/sci/ - Science & Math

no

>>4310468
This is in context to abortion

>>4310472
as if you had to clarify

Fertilization is the point at which the entire organism's genome is created. Everything after that is maturation. A zygote by definition is the earliest stage of maturation of an organism.

So, yes.

>>4310468
but the sperm itself is alive, and so is the egg

>>4310468

> meet

Do you mean combine to form a new separate dna human life form?

>>4310501

A gamete is not an organism, though. It is just a kind of cell. A zygote is its own organism that will mature into a person.

But the sperm and egg is already alive

>>4310524

are*

>>4310524

see: >>4310515

>>4310511
Yup

>>4310501

a woman is a murderer once a month

>>4310537
Then a man is one millions of times per night.

Can't remember exactly, but independent thought processes arise a few months in.

>>4310553
10/10

>>4310468

No, life began billions of years ago in some primordial goo.

This is why conservative and outdated thinking about "life" and "death" isn't applicable to modern day life.

This shit is arbitrary. The mere fact that there is a debate over this shit that overshadows all the important topics our corrupt government should be dealing with shows how stupid people really are.

There is no such thing as "life beginning". We're shitty little biological organisms that happen to develop over the course of 9 months and have enough brain capacity to actually spend some deeper thought about why that is.

If you're nitpicking and ask "Does "Life" begin when sperm meets the egg?" I say you are the most heinous and evil mass murderer in the entire history of human civilization because each time you masturbate you're committing genocide and killing 200,000,000 "potential" human beings.

That's all there is. Potential. You become an accepted member of society when you exit a vagina with a loud cry. End of discussion.

>>4310575

It's not arbitrary.

A gamete isn't an organism.
A zygote is by definition the earliest stage of human life. A zygote isn't "potential", it is already a human. It isn't arbitrary at all. It is the earliest instance when the entire DNA genome that IS that person exists and begins to mature.

Sperm and egg are not alive as they cannot reproduce.

>>4310468

Id say it does, but its not a person yet

Life begins when the penis enters the vagina. Even if the married woman doesn't get pregnant, thats still when life begins in God's eye. Only if the man is not pure of heart will God not allow the the sperm to enter the egg.

Every time a whore swollows cum in porn, is she eating millions of babies?

>>4310593
So your mom is not alive when she's older than 50 years since she can't reproduce anymore? And children can't reproduce before they've achieved puberty.

>>4310611

Gametes aren't babies.

Yes, but 'consciousness' does not.

Hence, you won't hurt anyone if you decide to kill it with abortion, you will even help many people by donating stem cells.

>>4310593
>>4310468

There is really no universaly accepted definition of "life", so its hard to say.

"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

>>4310613

A gamete will never be able to reproduce, and does not even carry enough DNA that could be extracted and made into an organism.

>>4310617

So is it cool to kill you if I knock you out first?

No, right? Because you'll be conscious eventually. Like a zygote.

>>4310524
But Spermatozoa, unused ones, die every day and it's the same with the ovules every month. a dying unfecunded sperm or egg is an everyday happenence. And one might call the sperm and egg being respectively part of the father and the mother, nothing more.

And Before fecundation, there is only "undefined potential". I mean, there is thousand of sperm, most of them different and the result of the fecundation is still unknown. We have a variety of different potential beings, each with different DNA, ready to come into existence, but before fecundation, we don't know which one.

After fecundation, what remain is "defined potential". We may not know what the being will become (or if he will ever get born), but a big part of what will define him as an individual is already set: its DNA.
And as soon as there is fecundation, it become an individual life-form, genetically independent of his father and mother.

>>4310621

The same is true for a virus. Yet, many consider it life.

Once again, there is no accepted definition, so you both may be right.

Life begins when slug meets with brain.

no, life was there before

>>4310632

No, it isn't. A virus can't reproduce by itself, but it can reproduce. A gamete cannot under any circumstances reproduce.

>>4310617
Could we say Consciousness appear as soon as memory start working and start "recording" event.

Wasn't there test to see at which point in its development the fetus could start recording musics, by making them listen to it again later when they are born and observe them react to it?

>>4310618
But we're not talking about life in a general sense. I think OP meant human life.

>>4310626
Difference is a zygote is not aware of its existence yet, you're just removing a bench of developing cells.

>>4310626

there is a difference between sleeping or unconscious human and a zygote

In the first case, it has mind inside, even if temporarily inactive

Zygote is just a bunch of cells.

thats probably what he meant

>>4310647

Babies aren't aware of their existence either. They don't even develop object permanence until they're 8-12 months old.

>>4310652

You're just a bunch of cells, too.

>>4310641

>A virus can't reproduce by itself, but it can reproduce. A gamete cannot under any circumstances reproduce.

Gamete can, if it meets the other compatible gamete. Virus needs to meet a compatible cell, too. Its the same thing.

>>4310656
But babies still record events that are building their personality early on.

As soon as memory start working, then a consciousness appear, even if it's only a proto one.

>>4310664

No, the gamete isn't reproducing. If I gamete forms a person with a compatibile gamete, the gametes that the person produces will not carry the same DNA as the original gamete.

>>4310673

That's the point. Babies don't have memories until they're almost a year old.

Before we go further, you should probably know I have a degree in cognitive science.

>>4310678
This does not mean it is ethical to kill a one year old baby, even if they do not yet have memories.

>>4310684

I agree. I don't think you should destroy any creature that is or will become conscious.

>>4310674

That holds true for many living things, including humans. Only clones have the same DNA.

>>4310674
you're aware that you don't have the same DNA as your dad, right

Okay guys, here is a more direct question.

Define a person

>>4310661

But an intricate and differentiated bunch of cells capable of sentience.

>>4310694
>>4310691

Yes, for things that reproduce sexually. Gametes don't reproduce sexually, they are the carriers of genetic information for organisms that do.

>>4310701

You have the same DNA now that you did when you were a zygote. The only difference is maturation.

the sperm and the egg are both lifeforms before the meet

>>4310601
F.U.

>>4310678
>Babies don't have memories until they're almost a year old.
False, for what I know.
Experiment have showed babies can recognize music and the voice of their mother as soon as they are born.

Memory start working even before the birth.

>>4310700

A human being between the emergence of consciousness and brain death.

>>4310713

There is a difference between reaction to stimuli and recognizing stimuli.

Here, just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

>this thread

>>4310718

Nope, to vague, you need attributes and characteristics in that definition bro

>>4310709

Yes, so?

