At what point should a mosh of cells be considered life?

At what point should a mosh of cells be considered life?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/b98ch_Pyi-Y
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Never

When it first fills out its own 1040

Cells are the basis of all life.

if bacteria from mars and the moon count as life then why don't fetuses?

checkmate baby-killers

when you get to 200 cells

Never ever

...

Humans arent bacteria

...

cells are alive, prick.

when/if its skin color reaches a certain tone of paleness

...

Zygotes are life, you're probably more concerned with what age at which abortion becomes killing something with sentience worth not killing, in which case, probably when it develops measurable brain function like a pain response.
It is life, but so are plants and we don't assign those meaningful existence or sentience.

Until it's out, it's a bunch of tissues. Does this look like a human being?

Protip: It doesn't

Jews are Satan-worshiping usurers who stole the name of Jesus' tribe in order to disguise themselves.

youtu.be/b98ch_Pyi-Y

Human life isn't important, human PERSONHOOD is. We pull the plug on the permanently vegetative, culture our own cells in petri dishes. Why is a cell or an organ or even a braindead human less sacred than a normal person? Because the person has a mind.

So when does the mind exist during development. It's certainly not at conception, but also well before birth. I always liked the 1st trimester rule

at 21 years, give or take a few

When the sperm enters the egg.

Conception

Vegetative, braindead have no future and will never have a chance at all the great things humans can accomplish.

The clump of cells, when left to grow and reach potential, will develop to be just like you and me. It WILL grow a mind.
Unless it's a nigger.

That's the fundamental misunderstanding in your argument.

Even the simplest form of life should be treated with the same rights as human life.

That is none at all; why should humans have rights at all; why are you as an individual inalienable and have the "right" to things like food and shelter.

You are simply a mass of cells that replaces itself every 7 years. Human rights is a sham and should be completely abolished. Natural law is the only true law of man.

>If bacteria from mars count as life,then why do you eat meat?

Check mate meat eaters.

Plants don't become conscious and sentient if you leave them alone for a couple months dipshit. What an idiotic analogy, seriously.

Real answer here => When it begins developing a nervous system which is about two weeks into pregnancy.

Life begins at conception, but whether or not it's meaningful life is subjective. It is "alive" but not conscious.

Then most people should be killed because they are mindless, that is like the comunist purges.

Having a mind isnt a consequence of growth its learning and undersanding. And many people take a lifetime to do that.

So we should give things proactive rights because that thing has the potential to be something?

Ok I demand the same privledges as a judge because I am studying undergrad law.

The moment your fist hits-a-the-dough.

At conception.
Given time that child will develop fully inevitably.
Abortion should be permissible only when health complication could arise(rare) or the child will have severe retardation or health complications(uncommon).

None of this, "Oh, I had unprotected sex and I regret my decision knowing that the consequences could be pregnancy."

With that said, a fetus of African descent should be considered a disability and abortion is allowed.
Abortion is literally the only thing keeping the African American population at a steady 14% here.

Thats the bullshit slippery slop argument used from the mabymurder side. If we take away future rights of all "potential" people then there would be no point to conservation of anything, use of case-law or any form of "human rights" for people that don't exist yet or function at the same level of development another person or group does.

Kys. Not babies.

>Killing babies is wrong
>ok then give me a job as a judge
I fail to see how you can draw a comparison between a glaringly huge ethical issue and a shitty strawman

Newborn babies are dumber than dogs, do you think dogs should have more rights than newborns?

Abortion should be mandatory unless the parents posess a license which they can get if they earn a certain amount and meet certain intelligence requirements.

Do this and you eliminate the nigger problem entirely.

If it has a vagina to fuck or a foreskin to cut then it is considered a living thing

Ok, so then I can kill you, because you are arguably just a mosh of cells.

Yes, in the wild as you should know, stronger and smarter animals eat the weaker ones.

Well if you destroy something before it gains sentience it isn't sentient and you shouldn't worry about it anyway, even if it had the potential. Seeds aren't trees, embryos/fetuses aren't people, especially when they haven't developed the necessary functions to live independently that biological organisms by themselves possess.

Retard.
Cells are by definition life. The question would be at what stage of development is it human. Laws don't protect life. Laws protect people.

>there would be no point in the conservation of anything

But there isn't?

...

When higher brain begins to function, which happens around 5-6th month of pregnancy

>plants don't become conscious and sentient

They are living. The real question is at what point is it considered "developed"?

this

When it metabolizes. The debate about abortion isn't about whether or not the fetus is alive, it's about whether it's "human" in some morally relevant sense, and how that weighs against other considerations.

While I agree with your pedantic not picking, in return I must point out
>cells are life by definition

So a virus is a life form now? And then by OP's shitty construction is now permitted the right to life and as such shouldn't be killed with medicines?

You're as stupid as each other.

You can't deny my trips.

>babies are viruses

Get ready for the deep AF rabbit hole:


When the energy of two people created by the universe gets together and makes love, just sharing their souls with each other, that's where life begins.

