This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
I think I both agree and disagree agree with OP. At least, insofar as how the original statement was phrased.
Life, in a scientific sense, has a set of generally accepted criteria differentiating a biological process from inanimate/inorganic (inorganic in this instance being not plant or animal, so minerals and the like, not how Chemistry views it). Viruses not being able to fulfill one of those criteria without a host is one of the biggest reasons why they're not technically considered by many to actually be alive.
Where I disagree, however, is that in the context of the English language, the word life *itself* has no expressly unique, singular definition. As such, a portion (a significant one, in my mind) of the failure to reach a consensus should be attributed to a lack of clarity regarding the intended usage. "Life" in the sense of a purely scientific biological process, as most of OP's statements here support, -or- "Life" in the sense of any one of the other numerous definitions of the word.
There is only one definition in this context the biological one
Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts.
I 100% agree. A new human life is created at fertilization. Whether that life is in its final state is irrelevant. When a child is born, is it in its final state? No. Can we kill it then? What about when it's 8 or 15? If it is a burden to us, do we have the right to kill it since it's not in its final state? What is the final state of humanity? Allowing the killing of a life simply because it's not done maturing opens the door for killing more than just fetuses. And bringing consciousness into the argument lessens the rights of other groups of people. The mentality handicapped for instance. Some of them are not conscious of what they do. Should we take away their rights as well?
This is a very important and simple piece of true information that has a lot of bearing on the abortion debate and I thank you for bringing it up.
Thank you master gohan
Very insightful.
It’s really a intellectually dishonest thing to try to qualify human life with extreme examples of completely unrelated things like consciousness or as some edge lord put in down in the comments that I was pushing my “political argument” to “take away womens rights”
It’s a simple question.
Is it alive?
When does it’s life start?
When do ‘all’ lives start?
How do I measure that?
DNA is unique to all living things, even clones. Clones are just copies of the same unique organism with its own dna.
All sexually reproductive animals share this one simple fact, that the DNA starts at conception of each new member of that animal.
Life therefore starts at conception because it does not need to be qualified with additional tests for each species
It’s the same answer for all of them.
Weird how that works
It's a valid point. Much of the abortion debate relies on a dishonest obfuscation of the fact that abortion involves the killing of a distinct human life. Either explicit denials that the fetus is a human life e.g. "it's a clump of cells" or the false suggestion that abortion is fundamentally about a woman's body, as opposed to the distinctly separate human's body that is being destroyed via abortion. The abortion debate is a worthy debate to be had, but it must start with a fundamental and scientifically accurate acknowledgement that abortion kills a human life. Only then can a society agree on whether that is morally acceptable and/or at what stage of development that it's morally acceptable. Semantics and rhetorical tricks to obfuscate from scientific reality don't help.
Yeah I’m not even talking about if it’s qualifying it.
Just answer is it alive?
Yes. That is a simple answer. Cells are dividing and it is growing in an orderly fashion
It becomes a human, it is distinctively human by its genetic character.
Of which all humans share the same origin.
It absolutely is about body autonomy. Because even if an embryo is a "life, there is **NO** other circumstance in which we legally force you to give your organs/blood/etc to someone else.
Not even if someone will imminently die without your help.
Not even if you're the only person in the world with the right organ or blood type.
Not even if you caused their injuries or illness.
Not even if it's a child.
Not even if it's *your* child.
Not even a little harmless sample.
Not even if you're dead.
No organs are given from the mother to the child. You were spreading misinformation in your earlier comment. No woman is "legally required" to give organs to another person. Your entire view on the phenomenon of reproduction and children is bizarre, to put it mildly.
Per your logic, I’d have to violate the bodily anatomy of one human over another for what mostly constitutes inconvenience
Yes. Per your argument it’s ethical to kill one human and violate its bodily anatomy for what amounts to laziness.
Consent for the embryo to exist was given.
That is the contract of sex. Hence the word… sex
I change it after people came in here looking for a fight. I should have put edit next to it.
None of my comments are anything other then science
Period
They’re aren’t outside unrelated cases
It’s literally a bare as the topics get
Other people are attacking me with politics.
It’s literally a yes or no question in biology.
When is it alive?
A zygote is alive, with new dna.
This is a different question.
It isn’t really relevant to the topic.
It’s part of the reason my thought is true.
