It's not killing if it's just some unconscious combination of DNA right?

Stop putting babies you don't want in there then, dummy.

Is that sign what she said to her baby pre-abortion?

Fetuses don't become something else. They continue growing.

>knock you unconscious
>end your life
>"it wasn't murder, he was unconscious!"

Babies #OccupyFemales

Yeah, I don't hold this idea. I just wanted to hear some thoughts on it.

If there is an egg fertilized by sperm, it's going to be a human 100%. It's not going to grow into a fucking turtle. That single cell doesn't have the potential to be something else, just a more developed version of itself. Shit argument

>retards missing the contextual use of conscious calling someone else a retard

ck12.org/biology/Characteristics-of-Life/lesson/Characteristics-of-Life-Advanced-BIO-ADV/
We consider single-cell bacteria life. A fetus has many more cells than just one, and it fits our definition of 'life'.
We literally say a fetus /isn't/ life just for the purpose of being able to kill it on a whim.

so explain your position faggot
you can't kill an unconscious person that was conscious before at some point, is that it?

even more convoluted now, congrats

>it's not murder if it's not a conscious being
You mean sentient.

I'm fine with calling it 'voluntary manslaughter'.

A human fetus can’t suddenly become a cat or dog retard

what would the counter to this be

Attached: LAB.jpg (1072x726, 81K)

The argument isn’t that fetuses aren’t alive you mongoloid. The argument is that a fetus isn’t a person.

Concious in this context doesnt mean "awake", it means its not a soulless bundle of cells

because the fertilized eggs in fertility clinics are not currently developing towards a human person

'conscious being' here meaning 'sapience'. self-awareness. murder is the wanton destruction, forced dissolution, of sapience.

>I say its murder even as a single cell because if left alone it would become a human.
this is exactly why it's never going to be socially resolved. because it's implicitly a temporal issue with this inescapable seeming-inevitable hypothetical driving us to attempt to reason a-temporally. this is why the pro-abortion side tends to be leftist by default, it's a very similar fundamental position on temporal vs atemporal reasoning and the validity of presumptions (as eg. socialism). the denial of the nigh-inevitable hypothetical. which is also why they default to the word games you describe. they're correct, in that instant which is all they are concerned with.

The argument is that killing a fetus is or isn't murder.
Saying an undeveloped member of your species is not a member of your species is pants-on-head retarded.

Those eggs arent enseminated. Why do women call men retards about reproductive mechanisms but fail to make the difference between a fertilized and non fertilized egg or a fertilized egg and a sperm cell? Theyre retards grasping for straws

you keep running into philosophical walls

what is a bundle of cells, and what differentiates a soulless one from the opposite

also what constitutes a soul

you need to watch more molymeme, otherwise you'll be formulating your axioms forever

Women don't carry all of the human genome. Can we start killing them off without repercussion?

Nigger im not stating an opinion im explaining the language used. Does a better job of explaining it.

>smack you on the head with rakia bottle
>you fall and lose consciousness
>tfw unconscious combination of DNA
>kill you on the spot
nice

If I beat you with a baseball bat, you would be an unconscious combination of DNA. So if you died, did I really kill you?

>It's not killing if
Let me stop you there;
Yes, it is. The real question is whether you can justify it.

who carries all of the human genome lol

wasnt a woman at some point a fetus, who did carry all the human genome, which then became a life, and by transitive property so did the resulting woman?

so no, you can't kill them

>after I've killed you, you're dead, which means I didn't kill you

I don't agree with him, but what the fuck is this reasoning my dude

You have to really delude yourself to come to the conclusion that a viable pregnancy at any stage is not a human life. I know why people do this though. It's to avoid the more uncomfortable arguments that you then invite if you acknowledge the reality that an abortion is an intentional homicide.
Then you have to ask whether some lives are more valuable than others. Or whether intentional homicide can sometimes be justified.

And this is the real debate that is constantly being avoided.

>who carries all of the human genome lol
Men do.

>wasnt a woman at some point a fetus, who did carry all the human genome
No, they don't carry the Y gene - only men do.

>so no, you can't kill them
So then we can't kill fetuses until they present a threat to the mother, or until they are born and mature into a person who does something worthy of the death penalty.

oh so we can kill the plurality women since they're not sentient either

okay, but carrying the human genome isn't the litmus test for personhood, having a unique strand of DNA separate from the mother and father is

Which the zygote does, and subsequently the fetus.

Keep digging your own grave.

Let me rephrase.

Suppose I beat someone unconscious. Then they would be an unconscious combination of DNA.

Now suppose someone else comes along and beats that man to death.

>Is it killing if it's just an unconscious combination of DNA?

digging my own grave?
Nigga I believe life exists from conception
all that you mentioned is already life

Sheeeit, I thought you were arguing for abortion.
Carry on.

It is killing, I don't agree with the OP (as I've stated above)
I just found your initial reasoning weird.

>every member of the species H. sapiens is a person now
>niggers are people
>jews are people
nu-Jow Forums really has gone to shit

They should be considered persons too and freezing embryos should be outlawed (it's just roasite shit anyway so they can waste time with a career instead of raising kids) I don't know why this retard senator is making an exception but I'm sure it has to do with leftists misrepresenting or misquoting the situation, he's saying egg and she's saying fertilized egg etc.

Embryos currently in the lab should be treated as persons and if they die it should be classified as a negligent homicide.

>fertilized eggs

it's not that it's not human, it's that human life itself has no particular value. this isn't some whacky anti-'humanist' perspective, either, it is the enlightened one, based in drawing the distinction between 'human' and 'person', and recognizing that the two are most often safely (or even most-safely) presumed concurrent, but not always. with fetuses and infants being one such case where they can be pretty well assumed not to be.

the average pro-abortion NPC couldn't ever express any of this, and if they could they'd understand all the other complications in the issue (the temporal vs a-temporal reasoning issue of 'viability') and probably end up not supporting abortion at all or at least not being such zealots, but it's the essence of what they're *feeling*. that an infant (much less fetus) which has no particular *thoughts* at all, much less thoughts of self, is not a *person* deserving protection.

When you put your dick in a vagina it’s not conscious and it’s technically just a clump of cells so she should be allowed to chop it up and slop it out if she so pleases

that's pretty spot on

however I hope you don't actually subscribe to that viewpoint, believing that life has no particular value is pretty demonic, and can lead to a host of other not so charitable interpretations

I want a picture of a baby telling them to get out of his house.

of course when I say 'no particular value', I am speaking of 'moral value', worth/need for protection, especially in contrast to 'persons'.

oh ok I gotchu