^^ I am pro-life and I would have a big problem with what you just said.

^ Do you support the invasion of Iraq?

Simple, because before that happens there is a good chance that the cells will die naturally.  Once what you've described happens, at some point the cells become a human being, no?  If that is true, at what point?  What other logical point is there, except the point we are talking about?  Babies develop at different rates, so you can't say after X weeks of development.  I suppose you could argue after heartbeats or brainwaves start, but these are semantics; children's brainwaves are different than adults, their bodies are different, yet they are human beings just as much as an adult, so I don't see how smaller children are somehow in a different category.

Final Fan, lets go back to this:

"No, the only logical times to define whether a fetus is "human" is at conception or at the moment of birth. Since almost nobody thinks aborting a 9 month fetus is acceptable, the only other logical option is conception. Anything in between is impossible to logically "prove" humanity."

There are plenty of developmental stages during pregnancy. My whole point with this statement is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to scientifically prove at what point a concept such as "humanity" is reached. We can't even define humanity in this discussion in a way that everyone (or even a simple majority) can agree on. This is more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.

HOWEVER, what I said was, since we can't even agree on what the definition of "humanity" is, then its scientifically impossible to determine at what stage in development humanity is reached. Knowing this to be true, then there are only 2 logical time that we can define humanity, at the moment of birth or at the moment of conception.

Anything in between will never be agreed on. Its not black/white, right/wrong at this point. Its pure reason. If you MUST define when a fetus is human, these 2 points in development are the only ones that make logical sense.

Though, I might entertain a compromise from conception to implantation, since eggs fail to implant frequently, and we don't really consider this a lost child.

"Just because we may not be able to pin down exactly when it happens doesn't mean we can't narrow it down at all. If the job of narrowing it down isn't "easy" enough for you, well, there are smarter and more knowledgeable people than you (or me) thinking about the problem"

I would agree with this, if we had CLEAR criteria by which we measure humanity. But we don't, and we never will without someone arbitrarily saying "this is what humanity is." But going by that is no better than going by what an ancient book says.

And please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. I know this is hot topic, but I'm trying to keep things in the realm of reason here. I apologize if it seemed I made a personal attack first (I think my monster comment may have been construed this way), but this was not my intent.

EDIT:  Yes, I know it was metalcube who said that.  Would you rather I double posted a response to avoid confusion?  It was more a comment on relativism, than the argument at hand. 

Happily, you are in the small minority in this world.  Hopefully you either change your mind or at least don't act on these kinds of beliefs, or else we will have to pay for you to be imprisoned for the rest of your life after ruining someone else's.

"^ Do you support the invasion of Iraq?"

If you want to talk about iraq, make your own damn thread.

Not at all.

I am against war and I am against abortion. That will never change about me.

I don't know if you've paid attention to my posts, but I've laid out the most logical point to assume that human life has begun based on facts and scientific inquiry.

Your "extreme pro lifes" argument is a false one that uses the false "slippery slope" argument.  I could just as easily say that because abortion is legal it will follow that eventually pro-abortionists will push to make infanticide legal, but that would be just as dumb.

If you really don't believe a child in the womb is a human being, why do you have any problem with late-term abortion?  After all, it's not human, just a "parasite," right? 

Is someone with brain damage not a person?  They cannot think.

Is someone who is paralyzed not a person?  They cannot move.

Is someone who must be fed intravenously not a person?  They cannot eat.

Why do these things define humanity? 

Stereotype alert!  How many of those who claim to be "pro-choice" have no problem taking away our choices in everything from medical care to what kind of toilet to use?  I would wager they are the same idiots who zealously read and believed Paul R. Ehrlich's work.