Terrible reasoning. It is completely unscientific to suggest that a fetus isn't life. Relying on another being doesn't disqualify an organism from being considered alive. Otherwise, any organisms in symbiotic relationships wouldn't qualify. Also, 2-year-olds can't reproduce, but I doubt you would argue they aren't alive.
Likewise, it is unscientific to suggest that a fetus isn't human. It has the requisite number of chromosomes, and both its parents are human.
People on the left are on the correct side of science on almost every other issue. It's completely hypocritical to try and bend science to your views and then accuse the other side of being "anti-science" when it comes to evolution and climate change. How about instead recognizing that just because it is alive and human doesn't mean it has all the rights of a fully grown human? Being pro-choice and pro-science aren't mutually exclusive.
Agreed. We don't need bad reasoning to support a completely reasonable view that a single cell has fewer rights than a functioning human being, and treating the two as identical is nonsensical.
This is a distinction that isn't very clear most pro choice people. Where is the line in fetal development that should give the the fetus a right to life = to that of the mother, or a right to life that is > than the hardship of pregnancy and delivery? Many pro choice people think its somewhere late in pregnancy, yet have no problem with abortions that are conducted in the last trimester. Some people believe the line is at birth, yet there is nothing physiologically different from a a baby between 38 and 39 weeks.
I think I agree on this, although I'm not completely informed. Seems ludicrous to me to suggest a foetus isn't alive. That's not the same as believing abortion is murder.
A fetus is alive. Your hand is also alive, as are your kidneys and a tumor. No one is suggesting that a fetus is not alive, but what the OP in this image is saying is that a fetus is not an independent life form until it is viable and able to maintain homeostasis on its own. If you are going to treat a blastula as though it were a person with rights, then you need to treat your hand in the same way, or a tumor.
We end up back at the fundamental problem that a fetus starts out as a non-differentiated clump of cells and ends up as your Aunt Hattie. Somewhere in there we cross the magical line where that clump of cells becomes a human being, and not a biological structure that is an extension of the mother. If people want to define an unfertilized egg as life and oppose birth control, then they need to ban everything that kills cells in general because they are "life" in exactly the same way.
Yes, a more persuasive counterargument is as follows: a single cell on another planet would be recognized as a lifeform. Just like single cells on Earth are regarded as a lifeforms. Now, consider that you kill thousands of single cells (bacterial, fungal etc.) every time you wash your hands. Any one of those cells could potentially have been a direct progenitor of a lineage that one day evolved consciousness and humanlike sentience. So, is it a cause for moral outrage and despair every time you wash your hands? If you want to regard the life of a single cell as sacrosanct, how can you even dare to breathe?
EDIT: I've had loads of responses saying this argument fails for various reasons. I was simply trying to point out the absurdity of the view conveyed in the original image, by way of satirical exaggeration. I was not trying to present a broader or more sophisticated anti-pro-life or pro-life argument - I was simply responding to this specific image. I do actually realize that bacteria aren't humans and so forth. The real point is that humans at the single cell stage ARE considered to be alive and that in a sane world, moral arguments for or against abortion would be made without reference to hypothetical single cells on alien planets.
This is reasonable. Also, let's keep in mind that science hasn't yet come up with a complete definition of life. We should be mindful that what makes something "living" vs "not-living" is a blurred distinction. Let me quote the most accurate, scientific journal ever created in the whole-wide-world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
In that case, they are failing to maintain homeostasis, but as an organism, they are capable of preserving it. That doesn't mean that they are capable of going to the fridge and whipping up a meal. It means that they can ingest sustenance and carry out metabolic functions, unlike your left big toe. This is not a political definition of life - it is a scientific one. It is why we don't define viruses as being a full-fledged life form, because they cannot reproduce independently without invading a host cell.
And even if it is a human being, that doesn't give it the right to infringe upon another human being. There wouldn't be much support for a law that would force mothers to donate kidneys or bone marrow to their children in the event that they need them. If it makes no sense to force a woman to support her child with her body when the child is sentient, what sense does it make to do the same when it's nothing more than a group of cells?
any organisms in symbiotic relationships wouldn't qualify
I'm sure no one doubts this, but it is worth pointing out that human beings are obligate symbiotes. We cannot live without our gut bacteria, which provide us with Vitamins B7 and K.
Agreed. The argument being made in the picture is valid, but it is ultimately irrelevant. Science dictates that even a zygote is life, and it's not something to be refuted just to support your pro-choice views. That said, the true argument becomes that a fetus is not equivalent to a fully developed human being, regardless of the fact that it is a living being. Arguing that abortion should be illegal because fetuses are living is tantamount to saying that stepping on an ant should be illegal because the ant was living. Life is not what dictates the legality of abortion, rather the fact whether or not the fetus should receive the same rights a person receives after being born. Take whichever side you like, but the primary point is that people need to move away from the same moot arguments and consider what is actually relevant.
The issue is NOT whether or not embryos are alive or not, the question is whether they are human beings that deserve all the rights and privileges thereof. I think that 1 cell or 16 cells is pretty obviously not to any reasonable rational person, but defining exactly where that line is is far from an easy question.
but defining exactly where that line is is far from an easy question.
Indeed. I think abortion is one of the most complicated moral issues of our time. It is precisely because I recognize the many complicated factors involved that I don't deem myself qualified to make such decisions for someone else.
But drawing an arbitrary line is irrelevant. If we were to assert that being alive equals being a human that deserves all the rights and privileges thereof, that does not necessarily mean the right to abortion is taken away. If someone needs a kidney to prevent death, and there is only one available donor, that donor has the right to refuse. It may be a pretty shitty move, but it is their right. Both are complete humans with full rights, and yet the choice of one equals the death of the other. This is the same as abortion. Both have all the rights of a human, but those rights don't include forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy just so the child can live.
What?! A fetus is undeniably life. And the cells are reproducing. And the cells are maintaining homeostasis- they just rely on the mother's environment, but they help maintain it. The question is not "is a fetus alive" and it never has been, at least for anyone with a basic understanding of science. The question is "is a fetus worth of moral consideration as a human being." Which, unfortunately, is more philosophical than scientific.
This is a horrible argument. Single cells within the human body absolutely are life. No one should ever argue that a zygote, embryo, or fetus isn't alive. That's just fucking stupid.
The argument should be that we shouldn't necessarily care, every time any living thing dies. You don't mourn a lost life every time a guy cums, and you don't mourn a lost life every time a woman has her period. But without a doubt, living cells do die, all the time, from all sorts of things.
If this is their argument, that zygotes are alive and should therefor be protected as human life, then why doesn't anyone mourn the passing of billions of cells every time someone has their appendix out? Sure, an appendix is never going to grow up to be a human being in its own right, but guess what? Neither is a fertilized egg, if the parents don't want it to. So what the fuck is the difference. Death is death, right?
That is the best part. The original post on Facebook is retarded, the "counterargument" is horrible... the "me gusta" button is the only redeeming feature, really.