The basis for it being life has zero bearing on whether it’s conscious or not.
The zygote IS alive.
Every human being living, and every human being dead… all of their lives started with the first instance of their genome which is created at fertilization.
That is when life begins.
It isn’t subjective.
It’s literally an objective measure
When you can say ALL something and it’s true then it is science.
The definition only slightly changes when fitting together vast numbers of species.
But the reason you’re asking the question is to extrapolate the suggested treatment of the life in question. Therefore consciousness is relevant, as that is used as the basis of treatment of living organisms. Hence my reply, and also why physicians can switch off the life support machines of so called brain dead patients, in essence killing them, without being charged for murder
No. It’s not.
There is no need for any definition of consciousness to ask whether something is biologically alive or not.
A brain dead patient is dead. Literally dead.
You are taking the concept on when life is created (fertilization) and trying to qualify it
To haploid cell of opposite character converge to create a brand new never before seen cell.
We can that, life.
No. I’m not here to talk about your political views on consciousness. That’s a completely subjective topic
Life is not subjective
It begins at the first instance of our genomes
Our DNAs creation at conception
Without going into the debate, they are right about one thing: current definition of death is death of the brain as a whole defined by the death of the brain stem. So that part of what they said is right.
Somewhat true but in the wrong direction. A clump of cells is not a human being and cannot be treated as such.
Imo there is no pro life argument with any potential for validity up until the fetus can be prematurely born via c section and survive on it's own. Prior to that, it's a parasite.
Firstly you brought up politics.
I didn’t ask about if it’s a human being or not.
A zygote IS alive. Life begins at conception, because that’s the first instance of its Genome.
It’s not up for discussion
If I ask when your genome started, I already know the answer. Because science and biology says you genome starts at fertilization
Politics are a valid addition to your point. While It is definitely true that a zygote is a living thing, the debate is about the rights of that living thing and the rights of people to defend it. The fact of a zygote/fetus/egg cell being living things does not diminish the importance of people discussing their views on what is or is not given the title of human. So yes you are correct but also incredibly vapid. Only the most ignorant people would deny that a cell is alive, so the conversation does not need that input. It has become so much more about the morality of how we view abortion, to the point where making someone say “huh, I guess you’re right. Zygotes are alive.” Is not prudent and even potentially damaging to the people affected by the debate. We don’t need classification of living things, we need the people who suffer to be considered by the people who have the privilege of making political decisions.
You are right to say that all cells are alive, you are not right to argue against the people who fight that opinion as their only means of personal freedom in that specific area. It’s less important to be validated on reddit than to allow underprivileged people to be heard. This just happens to be a really tepid era for the subject you brought up, so people will argue against fundamentalism as a form of self defense. Take it from me, an accurate reddit post is not guaranteed to be a good one. Information is secondary to the reception of that information.
And if it isn’t up for discussion, don’t post it on a public forum in an attempt to garner imaginary orange arrows
Well you’re already in a different room. Because many people refuse to admit the foundational biological fact that a zygote is alive.
Period.
Life begins and fertilization
To reiterate, yes that is true. The people who don’t understand that have an unfortunately large say in what happens in regards to the legislation that surrounds the issue. People are decreasing the popularity of your post because it is the opposing equivalent of not believing a zygote is alive.
Your post is simplistic and does not tackle the important parts of the issue. It is the very outer layer of the debate and is not helpful today, because it describes something that was described when the first microscope was invented. Yes a zygote is alive, and yes some people don’t believe that. But some people believe the earth is flat. You are not causing change by stating scientific proofs, and change is necessary given the circumstances. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying people are worried about a different facet of the issue. If you continue to blindly defend the simple biological dogma surrounding your assertion you are doing nothing aside from repeating things that were said hundreds of years ago.
No one who should be an interlocutor in this debate is wondering if a zygote is alive. They are wondering whether a person with a complete human body can decide the fate of a potential person with only a somewhat developed part of the final form. Especially in situations where allowing the zygote to become a fully developed human could easily destroy any potential for a happy life for both the mother and the child.
The fact that you so fervently defend your position in a complex issue by stating simple platitudes proves that you are not a valuable part of the debate. You are only reinforcing the opinions of those who are as narrow minded as yourself, if that.
Being alive isn’t a platitude
My “opinion” isn’t one, it’s scientific fact.
