In my opinion even after the womb you are still not alive.
Sapient babys? Not so much.

>>776730 then when?

>>776742
After 2 years.

This is /sci/ not /hum/anity.

>>776706
But you arn't.
You are barley alive when new-born or the first couple of YEARS.
Most babies just react by what they know they should do, hard-coded in genes and all.
Independent though and actions are shown around the 2 to 3 year mark.

So all in all, infants are just lumps of meat reacting to the input they are given. No independent though, memories or anything. Most people don't even have memories from when they were kids as young as 6 - 8. I don't have any memories before I was 13 but that is because something is not all a okay up there.

>>776742
he is a atheist he believes humans are not human until they can live off there own two legs and hands

>>776755
Or just a realistic person....

Currently, it goes by "viability."

Under that distinction, you're not, er, "alive" until 5-ish months in. You aren't given the legal distinction of "born" until you're born, because that's an ideal line to define a person as, the day that they leave the womb.

Over 90% (99%?) of abortions are done in the first 3 months.
Also, the brain isn't functional *at all* until at least 3 months in. Before that, it is nothing but a clump of cells, producing *zero* brainwaves.

>>776752
I have memories from when i was 4.
I remember playing Doom when it came out. Scared the shit out of me, maybe that's why it's burned to my brain.

life is anything with working cells/cell. that baby's alive. plus ruining potential is never a good thing.

>>776765
>Over 90% (99%?) of abortions are done in the first 3 months.
that means that up to 10% ARE after 3 months

>>776777
I think you got that backwards.
Taking every chance to stop fuckers to ruin our potential to actually achiving something is what we should do.
Anyone as much as sneezes when pregrant should be insta-abort.

>>776798
Never Change Atheist

>>776798
>insta-abort.
I wonder how that might work...

>>776781
Yeah, and?

It's not like they'd know the difference; their consciousness isn't even formed yet.

>>776803
FALCON-PANCH!

If you're alive when you come out of your penis, how come we throw away semen?

>>776809
you would know the difference anon, and then you would kill yourself over it

>>776815
i know your trollin but because semen isnt fertilized straight from the penis.

>>776706
Fetus is living off your body and looks likes more like a fish than a human. Kill the parasite with a hanger.

>>776825
It would have been a human if you came in a woman. More would be humans are destroyed.

I think men should have the right to abortion. Not an abortion proper, but the ability to remove themselves from any responsibility for a child, this is the same right given to women. The most a man could be held financially responsible for is the cost of an abortion. Don't bother to argue, my logic is flawless.

>>776815
I always feel alive when I come out of my penis.

>>776826
a fetus is not a parasite

>>776857
Yes it is.

>>776831
>>776831
>>776831
>>776831

I agree with this so much.

>>776862
I've read a (serious) article explaining why this was actually really sensible. Typically, I can't find it now.

>>776857
Fucking definition of a parasite boy-o.

>>776861
No, it is not. Try reading the definition. Don't be afraid of the big words.

>>776831
haha thats true. fuck women

>>776861
way too argue on /sci/... simply assert your position without evidence

>>776831
I 100% agree with this.

If a woman can abort a child (and give up ALL responsibility for it), so too should a father be able to.

>>776870
> Typically, I can't find it now.

Oh please do. Maybe you could point me in the right direction to find it?

>>776874
>Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.

Prochoicer here, I also don't like the parasite analogy. The fetus doesn't "leech" nutrients from the woman's body, the woman's body gives it to the fetus. Only commenting on that because rhetoric is bullshit in this debate.

>>776895
This.
The "host" benefits in that it gets to reproduce. How is that parasitism?

>>776706
If your arm is alive on your body, why isn't it legally a separate person until it detaches and starts living on its own?

>>776903
It is not by choice she gives it. The fucker steals it. FUCKING NIGGERS IN MY WOMB!

>>776911
The host only benefits by reproducing if it WANTS to reproduce.

In the case of a woman that doesn't want to keep it, it acts as a "parasite" of sorts (although of the same species, so not fitting the technical definition).

>>776917
No, John, you are the niggers.

>>776917
I was thinking this too. If it's unwanted, it's leeching nutrients. I don't care that it has the same number of chromosomes; it's a parasite.

>>776917
>>776931
>organisms of different species
lrn2read negroe

>>776706

trollollollollollollollooooo

>>776947
You learn to read, fucking idiot.

My post clearly states:
>it acts as a "parasite" of sorts (although of the same species, so not fitting the technical definition).

>>776893
This isn't the original one but it's about the same kind of stuff.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html

What I remember of the one I was talking about - I haven't read the whole Time article so it might be similar - was that if men can just walk away at any time, it would stop people just having babies just because they got pregnant. It argued that because the man could just leave and leave the woman to pay for everything, only people who really wanted it and/or could afford it would do so. There would then be less people bringing up children in bad circumstances.

