Mike Pence for President.

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 365
--> @disgusted
Honestly, your mind is disgusted.  This whole chain is evidence of that.
--> @PGA2.0
#290....M-tard3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,

That does not make it any less a human being than you are.
And umpteen times Ive stated they are both alive. You seem to have a lack of reading comprehension skills.

You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born.
More lies by you. You repeately insinuate these lies that Ive never ever stated. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity but we know that is your primary problem in this whole issue of womans rights to her body and your attempts to immorally keep sticking your friggin nose *v* in their bodily business without there consent.

Occasionally you admit your doing exactly, that using differrent words but refuse to acknowledge any distinction in the degree of immoral integrity you lack in doing so.

Why are you in denial? Because of religious extremism and basically just a narccistic ego based Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee.

It is not about live and dead, and ive  been clear event tho you keep repeating lies in these regards. You dont get this because or your radical  religous extremism. Scary when people like keep trying to stick your immorally stick your nose inside other peoples bodys. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.

1} It is about degrees viable existence as independant/individual aka born-out from pregnant woman,

2} it is about getting your nose *v* out of womens body business where you have not legal or moral rights to do so.

Until you grasp the distinction between fetus/baby and baby that has been born-out, you will remain and immoral, radical, religious extremist sticking your nose *v* into womens bodies where you have not been given consent by the woman. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.

You need to be Locked Away!, along with all the other immoral Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzees, away from the moral civilized socieity.




--> @Alec
Yes disgusted by numpty rednecks.
--> @disgusted
What is wrong with being a white conservative?
--> @Alec
Other than a need to be seriously mentally impaired, nothing.
--> @disgusted
I am a Caucasian conservative.  How do I need to be "seriously mentally impaired"?  You're honestly a radical straw man.

--> @dustryder
How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?
Haven't you been constantly asserting that the resultant organism at fertilization is a human being?
I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.  


Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings. 
Lets take this bit by bit. Using the phrase medical science is obviously an appeal to authority and more is obviously needed to defend this view. Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"? Do you understand where I'm coming from? You keep asserting that science says this and science says that, but ultimately it has very little substance to it. If you wish to argue from this point, you need to bring more to the table.
An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact.  

"Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
 


For example, in your previous post you gave this as evidence

Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
What does this tell me? It says that a zygote is a highly specialized, totipotent cell which is formed from the male and female gametes. The writer then asserts that this zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),


What is this assertion based off? Where is the reasoning? What is so specific about a specialized totipotent cell that allows it to be called a human life?

It doesn't tell me anything! It's just opinionated drivel.
It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins. 


You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so. 
That's because my argument is philosophical reasoning. You're trying to derail it by abusing scientific definitions. But as we found out as toddlers, square blocks do not fit into star-shaped holes.
Philosophical reasoning that ignores and will not accept facts that counter your philosophy.

I am not abusing scientific definitions but using credible scientists to explain what happens. You will not LISTEN because it goes against a philosophy in your head that is not valid and cannot be shown by scientific evidence to be so. You are out on a limb and you are sawing it off,

--> @dustryder


I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking. 
Did you even read what your quotes said?

Steven Ertelt says that because the NIH's definition of "fertilization" states that the development of a new individual is initiated (which is perfectly true), this means that life begins at fertilization. This is his own interpretation. Clearly, the initiation of the development of a new individual does not mean that the initiation is life itself. Moreover neither Ertelt or LifeNews are reputable scientific sources and both are heavily biased towards pro-life views.
We KNOW that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish a new individual human life starts. 

What do you base your reasoning on? You have not presented one fact to the contrary to his argument that is reasonable. You believe that just because you can state something then that makes it true to your mind.


Now, I've already written about the usefulness of your second quote so if you put it all together, what have you actually proven? Basically nothing right? There's little scientific basis beyond the fundamental facts upon the creation of a zygote. It's just assertions upon assertions.
I have given reasonable and logical evidence that I have backed up by CREDIBLE experts in the field, who scientifically study and investigate this narrow field and understand more than you do about it. 


Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human. 
And seeds are trees? Is your house made of seeds? When I eat seeds am I also eating trees?
A seed needs germination to start to grow, just like the egg needs fertilization. 