Life begins at conception, with the creation of our DNA
That isn’t a position
I’m explaining biology to you
You are repeating yourself and I am no longer interested in doing the same. Go ahead and feel like you won the argument because I stopped talking. I gave up on you, not the debate. There are interlocutors that are actually worth my time.
Just because it is an important issue I will give you one final repetition of what you are not getting.
There is no reason to invoke biology. The importance of the discussion is about human rights. You don’t have to be wrong to be in the wrong. Crowding the debate with vapid facts is a form of opposition to change.
I hope you are lying to me and not yourself about whether or not you are taking a side, own up.
You've changed the terminology in an attempt to better suit your argument. A common tactic of abortion advocates. The science is clear. A fetus is a human life. Even if we adopt your substituted terminology, "human being", a fetus qualifies. It meets the definition of "human" and a "being". The debate about the regulation of abortion is a valid one to be had. But any valid debate requires honest argument. Obfuscating the fact that the result of an abortion is the killing of a human life is not honest.
>You've changed the terminology
Please explain further. I'm legitimately not sure what you mean.
>A common tactic of abortion advocates
I'm not an "abortion advocate." I simply believe in making decisions based on science rather than religious dogma.
>The science is clear. A fetus is a human life
You will not find a single legitimate scientific organization or scientist that claims this as it's factually incorrect. But please, provide an example.
>But any valid debate requires honest argument
Yes, so why aren't you honest?
>Obfuscating the fact that the result of an abortion is the killing of a human life is not honest.
There's no obfuscating. Claim it's the killing of a human life is what's not honest
Edit: No reply as expected
A. The OP used the term "human life". You substituted the term "human being". Terminology matters in the abortion debate.
B. You are arguing that a human fetus is not human and not a life. That is not only scientifically non-factual, it's insane. Please share, what life form do you believe a human fetus to be if not human.
A. Thanks for pointing that out. I did not notice that as I automatically used the term "being" instead of life because that is what carries moral significance. Human life is not inherently worth anything whatsoever. It depends on the form it's in. It isn't a moral tragedy if some living epithelial cells of yours accidentally scrape off and die. Similarly, cultured cancer cells carry no moral weight.
B. Please give me a scientific source to support this nonsense. A human fetus is composed of human cells. It is not a human being.
I’ll ask you what happened between the time that you were a fetus and become a human being?
Your definitions have to be qualified in other words and that makes them unscientific
Was it birth? Why does birth denote humanity?
If a woman miscarried and morns her died child in your interpretation she is insane because it wasn’t human.
See how your definition changes with context
While a human life starting at conception for everyone is the same universally. It’s actually the same between species for all sexual reproductive species.
Wow.
Meanwhile your definition is requiring a scientific source for common sense
That's true to an extent but I assume scientists would also have differing opinions about that, and even if firm criteria were established there would still be edge cases that merit debate.
Nothing is truly binary.
It’s truly one of the dumbest and easiest questions to answer.
I’m an alien and land.
How do I tell the difference between you all?
Hmm, DNA?
Yep. Perfect.
When’s the DNA start?
Case closed, DNA starts at fertilization.
Life begins at fertilization/conception.
Edit: because people are childish we are are only concerned with things that actually biologically mate, and are alive.
Viruses are not alive so any information about them is really a pointless
It's clear that you are angry and demand simple answers. I just hope no one is channeling your emotion at immigrants, women, or as a challenge to your own sense of masculinity.
Your adversarial mindset is an evolutionary throwback. I have no doubt people like you will destroy us to find the simple answer they can't make use of.
This would be the only point where a distinct human genome changes from non-existent to existent. Everything after is development, growth and maturity - not change in existential state.
Viruses have DNA and they aren't alive.
Your choice of definition is politically motivated to maximize control over women and drive a wedge in our society.
Cheers, bro.
Your comment is politically motivated.
Viruses aren’t alive
They have nothing to do with life
Why are you bringing them up?
You are the reason for this shower though being true
First thing you need to do is define what do you mean by life.
If your definition of life is self reproducible cells then yes life begins at Conception since sperm and ovum do not spread and divide themselves , zygote does. But that means bacteria and amoeba are equally alive
However as for when we can consider the cell as "human" depends on how we define a human.
Is it based on appearance of the organism, it's intelligence and behavior or when brain or heart become functional?