I don't think that's a very good summary, it doesn't seem very convincing! But I just can't find it.

I support right to abortion and all, but the fetus is not a parasite. Although these terms are better used on separate species, if anything, fetus and mother are in symbiosis. In evolutionary terms, they are in a mutually beneficial symbiosis, regardless of whether the mother is sometimes displeased with it. If you insist on a proximate analysis, in many modern societies "leeching" nutrients hardly hurts the woman.

>>776959
Okay, let's read it again
>>Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species
NOPE
>where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
NOPE

So the fetus is not entirely unlike a parasite, is what you are saying?

>>776947
The fetus is parasitic. Don't use a single preferred definition of parasite either.

"1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return"

>>776985
Parasite: benefits at the expense of the host.

My post:
>In the case of a woman that doesn't want to keep it, it acts as a "parasite" of sorts (although of the same species, so not fitting the technical definition).

Yes, in the event that a woman doesn't want it, the fetus is acting as a parasite, although of the same species so not "technically" a parasite.

What don't you understand about this?

>>776974
>Commensalism is a class of relationship between two organisms where one organism benefits but the other is unaffected
This is what you are looking for.

>>776993
>Lose argument
>Change definition of word
>Claim victoly

A WINNER IS YOU!

>>776995
It depends on the situation.

In cases where the woman doesn't want it, it is a burden on the host. Yes, the nutrients taken from the host is minimal, but the burden of carrying around a big sack in front of you is quite, well, a burden, if it's unwanted.

In cases where the woman *wants* it, then it is not quite commensalism, because both parties benefit from it.

>>776988
>"1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery

Not what we're talking about. You could say that about many people.

>2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Doesn't say what "parasitism" is.

>3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return"

But parasitism is not just "how do you feel about Greg doing that?" It references relationships regarding evolutionary fitness. A woman has children to pass on her genes, and it is a benefit for her/her genes and it is hardly decreasing her own fitness.

>>776988
A fetus satisfies exactly zero of those definitions.

>>776961
>>776961
>>776961
>>776961
>>776961

Thank you!

>>777006
...I didn't change the definition?

I agree that a fetus is not a parasite, by definition. I never stated otherwise. I said that it is ACTING as a parasite by feeding off of the host at the expense of the host. What about this don't you get? I never stated anything different than this.

>>777013
>but the burden of carrying around a big sack in front of you is quite, well, a burden

>>777006
>Arguing semantics.
>Doesn't realize that some words have more than one definition.
>Grab preferred definition, run with it. Every other is wrong.

>>776995
By that reasoning, organisms that harm another to reproduce aren't parasites because they don't benefit from their host (using their host to reproduce)

Growing a child benefits the woman's genetic fitness.

>>777035
>>777027
See
>>777017
ENJOY, YOU'RE BUTTHURT!

>>777036
>don't benefit from their host
>don't benefit themselves

fix'd

>>776944
I agree that parasite is a nearly appropriate word for an unwanted fetus, but please lrn2genetics. chromosomal number doesn't have much to do with species classification. the sable antelope, for example, also has 46 chromosomes, but it's not human.

>>777018

>A fetus satisfies exactly zero of those definitions.
>dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

>>777036
See:
>>777013

Even from an evolutionary standpoint, a woman giving birth while she's poor and when she can't feed it doesn't benefit any of that family, because they'll likely stay poor and yada yada. Better chance of not carrying on their lineage.

Waiting until they are financially secure enough to have kids is better, especially if the kid is found to have Downs or some sort of disease while in the womb.

>>777048
I know. I should have chosen my words better, but my point was clear. Right? The genome of the organism is verifiably human.

>>777046
ACTING AS A PARASITE

ACTING

ACTING ACTING ACTING ACTING ACTING.

I never said that fetus = parasite. Only that fetus ACTS as a parasite, because it DOES (leeching off of the host at the expense of the host, if it is unwanted).

>>777053
>implying reproduction isn't useful

>>777056
>a woman giving birth while she's poor and when she can't feed it doesn't benefit any of that family

read "A Modest Proposal" and tell me an infant doesn't benefit an impoverished family

>>777075
>Implying reproduction is ALWAYS useful.

I can think of many situations where a child would be an undue burden on the family and would harm the lineage as a whole. Hence, abortion.

>>777076
Are you really suggesting people eat babies to resolve this problem?

Ladies and Gentlemen

I would like to grab your attention.

It seems that this thread is slightly off topic. According to this post >>776706 the question's seem to be of legal background, not scientific.

So /sci/, To save this thread from liberal thought I ask /sci/ this question.

Biologically speaking, when is the fetus considered a human being?

I see the fetus as the developing stage for a human being, and if given 9 months, becomes a human being.

