/sci/ - Science & Math

Biochemist here.

It is considered life.

/thread

exactly, that's the whole reason why I raged.

They are right, stay butthurt libturd

It's life of course. But its not a human being.

its life but is it Human?

Samefag as >>4607424

Regardless of its status as a human being or otherwise, the mother rightly has a great deal of sway over its development, being that it is her body that is supporting the embryo/fetus.

It is human, by a number of different definitions, but nonetheless, the regulation of abortion isn't based upon its status as human or otherwise.

It is living alright. This is why menstruation is morally wrong.

>killing a grown man who can defend himself
go to jail
>killing a defenseless life
get support by friends and communities

A lot of things in my shit is considered life too, but that doesn't mean I have to protect.

>>4607451

Does it meet all the criteria for human life?

>>4607460

>Does it meet all the criteria for human life?

Ask an bioethicist? I would suggest that it is human.

If you'd like to make a point or enlighten us as to the purpose behind your questions, we can avoid speculation about it. That would be helpful.

>go to distant planet
>step on single cell
>dies
>get called a whore and worthless mother by republicans

But I'm a man!

>>4607423

I don't get the halloballoa around this; that is life.

>>4607485

That was my first question.

I just wanted to know if there was formal criteria for what is considered human life as a differential of more "basic", life.

of course it is a cell=life.
but i don't understand...how come a cell( and the ones it generates) is non-human life for 3 months then after the thrid month it magically become human life?
i don't see any problem with human/ not human BEING. but if it is called life from the begginning, it comes from 2 human and will become human life, why isn't it human life for all the duration of the process!?

>>4607423

You should post this on Reddit so all your fellow high schoolers can tell you how enlightened you are!

>>4607541

>is non-human life for 3 weeks then after the thrid week it magically become human life

fixed it for you

>pic related 4weeks foetus

google embryology

i won't bother explaining it to you
its called embryo before the 4th week for a reason

>>4607541

All cells are life but not all life are cells

Humans are made of cells but cells are not humans.

The point in which a grouping of cells becomes a human is the point in which that group of cells begins to take on the characteristics of a functioning human body.

Understanding death would benefit understanding life. At what point is a person dead? What if all brain function is taken away except for the parts that keep the body operating? Is the brain dead person alive? They can't feed themselves, communicate, think, vote, hold a job, or anything. They're just a living body.

If you define the end as when the brain is dead, then the beginning is when the brain develops. If you define the end as when the heart stops (which isn't accurate since people can still come back to life when the heart stops), then the beginning would be when the heart beats.

And this all comes down to whether it's okay to terminate life that isn't human. At which level of complexity does it become wrong to end life? Bacteria? Fungus? Plants? Invertebrates? Animals with emotions? If it's ethically wrong to kill a brain dead person or a no-brain embryo, then is it ethically okay to kill a healthy dog? How self-consistent should your ethics be?

Sorry to ruin the trolling.

>wash hands
>killed millions of cells
OH GOD IM A KILLER

>>4607516
I would say it is considered human as the DNA of the cell(s) is human. However I think there is no nervous system before 3 month, therefore no feeling so there are no issues in baborting some numb human cells.

Its a life. But its not a person until it has a mind.

>>4607578

>I think there is no nervous system before 3 month

lol wut? you should stop posting now

from day 22 to day 28 we can call that a brain

>>4607597

No functioning higher brain.

>>4607622
>no functioning higher brain
So retards aren't people?

>>4607639

retards still have some intelligence, consciousness and feelings

a sluglike fetus nope

>>4607639

Retards have functioning higher brain. You are confusing intelligence with simple presence of mind. Retards have a mind, even if crippled mind.

People without functioning higher brain (brainwaves) are called braindead and declared dead.
Similarly, fetus before 5th month does not have brain waves.

>>4607451

>the regulation of abortion isn't based upon its status as human or otherwise.

Yes, it certainly is. The question of abortion regulation is based upon what point the fetus can be considered a human being. That's why most places have cut-off points unless the mother's life is in danger.

>>4607622

diencephale is what we call higher brain

see pic
>>4607650

>fetus before 5th month does not have brain waves.

yes i does it begins 8 weeks Brain waves can be measured
this does not mean that before the 8 weeks he has no brain the activity is so small equipment can't measure it correctly
as i said from 4weeks you can start calling it a brain

this is not a science debate. It's a religious/political/sociological debate.

>>4607572
>All cells are life but not all life are cells
Name one life form not comprised of cells

>>4607423
>So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?

So every month when the epithelium(being made up of cells hello) of the womb is rejected, the woman outscores hitlers total killcount by a factor of 100.

No wonder their kind is such a foul lot.

>>4607828
false comparison
if your counting each individual cell as life, then you have to count each individual cell in the body of every jew that hitler killed.

...so hitler is still winning

>>4607828
>17M*100 = epithelial cell lining
i fucking hate it when tards trying to make a point just make up the math as they go along...