Yes it is life. But if this is why you oppose abortion, you better be fucking careful not to eat anything, or put any organism on this planet at risk of being dead because of you.

>>4310713
Citation?
I for one, can not remember anything at all from my first year of life, perhaps even later.

>>4310712

Nope, the baby is destined to live, just like that silk isnt destined to become a dress or that seed is destined to become a tree.

Its called miscarriage

>>4310730

>human life being equal to animal life.
fail

>>4310736
miscarriage is accidental, abortion is a chosen decision.

>>4310743

>human life being valuable from conception

epic fail

>>4310743

>human life
>animal life

>implying there is any difference

>>4310748

It doesnt change however, the fact that no one or thing is destined to become anyone or thing.

You wouldnt you send a woman to jail for refusing to plant a seed, would you?

>>4310736
There have been 1 000 000 million (that's 1 billion!) abortions done worldwide. The majority of those were not a miscarriage, but planned abortion/murder (unwanted babies).

>>4310757

I would send her to jail for killing her baby.

>>4310753

egocentrism at its finest

>>4310757
False analogy, chopping down a tree is not a (serious) crime (or maybe not at all).

If somebody murders a person, we punish the murderer.
If somebody dies in an accident, it is a regrettable tragedy.

>>4310762

Really? So a baby deserves life but a seed doesnt?

>>4310761

Your missing the point, but bare in mind that miscarriages were, of course, far more prominent in the past.

>>4310768

Plants don't have cognitive systems. At the very least, they're the least likely to have complex cognitive systems, and since we need to destroy some life to live, we should choose the life with the least cognitive potential.

>>4310761
>1 000 000 million (that's 1 billion!)
That's awesome

>>4310756
If there is no difference, why don't you kill yourself if your life is no more valuable than an animal?

Of course you don't kill yourself, because you love your own life. But you are ready to kill others freely (abortion) without a second thought.

>>4310771

Missing the point, im pointing out the double standard in regard to human and plant life.

Can you give me a justifiable reason why cutting down a tree is fine but aborting a baby isnt? inb4 its illegal, i need something better than that

>implying this is a baby or a person

No victim, no crime.

>>4310784

see: >>4310776

>>4310776

So its fine to abort during a population crisis with your explanation then?

>>4310772
That abortion number is from 1960 till now, since the days abortion became legal.

So in only 50 years we have killed 1 000 000 humans world wide since 1960 when abortion became legal.

You wouldn't go to jail for killing a crow (who is smarter than a newborn). What's up with that?

>>4310791

No, that would be tantamount to genocide to bring down the population. We should prevent people being created, not destroy them after they've already been made.

TL'DR:
>Religion fags using pseudoscience claims to make /sci/ rage
>/sci/ falling for it hook, line, and sinker

>>4310784
As humans we value human life above all other life because it is our own species.

>>4310793

I know, it's fucked up. We, as a species, don't respect life.

>>4310782

>If there is no difference, why don't you kill yourself if your life is no more valuable than an animal?

non sequitor again, killing ones self doesnt follow from being equal to animals

>Of course you don't kill yourself, because you love your own life. But you are ready to kill others freely (abortion) without a second thought.

And were ready to kill trees and use animals for sustenance readily as well.

Why the double standard?

>>4310782

>Of course you don't kill yourself, because you love your own life.

You hit the nail on the head. And a foetus is not capable of of love, or any emotion, so we can kill it.

>>4310782
But does a foetus love its own life? Does it even give a shit about anything? IS IT CAPABLE OF EVEN GIVING A SHIT

(answer, of course, is no)

>>4310790
see:
>>4310791

No, life begins when the sperm crosses the road.

Bitch nigga.

>>4310814
see: >>4310796

>>4310802

While true, you could use the same logic that some one who loves himself gorges himself on food all day, regardless of health concerns.

Essentially, in order to take care of the human species, sacrifices to keep it healthy have to be made as well. i.e. abortion

>>4310823
see:
>>4310824

>>4310796

>We should prevent people being created

>implying thats not what abortion does

Oh, you!

>>4310805
If you don't want double standards, why don't you eat your own mother or any other family member?
They are equal to animals right? Why double standards when eating animals, but while you refuse to eat your own family?

You simply try to justify murder my dear sir.

>>4310719
Nevertheless, it's still show the memory is already working and recording events.

>>4310830

They're already created at the time of abortion. You can't kill something that doesn't exist.

>>4310824
Most if not all abortions arent done out of some global humanitarian interest. They are done by middle class white women with financial concerns

>>4310796

Retarded logic, then after the mistake is made, just let it be, whats done is done right?

>>4310834

No, it doesn't.

>>4310812
And you have the right to decide about someones life , because...?

>>4310735
No one does, but babies react to stimuli they had while they were in utero.

>>4310802

>As humans we value human life above all other life

we dont, unless it is sentient

>>4310845

Reaction to stimuli is not the same thing as having memories. Plants react to stimuli.

>>4310833
>If you don't want double standards, why don't you eat your own mother or any other family member?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease

I thought mad cow disease was widely known....

>>4310837

Cant say it dosnt still have a positive effect, can you?

>>4310841

>someone

A fetus isn't "someone".

>>4310835
and
>>4310810
When you are asleep , you don't have higher functioning, 'just like' an unborn child. Should I then kill you in your sleep, when you have no emotions?

>>4310870
Because humans are capable of greater levels of wellbeing than an animal.

The argument can basically boil down to this: Is the blob of cells sentient and able to be survive outside the mother with moderate help from a medical establishment;

>If yes to both then an abortion should be unequivocally illegal.
>If only one yes, then abortion should be looked at as a last resort option or the situation should be analyzed on a case by case basis.
>If no to both, then an abortion should be unequivocally legal.

>>4310841

yet we can decide whether an animal lives or dies because?

inb4 value, the technical aspects of how an animal or vegetations body works, thinks, acts, etc only gives it arbitrary value base upon how useful it is to humans. give me an inherent reason why i should value a human over any other life form

>>4310849
I am talking about an experiment, where, just after birth, a baby is called by several and its mother, but only react to its mother's voice.

that's something that is beyond plant reacting to stimuli.

>>4310849
I am talking about an experiment, where, just after birth, a baby is called by several nurses as well as its mother, but only react to its mother's voice.

that's something that is beyond plant reacting to stimuli.

>>4310855
Answer the question instead of linking to wiki.
If humans are equal to animals, why not buying human meat in the supermarket? Why the double standard that we should only eat animal meat?