Therefore, the fetus is just as human as you or me, only younger and underdeveloped.

Therefore, use a condom/The pill. If you get prego, well thats your fault and take responsibility for your actions and try adoption. I personally see abortion shirking ones responsibilities

Some would argue that the fetus isn't fully human until its CNS begins to develop (the ability to feel / consciousness). Thus abortions shouldn't be performed after the 1st trimester... uh... I think.

Few argue (I found this funny) that the fetus needs to show the ability to reproduce in order for it to be considered "alive".

Liberal thinkers justify abortions by claiming that the Fetus is technically not alive until out of the womb. This logic has holes in it.

Regardless of the law, if your going to have an abortion, it should be known that

A. This fetus does NOT have rights.

B. It is living

C. Stop trying to justify that what your doing is morally O.K. through pseudoscience, your still killing the thing.... legally or not.
.

>>777076
Summarize it for me.

Even if that family benefits, it will drag down society more.

>>777076
If only infants were just 9 months of nutrition compressed into a chicken-sized portion!

>>777074
>ACTING AS A PARASITE

>ACTING

>ACTING ACTING ACTING ACTING ACTING.

You know, autistic children will often repeat themselves.

There is a 200% chance that you will reply to this post.

MOO.

>>777091
infanticide with a cide salad ftw?

>>777066

In addition the this post >>777093 that i made, I agree with >>777066

Guys, let's just wait till we can manufacture children in factories and order them on HSN like everything else. Then we'll be able to customize them and not fuck up our woman's pussy. I'm pretty sure the technology will come around some time in the next 50 years.

>>777076
I was the very knowing American (^_^)

>>777117
Can't wait.

>>777093
lol@liberalthinkers

>>777102
There's a pretty good chance that you'll reply to this reply, too.

>>777102
moo?

>>777117

Sir, even if the technology was made available, life would be no fun, everyone would be practically the same, and YOU would become worthless... just like everyone else in this thread will too.

Life needs to be fun too.

>>777124

Yes I see your point. I believe when I put down "Liberal Thinkers" I did not realize that it was redundant at the time of posting.

>>777056
>Even from an evolutionary standpoint, a woman giving birth while she's poor and when she can't feed it

Yes, whether fitness is increased depends. However, for one thing, it doesn't matter whether the woman wants it per se (and many women who want an abortion but don't get one change their mind after the child's born). It could still be a good thing for her genes. In fact, wealth in many societies is not necessary to feed children; wealth actually decreases the chance of reproducing, and having unwanted children will often just serve to spread your genes.

Second, fetuses/babies are generally help the woman's genes spread; it is the exception when it harms her, and there are always exceptions. In this case, what we're really talking about here is not that fetuses by nature are parasite. We'd be saying that only a few choice fetuses are parasites, which is too particular for the word I think.

>>777132
How would everyone be the same? You could always get a kid that's fertilized by your sperm and her egg and just grown in a tube for 9 months. Also this would make it so that only people who are responsible could have children and we wouldn't have fucked up herp derp anymore.

>>777117
I hated that movie.

>>777152
Oh, agreed. That's why in every post that mentions parasite by me, I say that it's *acting* as a parasite, in some situations.

>>777138

Well, masturbation isn't genocide because sperm aren't living; it's just the genocide of potential life.

>>777167
Star Wars or Matrix?

>>777138

I lol'd.

>>777138
>>777138

If you conclude unicellular organisms to be of the same value as multicellular organisms then yes you would be correct.

A sperm cell cannot related to a conglomerate of organized cells that is a multicellular organism. By stating this you also concluded that using bug spray is animal abuse, because insects are part of the animal kingdom.

Ergo, Human beings (at the very beginning) are EGG + SPERM. If you prevent EGG+SPERM then you don't get a baby.

ur considered alive 23 weeks into the preg

why are you so evil /sci/ ;_;

>>776798
ABORT, ABORT!!!111!!!!!!1!1111111!1!ONE!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!

>>777206
>implying forcing a woman to carry for 7 months and give birth against their will is any less evil.

>>777226
would you say that if your mother aborted you ? there are better option than abortion Adoption,Safe Sex ,give it to your parents

>implying sperm cells aren't alive
>implying ovum aren't alive
>implying every single cell is not alive

Incoming shitstorm

>>777093
Get the fuck outta here Christfag. The only question you need to consider is if the fetus could survive outside the womb, then you can consider it alive and thus it would be morally questionable to terminate it. If not, it is no different than removing a tumor. Potential should have nothing to do with it.

>>777236
I wouldn't be alive to comment on it if I would have been aborted. Logic fail. Most abortions are long before the brain is functional in the least, ergo, no consciousness.

I would have preferred non-existence over a shitty existence anyways.