>>4607821

I wasn't saying that all life wasn't comprised of cells. I was saying all life isn't equivalent to a single cell. A multi-cellular creature is more than the sum of its parts.

>>4607848
I'm a medical student, we don't learn useless fucking trivia because it's, guess what, useless.
Now enjoy your genocide.

And enjoy your genocide-fueled bitter mood.

>>4607863
>useless fucking trivia
>being scientifically accurate
oh fuck you!

>>4607848
Well, we fucking hate you, but that has never held you back.

>>4607866
course not, your rage sustains me.

>>4607867
No seriously, it's useless fucking trivia.
No one gives a fuck about how many cells your uterine lining contains.
And it's irrelevant for any fucking condition, diagnosis and treatment.
Meaning it's irrelevant.

Now stop being so female. We're debating something significant here.

>>4607876
It's eventually going to get to you. And also......yay-yay, EK is back.

>>4607867
It's not like you didn't have to look it up yourself, you pretentious cunt.

>>4607882
>Now stop being so female.
fuck off, prick

its not useless trivia, these are scientific facts
thats the point in science, we want to know the truth about the world and life and the universe and about how it all works
people are curious, knowing how many cells there are, or any other fact, if its true, its still interesting and good to know

if you dont like science, then fuck off

>>4607890
yeh, so i havent memorsied the fact
your point?
making up math/stats/facts to back up your point is a fucking creationist tactic, even if i dont know the true fact off the top of my head, im still perfectly justified to call the poster out for blatantly making shit up on a fucking science board!

>>4607801

well he asked when you can call it human and not just a bunch of cell

so short answer 4th week other obviously don't know shit about embryology tired to argue so i explained why

it's like saying Hydatidiform mole is a human being it's a tumor not a human being

>FYI Hydatidiform mole= an empty egg is fertilised by two sperm the mole is diploid (i.e. there are two copies of every chromosome).just like normal egg

embryonic/fetal development may be seen but the fetus is always malformed and is never viable most of them always end as a spontaneous abortion but if it does not a doctor perform an abortion killing the fetus or you can say the tumor

hi EK, just wanted to say hi

>>4607900
hi

>>4607892
>EK lecturing people on science

wait is this a bunch of nerdlings discussing female reproductive rights with a female med student?

or am i misunderstanding this

>>4607906
nothing wrong with that posts
yes, scientific theories ARE potentially falseifyable, but the theories that are true stand the test of time, and are never proved wrong (e.g. you wont ever prove gravity wrong, thas what i meant in my post. or evolution either, or germ theory, or any other scientific theory we are definitely sure is correct)

>>4607921
Just shut up, you brainless bitch.

>>4607932
Don't be so mean. She's amusing. I like her.

>>4607932
>/surrender

>>4607936
i'll be called samefag for that...

>>4607912

nah you got it wrong i m a male med student

i m not him by the way
>>4607863
>>4607863

>Now enjoy your genocide.

sorry dude you post was stupid

respect you for being a fellow medical student

because dictionary.

>>4607936

I used to hate her. Now I have grown used to her presence - like a stray cat that hangs around

>>4607892
>its not useless trivia
It is.
>these are scientific facts
Estimating cells in an organ is a highly imprecise hobby of bored pathologists, they count perhaps 200 cells on a slide, estimate the percentage of surface area it should occupy, then extrapolate that number to fill some average of intrauterine surface.

Any error will inflate to ridiculous imprecision. We're talking several hundred percent in deviation from estimates.


But the public will anyway go ooh and aah and swallow the bullshit values and belive they are significant and derived from actual counting of every single cell.

Not even important organs like the brain have any particularly precise counts, why would you think someone would bother to establish anything resembling a precision count of something as trivial as a uterus.

Oh maybe you would, but there's a reason you're not a pathologist or will ever amount to anything of significance.

Enjoy your irrelevancy with your uterus and its inaccurate cell count.

Well they're right in that anyone who says a newly-fertilised zygote is not alive is wrong.

I think the argument for abortion should be that until the foetus is pretty-well developed, it probably has less propensity to either think or feel pain than a fly or a tick. Would one hesitate to kill either of those if they were going to be an inconvenience ?

>>4607947
this discussion devolved into ridiculousness quicker than I anticipated, good jorb guys.

The question OP posted is irrelevant. Both are considered life of course, but that doesn't imply any consequences. The real question should be whether it's immoral to kill one of them. Is it okay to kill a single cell?

>>4607801

ethics is a branch of science just as medicine is

>>4607940
>/surrender
Right, your brilliant intellect and razor-sharp rhetoric force even the greatest to their knees.

By the way, remember that time you didn't know how erections worked?

