HOME | DD
MetalShadowOverlord — Pile of Cells Stamp
Published: 2010-11-15 20:35:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 8441; Favourites: 284; Downloads: 36
Redirect to original
Description
A common argument used by pro-choicers to validate abortion is that the fetus (or any stage of fetal development) is just a clump of cells. I have yet to see anyone argue against this point with a real hard-hitting comeback, so here's mine.The truth is that all living things are made up of cells. Trees, animals, humans.... Cells are the building blocks of life. When you get right down to it, everything is a clump or something, be it atoms or cells, but given shape by the organization of said atoms/cells.
When a sperm fertilizes an egg, they form a single cell called a zygote. This cell then divides into two cells, which then divide into four, and eight, and so on. This process of cell division continues through pregnancy, and, in fact, through the entire life span. Because of this, the average human adult has between 50 to 75 trillion cells.
50 to 75 trillion cells. That's quite a clump right there.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that, if the destruction of human life based on it being a "clump of cells" is justifiable, then, by that logic, the life of the woman you claim you want to give freedom of choice to, or save the life of, is just as expendable as the baby she carries.
Edit: Before you comment with "it's a person after birth", consider what so called ethicists are debating: [link]
Related content
Comments: 546
Everyone in this world are piles of cells
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's a "clump of cells" during the first trimester. During the first trimester, I think it's perfectly fine to abort the baby as it can't feel, see, hear, or anything. After that, you need to have a damn good reason for doctors to do it.
It should be legal. Because you know what? If it's becomes illegal, it won't end abortion. Women will become desperate to abort the baby. They'll do it through illegal means (that could kill her) or they will self-abort and cause themselves more damage.
And you know what? I don't want kids. If I get pregnant, I'm getting an abortion. That fucking simple. Adoption isn't a good idea in this day and age. I care more about the people that live on this planet than the fetuses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, I'm a pile of cells, and I'm concious!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except for those 8-10 hours a day when you're in the unconscious state known as sleep.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And killing an undeveloped clump of cells that had not yet developed consiousness is like killing someone in thier sleep how?
You are more unintelligent than I thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They're both human. Also, I love how you admitted it was "killing". Then again, it's easy to use a word like that when you'd convinced yourself something isn't on the same level as you.
The only unintelligent speech here is your personal attack. It's amazing how it only took two replies with hardly any content in either for you to stoop to that level.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you even READ what I said? If you did, you would have seen the words 'undeveloped' and 'not yet consious'. So its not a person.
I'm sure you are going to answer me with another retarded "ITZ A PEERSUN!1!1" comment...
You know what, I'm not going to waste my time with you christain pussies. I have better things to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Don't bother debating if you can't do it right, kid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And yet you keep replying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How unintelligent are you?
A foetus is a clump of cells that CANNOT THINK, FEEL OR SURVIVE BY THEMSELVES. They are insentient and have the potential to become a human life. They aren't alive.
So if abortion is murder, then a miscarriage must be manslaughter in your eyes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"How unintelligent are you?"
First, let's see how intelligent YOU are.
"A foetus is a clump of cells that...aren't alive."
Just as I thought. You got an F in basic biology, didn't you? If cells weren't alive, YOU WOULDN'T BE ALIVE. The very definition of a cell is "(Cells are)the structural and functional units of all living organisms. " [link]
Stay in school kid. You clearly need the education.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yup.
I am.
But guess what?
I'm a clump of cells that is conscious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So we can euthanize all the comatose people? Yay. I hate those fuckers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, yes, I am just a pile of cells.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amazing that a person isn't a person until after they're born... That's just sad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How is it sad? It's true. A fetus is just simply NOT the same as a born, sentient person. It's apples and oranges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The law states it.
But yes, I can. A person is someone who is sentient, a fetus at the time of abortion is in no way sentient. It is only JUST beginning to form a brain, a brain which won't work for many more months.
You can't be sentient without a brain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So how can an unborn react to light, be comforted by the sound of its mother's intestines and literally attempt to flee from a curette? Sounds pretty sentient to me.
Also, which law? Not trying to be mean, but it would be good for me to know for future reference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It can't. The fetus won't consciously react to stimuli until some time after 23 weeks. Before then it's entirely the automatic reaction of cells.
The personhood law. It states that you're not a person until you're born.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This article disagrees, [link] and they can react to pain as early as 8 weeks [link] . Just Google it, and you'll be amazed what you'll find.
Don't believe me? Ask former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson who quit after assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion in which she saw the 13 week old baby attempt to flee from the curette.
Also, can you specify the law and even which clause states a human isn't so until birth? It would simply make it easier for me to research. Also, why is an unborn protected under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act passed in 2004 by Bush? Protected, that is, until someone decides to abort it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Those are both pro-life websites, meaning they're biased to promote their frame of mind. A much better source is medical, .org websites. And the universal idea of fetal development is that it's around 20-25 weeks when the fetus becomes sentient.