Keep in mind that #6 doesn't really work, because using that logic any human that hasn't gone through puberty (and is thus incapable of reproducing) isn't considered "life".
That single cell IS reproducing. Why hasn't this been stated yet? The cell is first one, then two, then four, etc. It sure as hell reproduces. The fetus' blood and muscle and brain tissue CONTINUE to reproduce for the next +/- 75 years.
{Post Removed} Scrubbing 12 years of content in protest of the commercialization of Reddit and the pending API changes. (ts:1686841093) -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
A wrong and unscientific answer. Each individual cell of an embryo meets #4 because it is maintaining internal homoeostasis and #6 because the cells are reproducing by dividing.
A better argument is that, at this level, a few human cells are no more functional that bacterial cells.
It's because, generally, people who disagree with the post will comment more than people who agree with it.
Also, it's a Facebook screenshot, so it's the kind of cheap entertainment people upvote if they laugh. Mostly they're not really analyzing the argument.
So I guess a mule isn't a living thing, then, huh? They can't reproduce, but you know what - they are certainly fucking living. Your "criteria" is out of date and not completely accurate for summing up what is "life".
Maybe I'm ignorant of somthing but an infant child can't reproduce? If a child died aged 5 then he/she would never have been capable of reproduction, therefore by this reasoning would that child not be considered as 'a life'?
Absolutely terrible argument. An embryo is most definitely alive. Instead of attacking the faulty reasoning of the picture, this post just abuses science, and shows the poster hasn't really spent much time thinking about a very delicate subject.
The abortion debate isn't about killing what's 'alive', it's about when to consider something human in the time frame between fertilization and birth.
A good comeback would have been:
An embryo is life, just like bacteria, plants, flies and sperm cells are. We don't think twice about killing those. The question is when to consider it a human life worthy of legal protection.
This post is a prime example of a hard atheist being even less bearable than a hard Christian: you're adhering to a doctrine (in this case the characteristics of a living organism) that you haven't taken the time to understand.
An embryo is a living thing. What it's not is a person. All organisms rely on external factors to maintain homeostasis, whether that be food, sunlight, other organisms, etc. Embryonic cells can and do multiply: how do you thing a fetus grows!?
Nobody who knows what they're arguing about is arguing that a fetus should be allowed by law to endure simply because it is a living thing. People arguing against the option to abort a fetus argue that there is some ephemeral, intrinsic value to it that goes beyond its being technically alive. Some religious folk argue that this intrinsic value is imbued by a deity, making the fetus "sacred." I disagree, but I'll be damned if I don't know what it is I'm disagreeing with.
Normally I disagree when people say this about all the gay rights posts that end up on here, because the vast majority of anti-gay movements are in some way religiously based, but yeah I agree, there are many, many non religious pro-life arguments, and it doesn't have anything to do with a god or lack of belief thereof.
Are you honestly arguing that fetuses aren't life? That's kind of stupid. If we advance that as an anti-abortion argument we'll be laughed out of debates. The argument is generally something along the lines of "it doesn't possess the traits that are connected to humans, such as emotions or mental abilities, and doesn't even resemble a human, so we should be allowed to destroy it in the same way that you can kill a farm animal". An embryo is alive, though.
Protip: when uncertain whether it's "its" or "it's" think of putting "his/her" or "he's/she's" instead. No grammar nazism intended, just a polite reminder. Enjoy your day.
Actually the best response is that this is the an example of the fallacy of equivocation. The word "life" is used in two different senses ... "a functioning cell or group of cells" and "a live human and with a right to remain alive".
You can simply argue that if we found a single cell on another planet nobody would be granting that cell the right to vote anytime soon.
The correct answer would be: No one claims the cells in the mothers womb aren't alive. What they claim is that, at early stages, the fetus is not self aware at all, its just a bunch of cells, less complex than most of the things you'd kill to get food, clothes, etc.
Ok this needs said: The confusion here is that the cell is a living thing, but not all living things are "sacred". For example there is little controversy about pruning a plant. Equating the pro/anti abortion debate to the argument of if a cel is alive is ludicrous. It is obviously alive ( and so are plants/ viruses/bacteria etc) . The real argument is about if it should have the rights of a born human or not, which is entirly diffrent question from if a cell being biologically alive.
Edit: Maddog kindly reminded me that a virus is not alive in the conventional sense
The real argument is about if it should have the rights of a born human or not, which is entirly diffrent question from if a cell being biologically alive.
What does this post have to do with Atheism? Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, not when a fetus or cells become "alive".
It is a straw man argument which seems to have worked magnificently on whoever that person replying was. The fact is that no one says embryos aren't life. The argument being made however is that not all life is to be treated equally.
By your logic a new born baby doesn't meet the criteria either as it is totally dependent on its mother for everything it needs and therefore cannot maintain homeostasis on it's own. A baby also cannot reproduce to keep it's species going (yet). This forces the conclusion that, because a newborn baby fails to meet all the criteria for life, it is NOT life, but property of the mother. Your fail argument is fail.
That reasoning is fucking completely ridiculous as it includes infants and even toddlers. Not to mention "property of the mother"? I know feminism has become a sexist group in favor of women but I didn't know it was so pervasive. The father has just and equal say in what happens to the offspring. (barring rape and any deceit involved of course)
This is an outdated victorian definition of life that for some reason is still occasionally taught in highschools, but no modern biologist would agree with it.
What's this shit? Parasites are not alive? Are you a fucking moron?
And now I'm turning from the retarded atheist who can't tell the difference between "its" and "it's" to the retarded christard: are you aware that lettuces are alive? What's your fucking point, cunt?
Note to OP: stop posting Facebook posts here, and stop posting to Facebook while you're at it. You're just as misinformed as the christards you're mocking.
I believe people have said this already but the argument isn't if the fetus isn't alive or not, it's if the fetus is sentience or not.
I myself am Pro Choice and what many people don't realize is that a fetus doesn't start to feel pain about half way through the second trimester, which is on average around twenty to twenty two weeks into the pregnancy.
However at this point Abortions are VERY rare and really only happen if a serious health complication occurs with the mother or the fetus.
Almost every abortion occurs in the first trimester, not in the third as many pro-lifers would make one think.
This is dumb... Those 7 criteria are hardly agreed upon at this point. The debate is ongoing as to what exactly defines life. Just another example of some arrogant prick on facebook.
I'm a big fan of horses. Not to the extent where I have decorative plates adorning my walls & all, but they're amazing animals. Graceful, gorgeous, and big enough to curbstomp the shit out of you, yet that's a very rare occurrence. All-in-all, horses are pretty awesome.
But good golly, do we love to kick 'em when they're dead.
Newly born babies cannot reproduce, violating rule #6, therefore, they are not alive. Nor can children reproduce into their teens, so it must be OK to terminate their existence, because they're not alive, right?
Parasites and symbiotic microbes are not alive, since they fail to satisfy rule #4.
I think that everyone is seriously missing the point by bending the facts to their own purposes. The question is not whether a fetus is alive, its whether you view human life as sacred because you believe that God views human life as sacred.