What do you mean by human?
I mean the same thing that you and I are by NATURE. We don't grow into a tree because that is not our nature.


You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling. 

"Developing stage?" 

What is developing? It is a human being that is developing. 
No, it's a prenatal form of homo sapiens. If you mix the terms, you are going to further confuse yourself. 
It does not change what is it in the womb, it grows into what it is. 


All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?
All human beings are homo sapiens. However not all homo sapiens are human beings.

Whatever starts from the human egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being and can be no other kind of being.

Your logic is so badly flawed and you do not listen because of your bias and cognitive dissonance.  

--> @dustryder
Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human. 

There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being. 
But of course there's a difference.

Homo sapiens just indicates membership of the homo sapiens species. A human being indicates a member of homo sapiens that has attained personhood
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct. See also human evolution.
The name Homo sapiens was applied in 1758 by the father of modern biological classification (see taxonomy), Carolus Linnaeus. It had long been known that human beings physically resemble the primates more closely than any other known living organisms, but at the time it was a daring act to classify human beings within the same framework used for the rest of nature. Linnaeus, concerned exclusively with similarities in bodily structure, faced only the problem of distinguishing H. sapiens from apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons), which differ from humans in numerous bodily as well as cognitive features."



If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words. 
What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being. 
But we are not the beginnings of human beings, which the author writes.
Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date. 



In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization. 
The start of the development of a human being at fertilization is not equivalent to being a human being at fertilization. Much like how I cannot stick a wooden post in the ground and exclaim I've made a house
You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are. 

Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is. 


It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute. 
To be living is not equivalent to have lived. A senile man is not equivalent to an embryo. Both are living, only one has lived. Clear difference right?
What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?

If it is not living it can't be alive. 


IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.
But it hasn't lived. It hasn't attained personhood and it isn't a human being.
Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature

By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being. 


You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you. 
The facts are these. I've argued that prenatal-forms of homo sapiens are not human beings.

And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.

They have not had any experiences, nor have they provided any experiences, which I've argued are required to be described as a human being and not a husk in the shape and form of one.
Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature. 


They are not people and they have not attained personhood. You haven't made any arguments against this. Instead, you have brought up cherry-picked testimonies from scientists that have also not made any arguments against this.
They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life. 

Are you actually going to say anything relevant against my argument?


When you give me a factual argument I will counter it. 
--> @disgusted
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores. 
Prove it or admit you are lying.
Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these as He pointed to little children. 

But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Matthew 1:21 
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

What happens to the souls of the aborted.

I believe they are with God in heaven, but the point is that those who kill them or are accomplices are guilty of wrong before God. Without repentence and trust in the Savior, those who condone abortion will be judged for their sin. Only God has the right to take an innocent life because only He is able to restore it.

--> @disgusted
You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless. 

You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize all women.

BS.

No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female. 
--> @disgusted
When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].
Proven false billions of times a day.

If two human beings mate and a new being then starts to grow in the womb it can only be a human being.

What you do is ignore what I have stated numerous times before regarding the start of the life of the unborn. For instance, Post 281:

"First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period. 

Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead."
I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included. 
--> @mustardness
#290....M-tard3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,

That does not make it any less a human being than you are.
And umpteen times Ive stated they are both alive. You seem to have a lack of reading comprehension skills.
Are they both human and alive? 

You are okay with killing them (condoning murdering another human being). So, why not apply that standard to yourself? Are you okay with those who make laws and legislate the unborns death determining you are unfit to live because the elite does not see you are as advanced in some manner as they are?


You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born.
More lies by you. You repeately insinuate these lies that Ive never ever stated. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity but we know that is your primary problem in this whole issue of womans rights to her body and your attempts to immorally keep sticking your friggin nose *v* in their bodily business without there consent.
If you recognize they are alive and they are human beings (I believe I could find many posts that you argue against them being such nor do you treat them as such) then what gives you or the woman the right to decide to kill them? She is not allowed to decide to kill her newborn (her own offspring) or any other human being but you (or those in power who you support) give her the right (legally, not morally) to kill her very human and living offspring.

Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you examine your own position. 



Occasionally you admit your doing exactly, that using differrent words but refuse to acknowledge any distinction in the degree of immoral integrity you lack in doing so.
No person should have the right to kill another innocent human being whether it shares their existence with them or not, whether it depends on them or not - period. 


