I have no idea, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. As for the clump of tissue you have declared to not be a life, I hereby declare that it is a life. So there. How is your declaration any better than mine?

I think BC had it right:Life begins at conception. I have never heard anyone come close to refuting that point. Society, however, does not value that life until it becomes viable. Up to that point, or some point like that, the mother's right to autonomy trumps the fetus's "right" to survive. I have mixed feelings about how our laws strike that balance, but I think it would be a good start for people to admit that an abortion ends a human life, which is not to say that it should always be forbidden. We permit human lives to be terminated in a number of different ways.

It's really pretty simple, the COTUS declares citizenship begins when you are either naturally born or naturalized (Amend 14). To have a biological life, perhaps you are right, but to have a legal life, you ain't alive unless you come down the chute. Under the COTUS, a fetus has no legal rights. The mother does. She also has a right to be "secure in her person" (Amend 4 BOR) meaning the state has to keep it's paws off. Such are things Roe v Wade are made of. If you want it different, it will require changing the wording of the 14th Amendment, for that you will need to get 2/3s of Congress, one presidential signature and 3/4s of the State Legislatures to agree with you. Good luck.

It's pretty easy to refute. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Neither has been conceived. Hence, life cannot begin at conception.

Of course it's inexcusable. And rare.

Then go check up what the doctor uses to declare you dead or do you think it is arbitrary and dependent on whether he/she has a golf game that day and wants to get off early? If you cannot be declared dead, what do you have?

If you are arguing as to whether the blob of cells is alive, it is. About as alive as the tumor growing in a woman's breast or other organs. A few years ago, I removed a cyst. Should I regret killing that life?

If you are in my house, and suddenly, for whatever reason or even no reason, I want you out, what right have you to stay where you are?

That is putting the cart before the horse. If you think it is a human life and there is already a procedure to declare whether the patient is dead, use it. If it is alive, fair enough. We need to discuss the thing. Otherwise, what is there to discuss?

think of it this way...

imagine how bad of a life those kids would have if she did have all 15 of them. imho she did them all a favor. if every welfare having, section 8 living crack whore was to do that we would be much better off. just my honest opinion

Sperm do seem to have an independent life, if a short lived one.
I've seen them buggers under a microscope and they look alive.

That all sounds right to me. I wasn't talking about any legal definition of life.

That's semantics, IMHO. When I say life begins at conception, I mean that is when a new human being is formed.

Then put your new human being thru the tests and see if it is alive or not. Have your new human being take a jog with me.

It's pretty hard to hold that 'a' human being comes into existence at conception. Twins become twins after conception so it could be multiple human beings that come into existence at conception.
I think that conception is one important step in becoming a human being but I don't see it as an entirely definitive moment in saying something 'is' a human being.

I grant that one has a right to feel that way. My own ethical system that has ruled my life is that if that indeed becomes the case, I have a responsibility to that life from that moment on. Morally, I am responsible, but legally, the woman is in charge, mostly because a lot of men just aren't, well, responsible. In the end, the real semantics are all the huffing and puffing about when life begins, when in fact, the only thing that matters is when it legally begins.

Absolutely. However, till the day it is viable, it is little more than a blob of cells. I won't pay you for legal advice if you are pre-law or even a law student. I don't think you want a pre-med or med student who hasn't passed his boards to work on you. I sure as hell won't pay you what a car is worth if all you give me are the raw materials.

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that SHE, not HE is the host. That is, unless you are able and willing to host the fetus till it becomes a baby.

Sure, everyone has a right to think whatever they want. But that does not imply that in public policy debates all opinions are equally worthwhile. In my mind democracy depends upon open rational debate.
The claim that the fetus is a living human at conception is often taken to imply that the fetus has a comparable claim to human rights as fully adult humans so debating and arguing the topic is important.
I think the fetus is living and will at some time in the future given the right set of conditions (physical and social) come into human rights. But the fact that a couple of cells have human DNA is not an adequate reason to think that the two cells have the same rights as fully adult humans.