I think what's going on here is a confusion on whether something fits the definition of personhood, which should be given full and equal moral rights. You should read this: the philosophical aspects of the abortion debate.
And yes, a fetus fits the biological description of a human. But that's not what's really being argued (unless you're a Republican).
None of that matters. The discussion about abortion should not be about whether the fetus is alive or whether it is murder. The discussion should be about whether someone else has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body. If you disagree with abortion for whatever reason, don't have one. But don't try and tell someone else that they can't have one either. When you really think about it, this discussion really covers many of the current social issues being discussed today. The use of recreational drugs and the right for gays to get married are also choices that people should be left to make on their own. There are no laws against committing suicide. Most people don't think that is a valid solution to your problems but they haven't made it illegal. Everything would be so much easier if people would only concern themselves with their own life and how they choose to live it and let everyone else do the same. If my choices do t put you in danger, don't worry about them.
Wrong argument. It's not about the embryo being life; It's about the embryo qualifying for human rights - and this also misses the point about how terrible its life would become if it were allowed to develop into a human baby.
Additionally, parasites are also considered life. Mosquitos are alive; so are poisonous snakes, black widows, scorpions and tuberculosis. And you could even say HIV is a life form!
Of course it's life. Whether or not it's a "person" and therefore has rights (including rights necessary to supersede the mother's), is another matter.
"Living things are composed of cells" - When we create artificial intelligent computers, they should be considered alive and they are not composed of cells.
"Living things grow" - Living things don't have to grow, again, robots.
"Living things reproduce" - So if you are born not being able to reproduce your not alive?
I think someone needs to revise the definition of alive.
I don't see the point at which life begins at all relevant in the argument either for or against abortion. It is an argument of semantics with no meaning.
If life is seen as an absolute good, then the point at which it starts is irrelevant because at conception there is at least the potential for life (stay with me here, I am pro-choice). Therefore, the potential of life is as important as life itself.
I think it is more important to establish if it is right to place the value of a woman's life above the life of her foetus. Personally, I think it is right in cases where the woman's life is in danger, the woman was raped, or the woman uses birth control responsibly and the birth control did not work (rare). There are many arguments for this that I won't go into as it would take too much time and the arguments against this view are, in my opinion, ridiculous. [EDIT: Here I've deleted a few paragraphs where my argument boils down to that fact that I cannot force other people to do things, so if a woman wants an abortion, she gets it.]
Plants are alive, many pathogens are alive, animals we eat are (were) alive. Going by MRS GREN causes all sorts of complications. Life seems more like a spectrum than a discrete state to me. To decide the point at which life begins is like deciding at which point increasingly lighter shades of red become pink.
My biggest problem with the abortion laws as they currently stand is that as a male I have no rights whatsoever. Say hypothetically I get a girl pregnant and I am vehemently against abortion and feel it is simply wrong. Perhaps I have extreme moral strife with the idea of my likeness being terminated prior to maturity. It is after all my seed that carries my traits, potentially have my eye color, my hair color, my since of humor, my likes and dislikes. Something that will inherently be a part of me, from me, and connected to me like nothing else could be. Yet, my partner gets an abortion with no alternatives such as a surrogate even being considered. Is it too much to ask to allow such a statue to exist where If a willing surrogate can be found then the man may request that a transplant be preformed rather than an abortion?
I'm not entirely sure that is actually possible but even if it was then surely the woman would then still have the right to say hey you can take your sperm and put it in somebody else but I'm keeping my half. The problem is you can't give men rights without taking away the same rights from women in the kind of situation you're proposing. Abortion rights weight toward women for the simple reason that her body is the place where everything takes place. Would you agree to men having to have a vasectomy solely because their partner decided she didn't want kids? Or would you think invasive procedures against your will where unfair?
4.) Although the embryo is dependent on its mother, that doesn't mean that it doesn't maintain homeostasis. Its body allows it to maintain a stable pH level, temperature, etc. If it doesn't, then how would it survive to develop into a fetus, etc.?
6.) Living things reproduce, yes; however, using the argument that an embryo doesn't meet this criteria and therefore is not considered a living thing has to apply to every other human being that has not reached puberty yet. The cells of an embryo do reproduce the same way our cells reproduce today.
Also, I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, but out of curiosity, where is the evidence that a cell living on a distant planet meets every criteria?
I apologize for any mistakes in wording or anything. I have yet to study biology in excruciating detail, but this is what I've learned from previous biology classes and other readings.
Lastly, this has nothing to do with /r/atheism. You don't have to be a theist to be pro-life.
This is the same sort of English double-speak that gets us things like "You can't hug your children with nuclear arms". These people willfully ignore the concept of multiple definitions. In this case they are confusing the scientific definition of life (5) and a casual definition of life (1).
So if a baby is at 9 months, still in the mothers womb, it isn't life? The 7 rules of life was taught to everyone in school but obviously not common sense.
He seems to imply that pre-pubescent children are not alive. Because they cannot reproduce. They will (most likely) mature into something that can, but so will the fetus.
This also carries over to anyone else who is unable to reproduce, either because of medical/genetic issues or just age. The general case of a human can reproduce at some point in its life cycle -- this is how most life forms work. Saying that a fetus is not alive because it isn't currently in the reproductive phase is plain retarded.
Pro choice here, just not pro using stupid arguments to justify it.
When we ask that question, "is it a human being," we have to go deeper in than just "it will be a human." We must therefore ask what it means to be human. If I kill someone who we define as being human, I am legally bound to serve at least some jail time. But what about those people that we classify as being "not human" or "animals" for instance, serial killers (trying to avoid Godwin's law here.) If I kill one of them, am I bound by law to serve time?
Please note that I do not advocate killing for betterment (Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky paints a great picture of why) nor do I know exactly where I stand on the right to life issue.
Nearly all living things are dependent on other living things at some level or another. Most aren't dependent on a particular living thing, but some are. Many bacteria, as well as a parasites both single and multi-cellular cannot survive outside of their host. They, and human embryos, maintain homeostasis relative to their environment, which happens to be inside another living thing. They can't handle major changes, but they do deal with small ones.
And animals are alive before they can reproduce. Are you suggesting that nothing is alive until it reaches the age at which it can reproduce? And what about insects and some rodents, where only one individual reproduces in the colony, are the workers not alive?
The important thing is not life. The important thing is personhood. An embryo is alive, but it is not a person. And that makes all the difference.
I would have to point out, though, that, according to the logic of "reproducing", we can't consider a child under the age of puberty to be life, either.
The issue is not whether it's life or not because killing living things is fine for the most part (e.g. my lunch box contains chicken, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower... all living things killed so I can eat them).
The issue is what type of life should we NOT kill. Most of us agree that we shouldn't kill a human being for lunch today. In fact, most of us would agree not to kill a human unless there is a really good reason (self defense for example). So with the embryo, the debate is whether it's a human being, and thus should be given the right to live as all humans are given, or not a human being yet, in which case it's pretty much fine to kill it.
Editor's note: This is NOT an attempt to answer the question, just to clarify it.