Then as a Planned Parenthood director, she should know how human life develops and know it would be simply impossible for a fetus to consciously react. If the fetus reacted at all, it was simply biological, NOT intelligent.
The difference is that act protects VIABLE fetus's. And abortion is illegal on viable fetus's 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As just an argument for fairness, do you honestly think that the largely liberal medical field will not be biased itself? But if you want documentation, here. [link] Click on each quote to get documentation.
Can you prove that an unborn has no intelligent thought because you keep saying that as an absolute, but I haven't heard any evidence supporting that save what you've presented which is at the least controversial as to being accurate for either side in the current argument. And as for feeling pain, while here is some psychologically induced pain, isn't most of it physical but the reaction has a conscious reaction. For example, someone in a coma may be stabbed and not outwardly react, so they aren't people?
Please define what you mean by a "viable fetus" because last I checked, that law I mentioned included any pregnancy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not sure how medical health can be liberally biased unless you're someone who supports healing prayer or some nonsense like that.
Either way, your link just supports my point. It states that the fetus reacts to pain at 20 weeks. 20-25 weeks is the usual amount of time it takes for the fetus's brain to kick in.
Like I said, you can't have intelligence if your brain does not work. The brain of a fetus does not begin to function until third trimester. Here's a quote: ""Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks." This is stated by Margaret Sykes.
Look, I'm not saying fetus's can't EVENTUALLY feel pain and can't EVENTUALLY think and be sentient and all that jazz. All I'm saying is when an abortion happens, the fetus is just simply not that developed. The fetus isn't this perfect little human at 5 weeks, it's just a little blob that's only beginning to shape its organs.
I've never heard a case where the law was used on a fetus that wasn't viable. Can you point me to a few?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Alright, I'M not saying that YOU'RE not right that that's when a brain is developed, but whether or not it can feel pain is the issue in which research shows that an unborn can feel pain as long as a brain stem that can send and receive an electrical impulse. That's as early as 8 weeks.
That issue aside, which is really nothing but red herring, what I AM trying to say is, Does brain development indicate humanity?" If it does, anyone who's brain is not fully or properly developed can be deemed non-human. If that's the thinking, children or people with mental disabilities due to brain problems of any kind is not human. The same reasoning can carry over if the same goes for any kind of disability, physical or mental.
And I really did want to hear YOUR definition of a viable fetus because no one seems to have the definition of the same word more, and I need to have vantage point before even being able to begin to debate about it. No sarcasm intended.
P.S. Any kind of field can be biased and will be evident by the kind of research it will invest or back like embryotic stem-cell research. It can also be evident by what it.pushes in general. Drug companies, for example, will advertise and even attempt to persuade doctors to prescribe a medication that dull the pain rather than deal with the problem so that they can receive more money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that question is a lot tougher to answer, because it's more a moral issue than a scientific issue. I, personally, don't consider it a life worth considering human. You, from the sound of it, do consider it human.
Oh, my personal definition? I consider a fetus viable when it can be removed from the womb and survive. That simple. If it can survive, I consider it viable. So anything 7 months and up for me.
Well yes, that can be biased, but when you get to the bare bones of the medical community, you can't really be biased. Human development is pretty black and white in that regard. We follow a very strict path from conception to birth, excluding the rare mutation cases.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're right in that it's a moral issue, but riddle me this. When does that fetus become an actual person and why? I personally do not use the term "viable" when referring to an unborn because, while it can function without its mother's body from 7 months up, it can still technically not support itself and is still helpless. In other words, it's a fetus that's no longer in the womb.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Technically we're always going to have to rely on others, so I don't consider a baby relying on its mother as it not counting as viable 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So if we, grown adults, are left to ourselves, we will not only be unable to find the means to take care of ourselves, but be unable to perf orm the operations necessary to support ourselves. That's my definition of "helpless". Also, you didn't understand my reasoning. I simply prefer not to use the term "viable". I don't consider a born child "non-viable" at all. I simply say that the condition is the same save for location. That child will continue to develop and grow, it just happens to not be in the womb any longer. There is really no developmental significance to birth save that it doesn't depend solely on the mother.
Also, again, does development decide humanity? If a human cannot eat normally, breathe on their own, or think on the same level as most, are they not human? If not, then how are they different from an unborn save for "stage of development" or age?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And yet, have you ever though about what the mother thinks? Oh wait, her fetus is more important than her. She should have no say even though it's draining her of her life. Let's forget her and save teh babby!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This would be a good argument if the unconscious clump of cells were good for anything. At least trees are useful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It stops being just a clump of cells when it's born. (People saying "BUT AMG BABIES CANT LIVE ON DERE OWN WATS DIFFRENT DAN A FETUSSS?" are idiots because obviously it can exist outside the womb and be fed by someone else instead of leeching directly off its mother. Babies can communicate non-verbally as well, while fetuses can't) Basically, a born human is far more than just a pile of cells, it's a sentient pile of cells.
