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

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.Well then you need to specify which language you want to use. And I know english is your second language because you are not consistent in your spelling. You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite.You said a fetus is not a human and or alive. This is your opinion correct? 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.I did not affirm any part of your inane logic. Your position is to compare the complexity of human development with any type of living tissue. Your argument is based on life forms not human life. There is a big difference. 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.I understand your argument and it is ridiculous. Just because you restate over and over again does not make it valid. The living cells in a fertilized egg are far different in their processes then any other form of replicating tissue. For these are the cells that make a human. No one to this day understands what causes the spontaneous beginning of the heartbeat. To reduce this process to other forms of living tissue is absurd. This is a special occurrence. 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.We are not debating the legal statutes here. We are debating if it is murder or not. The same way people argue about the death penalty. My argument is from conception life has a chance. The termination of that is murder. This is not a question begging argument. What occurs after a successful conception (barring no catastrophe occurs)? This is the first step into the process of a child. Once that begins you have to let it run its course. I know what American law defines as a citizen. This is not my debate. I disagree with such an immoral law. Citizenship does not define a human life. So if your argument goes toward legal matters then you know where I stand. 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.The repetition of this argument is only to show you that it doesn't change. You don't understand what the beginning of a human life to be. The individual ingredients don't make a child. Unless you believe sperm or an unfertilized egg ALONE can make a human. They don't have the potential ALONE to become a child. This is fact on every level. No matter how you twist it this fact doesn't change. 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).That is a false assumption. The UNfertilized egg is not a human in process nor does it have the capability to do so without sperm. Each month an egg is swept out of a woman through a process God designed. Therefore unfertilized that process has not started. If you want to play the "what if" game this is not a discussion meant for this site. 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.This is the exact debate here. The beginning of human life.  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.It has total merit. These are scientific facts.  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.Which is why I said it had to be in the womb to survive. I am not talking about "test tube" children here. If doctors fertilize an egg in a laboratory they must do everything in their power to make sure the egg is implanted in a womb. 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.The amount of sex or how it occurred doesn't matter. This doesn't change the fact that the process of human development has already begun. The mistakes of the sexual partners doesn't warrant murder. 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.As opposed to a woman who doesn't eat or sleep? This is more of your inane logic. The child will always take the nutrients first. Don't forget sex is designed for reproduction. No matter why you participate this doesn't change its biological purpose or your drive to engage in it. Hence I see little reason for proclaiming the moment of conception to be the decisive event for determining personhood.That's because you view human development the same as cancer. Just living cells is what you see. You don't discern between human life compared to other biological processes. 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.The single cell argument is to show you that you believe the single cell growth is alive then you would have to believe that a fetus is alive. And if that fetus is alive and those cells are developing into a child, then it is murder to cease that process. 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.Possibilities are not limitless. You are making conjecture on an atomic level which you can't test or prove. Perhaps what is limitless is your inability to lack a credible argument. Even then it would have to be finite as it is restricted to the physical world.