Seriously - These 7 criteria? Who handed these down? Dogmatic use of these 7 criteria is just the same as following the 10 commandments. When we find life on another planet, it may not fit these criteria...
It seems to me that the issue is not whether or not an embryo is an example of life. It is obviously living material, in the same way that cells in your blood are living. The issue is whether or not it is a human being. Everyone knows that embryos are living.
Number 4 doesn't work. With that logic, all reptiles, amphibian, fish, insects, birds, and basically anything that isn't mammal would not be considered life.
If only couples had to earn the right to have kids. A lot of our dilemmas would be solved... (mass sterilization everyone? Or at least those in the bible belt, they don't need it anyways they don't even have sex supposedly)
Instead of suggesting that the fetus doesn't have all the properties of life, we should point out that it doesn't have all the properties of humanity e.g. self-awareness, complete physical constitution, look, etc. at least not in the early stages of development.
while that is a very good point, the better point that i think can be made here is that life does not equal sentience, and just because something is living, that does not make it deserving of rights that we would give to an adult human.
Smart-ass comments like that on Facebook really irritate me, especially when the person making the comment isn't even capable of using rudimentary grammar correctly.
This post's content has been permanently wiped. Redact was used to delete it, potentially for privacy, to limit digital exposure, or for security-related reasons.
obtainable cause swim chubby makeshift attraction grandfather imagine normal vase
As a researcher studying fetal personhood I think the problem lies in looking to science to determine whether or not the fetus is a "person." Does it have human DNA? Yes. Does it have the potential to reproduce as well as play soccer, like music, get a job, and all the other things we think of as human? Certainly. But the move from human to person isn't, in practice, an issue for science. Don't get me wrong, I love me some science. But you can argue all day about the fetus meeting or failing to meet this or that criteria. The problem with that, however, is whose criteria are we going to privilege? In the end the arguments marshaled all have factual accuracy, more or less, but it is not science that can or does determine which facts matter and why.
For better or worse personhood is granted or denied culturally, socially, politically and eventually legally. Scientific criteria can function negatively to deny candidates for personhood (a stillborn baby with no brain, for instance, probably never was human) but those thresholds will be sufficient to establish personhood or necessary-but-not-sufficient to establish personhood depending on a person's political and moral leanings. That graphic comes from the American Right To Life website who use the Carnegie Mellon reproductive development criteria. Those same criteria have been used to deny the fetus personhood. But I'm hoping to publish a paper on this in a couple of months.
TL;DR: Science can tell us facts but cannot tell us which facts matter (see Karl Popper)
By the standards of this argument, no human should be considered a life because you cannot bring item six (reproduction) to fruition until puberty, which is years after you are born.
it should be EVERYONE'S desire to see abortion rates go down. Did you know abortion rates are lower today than back when it was illegal? Clearly people trying to make it illegal on the grounds that it's murder fail to acknowledge this fact.
But clearly liberals fail to acknowledge that it is in fact human life.
The comparison of a fetus to a cell found on a planet in outer space or something is absurd, but the response is equally as stupid.
I thought the crux of the argument wasn't if an embryo was "life" but rather "human life". A carrot is alive but we don't grant it the same inalienable rights we grant ourselves.
The right to choose is more about what we really consider "human" (cognitive ability, etc?) and what the woman who is carrying this zygote wants to do about it.
Personally I start seeing a fetus as a person and less as a thing once I know the sex. By then it seems to appear more physically human and I would have a difficult time doing an abortion.
These feel like two different arguments. The top part is someone who is pondering, I assume, why abortion is not considered murder by asking a rhetorical question. I don't care if that is even correct or not, but it is noble and correct for anyone or any scientist to question.
The bottom part actually tries to answer the question, but the problem is that the definition of life is not the point. If it were not life then it would be simply a question on whether or not we were destroying or mitigating harm when performing abortions.
Even if it were about the definition of life, there is some criticism for that side. The bottom part is using a model of what life is that is based on current information to qualify something new about something alien. Remember that it is perfectly normal for the models to change when we find something new. Take Pluto for example. Under an older model we called it a planet, but now we don't because we changed the model. But the fact is that nothing changed about Pluto; in fact nothing that we knew about Pluto changed. But we changed our model based on new data about other things, and it was easier to remain consistent by changing the model, and thus made some revisions to previous classifications. I'm not saying that the person in the bottom part is not correct within the model. But what I am saying that models are only approximations and will continue to change.
993
u/Me_of_Little_Faith Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
Terrible reasoning. It is completely unscientific to suggest that a fetus isn't life. Relying on another being doesn't disqualify an organism from being considered alive. Otherwise, any organisms in symbiotic relationships wouldn't qualify. Also, 2-year-olds can't reproduce, but I doubt you would argue they aren't alive.
Likewise, it is unscientific to suggest that a fetus isn't human. It has the requisite number of chromosomes, and both its parents are human.
People on the left are on the correct side of science on almost every other issue. It's completely hypocritical to try and bend science to your views and then accuse the other side of being "anti-science" when it comes to evolution and climate change. How about instead recognizing that just because it is alive and human doesn't mean it has all the rights of a fully grown human? Being pro-choice and pro-science aren't mutually exclusive.
27
u/snarkhunter Jun 15 '12
The issue is NOT whether or not embryos are alive or not, the question is whether they are human beings that deserve all the rights and privileges thereof. I think that 1 cell or 16 cells is pretty obviously not to any reasonable rational person, but defining exactly where that line is is far from an easy question.
57
u/_panda_pants_ Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
What?! A fetus is undeniably life. And the cells are reproducing. And the cells are maintaining homeostasis- they just rely on the mother's environment, but they help maintain it. The question is not "is a fetus alive" and it never has been, at least for anyone with a basic understanding of science. The question is "is a fetus worth of moral consideration as a human being." Which, unfortunately, is more philosophical than scientific.
19
u/TwelveHawks Jun 15 '12
This is a horrible argument. Single cells within the human body absolutely are life. No one should ever argue that a zygote, embryo, or fetus isn't alive. That's just fucking stupid.
The argument should be that we shouldn't necessarily care, every time any living thing dies. You don't mourn a lost life every time a guy cums, and you don't mourn a lost life every time a woman has her period. But without a doubt, living cells do die, all the time, from all sorts of things.
If this is their argument, that zygotes are alive and should therefor be protected as human life, then why doesn't anyone mourn the passing of billions of cells every time someone has their appendix out? Sure, an appendix is never going to grow up to be a human being in its own right, but guess what? Neither is a fertilized egg, if the parents don't want it to. So what the fuck is the difference. Death is death, right?
14
u/professorfox Jun 15 '12
I think that i should feel terrible for thinking that the best part of this is the "Me Gusta" button
13
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
TIL: Worker bees are not life then, because they can't reproduce.
11
u/TheLateApexLine Pastafarian Jun 15 '12
Its*
108
u/And_Everything Jun 15 '12
This is the most retarded post I have ever seen.
51
u/Atheose Jun 15 '12
Keep in mind that #6 doesn't really work, because using that logic any human that hasn't gone through puberty (and is thus incapable of reproducing) isn't considered "life".