>>4607947
well, for something like this they'll be huge ranges on it.
if were just talking adult human bodies, then you still have all the range between really short anorexic people, and big fat lardasses who weigh several times that. the fat person will have a lot more cells

>they count perhaps 200 cells on a slide, estimate the percentage of surface area it should occupy, then extrapolate that number to fill some average of intrauterine surface.
also, i would do it by weight rather than surface area, theres cells on the inside too, ya'know?
take the weight ratio of the full person compared to the weight of the cell sample.
count the cells in teh sample, and extrapolate up
(not perfect, some cells weigh more than others, but you'll be close)

>>4607957
Which is irrelevant to the people on this board, given that morals aren't science.

>>4607962
Correct. This thread should be irrelevant to /sci/.

>>4607964
Indeed.

>>4607962

but morality is science

the self-evident objective of morality is to make life better for everyone

the same way that the objective of medicine is to improve life, and the objective of astronomy is to learn more about the universe

>>4607958
fuck off, if you;re trying to find example posts of me being stupid, you could have done a hell of a lot better than that.

>By the way, remember that time you didn't know how erections worked?
fucking exaggeration, i know how erections work, i just thought it was a conscious choice, thats just a very small difference, i still know how they work physiologically.

>anyone who says a newly-fertilised zygote is not alive is wrong.

it is alive it's not humain know what you're talking about

>I think the argument for abortion should be that until the foetus is pretty-well developed

i think i made it clear 4th week

read this it should help you
1/4
>>4607570
2/4
>>4607597
3/4
>>4607684
4/4
>>4607898

>>4607968
Science is not defined by the goal to make life better, but by the use of the scientific method. The scientific method can't be applied to morals.

>>4607968

so the real question should be, what are the net impacts to human happiness of abortion at different stages?

>>4607968
So much wrong there.

>the self-evident objective of morality is to make life better for everyone
Yeah, because "good life" is such a clearly defined and scientific term, right?

Fuck it, I'll go suck some Hume cock instead.

>>4607973

what about morals prevents the application of the scientific method, as opposed to e.g. medicine?

>>4607961

>implying fat people have bigger organs than skinny people

>>4607969
>you could have done a hell of a lot better than that.
Not really. That was exceptionally embarrassing for someone who studies fucking zoology.

>>4607985
Morals are purely subjective.

>>4607983

there is no unanimous definition of health in medicine either, but it would be absurd to claim that this undermines our medical advances

bear with my I just read the moral landscape and now I'm convinced I'm right

>>4607993

really? but surely it is self-evident that a society which creates the worst possible suffering for everyone is objectively more immoral than the opposite?

>>4607985
Morals are normative value judgments, not science.

>>4607987
they probably do actually, things are usually pretty much in proportion. lardasses need a big heart to pump blood all around their much larger fucking bodies
also, your points moot anyway, because they'd still have all those extra fat and skin cells, which still ups their cell count even if organs are exactly teh same size between fat and skinny people (they arnt)

>>4607998
No, that's not self-evident. You can't even properly define morals.

>>4608001

so does it follow that by your logic, since we can't properly define health, and medicine cannot be separate from this definition, medicine isn't science?

>>4607990
we dont do about human erections in fucking zoology!

i do know how they work, theres no actual bone, it fills with blood and gets hard
the only thing i was wrong about is that i thought guys can do it at will (and im pretty sure they could, if they just use there will to think about sex and induce it...so im still kinda right anyway, so fuck you)

>>4608005
The use of the scientific method in medicine doesn't require a definition of "health". All we need are definitions of certain conditions as well as testable theories on how to change these conditions.

>>4607995
>bear with my I just read the moral landscape and now I'm convinced I'm right
Gee, sure didn't see that coming. Try reading some real philosophers before you waste your brain with the twelve year old pop-philo-faggot.

Medicine isn't about some vague notion of health, by the way, but about pathology and treatment of diseases. There's nothing subjective about that. Harris is a fucking clown.

>>4607904
>DURR HURR I MAKE VALUABLE POSTS GUISE I SWEAR I'M NOT A DUMB BRAINLESS WHORE!

>>4608008

in terms of morality:

>definitions of certain conditions

surely you agree it is almost trivial to define happiness and suffering in terms of brain activity

>testable theories on how to change these conditions

we can easily test the impacts of certain things on human happiness. more complex social issues (e.g. abortion) are more difficult but we can still use the scientific method.

>>4608003

So you're saying that fat people..grow..bigger hearts. And skinny people grow smaller ones?
People uniformly scale up or down based on what you consider to be fat?

So much science in here right now.

>>4608013

there's nothing subjective about brain activity either

>>4607961
>the fat person will have a lot more cells

No.
They'll have a few more cells and very much bigger adipocytes.

First you complain to me about fabricating 'facts'. Then you pull one out of your arse youself three posts later.
Way to be a hypocrite.

>>4608018
>surely you agree it is almost trivial to define happiness and suffering in terms of brain activity
I do not agree. Happiness and suffering are subjective notions that are based on qualia.

>>4608027

but we can tell if someone is happy or suffering by monitoring their brain activity. what a person feels is an objectively measurable thing. jealousy, guilt, etc. are all results of chemical interactions int he brain.