Inaccurate minimization.
Though a person grows from conception by splitting and dividing that person's cells, that person is a human being from conception on forward.
It is right and proper in this discussion not to minimize that fact.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous.
There is no such differentiation as "complete" used by science to classify whether an entity is a human being.
Science presents clearly that a human being begins to live at the moment of conception.
Once again, you repeat ad nauseum your attempt to justify murderous abortion via the ageism-classist "complete" sophistry.
Your "complete" sophistry is rejected by science itself.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Irrelevant.
A person is a person, a unique individual human being, from the moment of conception -- so says science.
That person is a person no matter where that person lives and no matter how that person sustains that person's life in that person's environment.
So says science.
Here you attempt to use the "life support" sophistry to justify murdering that person.
The "life support" sophistry is just another spin of the "parasite" sophistry.
All are false-based, irrational and erroneous.
Your attempt to belittle the newly conceived person so that you can justify murdering that person is horrifically heinous.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous.
There is no "the standard".
When murderers have killed pregnant women, thus killing their offspring as well, the count of murder-one for killing that offspring is still applied with conviction regardless of viability.
Indeed, there are people serving time for murder right now for having murdered unviable people.
And remember, earlier you argued against a woman being forced to give birth when that birth was imminent, when that person's offspring was viable, saying it was better to murder that offspring than to force the woman to give birth even though there was no known threat to the mother's life.
You pro-abortionists don't really care about viability at all -- you're just, once again, trying to apply a version of the ageism-classist sophistry to irrationally justify murderous abortion on demand.
Again, you have rationally failed.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous. Unwarranted assumption.
Once again, the pro-abortionist commits ad hominem, which the pro-abortionist does because the pro-abortionist has no rational scientific argument in response to the opening post.
Court jester cheerleading may be fun for you, Top Gun ... but you're embarrassing yourself thereby in this debate.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous. Irrelevant.
BHO's horrific behavior in promoting murderous abortion does not change the fact that polls show that a continually growing majority recognize that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.
He thereby behaves as if he could care less that the growing majority of American's perspective on the matter thererby makes him out of step with reality and the progressive mainstream.
That's a fact -- that's the fact in this matter.
And the growing majority recognize the truth of this fact even without the benefit of reading the opening post in this thread.
Just wait until more people read the science of the matter.
Then in no time the majority will be in the 90th percentile.
Roe v. Wade will most certainly fall -- it's inevitible.
And no amount of your court jester cheerleading will change the obviously inevitible.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous.
Your projection is topically irrelevant.
But you would still do well to recognize how your own statement here applies only to you ... so that you'll stop irreparably harming more women with murderous abortion.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.