Why are you in denial? Because of religious extremism and basically just a narccistic ego based Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee.
Because I believe no person should have the right to kill another innocent human being. 


It is not about live and dead, and ive  been clear event tho you keep repeating lies in these regards. You dont get this because or your radical  religous extremism. Scary when people like keep trying to stick your immorally stick your nose inside other peoples bodys. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.
It is exactly about life and death for what is being killed is alive and it is a human being. 


1} It is about degrees viable existence as independant/individual aka born-out from pregnant woman,
The degree of viability does not give you the right to kill another innocent human being. You keep setting up this artificial distinction or born and unborn whereas this does nothing in changing the very nature of what the unborn and born both are, yet you want to kill the one but not the other.


2} it is about getting your nose *v* out of womens body business where you have not legal or moral rights to do so.
You should eliminate such language from your vocabulary for it is not fitting for you to use such triple and foul language. It shows 1) a lack of common decency, upbringing, or education and, 2) avoids addressing the argument but attacks the person making the argument.


Until you grasp the distinction between fetus/baby and baby that has been born-out, you will remain and immoral, radical, religious extremist sticking your nose *v* into womens bodies where you have not been given consent by the woman. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.
The most basic human right is the right to life and when you support the elimination of such rights you are on the wrong side of the issue. What is the difference in the unborns humanness one minute before birth as opposed to one minute after birth? It is human in both cases. So, in effect, you promote the killing of some human beings but what would happen if someone turned the tables on you and promoted the killing of you and your class or group of human beings? Would you condone it? That is your double-standard.


You need to be Locked Away!, along with all the other immoral Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzees, away from the moral civilized socieity.

I'm tired of your continual political and dehumanizing profiling. Do you want me to use the same discriminatory language on you? Do you want me to turn this into a personal attack on your character?

I think those who condone abortion for any reason the woman sees fit should be locked away as an accomplice to murder. If the woman will die due to the pregnancy resulting in the death of the unborn then abortion is the only option, otherwise, it is the murder of another human being. 

--> @PGA2.0
I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.  
You are asserting that this fertilized egg is a new living human being. You have continuously asserted this. You have asserted this again in this very post. It is not common sense, nor is it predicated upon scientific fact. It is pure opinion.

An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact. 
You missed this part. "Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).".

Unambiguously claiming that human life begins at fertilization is both extraordinary and important to your argument. Especially because such a statement is obviously contentious. While you may be content to accept this without further thought or supporting evidence or reasoning, I do not. This is mostly directed to the Moore quote as Ertelt isn't even a authoritative source, and the use of "Medical Science" is obviously equally unconvincing.

Continuing from that..

Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"?

It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:
No, it tells me that this person thinks that it's the beginning of a new human being. Note "think" and "beginning". As clearly this is an opinion, and clearly a beginning of a new human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself

It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins. 
"Some experts say so, therefore I say so". Come back to me when you have the actual basis, reasoning and evidence. Because handwaving "experts say so" on an issue like this is completely insufficient on a contentious issue like this.

Philosophical reasoning that ignores and will not accept facts that counter your philosophy.

I am not abusing scientific definitions but using credible scientists to explain what happens. You will not LISTEN because it goes against a philosophy in your head that is not valid and cannot be shown by scientific evidence to be so. You are out on a limb and you are sawing it off,
From my perspective, my philosophical reasoning is entirely compatible with your argument, except that you keeping insisting on using the same term "human being". And to make it worse, you seem to think the use of the term is the same.

We KNOW that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish a new individual human life starts. 

What do you base your reasoning on? You have not presented one fact to the contrary to his argument that is reasonable. You believe that just because you can state something then that makes it true to your mind.
We don't "know" that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish, a new individual human life starts.

My reasoning is based on several facts.

A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.

Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.

A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.

I have given reasonable and logical evidence that I have backed up by CREDIBLE experts in the field, who scientifically study and investigate this narrow field and understand more than you do about it. 
You didn't actually provide any evidence though. Opinions of experts in the field only go so far when you yourself are unable to provide anything better.

A seed needs germination to start to grow, just like the egg needs fertilization. 
So are you advocating that a germinated seed is a tree?