>>4310881

Link?

>>4310875

Still an arbitrary measure. By your argument, i can say that black people ina frica arent worth as much as people in america because of low well being.

>>4310861

But those emotions are still in my head, encoded in cerebral neural network. Foetus has no emotions.

>>4310883
Because of the obvious disease transmission potential.

>>4310883

Except I did bro, the answer is that it would lead to the human version of mad cow diseas, which would be detrimental to your precious human population.

Also, linking to wiki doesnt make the answer any less valid, ad hominem bro

>>4310885
You misunderstand. I said capable, not actual.

Furthermore, well being is hardly arbitrary. Everyone on earth, including you values their own well being. Its as arbitrary as valuing health.

>>4310861
I can't believe people can make such arguments and not realize how far-fetched they are.

>>4310824
The human species does not need any help to keep it 'healthy' (if that word even means anything in the context of an entire species)

Abortion is not a good thing, it is far better to make good use of contraception, and to only have children when you know you want them and are capable of taking good care of them.

>>4310884
I am looking for it, but I don't remeber the title. All I remember is the baby's name was Nicolas.

>>4310888
There is no desease potential if you cook your mother very well, only when it's not done you can get sick.
In short it is just like any other meat, prepare it well and you'll be fine.
Now why don't you eat your mother, still waiting for the answer...

You don't have double standards now do you?

>>4310845
Bacteria and viruses can respond to stimuli, this does not make them conscious.

>>4310896
>>4310884
I think it was "Le bébé est une personne", it's kind of an old documentary (1989), a bit outdated, now, but the experiment is is still relevant.

>>4310892

No, i fully understand, what you're not getting is that not all humans are capable of well being equally. Now assuming well being doesnt just mean health, lets take happiness. Aguy has no arms, but hed love to be a computer scientist. Considering that in order to write code for programs you need hands, can you honestly say that this person has the same well being as a person with hands?

And no, still arbitrary, its each species own struggle to survive, and has nothing to do with me personally. In that sense, its arbitrary

>>4310895
That's why places where 'contraception only' is taught over proper sexual education has the highest rate of unwanted pregnancies in every situation. Your idea looks good on paper, but doesn't hold for shit in reality.

>>4310881
First of all, no one knows if you're talking about an experiment, you can just be bullshitting. However, that might be a bit more complex than what plants are capable of, but it's still a reflex. It's called imprinting.

>>4310900
Only preprogrammed stimuli in their genome, not specific stimuli learned after the conception.

>>4310905
I think you are confusing that with abstinence only programs.

>>4310899

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning

doesnt matter how much you cook a fish, if it has mercury, you're fucked

Also, eating some one of the same species, like i mentioned time and time again, can cause the human version of mad cow disease. Listen bro

>>4310906
And imprinting doesn't rely on the memory, on the nervous system's ability to record informations?

>>4310914
Yes misread that. Post deleted for derping.

>>4310919

We can't evaluate a hypothetical study. Link it.

>>4310895

>The human species does not need any help to keep it 'healthy
....What?

So a cancer patient can survive just fine with out that chemo right? Tubercolosis? Dont worry, a sprite will clear that up, right?

>Abortion is not a good thing, it is far better to make good use of contraception,

Come back when sex ed is mandatory then well talk

>>4310895
The biggest problem with that argument is that large swaths of the worlds religions explicitly forbid the use of contraceptives. That only works if everyone has equal(ish) opportunity for it.

/sci/ can't biology

>>4310916
mercury is not a disease, but a heavy (poisonous) metal, and has nothing to do with human or animal equality. Yes it exists in fish, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Again, if your mothers meat is well done and nicely prepared, then no microbes get the chance to make you ill/diseased/sick etc, Human meat is just as safe as animal meat when prepared as recommended.

I think you have double standards when your mother is concerned.

>>4310593
Mules are not alive by this definition.

>>4310930
>but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

You mentioned that if you cook or prepare something well enough its fine to eat.

Mercury in fish contradicts that.

>Human meat is just as safe as animal meat when prepared as recommended.

No amount of cooking will spare you from mad cow disease bro, its not a question of how you prepare the meat but the properties of the meat itself

>>4310926

They also explicitly forbid abortion.

>>4310761

You're very special.

>>4310940
1 Billion is <span class="math"> 10^12 [/spoiler] in long scale.

>>4310939
True, but many cases exist where abortions will occur(either properly(doctor) or improperly(falcon punch)) after the fact because the seriousness of an unwanted pregnancy far outweighs most peoples religious tolerance level, while anti-contraceptive policies do not.

Babies don't really become people until they're like half year old.

>>4310937

You are avoiding the question because you don't want to acknowledge that you have double standards.

Let's be statistical:

Before eating her meat, let's test her in a hospital to see if she is contaminated with mad cow disease or mercury or anything else. If all the tests were negative (no diseases etc) would you eat your mother?

>>4310945

Which is more people than have ever existed, cumulative.

In order for that number to be right, every currently living woman would have had to have had 500 abortions between the fertile ages of ~15 and ~45. That's 16.67 per year.

As such, I stand by my previous image.

Sure is Saudi Arabia in here.
We should stone the abortionist!

>>4310962

Hey! Hey! That's unamerican! Don't compare us to those dirty Arabs!

Where I come from, we shoot abortion doctors! And don't you firget it!

>>4310959
Even if it was a fraction of that, it is still a very high number of abortions (murders).

>Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been approximately 50 million abortions performed in the United States.

http://prolifeaction.org/faq/abortion.php#total

>>4310957

Look, dumbass, if you eat human meat, youll get the human version of mad cow disease. It doesnt matter if the meat is clean or not. The simple fact that its human meat will get you sick. This true of all complex species that eat meat of the same species(less complex species like bugs, for what ever reason are exempt, either due to incomplexity or the fact that they dont live long enough for it to effect them anyways).

Also, keep saying I have double standards, saying it a hundred times doesnt make it true bro

>>4310972
That's 8 holocoasts and counting.

>>4310974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

This is what you get if you eat human meat. It aint pretty

>>4310962

mudslimes accept abortion much more than christfags

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

>>4310974
If the hospital doctors prove through blood test she has no disease etc. would you eat her?

Sperm are already alive. So are ova. There is only one logical conclusion.

>>4310997

Nope, because once again human meat is hazardous no matter to me, the simple fact that its human meat only means ill get a prion infection and die miserably.

So...you troll often around here bro?