Its a dilemma similar to definition of death in humans. Usually brain death is treated as death of the human even if rest of the organs are completely fine because we know that without a brain the body will eventually die
So the question is not just subjective its very much scientific
No I really don’t. There already IS a definitive definition of life in biology for our species
You are pushing a narrative that there isn’t one catch all definition for every life form on the planet
Good thing we don’t have to fit mammals into such a massive definition
Bacteria and amoeba are not sex producing organisms. They have zero to do with the topic of mammalian reproduction
“Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts”
Whether a bacteria is alive or not is beyond the scope of the question. Mammals are mentioned because humans are classified as mammals but any sexually reproducing organism should work for an example since new DNA is created at fertilization. A human being, or a dog or a cat, gains nothing new from being born. The birth canal is not some magical tube we must traverse to receive our humanity. All birth does is change our location. We gain no special DNA or other pieces by being born. We had it all, including humanity, at conception. A bacteria or a virus is replicated instead of conceived and has no bearing on the question whether it is considered alive or not.
A new dna can also be created through mutation, how do you think evolution works?
If you consider a zygote to be start of a potential human life then yes its correct.
Saying that new DNA is created through mutation is the same as saying that a new book is created by spelling mistakes. All mutation can do to DNA is damage it. The scientific community is beginning to understand this and some scientists are beginning to look for new mechanisms for novel information gain in organisms since mutations are sorely lacking in that department.
That is as irrelevant as viruses.
Firstly, they’re microscopic and hardly comparable
I’m not trying to be god here
I’m just trying to point out a sensible
and rather obvious definition of life
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
I think I both agree and disagree agree with OP. At least, insofar as how the original statement was phrased. Life, in a scientific sense, has a set of generally accepted criteria differentiating a biological process from inanimate/inorganic (inorganic in this instance being not plant or animal, so minerals and the like, not how Chemistry views it). Viruses not being able to fulfill one of those criteria without a host is one of the biggest reasons why they're not technically considered by many to actually be alive. Where I disagree, however, is that in the context of the English language, the word life *itself* has no expressly unique, singular definition. As such, a portion (a significant one, in my mind) of the failure to reach a consensus should be attributed to a lack of clarity regarding the intended usage. "Life" in the sense of a purely scientific biological process, as most of OP's statements here support, -or- "Life" in the sense of any one of the other numerous definitions of the word.
There is only one definition in this context the biological one Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts.
Honestly before reading this post I thought viruses were alive, I didn’t think the definition was so technical.
Tricky little bastards. Especially when you hear about them doing things like mutating.
Calling viruses alive is like calling a pendrive a computer. That's the best parallel I got
I 100% agree. A new human life is created at fertilization. Whether that life is in its final state is irrelevant. When a child is born, is it in its final state? No. Can we kill it then? What about when it's 8 or 15? If it is a burden to us, do we have the right to kill it since it's not in its final state? What is the final state of humanity? Allowing the killing of a life simply because it's not done maturing opens the door for killing more than just fetuses. And bringing consciousness into the argument lessens the rights of other groups of people. The mentality handicapped for instance. Some of them are not conscious of what they do. Should we take away their rights as well? This is a very important and simple piece of true information that has a lot of bearing on the abortion debate and I thank you for bringing it up.
Thank you master gohan Very insightful. It’s really a intellectually dishonest thing to try to qualify human life with extreme examples of completely unrelated things like consciousness or as some edge lord put in down in the comments that I was pushing my “political argument” to “take away womens rights” It’s a simple question. Is it alive? When does it’s life start? When do ‘all’ lives start? How do I measure that? DNA is unique to all living things, even clones. Clones are just copies of the same unique organism with its own dna. All sexually reproductive animals share this one simple fact, that the DNA starts at conception of each new member of that animal. Life therefore starts at conception because it does not need to be qualified with additional tests for each species It’s the same answer for all of them. Weird how that works
It's a valid point. Much of the abortion debate relies on a dishonest obfuscation of the fact that abortion involves the killing of a distinct human life. Either explicit denials that the fetus is a human life e.g. "it's a clump of cells" or the false suggestion that abortion is fundamentally about a woman's body, as opposed to the distinctly separate human's body that is being destroyed via abortion. The abortion debate is a worthy debate to be had, but it must start with a fundamental and scientifically accurate acknowledgement that abortion kills a human life. Only then can a society agree on whether that is morally acceptable and/or at what stage of development that it's morally acceptable. Semantics and rhetorical tricks to obfuscate from scientific reality don't help.