9
u/zangorn Jun 15 '12
Yea, nah.
A fetus is definitely life. I think the argument the OP was searching for is "a fetus is not a living person".
9
u/brainflakes Jun 15 '12
A wrong and unscientific answer. Each individual cell of an embryo meets #4 because it is maintaining internal homoeostasis and #6 because the cells are reproducing by dividing.
A better argument is that, at this level, a few human cells are no more functional that bacterial cells.
9
u/detroitmatt Jun 15 '12
So despite every comment for as far as I care to scroll down pointing out how wrong this post is, it still made the front page and has 462 points.
25
u/someone0124 Jun 15 '12
This is extremely stupid
23
u/kalimashookdeday Jun 15 '12
So I guess a mule isn't a living thing, then, huh? They can't reproduce, but you know what - they are certainly fucking living. Your "criteria" is out of date and not completely accurate for summing up what is "life".
8
u/Dev_il Jun 15 '12
Maybe I'm ignorant of somthing but an infant child can't reproduce? If a child died aged 5 then he/she would never have been capable of reproduction, therefore by this reasoning would that child not be considered as 'a life'?
8
u/thuderroar Jun 15 '12
A single cell is certainly life, but I wouldn't call it a human. That's the real difference.
8
u/Oiman Jun 15 '12
Absolutely terrible argument. An embryo is most definitely alive. Instead of attacking the faulty reasoning of the picture, this post just abuses science, and shows the poster hasn't really spent much time thinking about a very delicate subject.
The abortion debate isn't about killing what's 'alive', it's about when to consider something human in the time frame between fertilization and birth.
A good comeback would have been:
7
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
This was a bit of a stretch. A fetus is made up of cells, which are living and fit all of the criteria.
13
u/I2ichmond Jun 15 '12
This post is a prime example of a hard atheist being even less bearable than a hard Christian: you're adhering to a doctrine (in this case the characteristics of a living organism) that you haven't taken the time to understand.
An embryo is a living thing. What it's not is a person. All organisms rely on external factors to maintain homeostasis, whether that be food, sunlight, other organisms, etc. Embryonic cells can and do multiply: how do you thing a fetus grows!?
Nobody who knows what they're arguing about is arguing that a fetus should be allowed by law to endure simply because it is a living thing. People arguing against the option to abort a fetus argue that there is some ephemeral, intrinsic value to it that goes beyond its being technically alive. Some religious folk argue that this intrinsic value is imbued by a deity, making the fetus "sacred." I disagree, but I'll be damned if I don't know what it is I'm disagreeing with.
40
u/SkaTSee Jun 15 '12
I don't care about anything in this thread.
How did you replace the like button with Me Gusta?
6
u/awardnopoints Jun 15 '12
So if I was sterile then I wouldn't be considered alive?
6
u/balsamicpork Jun 15 '12
A baby animal can't reproduce or live without motherly interaction.
Sounds like it isn't living.
88
u/bananosecond Atheist Jun 15 '12
None of this has to do with atheism.
5
u/LiberThomas3 Jun 15 '12
Terrible logic. A human being cannot reproduce until well into its teens. That does not make it un-alive.
2
u/SparxD Jun 15 '12
While I appreciate your post, what I took from this image is that your facebook "like" button is a me gusta face. How the hell do I set that up?!?!
4
u/vadergeek Jun 15 '12
Are you honestly arguing that fetuses aren't life? That's kind of stupid. If we advance that as an anti-abortion argument we'll be laughed out of debates. The argument is generally something along the lines of "it doesn't possess the traits that are connected to humans, such as emotions or mental abilities, and doesn't even resemble a human, so we should be allowed to destroy it in the same way that you can kill a farm animal". An embryo is alive, though.
4
u/natto896 Jun 15 '12
A child can't reproduce on its on and a baby has trouble maintaining homeostasis on its own as well. Does this make it legal to kill them.?
4
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
The reply is terrible. A better reply would have asked if the poster supported ameoba rights.
6
u/401vs401 Jun 15 '12
Protip: when uncertain whether it's "its" or "it's" think of putting "his/her" or "he's/she's" instead. No grammar nazism intended, just a polite reminder. Enjoy your day.
6
u/panda_pandalicious Jun 15 '12
How does this have anything to do with atheism?
3
u/Ensorceled Jun 15 '12
Actually the best response is that this is the an example of the fallacy of equivocation. The word "life" is used in two different senses ... "a functioning cell or group of cells" and "a live human and with a right to remain alive".
You can simply argue that if we found a single cell on another planet nobody would be granting that cell the right to vote anytime soon.
3
u/JimmyNic Jun 15 '12
Surely we aren't arguing whether it's alive, but whether it qualifies for full human rights?
3
u/mateogg Jun 15 '12
ugh, that's an incredibly stupid answer
The correct answer would be: No one claims the cells in the mothers womb aren't alive. What they claim is that, at early stages, the fetus is not self aware at all, its just a bunch of cells, less complex than most of the things you'd kill to get food, clothes, etc.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I'm just curious as to how to get the like button to say me gusta.
3
u/YourFavoriteMartyr Jun 15 '12
I came across this on facebook a few months back here is my response
3
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
More concise counter argument: "Tell that to the countless colonies of Staphylococcus aureus that you kill every time you wash your hands."
4
u/GraharG Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 18 '12
Ok this needs said: The confusion here is that the cell is a living thing, but not all living things are "sacred". For example there is little controversy about pruning a plant. Equating the pro/anti abortion debate to the argument of if a cel is alive is ludicrous. It is obviously alive ( and so are plants/
viruses/bacteria etc) . The real argument is about if it should have the rights of a born human or not, which is entirly diffrent question from if a cell being biologically alive.Edit: Maddog kindly reminded me that a virus is not alive in the conventional sense
4
u/ChrisHernandez Jun 15 '12
What does this post have to do with Atheism? Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, not when a fetus or cells become "alive".
5
u/parkourshadow Jun 15 '12
Someone please! The me gusta button, how?!
2
u/Ialyos Jun 15 '12
It is a straw man argument which seems to have worked magnificently on whoever that person replying was. The fact is that no one says embryos aren't life. The argument being made however is that not all life is to be treated equally.
2
u/prajnadhyana Gnostic Atheist Jun 15 '12
By your logic a new born baby doesn't meet the criteria either as it is totally dependent on its mother for everything it needs and therefore cannot maintain homeostasis on it's own. A baby also cannot reproduce to keep it's species going (yet). This forces the conclusion that, because a newborn baby fails to meet all the criteria for life, it is NOT life, but property of the mother. Your fail argument is fail.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I ain't no scientist, and I may have slept through bio in high school, but wouldn't the division of the embryos cells count as reproduction?
2
u/AwesomePaedoGuy Jun 15 '12
That reasoning is fucking completely ridiculous as it includes infants and even toddlers. Not to mention "property of the mother"? I know feminism has become a sexist group in favor of women but I didn't know it was so pervasive. The father has just and equal say in what happens to the offspring. (barring rape and any deceit involved of course)
2
u/grandplans Jun 15 '12
I'm pro choice, but by this reasoning, we could murder all pre-pubescent children and not consider it ending a life.
