just wanted to even the playing field

Except that the embryo has it's own genetic profile, not the mother's.

At conception, the zygote meets all the requirements for the scientific definition of LIFE, which can be found in any high school/college Biology book. It has the genetic profile to be classified as HUMAN. IT IS CLEARLY A HUMAN LIFE! I don't understand why there is any debate on this in the first place.

I will make the following concession: I'm not comfortable with classifying birth control medications as abortion drugs, so I think the legal definition of human life should start at implantation rather than conception.

Thats All True (and Again I'm Neutral) But, So Does Cancer And A Chemotherapy Is Not Murder...

A cancer is not a human. At conception, the zygote has 46 HUMAN chromosomes (chimps have 46 chromosomes, too, but they're not human chromosomes). An unborn child IS NOT a disease. Trying to compare them to cancer is just sick.

I Think You've Got My Point Wrong: 1.I Was Saying That A Tumor TECHNICALLY Is It's Own Being. It Was Not Meant As A Direct Comparision. It's Just That Both Have The Same Phillosphical Questions. 2.Just in Case You Still Didn't Get My Perspective:I'm NOT Taking Any Sides, Right Now I'm Just Defending The Underdog If You Will

So is a tapeworm. There is no "philosophical question" of whether it's wrong to kill a cancer or a tapeworm or ANY frickin' life-form that causes disease and death in HUMANS. That statement is so illogical, it's giving me a cramp in my brain.

Not taking sides (ALLEGEDLY) is taking the easy way out. And if the pro-choice side is the "underdog", it's because their "reasoning" doesn't hold water.

With the link that I put in the other comment, there are two places where I gave lengthy comments. The one that link was SUPPOSED to go to is the response to Dunsparce.

1.Didn't find the explanation you linked to 2.I'm not taking sides because i can understand the reasoning of both sides (was there no "underdog we wouldn't have this debate and there are other topics where i take clear sides) and 3.in have agreed with everything you said, it's just that this isn't the only way to look at it.

1. Try highlighting the #com878198 portion along with the first part of that link and it should take you right to it. 2. & 3. If there's any other way to look at it, it's because that person doesn't place value on human life. I actually had an idiot pro-choicer tell me 1000 bugs' lives were more valuable than a human fetus. Absolutely and completely illogical.

I'm Sorry Are You Here To Debate Or To Insult? If You Truly Believe That All You Say Is The Absolut Truth And That All Who Disagree With You Are Exactly Like This One Person, Who's Reasoning Not Even I Can Understand, Then You Will Only Cause More Stress For Any Debatepartner Than You Are Worth Debating With!

I did not insult that guy in the debate he and I had. I was telling you my opinion of him, nothing more. Nor have I given any direct insult to you. I merely pointed out that statements you have made are illogical.

well you don't seem to be here for debate either, or else you'd be a bit more open for someone elses ideas... also how can my statements be illogical? i used the same reasoning you did, just for a different viewpoint.

Have you ever been in a real debate? You pick a side, pro or con. You argue your side. You don't say the other side may be right. In the debate league I participated in, if the judge determined you were name-calling, the debate ended right then, and you lost. (imgflip.com/i/17ohbt) Saying your statements are illogical does not qualify as name-calling, by the way. The only way any pro-choice argument could be considered logical is if 2 conditions are met:
1) human lives are not more valuable than animal lives (you even tried to compare a human life to a tumor... REALLY????)
2) human lives are not more valuable than another human's convenience
Since I consider both of those statements to be inherently false, to say otherwise is illogical.

And that's not to say that I'm so ingrained to my point of view that I wouldn't change it. I'd just need a DAMNED-COMPELLING reason to. I used to be for the death penalty. Now I'm against it, because I was given a compelling reason to change my mind. I used to be against gay marriage. Now I'm for it, because I was given a compelling reason to change my mind. So far, I have seen NO pro-choice argument that even came close.

And before you get the idea of talking about parasites, I already addressed that argument here:

imgflip.com/i/18x9dg#com878198

[image deleted]There was no more space for replies so i'm going to say it here: tl;dr and about what i did read 1. the world isn't black and white, there are grey areas! and 2. what you are talking about isn't a debate it's a (verbal) fight!... at least now i get why this was going nowhere!

You don' want to have a debate, you want to have a conversation. Completely different animals. Check some of these out and see what a debate is:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=college+debate

Its all very confusing

and sometimes it brings up whole other questions