When, biologically speaking, does life begin if this is majorly controversial?

A fetus has no central nervous system until 5 weeks and cannot feel pain, has no limbic system which can store painful memories, no frontal lobe so it has no social or moral judgement abilities. Putting down a dog is a greater 'moral issue' than killing the ball of cells in a woman's uterus.

anyways christfags pls go, the bible literally never condemns abortion in any way, except when god kills newborns and causes abortions in unfaithful women.

Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
Leviticus 27:6

quite impressive

good answer

best answer

At conception

Who cares when near every motivation to get an abortion is degenerate in the first place.

Not unconscious, nonconscious.

>kill pregnant woman - double murder
>kill pregnant woman right before her fetus is terminated at the clinic - ???

I agree with this law's definition. I just don't think it should be illegal to murder fetuses.

>Generally arguments about definitions mean you are not thinking hard enough.
wrong

If it can: respond to stimuli, reproduce, grow/develop and maintain homeostasis. Then it's probably alive.

I don't think human life starts before a baby can survive outside of the womb.

It's human life and if any biologist tells you it's not, then he's a full-blown liar or an idiot.

I know it's not really science, but legislatively I think we forget about the concept of bodily sovereignty. I think answered it pretty well, but it's not perfect.
Even pro-lifers should be against anti-abortion legislation. The analogy I give is this:
Imagine you're pregnant with a child. Before the birth, the doctors tell you that at age 18 your child will need a kidney transplant. You acknowledge this, and give birth. 18 years later, your child's kidneys begin to fail and the doctors turn to you for a kidney transplant. Most parents would give that kidney without thinking, and ethically, you should. But that's not the question. The question is, can the government force you to donate your kidney in this instance? Definitely not. Even though your child's life depends on your body, you still have complete bodily sovereignty. That is a right that should never be infringed upon.

The killing of a pregnant woman being double homicide was a court ruling by Republicans so they would then attempt to use it as precedent for laws in the future which is retarded

a child isn't like a woman's body part, like a kidney. It's an genetically unique being in itself and it's the father's child as well, not only the mother's.

>a child isn't like a woman's body part, like a kidney.

A fetus is like a body part. It's entirely dependent on the mother's body to develop and form itself. The fetus wouldn't exist without the mother's body.

I remember making a thread asking about easing abortion restrictions and establishing legal paternal surrender and TwoXChromosomes threw a shitfit.

have you tried actually reading the post? it's a unique being genetically distinct from the mother, it's not a body part at all.

I get how this question will sound, but I'd like to hear your answer anyway. Why shouldn't the government make decisions on how you handle your body? Or rather, why shouldn't the government prevent you from doing certain things with your body?

Yeah, that's why I made the analogy to the tumor. A mutated genotype is different from its source. I believe that a fetus is like a body part because regardless of the genetic makeup it's still essentially a non-independent tissue machine that gets all of its resources from the person carrying it.

If you're talking "people" life (not animals) and only thoughtful people...

Life--children--should be honored, so their life should be considered begun even before "the" sperm and "the" egg are formed and distinct. Lots of males and females drugging up their children long before they're conceived; and even after conception most females continue their "drugs of choice." People rarely give up their drug of choice for long and even more rarely lose the urge for it.

It seems likely no one can give the answer in some arbitrary "time" system, and answers are but people's opinions depending on their concern for life. Given some of the replies posted, there are lots of people who shouldn't be allowed near children.

Who cares, the people who get abortions are black single mothers.
The last thing we need is more blacks raised by single mothers that will become predatory lifetime criminals.
The best thing we can do as a society at this point is actively encourage black women to get abortions.
These babies would grow up to be nothing but criminals and a burden on our already crumbling programs such as food stamps and welfare.

Could you even imagine another 363,000 blacks every year being born?

This thread is spooked as fuck

life begins somewhere around 6 months of age when the infant gains a sense of self

I don't mind the whole double murder thing because it gives harsher punishment for killing both the woman and the baby that was supposed to be held to term, which causes more emotional distress to the family affected.

My hand is living and human. If I cut it off am I a murderer?

So if you absorbed a twin in the womb removing it would be murder?

Yes but only a fractional of a murderer

>Leviticus 27:6

>for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;

?

Abortion is a self-righting problem. People who abort their babies abort their genetic line.

A similar phenomenon occurs with homosexuality. Now that gays aren't forced into having families, they're ending their lineage.

It's a kind of genocide, and the great thing is that it's [math]voluntary[/math]. The voluntary aspect of it will make it a far more successful genocide than, say, the holocaust. A serious problem that the holocaust had was that once Hitler died, there was nobody to continue seeing it through. Moreover, Hitler was portrayed as a senseless supervillain by the people he tried to kill. It left a bad taste in people's mouths, and now few people would be so bold as to suggest a repeat of anything resembling Nazi Germany. Genocide by thwarting reproduction doesn't suffer from any of those problems.

>it's okay to end your lineage
>it's okay to treat life like an object or organ
>it's okay to prevent your culture from living on
>it's okay to exploit and kill off the poor while the rich live
>while ignoring the fact that there are more whites in poverty than blacks
>and ignoring the fact that more whites are aborted than blacks per year
>it's okay to turn life from something that should be cherished to something that can be treated like an object, that can run free and bathe in its degeneracy without fear of ridicule
>it's okay to ignore your fellow man, because he, like you, is just an object
Please realize that you will never have a great society when it allows the objectification of other humans, but expects you to treat everyone else as your fellow man or brother. That can't exist, simply because they'll be holding two standards, with one standard seemingly unnatural or irrational. The Jews, the elite, the government, or whomever you want to place the blame on, don't want you to be united with your fellow man, and would much rather see the society as divided. Divided to the point where no social change can ever take place, and where only the international group can profit.