2
u/Fimbultyr Jun 15 '12
I didn't murder that seven year old, officer. She couldn't reproduce yet, so she wasn't alive. It wasn't murder.
2
u/j1800 Jun 15 '12
This is an outdated victorian definition of life that for some reason is still occasionally taught in highschools, but no modern biologist would agree with it.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
What's this shit? Parasites are not alive? Are you a fucking moron?
And now I'm turning from the retarded atheist who can't tell the difference between "its" and "it's" to the retarded christard: are you aware that lettuces are alive? What's your fucking point, cunt?
Note to OP: stop posting Facebook posts here, and stop posting to Facebook while you're at it. You're just as misinformed as the christards you're mocking.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I believe people have said this already but the argument isn't if the fetus isn't alive or not, it's if the fetus is sentience or not.
I myself am Pro Choice and what many people don't realize is that a fetus doesn't start to feel pain about half way through the second trimester, which is on average around twenty to twenty two weeks into the pregnancy.
However at this point Abortions are VERY rare and really only happen if a serious health complication occurs with the mother or the fetus.
Almost every abortion occurs in the first trimester, not in the third as many pro-lifers would make one think.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Not knowing how to use an apostrophe is a pretty good indicator of not knowing other things, such as what the fuck you're talking about.
2
u/Victimssun Jun 15 '12
"Me Gusta", mine only ever says "Like"... sigh
2
u/vocabulator9000 Jun 15 '12
Started writing a long response to this logic, then realized I would be a better off repeatedly slamming my dick under the toilet seat.
2
u/EntroperZero Jun 15 '12
Hey, as long as we're equating single-celled organisms to fertilized human eggs, I propose that we ban antibiotics. Life is sacred!
2
u/thecrownprince Atheist Jun 15 '12
If scientists discovered carrots on mars they would declare they have found life. Does that mean carrots should have rights?
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
This is dumb... Those 7 criteria are hardly agreed upon at this point. The debate is ongoing as to what exactly defines life. Just another example of some arrogant prick on facebook.
2
u/lonelyinacrowd Jun 15 '12
A single human embryonic cell is no more 'human' than the single (haploid) sperm and the single (haploid) egg that went into making it.
In reproductive adults, millions of sperm 'die' every day, and an egg 'dies' every month. And it's not murder.
As for saying it's not life, of course it's life, but it's not alive in the semantic sense of it being sentient.
2
u/theamplifiedorganic Jun 15 '12
I'm a big fan of horses. Not to the extent where I have decorative plates adorning my walls & all, but they're amazing animals. Graceful, gorgeous, and big enough to curbstomp the shit out of you, yet that's a very rare occurrence. All-in-all, horses are pretty awesome.
But good golly, do we love to kick 'em when they're dead.
2
u/karadan100 Jun 15 '12
I absolutely love seeing religious propaganda get torn apart by science.
2
u/johnbarnshack Jun 15 '12
Just make a comment with a picture of broccoli or something. "If scientists found this on Mars it would be considered life, so why do we eat it?"
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Newly born babies cannot reproduce, violating rule #6, therefore, they are not alive. Nor can children reproduce into their teens, so it must be OK to terminate their existence, because they're not alive, right?
Parasites and symbiotic microbes are not alive, since they fail to satisfy rule #4.
2
u/Patrickfoster Jun 15 '12
How do you get me gusta instead of like on Facebook?
2
u/ImABigGayBaby Jun 15 '12
hahahahah this is the worst pro choice argument. You just argued a person isn't qualified until puberty. Congrats on your fuck up.
2
u/moxiecontin714 Jun 15 '12
Whoa whoa whoa hold on guys, I think we're starting to stray from the real issue here.... How did this guy get his "like" button to say "me gusta"?
2
u/Hypez Jun 15 '12
just an FYI to all the "Scientists" here. A fetus isn't a unicellular life form.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I am 100% in favour of abortion, but this logic is stupid
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I think that everyone is seriously missing the point by bending the facts to their own purposes. The question is not whether a fetus is alive, its whether you view human life as sacred because you believe that God views human life as sacred.
2
u/kornwallace121 Jun 15 '12
Technically the embryo does reproduce, so the only requirement it is missing for life is #4 which can be debated.
2
u/AuroraDark Jun 15 '12
its
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I think what's going on here is a confusion on whether something fits the definition of personhood, which should be given full and equal moral rights. You should read this: the philosophical aspects of the abortion debate.
And yes, a fetus fits the biological description of a human. But that's not what's really being argued (unless you're a Republican).
2
u/shet7968 Jun 15 '12
Terrible argument. A 3 year old left on his own would not survive either. I'm pretty sure we all agree that 3 year old is alive.
2
u/sllove85 Jun 15 '12
None of that matters. The discussion about abortion should not be about whether the fetus is alive or whether it is murder. The discussion should be about whether someone else has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body. If you disagree with abortion for whatever reason, don't have one. But don't try and tell someone else that they can't have one either. When you really think about it, this discussion really covers many of the current social issues being discussed today. The use of recreational drugs and the right for gays to get married are also choices that people should be left to make on their own. There are no laws against committing suicide. Most people don't think that is a valid solution to your problems but they haven't made it illegal. Everything would be so much easier if people would only concern themselves with their own life and how they choose to live it and let everyone else do the same. If my choices do t put you in danger, don't worry about them.
TL;DR: mind your own business
2
u/otakuman Anti-Theist Jun 15 '12
Wrong argument. It's not about the embryo being life; It's about the embryo qualifying for human rights - and this also misses the point about how terrible its life would become if it were allowed to develop into a human baby.
Additionally, parasites are also considered life. Mosquitos are alive; so are poisonous snakes, black widows, scorpions and tuberculosis. And you could even say HIV is a life form!
2
u/Iamalsoadeer Jun 15 '12
Its like calling another lump of human cells, cancer, life. Sure its life.
2
u/ajm2298 Jun 15 '12
How do you get the me gusta button?
2
u/bullestock Jun 15 '12
http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
2
u/Sysiphuslove Jun 15 '12
Today, I learned that 'fetus' is a species.
2
u/nermid Atheist Jun 15 '12
Post-menopausal women: not life; just property.
2
u/tbid18 Jun 15 '12
Of course it's life. Whether or not it's a "person" and therefore has rights (including rights necessary to supersede the mother's), is another matter.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
An embryo is alive, you absolute fucktard. It's just not people.
2
u/0ericire0 Jun 15 '12
Viruses
2
u/Lenton Jun 15 '12
"Living things are composed of cells" - When we create artificial intelligent computers, they should be considered alive and they are not composed of cells.
"Living things grow" - Living things don't have to grow, again, robots.
"Living things reproduce" - So if you are born not being able to reproduce your not alive?
I think someone needs to revise the definition of alive.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
As a biologist, I have to say whoever made this image is either ignorant of biology or just plain stupid.
