1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells

Define living

You don't know logic, go back to aristotle you inbred cunt.

Every human is an organism, not all organisms are humans.

Youcll it murder because scientifically a zygote is

An organism
A HUMAN organism
A LIVING. human organism
A DISTINCT living human organism from the mother.

we know it's species is human. We know it must be a different organism from the mother because half its dna is from the father and no cell ever mutates half its genome to something different (cancerous cells have a few mutations in the genes taht control the cell's 'lifecycle'). We know it is alive because it is metabolising etc.

So SCIENTIFICALLY abortion is murder just like pre-meditated killing of any other living human organism is murder.

If you disagree then get the fuck off Veeky Forums because whatever you're arguing it isn't science

Hair strands (not including the base of the follicle) are comprised of dead cells.
Same thing with nails.

self-replicating DNA

Does that mean miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter?

...

How is a zygote an organism? That's a semantics argument at best.
It's a totipotent single cell capable of developing into an organism by deploying gene programs in a carefully orchestrated manner.

Human HeLa cells are human cells
They're living human cells
They're distinct living human cells, from everything around them
Yet they're used in research and used to test drugs on and are manipulated and shit. Shouldn't they get some kind of human rights, the cells coming from a woman with cancer that died in the '50s?

Again, this isn't a scientific argument, it's a semantics one thinly veiled as a scientific one. More specifically, it's a bio-ethical argument.

I mean, I guess, but a few things:
1. If there's no brain activity, it's effectively a vegetable. Your argument strengthens when there's a brain, but doesn't when there's not.
2. If groupings of multiple cells being killed counts as murder, then don't ejaculate, have a period, scrape your knee, or anything to that effect lest you murder yourself.
3. The mother is more valuable than the fetus 100% of the time. It's not rocket science; she can work and produce and provide where as the baby is 100% dependent.

1. Abortion is murder
2. Murder is fine

Problem solved.

>Veeky Forums attempts philosophy

or RNA i'd say

That fixes that.

>Abortion is murder.
so ?

Damn, you guys really are babbies when it comes to (molecular) biology and defining fundamental stuff.
You need an entire closed system of DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids and sugars before you can actually call something life.
>How does D/RNA replicate?
Oh, y-y-you know, nucleotides form spontaneously and then just kind of complement the other string I guess.

You need at the very least a competent system for replication, then you need energy homeostasis and you need checkpoints with yourself and environment so you know you can safely replicate.

Selfreplicating (bio)(macro)molecules in itself is just organic polymerisation.. how the fuck is that life?

> pre-meditated killing of any other living human organism is murder.
So if an intruder breaks into my home with a gun, looking to steal my property, my money and kill my family, it's still murder?

That's pretty much what Peter Singer defends, except "murder" isn't the word. He admits abortion is infanticide and claims that infanticide is ok.

Ofcourse it's murder, just a subset of it, called self defense. Damn you're a thick cunt..

Fuck off to

Is a fetus not a living organism, you retard?

A fetus is pretty alive already, yes, but it's still completely non independent from its host.
It's can only keep itself in check when literally all the nutrients are provided to it through a river of blood coming from the mother, which also conveniently disposes of all its waste so it doesn't fucking die.
If parameters aren't optimal, the womb simply expells the zygote. Is automatic abortion murder?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Causes
Most clinically apparent miscarriages (two-thirds to three-quarters in various studies) occur during the first trimester.[19][20][21] About 30% to 40% of all fertilized eggs miscarry, often before the pregnancy is known.[1] The embryo typically dies before the pregnancy is expelled; bleeding into the decidua basalis and tissue necrosis causes uterine contractions to expel the pregnancy.[21]

>Ofcourse it's murder, just a subset of it, called self defense.
you seem to be confusing murder with homicide, you dense motherfucker

a 1yo is also not independent from a provider. Your argument is invalid.

>fetuses happen to die
>therefore killing them should be ok

you should give two thoughts to the things you believe before posting

Homicide > Murder > Killed by self defense
Damn, you're pretty dumb. Want me show it to you with a picture using sets so you can more easily understand? Fine.

