Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I would advise you to review before responding, as I have already provided a response to this claim of yours, a response which you have yet to refuteI have refuted it. There is no significant difference between sperm, unfertilised eggs, and fertilised eggs. All of these three are capable of developing into humans, but none of them will develop into humans as they are.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. Under my argument, a foetus is not a human being either. It is a potential human being.My argument is that fetus was a human at conception. At conception life has a chance and a child is developing. It is a human at its simplest form. No other "ingredients" are needed to make a human just environment and time. (By the way, it's arguable that a cockroach is also a potential human being in that the atoms making up the cockroach may one day end up being the atoms that make up a human body...)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. Living tissue is alive.You missed the point entirely. That living tissue is not human life. It is part of the human but is not the original living cells in human development. Many non-human creatures have heartbeats. "Foetuses have heartbeats" is hardly a convincing argument as to why foetuses should be classified as people. The same goes for your earlier argument, "foetuses have developing eyes".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. I must say: I have argued with many people before, and misunderstandings do happen on occasion, but few people have shown such an aptitude for misunderstanding my arguments as you have. If you're "misunderstanding" me on purpose in order to misrepresent my arguments, please realise that this is a straw man fallacy and only serves to make your arguments less convincing. If you're not doing it on purpose, please read my arguments again, more carefully this time.There is no misunderstanding here. You compare human development to cancer. You reduce the complexity of a human fetus to a cockroach which is a single cell creature. You obviously have no understanding of human anatomy. I then add that to 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.