Both the sperm and the egg are already live cells.
They just survive for further reproduction during fertilization.

>>4310965
The old dirty we are is dirty RICH!

We hate gays more than america, america loves to have gays kissing in public.

Thanks for buying are oil, we have far too much of it.

>>4310983

Godwined, your side loses.

>>4310972

Here's a fun one, about 20 million abortions each year are performed in an unsafe manner, due to desperate women not having access to proper facilities. In the process, about 68,000 women die. These deaths are a direct result of the non-safe manner in which these abortions are performed.

In a nutshell, You cannot stop people from having abortions. It's a practice as old as the written word at the very least. What you can do is allow them to do it in a safe manner which will allow the mother to survive.

>>4311003
If the doctors prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that she has no disease or infection of any kind of illness, then it is impossible to get any disease from the meat of your mother.

What you say goes against scientific reasoning, If the meat has been tested to be perfectly free from any disease, then how can you get disease from it?

You don't accept the doctor's scientific test.
If the test prove she has no prion or any disease, you still don't eat your mother.
This proves to me that you have other reasons for not eating your mother (double moral standards).

thank you for proving my point.

>>4311017
These women deserve to die painfully.

Semen and ova is alive, every time you masturbate or live you commit genocide, it's just another fact of life.

>>4311017
>Implying here are no cases where a mother is indecisive about whether to abort, but will do so if a safe method is available.

>>4311017
blame the abortion, not the unborn baby.

Abortion is going to happen whether you like it or not. It isn't pleasant, but it is neccesary.
Rather than worry about abortion, look instead to what causes it, unplanned unprotected sex. How do you deal with this? Sex education, increases awareness about contraception and easy access to it.

>>4311028

....

The meat ITSELF will give you the disease. EVen if its clean as day, the actual matter that makes up the meat itself gets you sick.

But obviously you're too entwined in your own opinions and delusions to see that(or just a damn good troll)

What ever bro, got a class to go to, have fun eating human meat and dying of brain spongification. Ill see you on the other side

>>4311039
Could you show me where he blamed unborn babies in his post?

>>4311045
If it is just meat and it is not infected then it will be properly digested and will not make you ill.

>>4310962
why wouldn't you? they're vile, nasty, disgusting butchers, literally pulling apart babies in the womb

>>4311050
butthatswrongyouretard.gif

No, life began with the sperm being developed. and the egg is alive too which is how fertilization happens.

>>4311017
so, you care about the 68,000 women dying, but not about the 10,000,000 women being aborted

>>4311041
sex education is the greatest joke of the schooling system. I wouldn't wonder if these kinds of 'education' are the cause of irresponsible and free sex.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/05/health

>>4311057
'Babies' is the wrong word to use for a small clump of cells that is invisible to the naked eye.

>>4311060
Source on that? Human meat being poisonous to humans even if the human being consumed was devoid of any disease or infection and had a clean diet?

>>4311067
not every abortion is about a "clump of cells"

a dnx will take a babby up to and including passing through the birth canal

they rip off the babbies' arms, and legs, and squish the babbies' heads until a milky white fluid flows out the "mother's" vagina

they're heinous people that can do that for a few hundred bucks

>>4311060
What is meat?
Animals tissue/muscle
And what is it made of?
Protein.

Disease is caused by micro-organisms such as viruses or bacteria. If all you are digesting is protein, then you will not get ill, you will only get ill from eating meat that is infected by micro-organisms or their toxic waste products.

>>4311069
already posted ITT, but I'll repost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

The protein itself in the meat is what kills you.

>>4311045
doctor's prove and scientific tests tells you nothing?
if your mother has no contamination at all = she is safe meat.

You are a master at avoiding the question of double moral standards.

>>4311076
They do not do it for profit, it is a service that some women require.
Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. The blastocyst is still very small at this stage and certainly can not be called a 'person'
After this time, the abortion is illegal and should not be performed.

>>4311078
>A prion is an infectious agent composed of protein in a misfolded form.
So, if you're not infected with prions I can eat your flesh without getting sick...

If the only reason you don't eat people is because it could poison you, you are a sick fuck beyond the capability to be reasoned with ethically.

>>4311085

Any instance of human life is a person, however inconvenient that may be to people that would rather kill their children than have to deal with pregnancy for 9 months and then put it up for adoption.

>>4311085
google image a fetus at 24 weeks. they have faces, fingers, toes, heartbeat, the works

and abortionists make billions of dollars on tens of millions of abortions every year

and they know exactly what they are doing

>>4311078
Sorry, I missed that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

>>4311097
even for people that can do that without a second thought at the time of their "inconvenience", they suffer trauma the rest of their lives

>>4311085
a 24 week fetus reached out of the womb and grasped the surgeon's finger who was operating on him while still in the womb; it's one of the most iconic magazine covers ever

at 24 weeks

you are either in massive denial, suffer tremendous guilt, or failed every biology course you ever took

>>4311103
>caused by a prion found in humans.

If through scientific testing the prion was not found in your mother, would you eat her meat?
don't avoid this moral question.

no prion in your mother's meat = no disease for you if you eat her.

>>4311115
again, you cannot have ethics without morals; if the only reason you do not consume your mother's flesh is fear of disease, you cannot make either an ethical or moral argument about your position

>>4311115
Erm.. no, because I'm not a sick fuck

>>4311097
It is not as simple as that, gestation is a continuous process, there is no single point you can define it to be human, when a second before that it was not.
The instant an egg is fertilised it is just the mixed components of a single sperm and a single egg, neither of which are human.

>>4311115
I wouldn't eat any human because I consider humans to be a higher form of life than animals. Not that all life shouldn't be treated with the utmost respect. But a buffalo or whale will never ever put a man on the moon. We're different. We have the capability to change the entire globe and any environment for the better which no other animal can boast.

>>4311113
That is false.
A foetus does not reach outside the womb until it is born.
I challenge you to post that magazine cover, and it must be a factual photograph, not an artists impression.

>>4311120

Yes you can.

Formation of the complete genome of an organism is when that organism exists. After fertilization, when the DNA is produced, the organism will mature.

>>4311115
You're asking me? Or the other poster?

>>4311120
it is precisely because gestation is a continuous event that to call any point other than conception "the start of life" is to be completely arbitrary

>>4311118
>>4311123

see:

>>4310833

>>4311128
But it is not conscious and it can not feel pain.
It will have no knowledge of loss if it is aborted at this stage.