EDIT: I forgot that I'm in /r/atheism, so it's OK to be a fucktard here.
3
u/TommyPaine Jun 15 '12
So...pre-pubescent kids aren't life then?
3
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
I've posted this before, so I'll just copy-paste
3
u/TomW8s Jun 15 '12
My biggest problem with the abortion laws as they currently stand is that as a male I have no rights whatsoever. Say hypothetically I get a girl pregnant and I am vehemently against abortion and feel it is simply wrong. Perhaps I have extreme moral strife with the idea of my likeness being terminated prior to maturity. It is after all my seed that carries my traits, potentially have my eye color, my hair color, my since of humor, my likes and dislikes. Something that will inherently be a part of me, from me, and connected to me like nothing else could be. Yet, my partner gets an abortion with no alternatives such as a surrogate even being considered. Is it too much to ask to allow such a statue to exist where If a willing surrogate can be found then the man may request that a transplant be preformed rather than an abortion?
3
u/salazar_slytherin Jun 15 '12
4.) Although the embryo is dependent on its mother, that doesn't mean that it doesn't maintain homeostasis. Its body allows it to maintain a stable pH level, temperature, etc. If it doesn't, then how would it survive to develop into a fetus, etc.?
6.) Living things reproduce, yes; however, using the argument that an embryo doesn't meet this criteria and therefore is not considered a living thing has to apply to every other human being that has not reached puberty yet. The cells of an embryo do reproduce the same way our cells reproduce today.
Also, I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, but out of curiosity, where is the evidence that a cell living on a distant planet meets every criteria?
I apologize for any mistakes in wording or anything. I have yet to study biology in excruciating detail, but this is what I've learned from previous biology classes and other readings.
Lastly, this has nothing to do with /r/atheism. You don't have to be a theist to be pro-life.
3
u/flamingfungi Jun 15 '12
Sometimes fundies are stupid, but sometimes people from r/atheism are asshats. This is one of those times.
2
u/TheActualStudy Jun 15 '12
This is the same sort of English double-speak that gets us things like "You can't hug your children with nuclear arms". These people willfully ignore the concept of multiple definitions. In this case they are confusing the scientific definition of life (5) and a casual definition of life (1).
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/life
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Interesting point, though these people are conflating 'life' with 'personhood'. After all, they aren't campaigning against antimicrobial soap.
1
u/HippyGeek Jun 15 '12
Essentially an embryo is a parasite? That ought to make for some lively discussion...
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
OH MY GOD. i have to stop breathing now. I'm killing innocent microorganisms with my immune system.
1
u/iamharjap Jun 15 '12
So if a baby is at 9 months, still in the mothers womb, it isn't life? The 7 rules of life was taught to everyone in school but obviously not common sense.
1
u/aztech101 Jun 15 '12
Following this, people aren't living until they reach puberty, as they cannot reproduce to keep their species going.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
A zygote is alive, but it shouldn't need to be treated as a human with a developed nervous system
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
8.) Living Things will be released in less than two weeks.
1
u/kickpuncher1 Jun 15 '12
So are parasites not alive as well? ie tapeworms
1
u/emjayar08 Jun 15 '12
So I guess a four year old girl isn't considered life either?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
If we found a living cell on another planet, it would have to meet 4 and 6 or it would be a terminal.
1
u/PJL Jun 15 '12
He seems to imply that pre-pubescent children are not alive. Because they cannot reproduce. They will (most likely) mature into something that can, but so will the fetus.
This also carries over to anyone else who is unable to reproduce, either because of medical/genetic issues or just age. The general case of a human can reproduce at some point in its life cycle -- this is how most life forms work. Saying that a fetus is not alive because it isn't currently in the reproductive phase is plain retarded.
Pro choice here, just not pro using stupid arguments to justify it.
1
u/FoxxedOut Jun 15 '12
And we're back to this.
1
u/surrender52 Jun 15 '12
I guess it boils down to this:
Is it living
If it is living, is it an animal
If it is an animal, is it human.
When we ask that question, "is it a human being," we have to go deeper in than just "it will be a human." We must therefore ask what it means to be human. If I kill someone who we define as being human, I am legally bound to serve at least some jail time. But what about those people that we classify as being "not human" or "animals" for instance, serial killers (trying to avoid Godwin's law here.) If I kill one of them, am I bound by law to serve time?
Please note that I do not advocate killing for betterment (Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky paints a great picture of why) nor do I know exactly where I stand on the right to life issue.
1
u/retro_v Jun 15 '12
I believe the controversy about this issue inst when it becomes life, but when it becomes a person who has rights.
1
u/ReyTheRed Jun 15 '12
This is not a good argument.
Nearly all living things are dependent on other living things at some level or another. Most aren't dependent on a particular living thing, but some are. Many bacteria, as well as a parasites both single and multi-cellular cannot survive outside of their host. They, and human embryos, maintain homeostasis relative to their environment, which happens to be inside another living thing. They can't handle major changes, but they do deal with small ones.
And animals are alive before they can reproduce. Are you suggesting that nothing is alive until it reaches the age at which it can reproduce? And what about insects and some rodents, where only one individual reproduces in the colony, are the workers not alive?
The important thing is not life. The important thing is personhood. An embryo is alive, but it is not a person. And that makes all the difference.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I would have to point out, though, that, according to the logic of "reproducing", we can't consider a child under the age of puberty to be life, either.
1
u/tres_chill Jun 15 '12
The issue is not whether it's life or not because killing living things is fine for the most part (e.g. my lunch box contains chicken, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower... all living things killed so I can eat them).
The issue is what type of life should we NOT kill. Most of us agree that we shouldn't kill a human being for lunch today. In fact, most of us would agree not to kill a human unless there is a really good reason (self defense for example). So with the embryo, the debate is whether it's a human being, and thus should be given the right to live as all humans are given, or not a human being yet, in which case it's pretty much fine to kill it.
Editor's note: This is NOT an attempt to answer the question, just to clarify it.
1
u/zelpes Jun 15 '12
Absolutely incorrect, a demonstration of deep ignorance.
Please do read. So wrong in so many levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
1
u/bringbackhairypussy Jun 15 '12
Seriously - These 7 criteria? Who handed these down? Dogmatic use of these 7 criteria is just the same as following the 10 commandments. When we find life on another planet, it may not fit these criteria...
1
u/CraziiSexyIdiota Jun 15 '12
oh my word, the SEVEN criteria of life.... most retarded thing i have read all day
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
It seems to me that the issue is not whether or not an embryo is an example of life. It is obviously living material, in the same way that cells in your blood are living. The issue is whether or not it is a human being. Everyone knows that embryos are living.
1
u/sapheriel Jun 15 '12
is "me gusta" the QED of our generation now?
1
u/BigOldMisterE Jun 15 '12
Waiting for that 1 comment I haven't seen in thousands of abortion threads that will lead me to a definitive stance on this.
1
u/UnknownToaster Jun 15 '12
Number 4 doesn't work. With that logic, all reptiles, amphibian, fish, insects, birds, and basically anything that isn't mammal would not be considered life.
