I'll try one more time. The fertilization may have been successful but sufficient "qualities" were missing resulting in the fertilized egg not continuing to grow.
You can try 50 million more times, you won't ever be able to change biological facts. It doesn't matter if the living organism wasn't able to grow, that does
not define what it is! It doesn't matter what "qualities" it has, or how much "fucntion" it will ultimately obtain, those things have absolutely NOTHING to do with what it IS!
This is not all that difficult to understand. Unless you believe nature never makes a mistake there is always the possibility a fertilized cell is not a human being.
NO! There is not EVER that possibility!!!!! Once a human female egg is fertilized, it is no longer a human female egg, it is an independent living organism with unique DNA, a human life! It doesn't matter if nature makes a mistake, nature doesn't mistakenly cause a fertilized female egg to be anything other than human life.
We know children have been born with no arms or no brain so is it not possible there are fertilized cells that, if continued to grow, would produce children with no head or no chest or no abdomen?
The point is we do no know but logic dictates it is very possible because we have witnessed babies born who were missing parts.
Again, it DOES NOT MATTER what condition the human being produced is in, that doesn't change what is a human being! This is what you continue to attempt to do, and it DEFIES science and biological fact. Biology doesn't care if the human organism doesn't have arms, legs, brains, or abdomen, that is NOT what defines a human being.
Again, we do not know. All we know is that every human being had to start life by a cell being fertilized. That does not mean every fertilized cell is a human being.
Yes it does! It means EXACTLY that! The process of human life begins at conception! You have offered ZERO evidence it begins anywhere else! Do you fucking comprehend that????
YOU HAVE OFFERED ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY!! READ THAT AGAIN A FEW TIMES SO IT SOAKS IN!!! Now you can present these bird-brained idiotic assertions that don't make fucking sense, from now until the cows come home, I can't stop you. Just keep fucking repeating the same mindless nonsense over and over and over again, like the clueless idiot you are! You still haven't proven your point, or even offered ANY evidence to support your ludicrous position.
Every human being who is decapitated dies. That does not mean everyone who died was decapitated. Try to understand the difference. Educate yourself. A 10 year old can comprehend the difference.
*sigh* Every female egg that is fertilized by a male sperm, begins a human life. Every human life begins at point of conception. Not every life survives the process of living. You are the one who need to educate yourself, because most 10-year-olds comprehend when human life begins.
We don't know what it is. We will know when it is born.
Yes, we DO know what it is! There is never any question as to what it is or when it began being what it is! The event of being born is not what defines a human life. If you have some biological evidence to the contrary, this is where you need to present it, because thus far, all you've done is insist something that just isn't factual or based in anything scientific. You continue to draw parameters for the definition of human life, that do not apply.
Whether one wants to look at the Bible and the "breath of life" or refer to the old expression "don't count your chickens before they're hatched" or simply stroll through a graveyard or look at any official document the birth of an individual is considered the start of their life.
Now you are trying to define life by adages, and legal public records? Human life begins at point of conception, and you have presented NO evidence to the contrary. You can draw as many irrelevant analogies as you like, you can pretend that biology is uncertain, or that science can't answer, but that is false. Science has answered when human life begins. You continue to want to ignore that and apply your own criteria, how "viable" it is, or what "condition" it is in, or what "stage" it has obtained. These are not definitions of human life, they are conditions and phases. There is no scientific question about when life begins, it is when the conception of a male sperm and female egg take place.
It cheapens what it means to be a human being because we can not test the newly fertilized cell to determine if it has the necessary "ingredients" to consider it a human being. And we know many fertilized cells are missing "ingredients".
*sigh* Here we go with the "cheapen" thing again! There is no "newly fertilized cell" there is what used to be an unfertilized egg cell, which has been fertilized by a male sperm cell, and began the process of a unique multi-cell human life. There is no test we need to take, there is no further criteria or ingredients needed, it becomes a distinct human life at point of conception, and nothing in science or biology disputes this. Man doesn't have to "consider" it to be what it already is, according to science.
Some missing ingredients don't make a big difference. Some do make a big difference. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude there are others that make such a huge difference as to disqualify them as human beings.
Again, you are attempting to establish criteria for determining if something qualifies to be what science has already determined it is. Whether all components are intact, if the organism is living, and the result of conception between a sperm and egg, it can be nothing other than human life. This is the ONLY reasonable conclusion, any other conclusion is ignorant of science and contradictory of biological fact.