It isn't even legal to abort them by the point they're developed enough to feel pain. They're basically the level of a goldfish at that point.
Minor point: Zygotes have to attach to the uterine wall to start growing, so fertilized eggs don't always end up making a pregnancy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't see the difference. It doesn't matter if it's born. It's still a parasite since it can't feed itself, it shits itself, and it cries all the time. Plus it leeches off of your paycheck and regardless if it can be fed, it still takes up too much. As far as I'm concerned it's a worthless sack of flesh and the parents should be allowed to kill it if they feel like it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You have a mind of a serial killer, you should work at a farm, people like you can at least kill the right kind of animal instead. It doesn't take up too much and it would become something when it gets older, a parasite drains life not money, also everyone was a baby, so you're implying that your mom could rightfully kill you if she wanted to, you are missing something from your brain, a normal human is able to care for another persons child without wanting to kill it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HAhahahaha!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you can't tell how babies are more worth keeping alive than fetuses then maybe you should stay away from children.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, I can;
Think, eat, build, feel, react, develop, learn, communicate, reproduce, create, imagine, see, smell, taste, walk, socialize, believe and many others.
What can a fetus do?
Potentially grow up to be a normal human OR;
[Potentially] destroy a woman's life that just got raped, harm a human, kill a human, destroy a family, destroy a girl's teenage/childhood and many others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
But that's not the fetus' fault. It was either the person who raped her or the mother.
[Potentially] destroy a woman's life that just got raped, harm a human, kill a human, destroy a family, destroy a girl's teenage/childhood and many others.
Can be said for anyone really, since everyone was a fetus once.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
50-75 trillion cells is honestly not a big lump haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So you want to play that game huh?
Premise 1: Flies are also a pile of cells
Premise 2: Grown flies have fully functioning nervous systems and brains which fetuses do not have untile the third or fourth week (which is long after most abortions take place). Therefore, they are more susceptible to pain.
Conclusion: Killing a fly should be a bigger moral struggle than killing a fetus.
PS: Most abortions that happen in the last months of prenancy are done to protect the mother who may not be able to survive childbirth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"So you want to play that game huh?"
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I would! :3
"Conclusion: Killing a fly should be a bigger moral struggle than killing a fetus."
Because a fly has the potential to become human life, deserves a shot at life, and improve the world we live in, and doesn't have an approximately 24 hour life span? Also, this is flawed because you compared an already living fly to a developing baby.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On the other hand the human grows up starts doing drugs and wasting resources with it's "life". It starts eating like mad using up food that could go to communities that were disadvantaged long before it was born. It commits felonies and harms others.
Saving a fetus isn't a guaranteed good thing. And chances are if it was aborted it likely wasn't able to be cared for by the parent and would be put up for adoption. Meanwhile nobody bothers to give it a good home because they are to busy worrying about the welfare of "potential lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"On the other hand the human grows up starts doing drugs and wasting resources with it's "life". It starts eating like mad using up food that could go to communities that were disadvantaged long before it was born. It commits felonies and harms others."
And like the fly, it provides food for everyone, but may be a nuisance and buzz in someone's ear. There's a good and bad to everything, but, like the fly buzzing in someone's ear, you can't prove the human WILL do all the things you mentioned.
"Meanwhile nobody bothers to give it a good home because they are to busy worrying about the welfare of "potential lives."
Actually, most, if not all, of the programs and organizations that work to help the impoverished, orphaned and homeless are run by the same people who "were too busy worrying about the welfare of potential life".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"And like the fly, it provides food for everyone, but may be a nuisance and buzz in someone's ear. There's a good and bad to everything, but, like the fly buzzing in someone's ear, you can't prove the human WILL do all the things you mentioned."
Since when is buzzing around in somebody's ear bad for the world?
"Actually, most, if not all, of the programs and organizations that work to help the impoverished, orphaned and homeless are run by the same people who "were too busy worrying about the welfare of potential life"."
Proof?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Since when is buzzing around in somebody's ear bad for the world?"
Hey, you're the one that decided to use a fly as an example. I was providing an example of a fly doing something to cause discomfort.
"Proof?"
Look up "pro-life X charities" (X = homeless, adoption, etc.)and there you go. Here's a few to start you off:
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Now, am I saying there are no pro-choice charities? No. I'm sure some do exist. However, whenever I look up a charity pertaining to homelessness, hunger and adoption, I always find it being run by people (particularly Christians) without any hints as to whether or not they're pro-life or pro-choice, or by people who state directly that they are pro-life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Discomfort is hardly on the same scale as contributing to environmental and economic collapse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>