Why is "It's just a clump of cells, its the women's choice if she wants to abort it." A shit argument...

Why is "It's just a clump of cells, its the women's choice if she wants to abort it." A shit argument? I need to BTFO my family with this. Gimme ur sauce POL

Other urls found in this thread:

infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=534&v=5X6uYqSSQGc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

depends on the stage of development, but for many weeks, it indeed is just a worthless clump of cells.

It's not just a clump of cells. If you let it keep growing it becomes everyone's problem if you're not ready to raise it.

Thats the half-assed smile of a broken man. Even the dog knows, they always know.

the counter to that is:
every organism is just a "clump of cells".

>not using the holidays to tell them about the Jews

We can't know for sure. Use this thought experiment.

If there might be someone in a building you're about to demolish, do you take the risk and demolish it? Or do you hold off?

infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm

An embryo, from the point of conception, posesses (or, in the case of ability to reproduce, will posess) all of the characteristics that science uses to determine if a thing is alive.

Start at the link and build an argument from there.

So you want to be pro-life but you cant think of arguments for it yourself? Sounds like you just want to be pro-life driven by an alterior motive, not based on arguments. Did Sup Forums or the Christian cult influence you too much?

Until a baby is born, it is physically part of the mothers body. The mother can do with her body whatever she wants to, otherwise you would deny self-ownership.

Also, polls have shown that Sup Forums is pro-choice anyway for the majority.

By the color I would say the dog is the father.

A grown human is just a clump of cells too, what a dumb argument!

grass has all these characteristics too but you dont feel bad stepping on and cutting it

Abortion hurts my fee-fees.

If it's just a clump of cells why does someone get charged with 2 murders if the woman they kill was pregnant and lost the baby?

The argument that is just cells is dependent on if the child is wanted or not. If it's wanted, it's a living thing from the start. If not, then it's just some crud that needs to be removed. They shouldn't be called a "clump of cells" or aborted fetus to separate emotional connection to something you realize you are not human enough to raise, they should be called what that are "unwanted babies".

>Why is "It's just a clump of cells, its the women's choice if she wants to abort it." A shit argument?
Because every living thing is just a clump of cells. Its just a way to dehuminize it so they dobt have to call it what it is, an unborn human child

Why are pregnant women more coddled and cared for than when they are pregant?

Because they have another fucking human inside of them.

Same applies to a women who wants an abortion.

Because it's not a shit argument but entirely accurate.
We don't whine about our poop, not about nails or hair we lose, we don't whine about tumors being removed yet somehow we should supposedly whine about a similarly formless and functionless bit of cells that is not yet anything more than a tumor with the faintest hint of potential?

It often seems to me that people that whine about this are whining purely for the sake of having something to whine about.

If a pregnant woman in her second trimester gets stabbed in the stomach and the fetus/baby dies but the pregnant woman doesn't does the stabber get charged with assault or murder?

>faggots who participate in data-mining threads are indicativate of the opinions of all people on Sup Forums
>fedora

You also have those characteristics and I wouldn't mind stepping on you.
Solid point.

God damn, look at the pain on that mans face.
This hurts me so much

Consider forced abortion.
Can woman protest? It's just a clump of cells.

>You also have those characteristics and I wouldn't mind stepping on you.

stick with your argument and convince me

>mfw all living creatures are just clumps of cells

Because if you kill a pregnant woman you kill two forms of life, the mother and the baby. And because the mother has chosen she wants to keep the baby, you also killed the mothers baby who would have otherwise had a right to self-ownership. The mother chose to give the baby a life and self-ownership, and you took that possibility away.

>argument
I posted a link for OP.
I've been on the internet too long to argue with people who are not open to having their minds changed.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to scramble some bald eagle eggs for dinner. Surely no one will care about that.

I wouldn't mind stepping on you, user.

Either it is part of the mother or it isnt. It cant be both part of the mothers and its own organism. Pick one.