>>4311113
>>4311126

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

>>4311126
they were performing surgery on it; the tiny hand reached out of the placental sac and grabbed the surgeon's finger.

are you really too afraid to google image "24 week old fetus grabs surgeon's finger"?

>>4311123

>any environment for the better

Better to what end?

>>4311137

If I kill you while you're unconscious you won't know its happening, either.

>>4311113

... What.

>>4311115

A prion is a reverse folded version of a normal protein. In order to be 100% certain that it does not exist in a sample, you need to literally test every single protein in that sample. That kind of accuracy is not currently possible.

Regardless, there are many other contributing factors which would make killing and consuming a living, sentient, self-aware, non-suffering human being much more morally blameworthy than ending a pregnancy before a certain period. At the early stages, a blastocyst is a clump of cells no more sentient or living than a tumor. Once the brain has developed to the point where an EEG can pick up actual brain signals, around the end of the 6th month of gestation, at that point I would agree that the child should be carried to term, assuming doing so would not threaten the life of the mother.

As we can be best defined as brains in a large and complex support system, I'd say it is the development of the brain that must be watched to determine the point a fetus passes into "sentience".

>>4311140

That didn't happen, because the baby was under anesthesia at the time.

Because they didn't want it to suffer or go into shock.

>>4311137
exactly what evidence are you relying on for this proposition?

>>4311144
Assuming you're attempting to treat all life with the utmost respect in the process, better for everything and everyone. An environment that has the least amount of suffering that maximizes health and happiness.

>>4311153
it did happen; the snopes article posted above has a very weak rebuttal from the photographer and a different doctor

it is obvious this would be against the interest of the abortion industry, if 24 week old fetusus had fingers, blinked, grasped, etc.

planned parenthood tells all these ignorant women that they are just "scraping out some cells"

odd how much post traumatic stress syndrome results from just "scraping out some cells"

>>4311139
>>4311140
"Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did." - quote from the actual surgeon operating.

>>4311152
>In order to be 100% certain that it does not exist in a sample, you need to literally test every single protein in that sample.

But isn't this the case with most diseases? 100% is impossible. But even if it was 99.999%, the chances of you getting sick after eating your mother is improbable and very safe to eat.
You are good at avoiding the double moral standards.

>>4311146
It has never been conscious.

>>4311159

Yes perhaps we have the CAPABILITY to do that. But we don't and haven't done that.

>>4311172
either way, do you see how developed a 24 week old fetus is, or do you still contend that it is merely a blastocyte?

>>4311128

So, when I tell you that only between 30 and 50% of natural "conceptions" that is, combinations of egg and sperm naturally progress to the stage of what we call "pregnancy", and the remaining 50-70% do not and are naturally aborted due to being defective in some manner, how would you counter that?

In fact, if you are discussing the actual "conceiving" event of a united egg and sperm, it is the MINORITY of these which can survive to the point of being a person, as a simple fact.

Your logic fails.

24 weeks is 6 months... I think that's a little old to get an abortion. Unless the mother's life is at risk.

>>4311172
and, you must have seen this:

As a doctor asked me what speed of film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow!
It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, "What happened?"

"The child reached out," I said.

"Oh. They do that all the time," she responded.
”
— Michael Clancy

>>4311135
No double standards here. I think humans are greater than animals. I think that if you're gonna eat animals, you should seriously consider how that animal lived and died so you could eat it. I'm a big fan of being mostly vegan, and going hunting for your meat in the woods.

>>4311185
and correction, the little hand that poked out of its womb was 21 weeks old, not 24 weeks old.

>>4311179
And its a dayum shame, and something that irks me to no end about the human race. We could do it, but we don't.

>>4311172
oooh, looks like you quoted a lie:

Nearly 10 years after a stunning photograph of his tiny hand traveled the world, Samuel Armas has a firm grip on what "The Hand of Hope" means to him.


"When I see that picture, the first thing I think of is how special and lucky I am to have God use me that way," Samuel told FOXNews.com. "I feel very thankful that I was in that picture."

>>4311158
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
>Weeks 6 - 7 of pregnancy (gestational age)
>The brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
There are no nerves before this stage, and no possibility of feeling pain.

>>4311195
er, here's the lie part:

"I could see the uterus shake violently and then this little fist came out of the surgical opening," Clancy recalls. "It came out under its own power. When Dr. Bruner lifted the little hand, I fired my camera and the tighter Samuel squeezed, the harder Dr. Bruner shook his hand."


Bruner, who could not be reached for comment, has told reporters that Samuel and his mother were under anesthesia and could not move. In a Jan. 9, 2000, article in The Tennessean, he said he pulled Samuel's hand out of the uterus, further complicating the debate surrounding the photograph.

>>4311196
let me kill you quickly in your sleep, you don't feel pain when asleep.

>>4311196
is pain your only condition for euthenasia?

it's okay to kill someone if they can't feel it?

you sure?

>2012
>still morally against killing

>>4311178

Why does that make it okay to kill it?

I'm just applying the golden rule. We can both agree that human life begins at the point of conception. I wouldn't have wanted to be killed in the womb, so I'm not about to do it to someone else. What is your justification?

>>4311202
That's not a good analogy. It would be better if compared to killing someone who's braindead and kept alive with machines.

>>4311211
no moral value is his justification.

>>4311174
24 weeks is the absolute limit for a legal abortion in the UK.
An abortion should occur as soon as possible if you do not want the child.

>>4311217

What do you think has more utility, the entire potential life of an organism, or the moderate inconvenience of being pregnant for 9 months?

>>4311202
True, but I am conscious, and I like living. I have friends and family and memories and goals, aspirations and achievements
Me dying means something, a foetus dying who has never known anything is less of a loss.

>>4311204
I did not say that.
It is not okay to kill 'someone', as in, an actual person who has lived and had life experience.
But I believe early abortion is still ethical.

>>4311230

Less of a loss than your life, sure, but is the fetus's entire potential life worth less than nine months of moderate inconvenience brought on by the woman herself?

>>4311220
do you see how well developed a 24 week babby is?

do you understand that a 24 week babby could be viable outside the womb?

what makes you think british law is the ultimate moral compass?

>>4311230
what do you base that on?

>>4311228
Human life is more precious than our eugenics/abortion agenda.

>>4311241
Brits > *

you know it's true

>>4311211
>I wouldn't have wanted to be killed in the womb, so I'm not about to do it to someone else.
You only say that in hindsight of having a long and complex life where you are fully aware of such issues. A foetus has not.

