you don't abort I'm going to abort three.

>>14663109
This. Let's look at things from both sides:
>unborn babies are nothing but left over tissue and organs.
A company is supported entirely by surgically removing and harvesting unborn children for profit.
>Unborn children are conscious human beings
There's a company out there that physically harvests human children from pregnant mothers.

>>14662742
>>14662759
>>14662876
>>14662887
>>14663020

guys, were done. It's settled. close your browser and go for a walk.

>>14662465
Living, yes.
Being, no.

>>14662475
Based biochad

>>14663123
>>14663033
>>14662532
>>14662523
>>14663169
>>14663130
>>14663205
>>14663216
>>14663238
>>14663348
Hello samefag. What other religious shitposting have you been doing on this board?

>>14663884
source?

>>14663900
See

>>14663307
>>14663371

The samefag idealist christcuck shitposter rabbithole goes deep. Every thread yields more wojak shitposts to find. This guy is deranged.

>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=2344&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=3544&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=35324&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post