{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Jolly Templar:
2/19/2017 12:54:13 AM
18
An actual scientific argument against abortion.
Unlike some pro-lifers (who shall not be mentioned), I am attempting to prove that abortion is murder in a scientific way.
So, sexual reproduction is not carried out by normal (diploid) cells, it is carried out by haploid cells. Haploid cells are formed from a process called Meiosis, which is different than the Mitosis that regular cells go through. Long story short, haploid cells have half as many chromosomes as most cells. Once they mingle (such as when sperm gets into an egg), the resulting product is a zygote, which is a separate human being from the mother that has its own set of DNA. Now that we got biology 101 out of the way, here is where the abortion part comes in. Aborting a Fetus is not just 'removing some tissue' from the mother. It is killing a separate human being.
Any questions?
Oh, and try and keep the comments section mostly civil. It is hard to have a civilized discussion when people are flaming the chat with nonsense.
-
Lmao a high school freshman bio explanation of how gametes work doesn't constitute a scientific argument against abortion.
-
50 RepliesWell, your argument assumes two falsehoods to be true. A) That a collection of human cells is a human being. B) That a fetus is separate from the mother in any way shape or form. Both are untrue, unless you avoid using logical, operational definitions to define what a living human being is, and instead define this in an arbitrary manner so that you can support your point. Furthermore, your arbitrary definition of what a living human being is will be contradictory if you are to assume A is actually true because the given collection of human cells will eventually become a human, because this would be untrue if B was true. Your argument is not one from science. Your argument has a mostly scientific premise, to which your implications are made specifically from the non-scientific parts of it. This is due to the fact that in practice, to classify something as a living, human being, we use a logical, operational definition which excludes any and all things that we cannot possibly consider a living human. We do this by understanding the differences between humans and other organisms or objects. One of the key differences between humans and other species is our cognitive abilities, which is a great place to start. If a being is incapable of conscious thought, withholding those which have previously been capable, then it is not a human being. The thalamocortical complex forms around 24 weeks into gestation, and renders conscious thought possible. Before then, it isn't a human. All of that being said, I understand that you won't coincide. I don't particularly care if you don't support abortion, I'm just explaining that this isn't a scientific argument you have presented, nor is it a logically sound one.
-
2 RepliesI'm for abortion, I simply think that the mother should be given the right to choose wether she wants the child or not. Although I disagree with the whole "abortion is murder" thing, I do respect the point that you're trying to make.
-
Edited by Armani: 2/21/2017 6:48:39 PMI love it, let the triggering commence! Lol this should be a good one!
-
Edited by Cultmeister: 2/20/2017 10:34:47 PMScience is not in the business of creating moral judgements, and any attempt to do so is in the first place just not science, and is in the second place [u][i][b]ALWAYS[/b][/i][/u] based at some point on arbitrary, baseless assumptions. That's why it should be done the other way around. The issue is, morally speaking, what kind of an organism are we ok with destroying, * and whether such an organism has nearly or exactly the same traits (that we consider important) as a human at some stage of development in the womb. Once we have settled on the first part, the morality, the biology is the easy bit, because once we've decided that (for example) we can kill organisms with no sense of pain or consciousness, we can pinpoint that part of a developing foetus and allow ourselves to abort from then backwards. Attempting to create morality from the science makes the false assumption that morality CAN be created from science, when in reality all it does is lend weight to one side or the other of a pre-existing morality. Survival of the genes might be advantageous for an organism, for instance, because it ensures survival of the race, but that the race 'should' survive is a human construct. Most races don't survive very long in the context of the planet let alone the galaxy or the universe - that's just as much science as the drive to reproduce - yet we feel it more moral to keep the race surviving over following the rule of 'well we all gotta die someday' because... [arbitrary baseless assumption]. *Please don't say you aren't in favour of destroying 'any' organisms. A weed is an organism. If you take it out of the ground you have destroyed an organism. A carrot is an organism. If you eat it and digest it you have destroyed an organism. The argument is 'when' an organism stops being something we disregard like that.
-
7 RepliesEdited by Element Ninja: 2/21/2017 2:11:56 AMHardly anyone who supports abortion will ever be able to change their mind on it for the better, for doing so would imply that they'd have to admit that they were messed up in the head (to say lightly) enough to support the murder of helpless babies. Most of humanity does not have the humility to face their own ugliness and fallenness. Thus, you get sorry saps that will perform the most complex of mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs. They'd rather commit to evil and claim it's justified and good in order to avoid admitting their wrong instead of turn from it in humility and admit their corrupt nature. Edit: however, God still loves them and accepts them as they are. Christ died for all sins. They just need repent and believe. God, in His good grace, will transform their hearts to good.
-
Well... you see... "Do I take life or give it? Who is victim, and who is foe?" - Gravemind
-
4 RepliesOne thing that bugs me is the way some people seem to think that decision is taken lightly. Like its nothing. Or that theres no psychological scarring after...
-
13 RepliesA ball of cells without consciousness is a tumor. A woman's body is her choice alone. [spoiler]blowjobs are cannibalism so is you really wanna argue using science, maybe no more oral sex[/spoiler]
-
5 RepliesA single called organism is considered "life" by scientists. A fetus isn't considered "life" by "science" I guess. If a woman wants to have an abortion she should be able to. That's on her conscience.
-
20 RepliesYou jumped to that conclusion insanely quickly. I shall refute your scientific reasoning with my own. There are 7 criteria for something to be considered "alive". An organism must pass ALL of them. One of those is reproduction. Now, during the first trimester, the fetus physically does not have sexual organs. Therefore, by scientific logic and deduction, a fetus, in the first trimester, is not alive.
-
22 RepliesI see two options with abortion 1. The foetus isn't human and can happily be aborted 2. The foetus is a human and the mum can kill or choose to have it killed in 'self defence' as any foetus can cause harm.
-
I was genuinely impressed until you called a zygote a human being. There's a reason we call it a zygote and not a baby. That's also why we make the distinction between embryo and baby, or foetus and baby.
-
2 RepliesThat's not an argument. That's just a brief explanation of how one gets pregnant.
-
30 RepliesOut of curiosity, are you against cooking food because it heats up enough to kill bacteria? I'm wondering since if life came from such cells in the past through evolution, it would surely be murder to kill any cells that have life and could eventually turn human or intelligent if left alone as we were.
-
3 RepliesAhh I remember my days as a zygote. Happiest time of my life.
-
14 RepliesStill doesn't address violating the mothers rights.
-
13 RepliesA fetus is not a human therefore there is no murder at all