If your would-be mother is unfit to take care of you, perhaps painless non existence is preferable.

>>4311237
killing babbies is ethical?

>>4311249

Do you think it's okay to steal from someone who would never find out?

And if your mother is unfit, you can be given up for adoption.

>>4311230

>Me dying means something, a foetus dying who has never known anything is less of a loss.

You are couple of steps away from an evil political ideology.

>>4311249
so nobody "valuable" in your eyes had an unfit mother?

>>4311240
It is not the inconvenience of pregnancy that causes women to want abortions, they are just not ready to raise a child.
The potential for life is not a relevant factor here. All sperm and all eggs have potential for life, if only they would be paired up.
This does not mean we have an obligation to harvest all of them and make sure that they all go on to be a human child, rather than die.

>>4311257
a "more evil" ideology

killing the innocent for convenience's sake is about as low as you can get

imagine Einstein being aborted, or Newton, or etc.

>>4311261
who is stating that every sperm produced by man has to be mated up to every egg dropped by women?

and since when is "not ready for it" not equal to "inconvenient"?

>>4311241
Like I said, it is a continuous process and there is no single point where you can draw the line.
If I personally wanted an abortion I would have one as soon as I discovered I was pregnant. There is no point in waiting.

life begins when the brain becomes self aware

>>4311263
Imagine Hitler being aborted or Stalin or Bin Laden...

>>4311261

It's not a potential life, the life already exists. It's potential life experiences.

If you got in to a prestigious school, and someone tore up your acceptance letter and you never knew, you would be pissed at that person for depriving you of an experience. You're depriving an already existant person of ALL their experiences, just so some chick doesn't have to be pregnant for nine months.

>>4311263
how can you honestly hold that argument. were not here to debate "what ifs". this is about life starting. you shouldn't value any life over any other

>>4311228

Depends on the organism, imagine the positive utility which would have been accomplished had the mothers of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot decided to terminate their pregnancies ahead of time.

You cannot predict the utility of a thing in which you have no priors. And when you can, as many of the children would be born normally into middle to low-income families who neither want nor afford them, causing them negative utility.

You are making several assumptions in your statement, that there is no connection that remains when a child has been given up for adoption (emotional or legal) and that the mother in fact chooses to give up the child at all, that pregnancy is not inherently dangerous and has no risk, etc.

You are attempting to construct an argument without all the factors to bias your side.

>>4311270
They were immoral and unethical people, just as abortion is immoral and unethical.

>>4311267
there is a point in time where two haploid cells become one diploid cell, and that diploid cell begins the process to become a human being

a sperm cannot do that

an egg cannot do that

only a successfully fertilized egg via sperm, embedded properly, can do that. and once that is accomplished, it is entirely random to point to any other state of being as the "beginning of life"

and i do not see how aborting a 6 week old babby is any more ethical or moral than aborting a 24 week baby; the only difference, again, would be the convenience of the mother

10/10
Now go back to /b/

>>4311245
You are aware that a young foetus has no nerve cells, can not feel pain, has no memories, and is unaware it is even alive.

>>4311250
No.

>>4311254
Carelessly creating more babies for no reason just to put them up for adoption is not a good idea. There are far more children that require adoption than there are people who are willing to adopt. These children feel unwanted and unloved, they are miserable, it is no way to live.

>>4311277
I honestly don't believe that the baby is its own individual until it is out of the womb. Anything before that is fair game. It is unethical but it is still a decision for the mother to make.

>>4311280

Would you rather have a shitty life or no life at all? Why not leave that up to the baby to decide. It's his life. And you're not creating a baby, he already exists. You're just depriving him of his life. Just because it is without his knowledge does make make it more moral.

>>4311257
Evil is subjective.

>>4311258
I did not use the word "valuable" in my post.

>>4311265
He was playing the card 'potential for life' for a blastocyst, which can be extrapolated to include sperm and ova.

>>4311280
well, it appears to me that you have an emotional block to this discussion, and that emotional block would obviously be related to the subject at hand

i feel sorry for every woman that has killed their babby, and every man who paid for it or caused it to happen. babbies are a blessing, and should be treated as such.

>>4311268
>Depends on the organism, imagine the positive utility which would have been accomplished had the mothers of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot decided to terminate their pregnancies ahead of time.

Doing evil (abortion) in order to prevent evil (Hitler, Stalin etc.)

You want to prevent immorality and unethical behaviour (Hitler etc.) by commiting immorality and unethical behaviour (abortion).

Is it just me or doesn't this make any sense?
(The lesser of 2 evils is by any definition still evil).

>>4311285
that's because you do not see that there are two human beings involved; one who can hire a butcher to kill the other, and one who is helpless in her womb

>>4311290
babies are the continuation of a species. Babies are a way for the human race to remain on this earth. No one baby is more special than another and no one baby is more special than a human. Babies are babies. Simple as that.

>>4311288

Well, as we've also decided that suicide is immoral, you aren't really giving much of a choice after the fact either.

>>4311272
You only suffer if you find out what you lost.
A foetus that was never conscious and is aborted, does not suffer ever.

>>4311277
And I do not see how destroying a single sperm, and then destroying a single egg, is any different from destroying a single newly formed zygote. The constituents are exactly the same, none of which are conscious, none of which can feel pain, none of which are self aware.

>>4311289
evil is real
you have made several judgments about the quality of a fetus' life whereby you have determined it is not valuable; and
an educated person is aware of the tremendous number of sperm as opposed to the very few numbers of ovum; no educated person could argue that each sperm must fertilize each egg. that was your strawman.

as was the other strawmen about women killing babbies during normal periods, and blowjobs, etc.

>>4311296
>Doing evil (abortion) in order to prevent evil (Hitler, Stalin etc.)
That was just to point out how stupid your argument about Einstein or Newton being aborted.
Some of those fetuses might have grown to be great human beings.
Some might have grown to be horrible human beings.
Some would have died at an early age.
Most of them would've had mediocre existences like most human beings.

Do you have to mourn all the potential wasted every time a life ends? It's the way of life: some live some die. The world wouldn't magically turn out to be a better place if all could live until an old age.

>>4311312
again, that is only your opinion, and is based on nothing more than what appears to be your own guilty conscience. you have no way of quantifying what pain a fetus does or does not experience, and if all humans are eternal, as billions of people believe, that fetus is aware of its existence far past its death

>>4311300
Right there. That right there proves that the argument is fruitless. There is no clear winner and no winner will ever be determined. Why can't we all just do what we want. If people want to abort, let them. If people want to keep their babies, let them. There is no need for religion or laws to get involved. We as the human race have to learnt that the development of brains makes us all individual and you can not change that.