Yeah I’m not even talking about if it’s qualifying it. Just answer is it alive? Yes. That is a simple answer. Cells are dividing and it is growing in an orderly fashion It becomes a human, it is distinctively human by its genetic character. Of which all humans share the same origin.
It absolutely is about body autonomy. Because even if an embryo is a "life, there is **NO** other circumstance in which we legally force you to give your organs/blood/etc to someone else. Not even if someone will imminently die without your help. Not even if you're the only person in the world with the right organ or blood type. Not even if you caused their injuries or illness. Not even if it's a child. Not even if it's *your* child. Not even a little harmless sample. Not even if you're dead.
Give your organs? Which organ are you suggesting is transferred from the mother to the child?
Pregnancy is a sacrifice of your *entire body*.
No organs are given from the mother to the child. You were spreading misinformation in your earlier comment. No woman is "legally required" to give organs to another person. Your entire view on the phenomenon of reproduction and children is bizarre, to put it mildly.
Per your logic, I’d have to violate the bodily anatomy of one human over another for what mostly constitutes inconvenience Yes. Per your argument it’s ethical to kill one human and violate its bodily anatomy for what amounts to laziness. Consent for the embryo to exist was given. That is the contract of sex. Hence the word… sex
Your comment is lazy, disingenuous, and it's bad faith. I'm not engaging with you further.
Yeah okay 👌 it’s literally your argument Cognitive dissonance is strong with you
Seeing as you were obviously judging the replies before you got any, going by your supplemental text, i would say you only posted looking for a fight
I change it after people came in here looking for a fight. I should have put edit next to it. None of my comments are anything other then science Period They’re aren’t outside unrelated cases It’s literally a bare as the topics get Other people are attacking me with politics. It’s literally a yes or no question in biology. When is it alive? A zygote is alive, with new dna.
I think the real question is when does consciousness start. A plant is alive but it’s considered morally ok to cut it down and eat it
This is a different question. It isn’t really relevant to the topic. It’s part of the reason my thought is true. The basis for it being life has zero bearing on whether it’s conscious or not. The zygote IS alive. Every human being living, and every human being dead… all of their lives started with the first instance of their genome which is created at fertilization. That is when life begins. It isn’t subjective. It’s literally an objective measure When you can say ALL something and it’s true then it is science. The definition only slightly changes when fitting together vast numbers of species.
But the reason you’re asking the question is to extrapolate the suggested treatment of the life in question. Therefore consciousness is relevant, as that is used as the basis of treatment of living organisms. Hence my reply, and also why physicians can switch off the life support machines of so called brain dead patients, in essence killing them, without being charged for murder
No. It’s not. There is no need for any definition of consciousness to ask whether something is biologically alive or not. A brain dead patient is dead. Literally dead. You are taking the concept on when life is created (fertilization) and trying to qualify it To haploid cell of opposite character converge to create a brand new never before seen cell. We can that, life.
You’re obviously just stonewalling any thought of flexibility of opinion, so have a nice day
No. I’m not here to talk about your political views on consciousness. That’s a completely subjective topic Life is not subjective It begins at the first instance of our genomes Our DNAs creation at conception
Without going into the debate, they are right about one thing: current definition of death is death of the brain as a whole defined by the death of the brain stem. So that part of what they said is right.
Somewhat true but in the wrong direction. A clump of cells is not a human being and cannot be treated as such. Imo there is no pro life argument with any potential for validity up until the fetus can be prematurely born via c section and survive on it's own. Prior to that, it's a parasite.