>>777236
>what would you say if your mother aborted you.

hahaha. That is the fucking lamest shit I've ever heard. Obviously he would have nothing to say about it. I would argue bringing a child into the world when you have neither the resources nor the inclination to care for it is even more repugnant than deciding to abort.

>>777247
The fetus is not a woman's cells growing uncontrollably. It is a hybrid between mother and father's gametes, and it is its own growing organism. It interacts chemically with the mother in a dynamic fashion the same way as other organisms interact with each other, and it eventually leaves. It is a generally beneficial to both mother and child.

>>777299
Generally, yes. If the mother wants it.

If she doesn't, then it isn't beneficial, and she should be allowed to abort if she wants.

>>777226
>>777226

>Implying that killing a living thing is just as bad as waiting 7 months.

If you don't want baby, then use a condom and the pill.

If you really don't want baby regardless of that .01% chance that you do have baby, keep it in your pants.

If its natural instinct to have sex, then it is natural to have a baby.

All you motherfuckers need to take responsibility for your own actions. Fuck, even Darwin had a good point on this;

>The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.

>>777093
At what point are two cells (sperm and egg) considered a living human being? I think you failed to answer that, only stating what other people's pro choice arguments are without saying what's wrong with them, just that they are wrong.

Fun fact: 10-25% of pregnancies miscarry, the vast majority of which occur in the first two weeks without the person being aware that they miscarried or even that they were pregnant in the first place.

>>777299
Obviously a fetus does not exactly equal to a tumor. However, a tumor, as well as a fetus up to a certain point, are both masses of cells that "interact chemically" with the host. You have a your mind focused on the potential of the fetus. I am solely considering the state of the cells as they are.

>>777299
>The fetus is not a woman's cells growing uncontrollably

then why do abortion procedures exist? If a woman wants to stop cells developing into an infant, she should be all like: stop that shit. problem solved

>>777247
>>777247

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you liberal thought infiltrating scientific reason.

Refutation on the fact that you believe the poster to be Christian [Personal attack] and comparing a "Fetus" to a "Cancer" is dumb.

Can you prove that the cells are growing out of control? Seems that if you have taken a Developmental biology course in your sad pitiful life you would realize that there is more to this shit then "CELL GROWTH".

It is highly organized and end product is a human being.

The genome is indeed, HUMAN

What more proof can you ask for. If you want to have an abortion, no one is stopping your faggot ass from having one. Just stop trying to justify that what your doing has any moral implications so you can feel better afterwards.

>>777336
>PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

That's not how the world works. People will ALWAYS make mistakes.

>>777346
>>777346

Sir, most of the cells in a tumor are necrotic.

The Fetus is not necrotic.

>>777336
I agree that a person should use condoms and the pill, but many women (5% I believe) are allergic to the pill or otherwise can't have it.

And, even then, there is always the chance that shit will happen.

Doesn't make sense to ruin a person's life just to keep a lump of cells alive to bring them into a shitty and unwanted existence.

>>777381

And you need to learn for them or thou are doomed to repeat history. You can't go back in time to fix a mistake you have made. Owning up to your mistake, and taking responsibility for your mistake has some "evolutionary perks".

For example, growing a pair of balls.

>>776831
I have thought this for a very ling time. It is the only logical conclusion.

>>777378
>Just stop trying to justify that what your doing has any moral implications so you can feel better afterwards.

I think what you mean to say is is "stop trying to justify that what you are doing DOESN'T have any moral implications" You want to imply that there are, in fact, moral implications. This solidifies you as someone who is not being objective. My guess is religion is influencing you.

And I can tell, you basically equate liberal with rational and objective. You also equate liberal with trying to stop legislation of morality. I imagine you would argue heavily for such legislation.

>>777400

Can you see into the future?

Therefore, you cannot make any conclusions on how that life will be lead. There is a possibility for success, especially adoption. My younger cousins are adopted because my uncle/aunt couldn't biologically have kids.

My uncle happens to be quite wealthy too. Its all a matter of chance.

>>777336
Easy for you to say, you'll never have to deal with the possibility of impregnating somebody.

>>777346
You're being too reductionist, we're talking about emergent properties of life, not 'well it's all chemicals, it's all the same.' The fetus and mother are in symbiosis, the fetus is not part of the mother. The chemical interactions are specially 'designed' so that the fetus can tell the mother what the fetus needs, and then the mother can nourish the fetus. It has been designed so because it is mutually beneficial.

>>777393
Again, stop trying to interpret what I said literally! It's called an analogy, something which implies similar properties. You are another one of those in this thread who are focusing on what the fetus will become. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT A FETUS WILL BECOME A HUMAN IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. The potential for sperm to become human is there also, but I don't see you crusading for masturbation as murder. Or maybe you do, which wouldn't really surprise me.