You may argue that the least subjective definition of when a life begins is when the two sex cells merge, forming a unique, growing organism.

I just wouldn't call that a baby. I have no stake in preserving a mass of dividing cells or in calling that a child. Would you mourn for that "person" if it were spontaneously, naturally aborted within a few weeks?

There's lots of room for grey area when discussing the morality or immorality of abortion. It may not be entirely objective, but what form of morality is? My feeling of disapprobation for ending a life simply does not extend to a life that was conceived a few weeks ago, and I don't really see how one can weep for such a thing anyway.

>>4310688

Except tripfags of course.

>>4311277
You are still just playing the 'potential for life' card. This can still be applied to sperm and ova.
There is no single point to draw the line. Conception is not where the line is drawn, it is still not conscious, it can still not feel pain, have memories, etc.

>>4311315
look at the statistics
about 70-75% of all abortion mills in the US are in black neighborhoods
the woman who founded Planned Parenthood did so with the stated objection of "wiping the black slime from the face of the earth"
a predominant majority of all babbies killed by butchers are black babbies

the intent is clear, and evil

>>4311315
>Some might have grown to be horrible human beings.
Without any moral compass, nobody can distinguish right from wrong.

Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot followed their own moral compass instead of a universally accepted one (don't do unto others etc...).

If evil is subjective, then we allow for Hitler and Stalin to come to power. Abortion is not subjective, it is murder.

>>4311327
i think some people would, some would not, and some would not be aware of the event

but to say that women do not sorrow over miscarriages is to admit an ignorance of the world around you

>this thread

Yes. Does that mean it should have the same rights as a fully developed baby? No.

>>4311333
I don't see anything wrong with that, after all they still reproduce at a much faster rate than whites do.
Personally, I'd call it self defence.

Lol at conservatards who think they have the moral high ground.

>>4311288
>Would you rather have a shitty life or no life at all?
It depends how 'shitty', but in extreme circumstances I would choose no life at all.
Better to not exist than be in constant pain, this is why some terminal patients desire euthanasia.

>>4311333
let's get into the argument. Whats more evil. A fetus being killed before ever being born. Or a baby starving to death. Or a kid being shot in the ghetto. Or a druggie mom failing their kids and not giving them a chance so they live their whole lives in poverty.
So ask yourself. Whats worse, not being born into a cruel world, or dying in that cruel world?

>>4311330
not at all; if you like, you can refer to it as the "potential for even more life" card

your argument seems to me to be that unless we can tell for sure up front that the putative babby will enjoy an awesome life, we should not condemn the woman for killing it. also, this begs the question of one person owning another as personal property....


any mother carrying a babby in her womb feels when it kicks; the babby is active, and has a personality well before birth

>>4311344
Everybody is welcome to come and stand on this moral high ground. There is no blood on the ground here from aborted babies.

>>4311343
yes, most racist people would

>>4311338

I agree with you, actually. I'm just saying that there is grey area. My moral inclinations do not include giving a shit about a zygote. Some might, some might not. How am I ignorant? Did I say that no one would weep for an aborted zygote? I'm just saying that I think it's... odd to do so. Zygotes aren't people.

>>4311340
what's the difference? one day it's inside the mother, being fed through an umbilical cord, and the next day it's out in the big bright world, sucking at her teat

it's just as helpless; just as needy; just as self aware; it's the same goddamn babby

>>4311356
I don't know about "have a personality". You ever been shocked with electricity? Did it make your muscles contract and move? That's whats happening to the baby. An electrical implulse moved the fetus's leg. NOT its mind.

>>4311367
You should refine your trolling skills.

>>4311351
it's difficult to say; in all of your examples, the babby could end up in heaven, or it could end up in hell. if it were to end up in hell, better it were never born; but to miss the chance of being in heaven, better it be born even under the worst of circumstances

>>4311371
those are two different levels of hopelessness. On one side you have two attached organisms, if they detach the one dies. On the other hand you have two separate organisms, which one relies on another. Not because it HAS to but because our species handles babies that way.

>>4311365
by whose definition is a zygote not a human being? you can say it is not a fully developed human being, but that just begs the question on when it becomes a fully developed human being

i would argue that not even all adults are fully developed human beings; however, to be involved in any of their murders, is to be evil

Can we ignore this idiot >>4311383 and his troll thread?

>>4311383
You are in a argument about organisms and species. Why the FUCK would you bring up hell and heaven.

>>4311393
Because it's troll-time?

+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
+ 287 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>4311351
What's worse:

A) Pretending to be God (deciding who is aborted or who is not, who lives and who doesn't live)

B) Not pretending to be God (not deciding who lives or who dies through abortion)

>>4311399
then leave /sci/ and go to /b/

>>4311401
God doesn't choose that. A man and a woman "choose" it when they have sex. The man ejaculates into the woman and a zygote is formed. A super natural being has nothing to do with the formation of a child.

>>4311387

Again, I would agree. My ultimate point was the grey area. Some of the posters in here were framing the argument as if abortion were the same as killing a person, and I think that's unfair.

Admittedly, it is by my own definition that a zygote isn't a person. You're free to disagree. I just wanted to show that you can support abortion and not be a bloodthirsty monster. No one is in favor of child killing, here. We just disagree about when something becomes a child.

My belief about when something is a person is ultimately an emotional response I get from that being, as I suspect is the case for most people. That's why arguments for or against abortion can ultimately come down to emotional pleas about what is and what is not a person.

My feeling:

zygote =/= person

Feel free to disagree and to argue your case in the arena of ideas. I will do the same.

>>4311401
What's your take on condoms?

>>4311414
moment of conception = new life

>>4310468
life never ended; the better argument to sustain is when sustainable reproductive life begins

>>4311401

Both are equaly harmless.

>>4311393
because if we're all meat puppets that live and get buried in the dirt for no apparent reason, it does not matter whether or not we kill babbies

>killing Mary

>>4311401
i think in all cases pretending to be God is worse than the alternative

>>4311466
I am God and I disagree.

>>4311462
What if we are not meat puppets and are here for a reason?

>>4311407
what is your evidence of this?

>>4311412
what would be your current state of being if you had been killed as a zygote?

so if you were killed as a zygote, you would not have all of your memories and experiences, yes?

and yet, if i kill you today, you will generate no memories or experiences for what would have been the rest of your natural life, yes?