When those electrons and those sub-atomic particles come together as a result of those two souls getting together (masses of whatever energy or mass), it creates a *spark* much like the first sparks that created the first energy that made life itself possible.

In other words, the energy that started in the Big Bang meets again through flesh, and baby energy happens and forms a fetus. Life juices and life electricity reacts.

i remember hearing a schizophrenic saying the same thing

where'd you get this from?

wrong

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction

Either at conception or never

A sperm doesn't have 100% DNA to grow and turn into an individual
neither does an egg
but when they get together it forms a unique DNA, separate from the mother and father.

this DNA proves the "mosh of cells" is an individual life already began, to stop that life would be no different from stopping anyone's life as it would result in the same end.

If you were aborted when you were a mosh of cells, you would be dead. It's the same end result as if you were killed at 1 years old, or 5 or 20.

Killing is killing and it should either all be okay or all wrong.

>muh energy

pseudoscientific nonsense

I feel guilty for using condoms now, thanks faggot

When it has a heartbeat.

>If you were aborted when you were a mosh of cells, you would be dead. It's the same end result as if you were killed at 1 years old, or 5 or 20.

Wrong. If I were aborted, I would never exist at all. Same as if my parents used a condom.

It is ethically very different than killing 20 year old me.

You sound like a posh nihilist.
Viruses are considered matter not life. They don't have digetive systems. Viruses are poison not life.

Human lifes should be protected for the pragmatic reason that you wouldn't want to live in a society where your dignity and safety can be violated.

You already live in such a society. But the violation of one's integrity is lawful

Your point that I'm stupid is valid. The last sentence should have had an negation. As in you're not allowed.

It's technically life as soon as it's conceived. However, the fact that it remains inside the body of its host, at the expense of that host, means the host is within their right to expel the guest whenever they want. Unfortunately, as in-vitro gestation does not yet exist, this necessarily kills the fetus.

It's not a matter of whether the fetus is alive. What matters is whose right trumps the other's. The fetus has a right to life, certainly. But the mother has a right to her own body. You can't go around shooting people on the street, but neither can you go to a dinner party at a friend's house and then declare that you're living there as long as you damn well please and your friend has to support you for as long as you're there.

I'd argue that the mother's right to self-ownership supercedes the fetus' right to life, for the simple fact that it inhabits the mother's body. If we are to say that people have a right to their own body, and both the fetus and mother have this right, then in a conflict between two parties the one who is doing the initial violation is at fault.

pretty much

>At what point should a mosh of cells be considered life?
God says when it breathes on its own.

>However, the fact that it remains inside the body of its host, at the expense of that host, means the host is within their right to expel the guest whenever they want.

This is wrong. To have the child within means the woman engaged in a process that would ultimately ends with the chance of conceiving a child. The only instances in which a child is spawned without consenting to its inception is in the case of rape. There are contraceptives on every street corner and I've yet to hear a counter for that argument. Nobody has the right to spawn life only to kill it. Use contraceptives, or you're playing with life like a toy. If you don't use contraceptives, abortion isn't an ethical option. It's savage and barbaric to create a baby and kill it without first trying to prevent it, especially if it's life as soon as it's concieved.

>At what point should a mosh of cells be considered life?
White? Conception.

Not too concerned about any other scenario.

When it's determined they're White

The fetus wouldn't be there if the mother wasn't a fucking whore.

I'd rather to kill the whore of a mother than innocent child.

>Conception
Wow, that's radically moving the goalposts from the universal and historical Miracle of Birth

It's about sentience. consciousness and feeling. Not life.

Contraceptives aren't effective 100% of the time. If they fail, should the woman be allowed to abort it?

No because she consented to sex aware of the risks, aware that contraceptives aren't 100% effective. You don't just get to kill children because you couldn't keep it in your pants.

The value of life is relative to those who care about the individual life. So, if it's an abortion baby, it's a life without value anyways.

I support preterm removal of crotch goblins.
Though there needs to be education prior to this procedure.

I have little interest seeing you come daily to my pharmacy because you
can't handle the weight of your decisions and complain about waiting and
the side effects.
Understand and accept what you do. This is not something you should do
because your daddy/hubby pressured you to get your gremlin removed

Sex ed, at least where I was taught, was very clear on that point. Im of the opinion that this should be known by anyone who is already using contraceptives, and thus acknowledges that there will always be a chance of conceiving a child. Don't sit on the dick if you can't handle the consequences.

>I'd rather to kill the whore of a mother than innocent child.
God says some fetuses are wicked. And Mother Mary remained a virgin, so mothers other than yours are not necessarily whores.

>mary fucks some random dude
>convinces joseph the cuck that it was god
>joseph raises cuck baby

I am pro-choice but I dont agree with this logic.

If there are two developed brains then they are equal and their rights need to be balanced, there is no reason why womans rights should take precedence over the rights of the baby. Thus abortions in later stages of pregnancy are rightly restricted.