So its basically double murder; or desecration of a dead organism which is probably worse

Back to /b/, kid

It has a provider, it has the capability to dispose it's own created waste and it has the capability to take food by itself, given that it's provided to it. It doesn't need the host any more, per se, because you can just exchange it with another provider. However, you're correct in the sense that it can't live on its own, but that's just because that's just how our evolutionary path has taken us. Other species are completely independent once they are born.

It's not just black and white like that. Like there exist way more arguments than this, it's just one of them.
Are there situations where killing a zygote/embryo/fetus/ is ok?

How can you not see the difference in states during the development of a human embryo? Why is it so difficult to accept that something that has to potential to become a human being, isn't a human being at its conception, but needs a certain developmental stage before it can be considered one?

We should ban abortion and contraceptives to stop the slut culture.

Not Veeky Forums

Wrong. Lrn2dictionary:
> Oxford
> murder
> the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:
> unlawful

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> murder
> the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
> unlawfully

Killing in self defense is NOT murder.
Killing an enemy in war is NOT murder.
Killing a fetus / embryo within the timeline set by the state is NOT murder.

A suggestion? Before you troll someone else' intelligence, find out wtf you're talking about.

School's out. You may gtfo now.

Banning ovaries and testicles is a quicker solution

we just need to grow clones instead of breeding

So a zygote is a child now...

The problem I have with pro life faggots isn't wether or not the fetus is actually life, but the double standard that comes along with it. You fags have no issues with killing farm animals like chickens or lab rats, yet defend aborting a non self aware fetus that could put YOUR life into financial ruin and probably grow up to be a drug addict because of failing parenting.

pro-lifers tend to be bible-thumpers or liberals

both of whom don't really think about why they do or believe things, and sure as hell would get an abortion if raped multiple times by a muslim

If the fetus you abort is gay, does that make you a homophobe?

only if you can prove the fetus was gay

but being able to prove it while it's still a fetus
would mean that sexuality isn't a choice.
in fact, I would argue that makes it more of a birth defect or a disability, as it really offers no advantage and lowers their chance of reproducing

By that definition using hand sanitizer is genocide.

Sluts will be sluts reguardless of the consequences. The last thing we need is more slut babies. A better solution would be that everyone is reversably sterilized at birth and must apply for a license to procreate. Of course this wont happen because unnecessary surgery could cause complications, and black people would complain because their only source of money is often a direct result of having shittons of kids and no job. Then the practice would be deemed racist because its racist to call out black people for being retarded, and general consensus becomes that everything the black community says is truth.

are some humans cats?

The living cells you flush down the toilet in your urine and feaces are, in the blood you wipe off when you bleed, or the mucus when you blow your nose.

>1. Homo sapiens sapiens is the scientific name for humans

Killing people is racist

>Groundbreaking! user on Veeky Forums ontologically redefines species and anatomy in ways unprecedented!!
Some of the most notable points, following the logic:
>Clumps of single dividing cells are humans as long as they are in the womb of a mother
>Curing uterine diseases is now abortion, is now murder.
>Cancer cells growing naturally inside the womb is now holy and protected by hallah (swatbabalooba) or the pope (ave maria).
>Chemotherapy is sinful, as it can kill of absolutely natural cells.
>your macrophages, when they engulf other cells, are simultaneously creating life (from combining two cells, the obvious prerequesite as mentioned above)
>and sinning unforgivably by committing murder on the same cells. A murder that will scale on orders of magnitude as the macrophage receptor array aligns to form a fatwa and declare jihad against the ebin baby cells it just ate.

Oh, but pig is also sin. And touching a woman when she has her period. And eating shellfish. And homosexuality between consenting adults. And also murder is homicide, is self defense.

Glad we got that out of the way, user.

You forgot to mention the larger chances of dying due to contracting HIV

>everyone is reversably sterilized at birth and must apply for a license to procreate

cucc

First of all, stop playing silly word games. "Zygote", "embryo", "infant" are all just words for (arbitrarily defined) stages of development of the same thing.

Second of all, the phrase "with child" has been used to mean "pregnant" for centuries. The zygote, embryo, or fetus is called the "unborn child". So unfortunately even if you want to play your word game, you're wrong about it. The word "child" has been used to refer to the unborn since a long time ago.