Lol even the dog is looking at him like "you're about to throw that thing in the ocean right?"

i read your link and responded to it

now is your turn to respond to what i said. that is how discussions work.

you don't simply repeat your thesis over and over

or didn't you have an argument at all?

This shape can't be both a rectangle and a square!

Lemme jump in for him. Comparing grass to a human embryo is ass retarded.

That's the thing about pregnancies, being part of the mother and being its own organism overlaps here. The baby is a living creature attached to the mother, which is why the mother still has ownership over the baby.

"ass retarded" is not an argument.

>feeding the trolls

ok, let's compare a chicken then. it has all the characteristics of life and, assuming you're not vegan, you don't mind them dying.

his argument was that because a fetus is a living thing it should be treated like a human. that doesn't make sense.

Fine. Grass and a human embryo are not comparable. That's like saying we can't throw stones at Jews because Spaniards are people. False equivalency.

Do you see the difference between grass and a human embryo?

p.s. What is added to the embryo, such that it would be considered human, that it does not have at the onset of its existence?

Thats not how it works. Either it is a separate organism and deserves rights of its own or it is the same organism as the mother and it has no rights of its own. It cant be both.

For a long time it is just a clump of cells.

You can't act on what it WILL be because it isn't.
You can't pretend humanity is defined solely by genome and that the mind has no impact.
You can't deny that you're probably okay with abortive shit like the morning after pill like so many hypocrites.

Because god says so user, don't you believe in the literal word of god?

Life is a contentious thing to define, even top biologists argue about it. A random clump of cells hasn't the ability to think and reason as an infant might, even then you are probably fine killing an animal which, in many cases, exhibits abilities to think and reason above and beyond that of a toddler.

I don't know if abortion should be legal but by kek don't muddy the waters with shitty arguments, fallacies and poor analogies.

An embryo doesn't have a mind.
Humans do.

>hurr but I wouldn't mind stepping on you
Glad to know you value inanimate objects over actual humans, faggot.

Why shouldn't it be treated as human? What is it if not a human being?

>clump of cells
So is everything else. Next.

>morning after pill
>abortive
That fine Brazilian education at work

>So is everything else. Next.

and most humans have no problem with the creatures and organisms that are in that "everything else" category so what's your point?

*with killing creatures

>unlawful killing

and they say germans can't be funny

>breaking news: human life is considered worth more than the lives of plants and animals

It's not alive until Mr. Skeltal visits the unborn babby and injects it with his calcified demon spawn.

except a fetus is not a human

i always found that argument to be lacking. When you kill a person you are removing them from their future. I would say life begins when the sperm enters the egg, because after that point it has a future as a human being, unless it is aborted

if i follow their resoning, why cant i kill a child? its just a small construction of bones and flesh afer all, or an adult, its just a larger construction of flesh and bones?

what is their argument for not killing children and adults? that they would feel getting killed? or that they have already tasted life and it would be unfair to take it away?

Except it is

>2016
>the most hostile and dangerous environment for an unborn child is insid their own mother's womb

You guys weren't joking, artificial wombs really are the only hope for the human race.

This. You and I are just a clump of cells bonding and communicating.

Should murder be ok

It has completely different DNA but it is the same body. That is a new kind of stupid.

That is how it works, pregnancy is a complicated thing. The baby is an organism attached to and entirely dependant on the mother, who has ownership over herself so at the same time she has ownership over her baby. If the mother would die of an illness during pregnancy, does that make the mother a baby murderer because she took her babily's right to self-ownership? no, it's her own body and the baby depends on her entirely so if she dies there's nothing the baby can do to survive, thus the baby has no self-ownership yet.

>by kek
I knew these frog fuckers were rebbit infiltrators.

Also... 1 post from OP.
Y'all newfags postin' in a slide thread.

