Why? Why do they call it a zygote at a certain stage? An embryo at another? Because there are distinct stages in the development of a human being. That doesn't mean it isn't alive.

Exactly half of the human chromosome set is on a sex cell (known as a 'haploid'), which are produced during gametogenesis. This is the process by which males produce sperm (spermatogenesis) and females produce eggs (oogenesis). This is the only time in the human body that such a cell division is made - it is known as "meiosis," as opposed to the more common "mitosis," which is normal cell division.

Perhaps I can illustrate better:

2N = diploid (human being) which has 46 chromosomes
N = haploid (sex cell) which has 23 chromosomes, half of a full set

During meiosis, 2N --> N, which in turn is combined at conception with an opposite sex cell to partner with another N to make 2N.

---

Now that Mr. Science is done, I will address the questions. Do I consider a sperm to be partly human as well? No. It is not a human. It derives from a human, and, when combined with an egg, becomes a human, but alone, it is not human.

And no, it is not like the fetus/baby relationship (which you've apparently concocted for the sake of this discussion). A fetus is simply a stage in growth of a human being, like adolescence.

So apparently, in this case, size matters, Plaw?

You can interpret that however you want. However, your ignorance to the truth doesn't make you correct. Again, scientifically, a human being is a human being at the point of conception, and there isn't any dispute over this. Period. I don't see how it can become "more human" or something along those lines. Does it grow? Certainly. Doesn't a child outside the womb? Yes. Does that mean we should kill children, because, after all, though they are outside the womb, it would be unlikely that a small child could live, thrive, and survive without care. Why can't we abort children that have left the womb, possibly to an age of 18 years? After all, they are not mature, grown humans, so by your definition, we should be able to kill them.

Not without dependency on another for a significant portion of their childhood.

No. A sperm cell cannot become a human being under any circumstances alone. By that same token, neither can an egg cell. Until they are combined ("conception") neither can become a human being, because they only possess half of the needed chromosomes.

And I find it interesting that a raging liberal like you (since you've decided to label) would attempt to dispute what I've said, even though your argument is wholly incorrect based on science, which you liberals seem to use to prove everything, from how we evolved from pond scum to why OJ was not guilty. I'm using the reason and facts that the left loves to use to prove us right-wing Christians wrong! Isn't that fun? Beating you lefties at your own game.

I haven't forgotten Creation. But it is interesting that you'd choose to attack my beliefs simply because you have little knowledge in the scientifics of genetics. Over your head, Pee?

Don't try to spin the issue. Why are you bringing this up? There is nothing in the Bible that disputes anything that I've said. You're pulling at strings. What I've said is back up by science, cold hard facts. There is no dispute whatsoever.

So, by your own token, don't go quoting me religion when it's convenient for you to do so and then tell me about how science proves it wrong.

Nowhere does it say that you can't believe in God, or believe in what the Bible says, and not believe in science as well.

No, not really. You do want to murder babies, but you've rationalized it by attempting to ignore science and call it "women's rights."

Really? Because you've said a "fetus isn't a human," and that "a fetus is a completely unique organism," both of which have no factual backing or truth.

Want to try again?

A skillful debate tactic, I grant you, by continuing to ignore the issue and bring up, of all things, old posts and the Bible.

And, not that I don't have an answer, it is just that I don't think I have to give you one. After all, I wouldn't want to spin the issue, which is, as you've said, and I quote:

This debate is and always has been about when does a fetus become an actual baby, human being, or whatever you wish to call it.

Pee, look! I've found another unsubstantiated, unjustified statement!

So, as long as they still promote abortion as a viable option, then they advocate and support it. I don't see how Partagas took this out of context.

Planned Parenthood promotes abortion. Period.

My argument doesn't dispute this. However, all of those cells still original from the original diploid cells that fuse (conception). Of course those cells have 46 - I've already described mitosis.

Not really - because cloning is not a natural procedure. It is the manipulation and replication of genes.

And of course clone cells don't have to come from sperm or eggs - IT IS A COMPLETE REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL 46 CHROMOSOMES. In all sexual reproduction, N+N creates the 46. In cloning, this process is already complete, because it isn't changing anything - it is copying the exact makeup of the original 46 of that person.

You don't need sperm and egg cells to make an exact copy.

So what is your point?

I'm assuming you're saying that an embryo would be no different than a human embryo. But what you're failing to see is that all of these cells you've mentioned - hair, skin, teeth, etc. - all of these derive from the original cell that is formed at conception.

There is no bias or interpretation in my scientific analysis. It comes from taking quite a few biology, human anatomy, and chemistry courses at the college level. What I'm saying IS true, to the letter, of science.

Rape is a violent, despicable crime. But do two wrongs make a right? By killing her own baby (which is half hers) rather than giving it up for adoption, she is NO better than the rapist. She is a murderer. Plain and simple.

I concur. I am truly sorry that you had to be violated in such a abhorrent, disgusting crime.

Regards and Best Wishes,
Double-J