>kill pregnant woman with twins - triple murder

Define pain

Ouch

Something a big guy like you wouldn't feel

>it's okay to end your lineage

So are you telling me it should be against the law to just not have children? People should be required by law to have children?

No, I'm saying that the user I replied to implied that it's okay for people to want or try to end their lineage. I'm saying that it shouldn't be socially acceptable to try to end your lineage. When I say "try" I mean abort a child.

how could u ever know?
source: thinka bout it

prior to one month it has no monetary recompense for a child. Literally calling a fetus and newborns worthless.

>objectification of other humans
why is it ok to kill a cow, which feels pain in all the same ways a person can, but not ok to kill a fetus which cannot feel pain or suffer in any way?

Why are you assuming that I'm okay with killing cows?

whats the moral issue with killing a fetus in that case?

I agree that you should fight for your lineage. That's why I think abortion isn't so bad in the long-term. It selects the family lines whose members disprefer abortion. (i.e. disprefer ending their lineage.) Therefore there's a limit to how popular abortion can become.

Instating reproductive "rights" reduces the proportion of people who want to exercise them in the first place. If you don't like degeneracy, you should be glad that it's being purged.

Biologically speaking, both the egg and the sperm are alive, so you're committing mass murder every day, as even if you don't masterbate, you're trapping millions of sperm that are forced to die.

...and a woman is committing a few murders every month. (Though, for some women, this is already the case, colloquially speaking.)

The same is true if you're defining the death of "potential" humans as murder.

So clearly we need to cut off everyone's balls and put all the women into cryo freeze, problem solved.

...or, you know, somehow have sensible abortion laws that allow it when medically needed, but don't allow it to be used as a substitute for birth control.

But of course we can't do that without some nutjobs taking advantage of the slippery slope.

>t. Sister died cuz stupid Ohio anti-abortion laws forced her to bring a dead Potter's syndrome baby to term while her kidneys were bleeding.

>Generally arguments about definitions mean you are not thinking hard enough.
I lol'd.

>Ask the wrong question.
>Be asked for clarification.
>U figure it out!!

Nigga you dumb as hell.

Define consciousness.

>Wanting an abortion because carrying to term is likely to kill both the mother and child.
>Wanting an abortion because the child carries a genetic abnormality and is thus likely to become a subhuman /r9k/ user.
>Degenerate.

Define degenerate.

>Define consciousness.

See, I really try to avoid these conversations usually.

But, honestly, I don't understand why this topic tends to be so complicated.

We already have laws surrounding "vegetables" and "pulling the plug".

It seems like a no brainer (not ashamed for that unintentional pun) to apply similar logic and science towards defining the definition of the start of a life.

And, even after that, then we come to a new discussion about who gives a fuck if an unborn baby is crossing the threshold of becoming aware or not?

There are trade-offs for giving the unborn baby more rights than the mother.

And then finally we get to the last problem of social and philosophical implications.

Do we really care about life? Or are we just trying to protect birth? What happens after birth? Conservatives usually don't give a damn after that point. They don't care about life. They just care about fairy tales and propaganda.

>when, biologically speaking, does life begin if this is majorly controversial?

Most estimate put it about 3 billion years ago.

That's 'a 1000 million' for clarification.

Assuming all life on earth shares a common ancestor that's your answer.

The moral philosophy of personhood is neither required no desire for a consistent legal code.

If you smashed a load of bald eagles eggs or another protective species you can be fined and placed in jail.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the notions to society should take the same measures with human pregnancy

>8600308
> Do we really care about life? Or are we just trying to protect birth? What happens after birth?

Such distinction is utter irelevant for the purposes of discussion.

like this user said, "life" by its strongest definition, began a fuck-long-time-ago. Whether you can call the life growing inside a woman for 9 months a "human" is the real question.

I think the point at which something becomes biologically human and essentially human are at very different ages. Until you can comprehend the existence of other minds than yourself, you aint essentially human. So maybe a few years after birth?

>Whether you can call the life growing inside a woman for 9 months a "human" is the real question.
I would say the real question is whether you consider it to be a person.

This a legal question, not a science question.

It depends on the meaning of "person".

Luckily I know the answer, since I didn't sleep at biology classes in high school!

Here is the correct definition for life:

"There is no universal definition for life. Instead scientists identify patterns that all life on Earth share. These patterns are: all life is composed of cells. All life originates from a single cell, which was the product of chemical evolution billions of years ago. All life requires energy to maintain existence. All life replicates and passes hereditary material to their progeny. All life is highly ordered, and maintains order by selecting which chemical reactions occur and which do not, and catalyzing beneficial reactions."

There you go. Today you learned. Onwards to new questions like: what is the fur of bear made of? How many ants are there? What is the origin of humanity? Am I just a set of chemical reactions? (Yes you are Timmy, yes you are.)

>If you smashed a load of bald eagles eggs or another protective species you can be fined and placed in jail.
False equivalence, the reason why you don't smash bald eagle eggs is because you're destroying biodiversity.

What is lost when a fetus is destroyed? Other than some hurt feelings of confused conservatives, of course.

we legally kill both "humans" and "persons" all the time

the REAL question is whether a fetus is a citizen.