Technically all matter is a clump of cells. A 25 year old, an 80 year old, everything is a clump of cells. The validity of a human life is not dependant olupon the variables that surround it

> I would say life begins when the sperm enters the egg, because after that point it has a future as a human being, unless it is aborted
And you would be wrong. Early termination happens very frequently and most women don't even know about it. Also:
> Life begins at conception
> extra 21 chromosome
No one deserves to have their life cucked away like that.

It's not a shit argument and everyone should be encouraged to have abortion. Less googles, less crime, less bitches trying to get child support, abortion solves so many problems.

It is a human fetus

5th post best post

Clump of cells so arbitrary...
Let's assume by clump of cells they mean "clump of cells with out a consciousness" or "clump of cells unable to live independent of its (((host)))".

Neither really makes sense. In periods of sleep we lose our consciousness, is it safe to say that in those moments we suddenly become clumps of cells and it is permissible to kill us? How do we even know others experience consciousness for that matter? It seems asinine but there's no good reason to believe people other than me have consciousness. Certainly there is a breath to consciousness not all people are capable of experiencing all of the same things (psychos lacking empathy, synesthesia, natural differences between us all) how much do you need to be missing in order be considered a clump of cells? even if we accept that our individual different levels of consciousness don't reduce us to clumps of cells, what kind of conciousnesses does a newborn baby actually have? Either way they can no better live without a mother than a fetus can. And if dependence on another organism takes away humanity, I guess certain conjoined twins are non-human. I know my fellow anons will agree :^))

I didn't say that, I said it's attached to her body. No need to change my words around.

Just get them to admit that sometimes murder is legally justified/necessary. They shouldn't feel ashamed or try to dismiss it as "a clump of cells"

So what if you were on an iron lung and couldnt survive without someone else keeping you alive? Are you suddenly no longer a human being deserving of rights because you rely on another person to keep you alive?

Ayn rand's reasonable(?) argument for abortion: a fetus should not be able to hold hostage the woman's body, and a fetus comes often unwanted, so it can be terminated without qualms as an affront to her liberty as a (wo)man.

Problem is when you discuss it as a living being at the end of gestation -- why is infanticide legal?

In that scenario you depend on artificial medical care without being attached to and completely dependant on your mother. The fact that you've already been born and have had a right to self-ownership also plays a role.

>If someone has a miscarriage, should they be charged for involuntary manslaughter?

>Having kinslayers in your family.

Your family suck

>The fact that you've already been born and have had a right to self-ownership also plays a role.
Why?

>It's a clump of cells!

Yes? And?

Newsflash; When a child comes out of the womb it isn't gifted worth, it's a crying, shitting, and completely worthless. And in fact probably more dependent on the parents than it was inside the womb, on account that it now longer has the natural shelters of the mother's body.

So why is that wee babe important?

CHILDREN ARE NOT IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ARE, CHILDREN ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY CAN BE.

And that same principle applies in the womb. Deciding a child can no longer be killed once it has been born is a line in the sand which appeals solely to emotion. The reason normies think it's somehow inaccessible then is because the child is able to better defend itself once it's born, it's able to appeal to emotion.

"Birth" is a milestone in its development, it won't be self-aware or productive for a very long time. If you're okay with abortion, fine, but then you should also be able to kill the child at any point post, desu. Up until it's able demonstrate that it's self-aware.

I'm able to kill a doggo no problem, why am I not able to kill a four year old with comparable intellect?

Youre attached to and completely dependent on someone elses property to keep you alive. Its exactly the same thing. The fact that you were already born doesnt change the fact that you dont have bodily atonomy. By your definition, youre not a person and only have rights if the owner of the iron lung says you do.

...

>mfw i kill millions and millions of potential babies everyday
>mfw im still on the loose
absolute madman

your post dosnt answer mine.