>being against sterilizing other men, thereby increasing the chance of some other man impregnating your wife
actual cuckery is afoot

The bigger question is, why do you give a shit what other people do which doesn't affect you in the slightest?
what a bunch of homos

and you stopped doing whatever you were doing to enter a conversation that doesn't affect you to tell us not to worry about things that don't affect us

Glad, we agreed m8

Miscarriage is when God decides to murder babies. Serious baby shortage in heaven.

> killing a Human is neccecarily wrong.

get cancer. thats opposite of abortion then
apoptosis is fucked up just like your life

Who gives a fuck if someone murders a fetus other than Christians?

Abortion of fetuses is, ebrions isnt

What? How is that a double standard? Animals aren't humans dipshit, it has nothing to do with "self-awareness".

Stem cells are vital... Abortion is not that bad, question is what you do to fetus.

This. Why does it matter what that cluster of cells is going to be one day? Im sure you anti-abortion fuck offs have most likely killed hundreds of bugs, and a few mice in your lifetime. Thats arguably far more cruel than killing a lump of cells because the mice and bugs are consious. After the major organs are devoloped (mostly just the brain) it becomes a different issue i suppose, but only complete morons are morally opposed to first trimester abortions.

>hurr durr if you think abortion is murder that means you also think that masturbation is murder and hair and nails are alive too!
every time
Why is it so difficult to respond to an actual argument rather than the same tired strawman over and over?

>Newborn babies are completely dependent for survival on the parents, by aggressively nesting into their house.
>Therefore, child abandonment and infanticide should be legal.

Only complete morons oppose abortions, period. There is no difference with first or third trimester abortions, hell not even babies are conscious. It all a matter of semantics, abortions should be legal no man has the right to say what woman can do with her body.

So you admit that killing babies would be fine, under the same circumstances where one would have an abortion, for the same reasons?

It doesn't latch on to the fucking furniture like it does to the womb, you complete fucking retard.
Also, if you don't see the distinction between a fetus and a neonate, you should just stop participating in discussions regarding bio-ethics.

I don't kill mice, my cats do.

Yes.

I dare you to come up with a reason that killing a baby is neccecarily bad.

No, that's fine, well, I disagree, but at least you're consistent with your logic, and thus, would treat them the same way.

>notthisshitagain.jpg
Everyone do this philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

>has to bend over backwards up with a completely contrived fantasy like "people-seeds"
Is this a joke?

The creators of the experiment didn't want people to catch on to the fact that it was about abortion, besides, if the base suppositions are the same, it doesn't matter if it's a made up concept, this way you could remove biases that appear when the topic is about human fetuses (at first) and test people's consistent logic. I don't see what's wrong with it.

It's retarded because it says that basically no matter how hard you try you will always get people-seeds all the time and now you have to handle them, which would obviously enormously influence people reactions towards them as opposed to the actual reality, where you can totally and easily not have children by abstaining from sex, and even if not, with contraceptives can make the chances virtually nil.

Yes, if people sprouted up like weeds in a week from every fucking corner, sure, we'd probably treat human life with a little less value, but we don't, so it's a completely worthless situation to consider.

Except people do keep getting pregnant even though we pretty much all have access to condoms and birth control.

Of course a lot of those people are stupid and just didn't try to not get pregnant. But it still happens

>it's regarded because it says that basically no matter how hard you try you will always get people-seeds

>People-Seeds*

>You live in a house that tends to get very warm. You could choose to live in the stifling heat with your windows closed, but you'd rather not, so every now and then, you open them. But there's a problem. Outside your house, things called "people-seeds" drift around in the air a bit like pollen. If a people-seed gets into your house through an open window, it will settle on your carpet, and over a period of months grow into a human child. You don't want children, so you attach mesh screens that are designed to repel people-seeds to your windows. Unfortunately, these are not 100% effective, and once in a while a people-seed will drift in and take root. If this happens, does the person-plant that develops have therightto use your house - and it will not live if it does not use your house - for the time it takes it to beome a human child (in other words, is the person-plant entitled to use your house even if you'd rather it didn't?).

Who is the retarded one here?

Of course they do, but that's their choice, and their kids shouldn't be paying the price for their parent's retardation.