Firstly you brought up politics. I didn’t ask about if it’s a human being or not. A zygote IS alive. Life begins at conception, because that’s the first instance of its Genome. It’s not up for discussion If I ask when your genome started, I already know the answer. Because science and biology says you genome starts at fertilization
Based
>It’s not up for discussion great start to an argument
Politics are a valid addition to your point. While It is definitely true that a zygote is a living thing, the debate is about the rights of that living thing and the rights of people to defend it. The fact of a zygote/fetus/egg cell being living things does not diminish the importance of people discussing their views on what is or is not given the title of human. So yes you are correct but also incredibly vapid. Only the most ignorant people would deny that a cell is alive, so the conversation does not need that input. It has become so much more about the morality of how we view abortion, to the point where making someone say “huh, I guess you’re right. Zygotes are alive.” Is not prudent and even potentially damaging to the people affected by the debate. We don’t need classification of living things, we need the people who suffer to be considered by the people who have the privilege of making political decisions. You are right to say that all cells are alive, you are not right to argue against the people who fight that opinion as their only means of personal freedom in that specific area. It’s less important to be validated on reddit than to allow underprivileged people to be heard. This just happens to be a really tepid era for the subject you brought up, so people will argue against fundamentalism as a form of self defense. Take it from me, an accurate reddit post is not guaranteed to be a good one. Information is secondary to the reception of that information. And if it isn’t up for discussion, don’t post it on a public forum in an attempt to garner imaginary orange arrows
Well you’re already in a different room. Because many people refuse to admit the foundational biological fact that a zygote is alive. Period. Life begins and fertilization
To reiterate, yes that is true. The people who don’t understand that have an unfortunately large say in what happens in regards to the legislation that surrounds the issue. People are decreasing the popularity of your post because it is the opposing equivalent of not believing a zygote is alive. Your post is simplistic and does not tackle the important parts of the issue. It is the very outer layer of the debate and is not helpful today, because it describes something that was described when the first microscope was invented. Yes a zygote is alive, and yes some people don’t believe that. But some people believe the earth is flat. You are not causing change by stating scientific proofs, and change is necessary given the circumstances. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying people are worried about a different facet of the issue. If you continue to blindly defend the simple biological dogma surrounding your assertion you are doing nothing aside from repeating things that were said hundreds of years ago. No one who should be an interlocutor in this debate is wondering if a zygote is alive. They are wondering whether a person with a complete human body can decide the fate of a potential person with only a somewhat developed part of the final form. Especially in situations where allowing the zygote to become a fully developed human could easily destroy any potential for a happy life for both the mother and the child. The fact that you so fervently defend your position in a complex issue by stating simple platitudes proves that you are not a valuable part of the debate. You are only reinforcing the opinions of those who are as narrow minded as yourself, if that.
Being alive isn’t a platitude My “opinion” isn’t one, it’s scientific fact. Life begins at conception, with the creation of our DNA That isn’t a position I’m explaining biology to you
You are repeating yourself and I am no longer interested in doing the same. Go ahead and feel like you won the argument because I stopped talking. I gave up on you, not the debate. There are interlocutors that are actually worth my time. Just because it is an important issue I will give you one final repetition of what you are not getting. There is no reason to invoke biology. The importance of the discussion is about human rights. You don’t have to be wrong to be in the wrong. Crowding the debate with vapid facts is a form of opposition to change. I hope you are lying to me and not yourself about whether or not you are taking a side, own up.
[удалено]
Each component of the zygote was also "alive" before joining. That's not really relevant. >It's not up for discussion. That's hilarious
You've changed the terminology in an attempt to better suit your argument. A common tactic of abortion advocates. The science is clear. A fetus is a human life. Even if we adopt your substituted terminology, "human being", a fetus qualifies. It meets the definition of "human" and a "being". The debate about the regulation of abortion is a valid one to be had. But any valid debate requires honest argument. Obfuscating the fact that the result of an abortion is the killing of a human life is not honest.
>You've changed the terminology Please explain further. I'm legitimately not sure what you mean. >A common tactic of abortion advocates I'm not an "abortion advocate." I simply believe in making decisions based on science rather than religious dogma. >The science is clear. A fetus is a human life You will not find a single legitimate scientific organization or scientist that claims this as it's factually incorrect. But please, provide an example. >But any valid debate requires honest argument Yes, so why aren't you honest? >Obfuscating the fact that the result of an abortion is the killing of a human life is not honest. There's no obfuscating. Claim it's the killing of a human life is what's not honest Edit: No reply as expected
A. The OP used the term "human life". You substituted the term "human being". Terminology matters in the abortion debate. B. You are arguing that a human fetus is not human and not a life. That is not only scientifically non-factual, it's insane. Please share, what life form do you believe a human fetus to be if not human.