> Life begins at conception
when do you consider life to begin?

it assumes that the fetus lakes moral value without directly arguing it, so long as the fetus has a future of value, like all other living humans, it is still wrong to kill them, for the same reason it is wrong to kill fully grown humans

Of course an Irishman had to say something as nationally-embarassing as this

Because from the moment you're born and no longer a part of your mothers body, you're a living person with self-ownership, and self-ownership isn't something that comes and goes from time to time.

fundamentally, everybody's "just a clump of cells".
i'd take the "rationalist" route to show them the light. basically be as fedora as you can. this will induce a backlash in them.
maybe try like this:
how can they explain the difference between a born and an unborn?
consciousness? what is consciousness?
it can all be reduced to a usefull illusion, an emergent property of networking neurons.
so if we are all just biological machines, why is a born life more worth than an unborn life?
just because one had a few more weeks of development? there's no rational justification to draw the line at a specific date.

OR

if you got the time to read into it, check out William Lane Craig and what he has to say regarding the existence of "souls". he constantly btfo's fedoras like it's a walk in the park.

If your family is religious use that.

If not say we never stop being cells, so when do we hit the line?

This.

Except it is.

Feminists try to pull a fast one and say it's not a person even though it's a human.

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=534&v=5X6uYqSSQGc

Its ridiculous. If we call bacteria on a fucking Mars a life then a fucking conceived child is a life.

Usually when the mother and unborn child dies it's considered a double-homicide.

I'm not a lawyer but I think in your example it would be murder.

1) There is no right to live, women have been having miscarriages throughout history. Children are sometimes born dead.

2) Childbirth can kill a woman, the woman's life is a Reality while the child's life is only a Possibility.

3) The woman can have more children if she desires.

4) Life should be viewed as a Privilege.

5) Taking care of the child can be a grave responsibility that alters or even destroys a woman's life. Or a burden on society if she chooses to adopt.

Whether the actions that caused pregnancy were her fault or not - the current day is always 0 hour - new choices can be made.

Responsibility also means amending a situation if she feels its appropriate to do so.

6) Nobody forces you to have an abortion, it is an Elective procedure and sometimes a costly one to get.

>Youre attached to
No, I'm not physically attached to my house with a navel cord. Also, my house isn't a living being with self-ownership so I don't know why you're saying this.

>and completely dependent on someone elses property to keep you alive.
No, I do not receive nutrients from my house through a navel cord. And besides, I -could- live without a house. Homeless people do exist, you know.

The rest of your post doesn't apply anymore after these refutations.

A fetus has a heartbeat at 8 weeks

Im not talking about a house you mong. Im talking about an iron lung or any other piece of medical equipment used to keep a person alive

ask them how they feel about a woman drinking or smoking when they're pregnant

Scooping out that clump of cells denies it everything that you deny someone when stabbing them to death.

And to expand on this:
Responsibility

Its irresponsible to end a pregnancy when it can destroy your life and you dont want it. Whether you were irresponsible to get pregnant or not doesnt matter, you're even more irresponsible to not do something about it.

and 7) Its irresponsible to bring a child into the world without being properly prepared to take care and raise that child. Best to wait until you are ready to do so than to let that child be born.

And if you're a woman and you have remorse over having an abortion because thats a child you'll never see smile at you - - That is your punishment.

But the punishment for getting pregnant should be no more than that.

>dog is father
KEK

Ohh I like this one Opie

once it starts developing neurons and synaptic links on its own you could say its more than jusr foetal tissue.I'd argue that brain and nerve cells are what truly make 'us' alive(well, any higher organism really)

And the next baby she gets pregnant with will have a heartbeat at 8 weeks...

So what?

Women are like baby-generators, she can keep having kids man...

She can have 2 for the one she failed to deliver. Sheesh.

As if we need more humans on this rock.

One Siamese twin doesn't have the right to kill the other just because they're attached, and they're genetically more similar than a mother and child.

In that case, you've already been born so you have self-ownership already. Also, an iron lung is not a living being so how can it have self-ownership, let alone ownership over me?

>You're a fucking clump of cells. Murder should be legal, then. Come up with something better.

Don't you have some "Repeal the 8th" badges to shove up your hole?

So why should killing / murdering be illegal? After all, there will be more humans after us.