And if the brain is not developed yet, then its not really about the rights of the woman as much as lack of rights of the foetus, because it is equivalent to a vegetable at that stage.

>Either at conception or never
>but when they get together it forms a unique DNA, separate from the mother and father.

How many people do you see in this picture?

when it becomes self aware or conscious of itself

The mother indeed has a right to her own body, but the fetus isn't her body, it's someone else's. The right to life trumps any other right.

>but neither can you go to a dinner party at a friend's house and then declare that you're living there as long as you damn well please
Complete straw-man. It's 9 months. Additionally, when you invite people over for dinner, you enter into a verbal contract of that person will be here for dinner and won't overstay their welcome. With pregnancy, the woman enters into a contract KNOWING BEFOREHAND that there is a chance that she'll end up pregnant for 9 months. And she took the risk anyway. She created it - it doesn't mean she can choose to kill it because it's convenient.

At the beginning of the second trimester.

What are you? Lame?

>joseph raises cuck baby
It's interesting that the geneology of Jesus in the Book of Matthew includes all these mortal men up to Joseph, but then it looks like they had to edit the first chapter to backpeddle on who Jesus' father was after they realized what they had done.

To add, I've heard the argument made that because the mother chose to become pregnant and was well aware of the process and consequences, she incurred responsibility and therefore temporarily waived her right to self-ownership. The common analogy is of the hot air balloon pilot who invites his friend up for a ride. We would generally agree that the balloon remains the property of the pilot, but that he could not throw the friend out to his death when he suddenly decided that he doesn't want him on his property anymore.

There is a crucial difference between this and abortion though. The friend going on the balloon ride was engaged in a contract, verbal or written, with the understanding that he would be returned to the ground safely. If he understood that the pilot reserved the right to toss him out anytime he pleased, he would not have gone up in the first place. A fetus, however, does not enter into a voluntary contract with the host, because it does not exist until the action of conception is taken. Without any such contract, the host cannot be held responsible for anything other than her own rights.

As well, the cost of hosting a fetus is significantly greater than safely bringing a balloon passenger to the ground, so the property analogy is a weak one.

>in the case of rape
Is the fetus devoid of rights just because it was conceived without the permission of the mother? This logic doesn't stand up. Either the fetus has rights and they supercede the mother's in all cases (including rape or the risk of death), or the fetus has rights and they are subordinate to the mother's, or the fetus has no rights at all. There can be no mixing of these positions.

Simple answer: when it learns calculus and/or a second language and/or to reverse a string in a programming language.

Arbitrary? Probably, but anyone who can't do one of those three things is a subhuman IMHO.

>it's okay to kill them if they didn't ask you not to kill them
You sound pretty smart for a leaf, please reconsider this argument

Immediately. By any reasonable definition it's human life.

>find a mosh of cells on some moon of saturn
>liberals rejoice at the discovery of alien life

>find a mosh of cells in the womb of a woman
>liberals think it can be killed because it's not alive

wow so deep and wise

>It is life, but so are plants and we don't assign those meaningful existence or sentience.

>not being a pro-flora carnivore


STOP EATING VEGETABLES

how do you know?

haven't you heard of the wood wide web, a communications network of all plants around the world?

Unless its a nigger. Then no.

but human beings aren't conscious in the first months of their existence, that develops later.

are you in favor of killing babies?

Well that's a given.

Consciousness is an emergent behavior rather than an inherent property? Do you have a newsletter? If so, I wish to subscribe to it.

The problem I've always had with the debate on abortion is that people think it is a MORAL issue when it's not. The disagreement between both sides of the argument is one of NON-MORAL facts (when does the fetus develop its consciousness enough to be considered a living being).

Given that this is still a coned issue in the scientific world, there is ambiguity. But both sides of the argument sensibly agree that murdering a human is wrong, But in spite of all this, it's still treated as a clash of morals and then all the morons berate people who disagree like children.

5 years after conception.

*contested = coned

Eh. I've debated with women who think that they should have free and unabated access to abortions including partial birth abortion because the baby is still in their body.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

>A fetus, however, does not enter into a voluntary contract with the host, because it does not exist until the action of conception is taken. Without any such contract, the host cannot be held responsible for anything other than her own rights.

So because the fetus didn't enter into a contract with the mother, she can do as she pleases with it? That would imply you could terminate a pregnancy at any time, up to and including going into labor. Which is nonsense.

The fetus has a right to life - that is fundamental. The woman waives her rights to complete self-ownership when she gets pregnant because she knew the risks beforehand, and proceeded regardless. When the child was conceived, it may not have entered into a contract, but it has a fundamental human right to life.

>in the case of rape.
Abortion still should be illegal, because you don't get to kill children because somebody else is a criminal.

m8 read about child psychology and the development of the human brain

consciousness is not yet fully understood, as it is a widely debated philosophical topic, but the best sign of consciousness at this point is self awareness, the awareness of one's existence.

the best way to test it is by use of mirror tests, where one can recognize themselves in a mirror. babies don't recognize themselves, it takes a few years for us to develop that capability