>>4311414
i think they should make them look like dicks; maybe even bigger dicks than what they are being put on

cha ching

>>4311471
then it is imperative to discover the true nature of that purpose, and to whom it is due

>>4311477

>so if you were killed as a zygote, you would not have all of your memories and experiences, yes?

Contraception would have the same outcome, too.

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate."

>>4311492
i see preventing life and taking life as two different events, and unlike the catholic church, i do not see in the scriptures where God ordained nobody to prevent a life from being conceived, only encouraged it to maintain family lineage

a God who makes a billion sperm per egg has a pretty good idea that a whole bunch of sperm is going to be wasted

>>4311499
oh, bloody hell, there's another one, get that for me, would you love? and snip the cord, there's a good girl

>>4311504

Life begins at conception. A person does not. I assign a different moral weight to those two concepts. What are you arguing with about, again? That a zygote IS a person? Then I simply disagree. Please persuade me otherwise. The person you most recently replied to is not me, but gave an equivalent opinion of mine.

>>4311504

I see taking a life and killing a person as two different events. And killing embryos is not killling a person.

As for God, I am agnostic. Is abortion banned in scripture, or is it a later christian invention or some obscure interpretation?

>>4311525
there is a different weight; one is killing, the other murder

and neither should be condoned, encouraged, or excused; and further, the society that does so is no better than the mayans cutting the hearts out of their babbies, or caananites throwing their babbies into the white hot superheated arms of their pagan gods

keep in mind: you used to be a zygote. you used to be a sperm, and an egg, that met under sufficient conditions to thrive. you now are different from you then, but to say that you have no connection, or that your value somehow was insufficient at the beginning to justify your existence, or somehow became valuable enough at some point to protect, is arbitrary

>>4311534
the proscription of allowing your babbies to go through the fire, i.e., be burned to death upon a statue of molech, could be considered a type of abortion, i suppose. i cannot think offhand of a scripture that would forbid a woman to kill her child; that love of death was foreign to them.

there is another passage wherein if two men fight, and one accidentally causes a pregnant woman to go into labor, and that babby is born dead, the eye for an eye, life for a life statute is in play; the offending man would be killed if either the babby, or the woman, or both, died.

>>4311487
wouldn't that be too late then for the millions of aborted human beings?

"Finally, we discovered the purpose and meaning of life, the eternal truth and significance and divine beauty! But... too bad it's too late for all those millions of dead babies we aborted just yesterday..."

>>4311544

You acknowledge the difference, then you go on to equivocate them in the next paragraph. Either it's the same or it's not. Abortion is not the same as cutting the heart out of a baby. Again, I don't regard a zygote as a baby. That's the disagreement, right?

Is it arbitrary? Sure. But no more or less arbitrary than your own view.

By your own definition, I used to be a separate sperm and egg, and wouldn't it be the same injustice to prevent those two sex cells from merging? The same potential lost?

It's all arbitrary, anon. Welcome to morality.

>>4311556
it would be, if we ran the universe

we do not, and the One who does, has spoken of a particular fondness for children; indeed, He has populated His entire Kingdom with such as the children who love Him and jump into His arms.

as to anyone who harms any of God's little children, it would be better for that man to have never been born, or to have a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea

it is a fearful thing to be in the hands of a living God

>>4311569
well, at the risk of equivocating, "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is different than "Thou Shalt Not Kill". as i am not the judge, and because i would not want to rest my defense on the difference between the two, i would avoid both.

and it's funny; sometimes the forum is all "EVERYTHING IS PREDETERMINED" and sometimes it is all "EVERYTHING IS ARBITRARY".

i would in fact stand for the proposition that some things are predetermined, and some are not, and then focus on the things that are not; i.e., my own personal eternal destination.

>>4311582

We've arrived at the crux! You fear god's judgment. That's why you're against abortion. Fear is a powerful motivational tool.

Would it assuage your feelings of disapprobation to know that God ordered the Israelites to dash the babies of their enemies against rocks?

Also, I am not this board. I am myself. I said only that morals are arbitrary.

OP here, seems like I created a shitstorm but oh well

The main problem seems to be a misunderstanding due to our various definitions of what life actually is.

Considering the fact that cells are "alive" as they can "die" I find the broad definiton of life can not be used in a scientific discussion regarding abortion.

We would have to therefore define human life itself. A highly regarded quality of humans is our apparent ability of conciousness. Once the fetus becomes conscious of itself then it can be considered human no?

>>4311608
not at all; the Creator killing His creation, and some of His creation killing others of His creation, are two entirely different animals.

it would be hard to worship a God who drowned every living man, woman, and child but for Noah's family, and not know that God inspires fear.

however, the fear God inspires, He also eases, to His children. i'm sure you've heard the expression, "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"? and "why fear a man, who can only kill you, when God can not only kill you, but cast your soul into eternal flames?"

i once feared the Lord; now He and i have a relationship; and understanding. He provides salvation, and i accept. He transforms me into something better than i am, and i obey. He prepares a room for me in heaven, and i look forward to dwelling in it.

it's a really lopsided relationship, come to think of it; all i do is love Him, and know He is who He says He is, and He does all the rest

it's literally the best deal in the universe

>>4311610
that would be another unquantifiable and arbitrary marker; how would one measure that? and wouldn't it be different for each individual?

no, the only two consistent views appear to be "at conception" and "i don't know"

>>4311610
"And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food.

Some will hate me for quoting the Bible, but according Genesis, 'life' is defined as 'everything that has the breath of life in it.'
This excludes plants and trees.
Plants and trees are only food for other creatures and don't contain the 'breath of life'.

>>4311639

Ah, Christianity. God ordered humans to kill other humans, but because he said so, it was okay?

And now your blinders come on, and your rationalizations kick in, because you want to believe your fairytale about living happily ever after when you die. And just like that, our rational discussion stops.

You should've just said this to begin with. Could've saved us a lot of time.

"God is the boss, so sayeth the Bible."

>>4311649

Your forgetting, "before conception." If you use contraception, you're preventing a potential life, which is the moral equivalent of abortion. Thank you, Catholic Church!

Fmhydghf THIS THREAD HAS BEEN KILLED
>>4311670

>>4311649

Actually, as conciousness necessitates a brain at the very least, and a functioning brain with detectable EEG readings shows up at a certain point in the gestation cycle, you can very easily use conciousness as at least a potential end point for when 'human life' begins.