It is good of you to answer your won questions and respect your own definitions while doing so. Now try responding to what follows...
Life exists on a grand continuum. The simplest cells are alive and so are the most complex groupings. The sperm is alive prior to its successful penetration into the also living egg. The sperm was deposited by a living male and received by a similarly robust female. No one disputes that the few cells of the developing embryo are alive. If they weren't they wouldn't continue to thrive. The question becomes this. When does that work-in-progress become its own self? If a mother were to die the night before she were to give birth her fetus dies right along with her. But if a mother dies in the minute after she gives birth the neonate lives on independently. It is birth that differentiates mother from child. Killing a born fetus (baby) is murder. Killing a fetus is not.

A sperm is not considered life because it's whole existence is to serve one purpose.. to fertilize the egg. It is not intended to do anything else at all. It is not a lifeform, it is a part of the human reproductive system.

A fetus, on the other hand, becomes a lifeform... It's purpose is to become a human being, and in many ways, it is the early stages of a human being. Since a fetus can be incubated in a test tube, the mother is not irrelevant, but the mother is only a conduit to foster life. Any reckless abandonment (abortion) of the fetus is purely un-natural of the reproductive process, and is unherently unnatural.

Let's not get into that. It always gets really depressing because either you have to pick some religious, pseudo-religious, or alternative philosophical point of view or else you wind up conceding that life is just a meaningless, cyclical endeavor. Without a scope of some philosophy, a fetus has no more purpose than does a sperm and neither has more purpose than a fungus. Once eliminating cold science and the assumption of no philosophy due to its infinite depressingness, we'd have to decide which philosophy is the one to take.

We're back to square one.

I consider anything that lives to be alive. Sperm that are dead don't carry out their jobs. Those that are alive do. A fetus has only one purpose, too. Its job is to develop.
On what basis you you require your lifeforms to have more than one function? There are plenty of single and muli-cell organisms that have only one function. Who are we giant organisms to decide which other entities get "life form" designations?

You can start a fetus in a petri dish but implantation in the mother must happen very soon after successful fertilization.

Did it ever occur to you that if you're too broke to afford to raise kids, you shouldn't be having them in the first place?

Sounds like you're giving a reason why abortion should be legal. It seems to be the only backup plan for when people do what they shouldn't have. After all, the way you put it, sounds like the kid's going to starve to death anyway. There's nothing worse than a pro-lifer with no regard for human life.

[/quote]
...and nothing more common.

Again, yet another stupid arguement. Life starts at conception, that DOES NOT mean a fetus is a human just because its alive. Alot of things are alive... that doesen't mean killing them is nothing short of murder.

It is not possible to murder "a potential human," which is what a fetus is. But i guess in the crazy minds of anti-abortion nuts anything is possible. Assuming this BS was factual (about abortion being murder), I guess you would call it attempted murder whenever a mother drinks alcohol, smokes, takes perscription medication, or does anything else that could comprimise the fetus. If anti-abortion people have their way, society can count on womens various fundimental freedoms going down the toilet.

There was a case in Winnipeg where a women was snorting cocaine while she was pregnant, and the Childrens Aid Society asked the surpreme court if it could intervene and get her into treatment. The FACT is that a fetus is not an individual and therefore does not have rights, as well the women has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. The court ruled in favour of the pregnant women because obviously they could not allow the CAS to intervene with her guaranteed charter rights. Ignore the facts if you want, but luckily the courts examine the facts and make appropriate rulings.

A fetus may be life, it may have the will to live, but it is not an individual and it is not a human. Animals have life and the will to live, as well as brain functioning comparable to that of certain stages of fetal development, yet we slaughter masses of them daily. Its safe to say that "if" a fetus deserves to receive certain rights, then so should any other mindless lump of organs and tissue.

Life begins at conception, and any line drawn thereafter is arbitrary. You're defeating your own case by saying that some "level" of consciousness is necessary to be fully human. Again, where is the line drawn, why and by whom? As for what pregnant women do, I know of one woman of notoriety who nearly lost custody of her child because she used heroin during her pregnancy. That is because the authorities understood that what was inside her was no different from a newborn baby or a grown adult.
In one side note, if one of the posters had actually read what I typed at the beginning of this thread, he (or she) would see that I advocate ending starvation through government charity. That is where I differ from "conservatives" on this issue. Poverty, deserting fathers and amorality are the causes of this slaughter, and while Republicans might do at least some to fight the last two, they work tirelessly to worsen poverty. Again, I am not a Republican, and my pro-life stance preceded any religious faith.
Finally, I have found debate regarding abortion futile because some people cannot or will not believe the simple fact (and yes, it is a fact) that we are all "persons" from conception. Therefore, you don't have to take my word for it. You may think that I am ignorant concerning embryology. While I am not, I have a link that gives the plain facts about what a "fetus" is. You might protest that it is on the NRLC website, but much of the information is from Psychology Today, which is hardly a political propaganda tool. Here is the link:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/f...velopment.html

How do you conclude based on my post hereinabove that I'm pro-abortion? I might be and then maybe I might not be or maybe I really don't care. Just wondering. Wait a minute. After starting out by calling me pro-abortion, then you do a 180 and tell me I'm a pro-lifer with zero regard for human life. At least keep your accusations consistent!