>fetus funerals

By your logic, masturbation is murder

Is there some reason you're posting that? As you can see, the question basically forces you into getting the people-seeds into your house (even though you apparently had a fool-proof alternative), and says all your other defenses don't work, tough shit.

>So, you decide to go out on the town and fuck a bunch of dudes for no reason and also don't use birth control because you don't feel like it. So, Mr. Pro-Life you wouldn't be so happy to keep those kids now, huh?!

I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would, and it's a stupid situation to consider because if I was pro-life why the fuck would I be going around having as much unprotected sex as possible in the fucking first place?

>you could choose to live in the stifling heat, but you'd rather not.
Are you actually retarded? Do you have problems with understanding analogies?

Me, i think killing people is wrong you know. I mean, bitches can play their song thinking they are not killing anyone, but they are, and should wear a shirt stamped with "i kill defenseless unborns in cold blood" twice a week during their days

Are you actually retarded? Do you have problems understanding when an analogy is flawed? The question is TELLING me that FOR SOME MAGICAL REASON a fucking hot house is worse to me than having to raise a fucking human child for several months???

If your fucking analogy has to partially dictate my actions in its already contrived made-up fantasy world, hmm, doesn't it seem like perhaps, maybe, your analogy might be going a little too far to attempt to prove its point? Even if you did manage to do it, you'd have done it in a completely worthless and inapplicable situation that has no bearing the actual reality problem at hand.

two stoneage dudes get funky, rape some females, steal the kids
let them grow up protected by two males, in a territory protected by two males, healthier and better fed
genes passed on
>no advantage

Not even talking about social advantages of a group that has dudes you can fuck to relieve stress and make better social bonds.

Its easy to imagine a lot of advantages like this. Not that anyone could prove it either way.

It says "you'd rather not" as an analogy for someone who would rather not abstain from having sex at all, the window screens are supposed to be an analogy for the condoms and birth control. If you don't assume that the person in question would rather have sex than not have it, then this isn't really an issue, since no fetuses will ever be conceived. You have to assume someone has been impregnated to discuss the internal logic and views of people on abortion.

Now you understand the pro-lifer solution to this problem is to simply quit having unsafe sex. If you'd rather have it than not, then yes, like I said, the kids shouldn't be paying the price for their parent's retardation.

I don't consider them to be kids before they're born, or whenever, it's really an arbitrary label, you're just arbitrarily assigning the label "human" from the moment of conception. That solution is obvious and trivial, the real question is what would you do if you were to conceive an unwanted child, and why. I think it's retarded to force your partner to have the kid just because of your arbitrary moral values.

Abortions are going to happen either way.

You can prevent dangerous, illegal ones from happening by providing access to medically safe and legal ones, along with contraceptives, not being retarded about sex ed, etc.

1. its ok to force women to let their body be used by another person so that person can live
2. its ok to hunt people at force them to donate part of their liver to another person so that person can live

both, or neither

maybe parts of their skin too, or one lung

it would for sure be 100% ok to hunt people with tranq-guns, pump some of their blood while they drool on the ground, then move on

it saves lives you guys

Well, I do consider them kids, feel free to substitute 'fetus' in if you like. And to me what you said just sounds like "I think it's retarded to stop your partner from murdering an innocent bystander because of your arbitrary moral values"

Is not murdering adults also arbitrary? If not, why? Why is it arbitrary when talking about fetuses? What exactly changes between the moment where the fetus is in the womb and the moment later when it is born that it suddenly gets rights?

At conception you've suddenly gotten completely unique DNA, that, in normal circumstances, will grow into a new human being. The egg and the sperm before had only partial DNA, certainly not "proper" human DNA, and definitely not functional anyway other than to facilitate conception. At least this line, seems fairly clear-cut to me.

Small children are also clusters of cells that are completely dependent upon their mothers for survival.

That's why I've long favored the post-birth abortion.

Abortion is a legit way to control population if you disagree you are a subhuman ape

no, they can be perfectly well sustained by a multitude of other means
like surrogate mothers even
or like, an IV drip

You assume I don't think murdering adults is arbitrary as well. Which is why I think morals are arbitrary too. Humans are inherently selfish beings, so your morals only exist to make you feel better.

This, too.