How is arguing about what makes a human the same as arguing anti-abortions are pro-government body control?

And, since we seem to be taking this new argument, I've already said that it's not that fetuses are potentially human, it's that they are human.  I do not consider sperm to be human, despite their potential.

 Edit: Just saw your edit.

See you are the one that chcanges the argument, not I. If you wanna go down that path however, how is sperm different than a fertalized egg? It's got the outside shell, it's got chromosomes, it moves, it responds to stimuli, it moves around even! That's more than a fertalized egg can do for some weeks. Why should government take control of a woman's body just because she has something that does even less than sperm in her?

 How did I change the argument?  You asked me if I considered sperm to be human.  And, just to wrap up the previous argument, you would agree that the government would have all the rights in the world to protect a fetus provided it is a human being, correct?  If so, then you must realize that anti-abortionists are not advocating pro-government body control.

In any event, a living animal is far more animate and conscious than sperm, yet I do not consider them human.  In other words, if something is moving and responding to stimuli, it does not make it human.

No, anti-abortion is direct control over the mother's body and what she can do with it. It would be the same as me going over the bathoom and masturbating and getting thrown in jail over it.

"You would agree that the government would have all the rights in the world to protect a fetus provided it is a human being, correct"?  It is the anti-abortionists position that the fetus is a human, so they are not advocating that the government have direct control of the women's body.  Again, would you consider it an encroachment of a person's rights if the government prevented a person from killing their six year old child?  Of course not.  Why?  Because you consider the six year old a human, and thus it has it's own rights.  And the anti-abortionists considers the fetus to be human, and thus think it has its own rights.  So, they do not advocate the idea that the government can tell you what do with your own body. 

Yes, however that fetus is inside of the woman and therefore you control her body and tell her what she does and doesn't. If you so want that fetus, get it out of her and support it elsewhere, but she has to have the option of not having it in her, plain and simple.

And to draw a comparison:

6-year-old: has legs, talks or makes sounds, comprehends surroundings, acts on stimuli based on something other than instinct, has a working brain with a measureable brainwave, conscious, has chromosomes, etc.

early fetus: clump of cells, no mobility, no brain, no consciousness, reacts based on instinct, no sounds whatsoever, poentially turns into said 6-year-old.

sperm: clump of cells, has chromosomes, mobility, no brain, no consciousness, reacts based on instinct, no speech or sounds, potentially turns into a 6-year-old.

"Yes, however that fetus is inside of the woman and therefore you control her body and tell her what she does and doesn't. If you so want that fetus, get it out of her and support it elsewhere, but she has to have the option of not having it in her, plain and simple".

 Even if the fetus is fully human?  If so, that's the equivalent of saying countries have the right to execute their citizens whenever they want because they live in their country.

Anyways, to add to that comparison:

Fully grown dog: has legs, talks or makes sounds, comprehends surroundings, acts on stimuli based on something other than instinct, has a working brain with a measureable brainwave, conscious, has chromosomes, etc.

Yet, I don't consider it human.

And what makes the anti-abortionists right? Nothing. Not that the pro-abortionists are right either.

In this debate nobody is right because there is no universal definition of life, its generally agreed that by the time a baby is born it is human and that before it is conceived it is not, in between is a slightly grey area. Now what gives the anti-abortionists the right to push their views of when life begins on an extremely large segment of the population who believe differently?

It's just that way this week because the Catholics are opposing Obama's speech at Notre Dame after that it will go back to normal.

Having seen those frumpy people on the news this morning, one would think that they should tell them to take some baths and put on some make-up.

Actually a human and a dog are the exact same thing. Humans are animals, only diferencec is that while others evovled into being stronger, faster, or more agile, we evolved ability to think. That doesn't erase the simple fact we're no better than a dog in the grand scheme of things. At the same time, a fetus of a dog is also BARELY different than the fetus of a human, in fact up till a few weeks, it's just the same clump of cells as a human's early fetus with just a few different acids in their DNA, yet you don't consider them the same? For the recod the fetus of a dog is not a dog either.

So... force a person to do something and potentially ruin their lives for something that may or may not be human? No, I don't see anything wrong with this at all actually. It's the mother that gives life, if she doesn't want to she doesn't want to. Who the fuck are we to tell her what to do?