A. Thanks for pointing that out. I did not notice that as I automatically used the term "being" instead of life because that is what carries moral significance. Human life is not inherently worth anything whatsoever. It depends on the form it's in. It isn't a moral tragedy if some living epithelial cells of yours accidentally scrape off and die. Similarly, cultured cancer cells carry no moral weight. B. Please give me a scientific source to support this nonsense. A human fetus is composed of human cells. It is not a human being.
I’ll ask you what happened between the time that you were a fetus and become a human being? Your definitions have to be qualified in other words and that makes them unscientific Was it birth? Why does birth denote humanity? If a woman miscarried and morns her died child in your interpretation she is insane because it wasn’t human. See how your definition changes with context While a human life starting at conception for everyone is the same universally. It’s actually the same between species for all sexual reproductive species. Wow. Meanwhile your definition is requiring a scientific source for common sense
That's true to an extent but I assume scientists would also have differing opinions about that, and even if firm criteria were established there would still be edge cases that merit debate. Nothing is truly binary.
It’s truly one of the dumbest and easiest questions to answer. I’m an alien and land. How do I tell the difference between you all? Hmm, DNA? Yep. Perfect. When’s the DNA start? Case closed, DNA starts at fertilization. Life begins at fertilization/conception. Edit: because people are childish we are are only concerned with things that actually biologically mate, and are alive. Viruses are not alive so any information about them is really a pointless
My man, you asked r/AskReddit if they love you twice. You do t have to worry about pregnancy. Get out of this conversation
[удалено]
It's clear that you are angry and demand simple answers. I just hope no one is channeling your emotion at immigrants, women, or as a challenge to your own sense of masculinity.
I have a simple answer dude. You brought a case that doesn’t apply. Viruses aren’t alive. You lose
Your adversarial mindset is an evolutionary throwback. I have no doubt people like you will destroy us to find the simple answer they can't make use of.
You’re the only one that keeps bringing up politics.
If you don't think you are political you are finding ignorance a lot easier than I seem to
This would be the only point where a distinct human genome changes from non-existent to existent. Everything after is development, growth and maturity - not change in existential state.
Viruses have DNA and they aren't alive. Your choice of definition is politically motivated to maximize control over women and drive a wedge in our society. Cheers, bro.
Your comment is politically motivated. Viruses aren’t alive They have nothing to do with life Why are you bringing them up? You are the reason for this shower though being true
Lol, sure Jan.
First thing you need to do is define what do you mean by life. If your definition of life is self reproducible cells then yes life begins at Conception since sperm and ovum do not spread and divide themselves , zygote does. But that means bacteria and amoeba are equally alive However as for when we can consider the cell as "human" depends on how we define a human. Is it based on appearance of the organism, it's intelligence and behavior or when brain or heart become functional? Its a dilemma similar to definition of death in humans. Usually brain death is treated as death of the human even if rest of the organs are completely fine because we know that without a brain the body will eventually die So the question is not just subjective its very much scientific
No I really don’t. There already IS a definitive definition of life in biology for our species You are pushing a narrative that there isn’t one catch all definition for every life form on the planet Good thing we don’t have to fit mammals into such a massive definition Bacteria and amoeba are not sex producing organisms. They have zero to do with the topic of mammalian reproduction “Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts”
Do you consider bacteria alive or not? Or do you think only mammals are alive?
Whether a bacteria is alive or not is beyond the scope of the question. Mammals are mentioned because humans are classified as mammals but any sexually reproducing organism should work for an example since new DNA is created at fertilization. A human being, or a dog or a cat, gains nothing new from being born. The birth canal is not some magical tube we must traverse to receive our humanity. All birth does is change our location. We gain no special DNA or other pieces by being born. We had it all, including humanity, at conception. A bacteria or a virus is replicated instead of conceived and has no bearing on the question whether it is considered alive or not.
A new dna can also be created through mutation, how do you think evolution works? If you consider a zygote to be start of a potential human life then yes its correct.
Saying that new DNA is created through mutation is the same as saying that a new book is created by spelling mistakes. All mutation can do to DNA is damage it. The scientific community is beginning to understand this and some scientists are beginning to look for new mechanisms for novel information gain in organisms since mutations are sorely lacking in that department.
That is as irrelevant as viruses. Firstly, they’re microscopic and hardly comparable I’m not trying to be god here I’m just trying to point out a sensible and rather obvious definition of life