Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

[...] your frequent misspellings of fetus and fertilize. To make the case that either you are severely uneducated or English is not your primary language. If that is the case please consult with someone who speaks English properly to proof read your posts. That way you don't look so uneducated and possibly just ignorant.I have not misspelt them. Indeed I am not a native English speaker, but at least I have learned that there are differences between UK and US spelling. Please do a Google before accusing someone of misspelling words. "That way you don't look so uneducated and possibly just ignorant."There is no misunderstanding here.I will recount them to you:(1) You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite.(2) You had thought that arguing that the killing of sperm, cockroaches and cancerous cells does not constitute murder is a way of attacking my stance, when in fact you were affirming the very argument I was making.(3) You had failed to fully grasp the argument I made on the matter of fertilised eggs vs sperm and unfertilised eggs until I restated it for the third time. I'm not saying you have to accept it (clearly you do not), but you need to understand what your opponent's most basic argument is before you can argue meaningfully against it.(4) You had continuously believed, and still believe, that "x is not a full human person, therefore x doesn't count" is a good counter-argument when our very dispute hinges on whether or not a foetus (and also zygote and embryo) is classifiable as a person that is capable of being murdered, thus making your argument question-begging.All of this happened within the space of a single post, and not even a long one at that. Hence my remark on your alacrity for misunderstanding, whether it was by intention or by accident. (Granted, point 4 could be a case of poor argument technique rather than misunderstanding. But I'm inclined to think that question-begging arguments arise from either deliberate or unintentional misunderstanding of the opponent's claims.)I have refuted it.You had not made an argument against it, which is what refutation consists of. You had simply reiterated, over and over, your initial stance that a fertilised egg is potential human life whereas an unfertilised egg or sperm cell isn't. Constant repetition of a statement does not turn it into an argument, only a mantra.That is quite possibly the dumbest comment on this entire site. There are huge significances between unfertilized eggs and fertilized eggs. The main difference is conception. An unfertilized egg can't become a human life. A fertilized egg will grow into a full human being unless catastrophe occurs i.e. abortion. Sperm has no ability on its own to become a human.The fertilized egg is a developing human!! In the womb or not. Obviously outside the womb it doesn't have a chance for survival, but the process and potential are the same.Conception is the potential. Without the fertilization there is no human. That is scientific fact.At last you have made an argument against my basic stance. Not that I think it a cogent argument:(1) You are defining "conception" as "the beginning of a person" (I am assuming that you take "full human being" to be synonymous to "person", as human eggs, fertilised or no, are obviously human). Conception is the moment when sperm meets egg, which means you're defining "the moment when sperm meets egg" as "the beginning of a person". This begs the question as our dispute concerns when personhood begins.(2) There are differences between unfertilised and fertilised eggs, of course. The question is whether or not these differences make an impact in this debate. My argument was that they do not, and I will elaborate in point 3.(3) Your argument that a fertilised egg will grow into a full human being under general circumstances, whereas an unfertilised one would not, does have some merit.--(3.a) However, I would argue that "general circumstances" is too vague. A fertilised egg will also not grow into a full human being unless it was carefully fed and nurtured under very specific conditions for many months, just as an unfertilised one will not grow into a full human being unless specific conditions (e.g. sexual intercourse, conception) are met.--(3.b) "Sperm meets egg" is a short process, a biological change occurring in very small scale: It is minute compared to "zygote receives nutrients from mother", "zygote grows", etc. It is also not particularly distinguishable from earlier stages, such as the formation of the egg and the sperm cell.--(3.c) In terms of outward, conscious actions, it also lacks particular significance. "Sperm meets egg" is generally the result of a single session of sexual intercourse, which lasts only a matter of minutes, requires no particular equipment or ceremony, and is a very normal and common human activity. Later activities to ensure its continued survival and development are at least as complex - and indeed, some are more significant, as they are necessary to the survival of the mother as well as that of the foetus: eating, sleeping, etc.Hence I see little reason for proclaiming the moment of conception to be the decisive event for determining personhood.You missed the point entirely. That living tissue is not human life. [...] Pay attention here: I only believe human life being taken is murder. I don't care about non-human life being taken. We are only talking about people here. [...] You compare human development to cancer.I refer you to misunderstanding number 4. I was not selecting examples based on whether or not they are fully fledged human lives that are clearly protected by murder legislation, as that would completely miss the point of the entire argument. I was selecting examples based on whether or not they are life, per your statement:"If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement."My argument is that fetus was a human at conception.I am well aware of your stance. I was clarifying mine to you since you were talking at cross-purposes with me, which suggested to me that you didn't grasp my stance.You reduce the complexity of a human fetus to a cockroach which is a single cell creature.I quote your statement again: "If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement."First you say that being single-celled does not preclude something from being life worthy of protection under murder legislation. Then you deride single cell organisms. Inconsistency is not a virtue.(Furthermore, everything I know suggests that cockroaches are not single cell creatures.)That is not a valid argument. The atoms are inside people and recycled through reproduction. This is highly filled with conjecture and no way observable within science.No, I was using the definition of "potential" that you provided several posts back. A potential x is a possible x: something that is not x but has a possibility of becoming x. A cockroach is a possible person in that there is a possibility that its atoms will one day make up a person. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will become a person.In fact, I was quite surprised that you chose "existing in possibility" to be your definition of "potential". As I have demonstrated here, it is such a wide definition that it is hardly of any use in this argument. Possibilities are nearly limitless, if not indeed limitless.