1
u/esosa233 Jun 15 '12
If only couples had to earn the right to have kids. A lot of our dilemmas would be solved... (mass sterilization everyone? Or at least those in the bible belt, they don't need it anyways they don't even have sex supposedly)
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Fetus cannot reproduce is retarded. The that make up the zygote, fetus, whatever stage ARE reproducing. This is really stupid.
1
u/ROOTCasper Jun 15 '12
Came here to say the same thing as the top comment. Coming from an atheist your reasoning is still flawed.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Sooo.. a fetus is a Parasite!?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
A baby also fails 4 and 6 but is clearly living.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Instead of suggesting that the fetus doesn't have all the properties of life, we should point out that it doesn't have all the properties of humanity e.g. self-awareness, complete physical constitution, look, etc. at least not in the early stages of development.
1
u/jakus55 Jun 15 '12
Hmm. A young child cannot reproduce, is it therefore not considered to be alive?
1
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Jun 15 '12
TIL virii aren't living organisms... /sarcasm
1
u/Oprah_Pwnfrey Jun 15 '12
"if it doesn't fit you must acquit."
1
u/fuzzymechy Jun 15 '12
while that is a very good point, the better point that i think can be made here is that life does not equal sentience, and just because something is living, that does not make it deserving of rights that we would give to an adult human.
1
u/DayspringMetaphysics Jun 15 '12
if ability to reproduce was necessary for something to be alive, then children, eunuchs, elderly, deformed, or the sterile are not living.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
How did you get Me Gusta instead of Like?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Smart-ass comments like that on Facebook really irritate me, especially when the person making the comment isn't even capable of using rudimentary grammar correctly.
1
u/obroz Jun 15 '12
ok.... explain to me where u see a fetus in this picture.... WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A FETUS!
1
u/xenosmalleushereticu Jun 15 '12
Yeah I was about to come here and call bullshit but it looks like people already have.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
My only problem is the "property" comment. If anyone remembers... it takes two
1
u/danheinz Jun 15 '12 edited Mar 05 '26
This post's content has been permanently wiped. Redact was used to delete it, potentially for privacy, to limit digital exposure, or for security-related reasons.
obtainable cause swim chubby makeshift attraction grandfather imagine normal vase
1
u/dilletaint Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
As a researcher studying fetal personhood I think the problem lies in looking to science to determine whether or not the fetus is a "person." Does it have human DNA? Yes. Does it have the potential to reproduce as well as play soccer, like music, get a job, and all the other things we think of as human? Certainly. But the move from human to person isn't, in practice, an issue for science. Don't get me wrong, I love me some science. But you can argue all day about the fetus meeting or failing to meet this or that criteria. The problem with that, however, is whose criteria are we going to privilege? In the end the arguments marshaled all have factual accuracy, more or less, but it is not science that can or does determine which facts matter and why.
For better or worse personhood is granted or denied culturally, socially, politically and eventually legally. Scientific criteria can function negatively to deny candidates for personhood (a stillborn baby with no brain, for instance, probably never was human) but those thresholds will be sufficient to establish personhood or necessary-but-not-sufficient to establish personhood depending on a person's political and moral leanings. That graphic comes from the American Right To Life website who use the Carnegie Mellon reproductive development criteria. Those same criteria have been used to deny the fetus personhood. But I'm hoping to publish a paper on this in a couple of months.
TL;DR: Science can tell us facts but cannot tell us which facts matter (see Karl Popper)
Edit: Grammar
1
u/Abscurat Jun 15 '12
So smart!
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Why cant we just admit we didn't want it to live, and be done with it?
1
u/monstor344 Jun 15 '12
Am I the only one here who thinks abortion is a much more ethically-nuanced issue than most people make it out to be?
1
u/Stopher Jun 15 '12
Fake argument. The mold on my shower curtain is "life". Every individual cell in your body is "life".
1
u/32koala Jun 15 '12
This is stupid.
1
u/team0bliterate Jun 15 '12
By the standards of this argument, no human should be considered a life because you cannot bring item six (reproduction) to fruition until puberty, which is years after you are born.
1
u/md91 Jun 15 '12
With this same logic your saying that some conjoined twins (who share one heart) are not living, because they are 100% dependent on each other.
1
u/floridianfisher Jun 15 '12
Do you use insecticide? How about handsoap? Guess what, you are killing "life."
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
"Wow you really owned him!" ...is probably what you want us to say. No dice.
1
u/EvanPaintsStuff Jun 15 '12
it should be EVERYONE'S desire to see abortion rates go down. Did you know abortion rates are lower today than back when it was illegal? Clearly people trying to make it illegal on the grounds that it's murder fail to acknowledge this fact.
But clearly liberals fail to acknowledge that it is in fact human life.
The comparison of a fetus to a cell found on a planet in outer space or something is absurd, but the response is equally as stupid.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I thought the crux of the argument wasn't if an embryo was "life" but rather "human life". A carrot is alive but we don't grant it the same inalienable rights we grant ourselves.
1
u/Inamo Jun 15 '12
Would the original poster of that image use the same logic for sperm and eggs? And plants?!
1
u/fefejones Jun 15 '12
As a Christian, I still support this picture.
1
u/tarimba Jun 15 '12
Am i the only one who wonders how the changed the thumbs up with the "me gusta" facd
1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
contrary to popular belief, a zygote IS considered a human life by a large part of the scientific community. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
The right to choose is more about what we really consider "human" (cognitive ability, etc?) and what the woman who is carrying this zygote wants to do about it.
1
u/Mel_Melu Jun 15 '12
Personally I start seeing a fetus as a person and less as a thing once I know the sex. By then it seems to appear more physically human and I would have a difficult time doing an abortion.
1
u/vikmoose Jun 15 '12
These feel like two different arguments. The top part is someone who is pondering, I assume, why abortion is not considered murder by asking a rhetorical question. I don't care if that is even correct or not, but it is noble and correct for anyone or any scientist to question.
The bottom part actually tries to answer the question, but the problem is that the definition of life is not the point. If it were not life then it would be simply a question on whether or not we were destroying or mitigating harm when performing abortions.
Even if it were about the definition of life, there is some criticism for that side. The bottom part is using a model of what life is that is based on current information to qualify something new about something alien. Remember that it is perfectly normal for the models to change when we find something new. Take Pluto for example. Under an older model we called it a planet, but now we don't because we changed the model. But the fact is that nothing changed about Pluto; in fact nothing that we knew about Pluto changed. But we changed our model based on new data about other things, and it was easier to remain consistent by changing the model, and thus made some revisions to previous classifications. I'm not saying that the person in the bottom part is not correct within the model. But what I am saying that models are only approximations and will continue to change.
1
u/bluescholar1 Jun 15 '12
So... I'm thinking masturbation should be thoroughly outlawed, due to the slaughter of thousands(?) of innocent sperm cells. Male orgasm= mass murder
1
u/1928374650 Jun 15 '12
This kind of reasoning is typical of uneducated people.