Life begins at conception

Let me just say, I'm not too sure about the first line of your first paragraph. What you said here doesn't really have relevance. Much of your last argument is suspicious to me for these kinds of reasons; the "Hey Kids!" line, and for other reasons as well. Perhaps you copied info from other sources too closely? There is a bit of back-peddling going on here too. It also looks like you are making amendments, what you "meant to say".. What about single-cell organisms?! There is NO "conception" when single-cell organisms reproduce! Yet, a single-cell organism is still Life that is "living" and reproduces new ""individuals""..! This concept alone shatters your notions! Gamete cells (sperm and ovum) are "LIVING" cells too! These are ALIVE BEFORE the moment of conception. Isolating the moment of conception is not the right terminology or process to apply toward other kinds of Life; e.g., single-cell organisms, flora, plants, various vegetative life. We are all related to these other kinds of life. There is no conception exactly like you are referring to in these cases of life producing new individuals.. We even share the DNA of an oak tree! - Life has and continues to morph! I think the semantics are important. What you think of as Life, and when Life begins, is what we are debating. "Life Begins at Conception," is the title of this debate and challenge. I have shown that to be absolutely false. Rather, Life has already BEGUN and "conception" is just a specific moment of the continuing of life; it is morphing into more life. We can say conception is when we classify the beginning of new distinct "individuals" of complex multi-cellular life, for the sake of categorization, but it's not a full accurate description of what is really going on. Even the molecular constituents of which the life is made CAME FROM previous life. Again, this is literally mechanically so. The physical hard molecules came from both mom and dad; and were/are mom and dad. Again, your kinds of ideas are not accurate; least we say, "..not the whole story.." I can take a living skin cell from my nose and clone myself from it. This can actually be done with any of my cells from my body with a nucleus. OR I can take a living cell from my arm and have that cell produce a whole new arm, or leg, or nose. This is what stem-cell research is all about. So LIFE is much more complicated than these restrictions that you are implementing. The lines for what we consider Life to be, how it's defined, when it began, how it continues on, etc.. are not so clear anymore. The lines are blurred now. Biologist have historically considered Life from the microscopic and up through to the macroscopic. So we are classifying these systems from a microscopic perspective in the biological sciences, which also influences our philosophy. Therefore, folks want to use biology, then, to "individualize" Life. It's an egocentric attitude because "we" [are] Life.. and life is connected to all other life biologically. Life is connected to the Earth chemically. And Life is connected to the rest of the Cosmos and universe atomically. This is a scientific fact. You as an individual (you the person) becomes relevant only when we examine any information storage that you have retained; your experiences, your memories, etc. BUT the material, mechanical parts and the physical "stuff" that literally makes up who you are came from your parents and was "living" before your conception. So a "new distinct genetic blue print" is still an exact blend of your parents genetics, assorted an arranged randomly, to make your material body. And those material parts and "stuff" were already alive and [was] your parents before your "conception". If you want to individualize Life (by isolating one specific moment of Life morphing and continuing on), that's fine, but it just seems like an unbalanced perspective and seems like a very limited understanding of what Life is and how it lives and continues..