/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4085570
related
<<<
(but who the fuck eats sperm with a god-damn spoon??)

>>4085577
>but who the fuck eats sperm with a god-damn spoon

pic related

>>4085577
Sure is EK not taking her pills in here.

>>4085587

>>4085570

>implying one sperm was ever considered human by anyone, or anything

>>4085596

I can't believe that EK actually has got a psychological disorder, I mean, I can definitely believe it. But I can't believe Harriet confirmed it.

>>4085600

That's not what OP is implying.

OP is implying, that if we call an embryo a human being, the line to what is human and what is not, is erased.

>>4085600
>sperm: not human
>egg: not human
>sperm + egg: human

religion-tard logic

>>4085614

>Doesnt understand human conception

>>4085614
more than 99% of the sperm cells released during sex with a fertile female, after which the women gets pregnant, don't reach the egg.

Getting an orgasm is murder.

>>4085623

It's mass murder.

>>4085601
she shouldnt have. stupid gossipy loudmouth.

>>4085623
>more than 99% of the sperm cells released during sex with a fertile female, after which the women gets pregnant, don't reach the egg.

#OccupyEgg

>>4085607
>>4085570
>>4085577
not even close. it's not erased

the human is created upon fertilisation, the process starts at this stage. a single sperm on it's own will never amount to a human. it's the fusion of both cells that does that.

the foetus is not just an extension of the mother, it is not unhuman.

the issue is a conflict of interests. You don't need to accept the foetus as nothing more than a clump of cells in order to assert the priorities of the mother over the child.

>>4085636

What's your point?

>>4085607

no, OP is implying that a sperm is a human, and that religion chooses to ignore this as a fact so they can fuck the altar boys when their parents aren't looking

i dont know where you got all these lines from

>>4085641
the 'ejaculation is murder' rebuttal is infantile.

also, the idea that the foetus has less rights than anyone else because it isn't fully human is a stupid argument. All creatures are to be considered 'in development' no matter what stage of life they're at.

It's a conflict of rights. That means both beings have rights. But there's only 1 one of them that can stand for itself. (the female). thats the person we have to consider. We don't even know what kind of rights would be appropriate for the foetus and just because religious and prolife groups stand up for it does not give those rights any authority over the mother.

>>4085665
>also, the idea that the foetus has less rights than anyone else because it isn't fully human is a stupid argument.

It's not a "stupid argument", it's the fucking reality. Find me one jurisdiction that sees embryos and foeti as persons before the law.

To me, a fetus is irrelevant, because it cannot even feel pain or emotions for the first several months. It is not a moral target, just like a rock is not a moral target. I only have empathy for the things capable of having emotions/pain.

Just my take on it. I'm sure it will offend lunatic Christians/Muslims, but what doesn't?

>>4085665

what you're saying is, that it is more important what a "thing" will become than what it is.

Which is completely wrong, you're not killing a person, you're maybe imagining what the fetus will become, but it hasn't and it won't be if you dispose of it. It won't feel any pain, and you don't rob the world a person, you just don't let the fetus become one.

Besides, the earth is hopelessly overpopulated, so who cares?

>>4085720
I'm not getting hung up on what it will become. I recognise that the human is process from conception to death. birth to death is problematic. drawing a line in the middle of pregnancy is problematic. starting the process at ejaculation is problematic.

Both mother and child are humans but the mother comes before the child. What's wrong with that?

Bring out the child in you!
Get an abortion!

>>4085740

Its wrong that you allow one human person to kill other human person which has no choice and is not a threat. The only way to allow abortion is recognise fetus is not a person, thus no conflict of interests, non-persons cannot have interests.

>>4085779
>one human person to kill other human person
We do that all the time
>which has no choice
This makes the decision easier in my opinion. while it's in utero the child has no preferences concerning being dead or alive.
>recognise fetus is not a person
I already stated any line you draw isarbitrarily and problematic. we don't know when pain feeling consciousness develops. with medical advances, the child is able to live outside the womb at an earlier stage, this will advance.