I mean the same thing that you and I are by NATURE. We don't grow into a tree because that is not our nature.
So which is it, do zygotes grow into becoming humans, or are they humans already?

It does not change what is it in the womb, it grows into what it is. 
I don't think I advocated for homo sapiens magically changing into different species and I'm unsure why you seem to think I did.

Whatever starts from the human egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being and can be no other kind of being.

Your logic is so badly flawed and you do not listen because of your bias and cognitive dissonance.  
You have not shown that whatever starts from the egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being. I will repeat this as long as necessary for as long as you continue this argument for as long as you continue to make assertions without evidence.



--> @PGA2.0
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) ~
Was this definition supposed to refute what I said?

Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date. 
They don't, which is what you were claiming.

You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are. 
You will always be a member of homo sapiens certainly. The rest of what you've said is crud in terms of my argument

Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is. 
I assume you understand that a zygote does not autonomously turn into a baby and requires different inputs from the mother, whether waste disposal of provision of energy

What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?

If it is not living it can't be alive. 
I'm not sure what you're so confused about. It's the difference between living a life and having lived a life. A zygote certainly hasn't lived a life

Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature

By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being. 
"will". Future tense. I'm not advocating for abortions once a zygote has expressed its personhood. I'm advocating for abortions when it hasn't.

And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.
No, you seem to keep telling me a human can't change into a dog. Which is cute, but ultimately irrelevant.

Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature. 
This is ultimately irrelevant to whether it is a human being or not, for simple genetic make up is not my criteria.

They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life. 
Appeal to emotion.

When you give me a factual argument I will counter it. 
A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.
Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.
A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.
One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundings
Hence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being


--> @dustryder
Did you forget about my response?
--> @PGA2.0
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores. 
Prove it or admit you are lying.

Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these as He pointed to little children. 
I asked you for proof not another claim. It's patently obvious that your god doesn't restore them and you can't prove otherwise, lies don't cut it.

Twaddle deleted for it's nonsense value.

What happens to the souls of the aborted.


I believe they are with God in heaven, but the point is that those who kill them or are accomplices are guilty of wrong before God. Without repentence and trust in the Savior, those who condone abortion will be judged for their sin. Only God has the right to take an innocent life because only He is able to restore it.
So the abortionist has done them the greatest service they can ever have. Your argument is self defeating, the aborted fetus enjoys the eternity of paradise and not the short time afforded it with birth, do you hate these fetuses?


--> @PGA2.0
No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female. 
You deny all women's right to their bodily autonomy you don't do that to men, you are hypocritically lying.

--> @PGA2.0
When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].
Here is the godist lie writ large, the bolded is not a part of that alleged quote, but the truth is not somewhere a godist dare approach.

I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included. 
You have never made the distinction and the context is that billions of humans mate with billions of humans everyday and what you claim happens is an outright lie, but de rigeur for a godist.

--> @dustryder
I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.  
You are asserting that this fertilized egg is a new living human being. You have continuously asserted this. You have asserted this again in this very post. It is not common sense, nor is it predicated upon scientific fact. It is pure opinion.
I am not asserting. I have given you what scientists say. Not only this, it is obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization. 

May I ask what you have read in this field of debate?


An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact. 
You missed this part. "Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).". 

Unambiguously claiming that human life begins at fertilization is both extraordinary and important to your argument. Especially because such a statement is obviously contentious. While you may be content to accept this without further thought or supporting evidence or reasoning, I do not. This is mostly directed to the Moore quote as Ertelt isn't even a authoritative source, and the use of "Medical Science" is obviously equally unconvincing.
It is obvious to most scientists that a new human life begins at conception or the process of fertilization. It is not extraordinary, it is common sense. An egg contains 23 chromosomes and so does a sperm. When the sperm penetrates the egg the two sets of chromosomes unite to form a distinct human being, different from either parent. These are facts.

Continuing from that..

Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"?

It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:
No, it tells me that this person thinks that it's the beginning of a new human being. Note "think" and "beginning". As clearly this is an opinion, and clearly a beginning of a new human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself
Would you like a formal debate on this subject?

Now listen to what you are saying: "a beginning of a human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself." 

What do you mean? This makes no sense to me. Explain it, please. 


It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins. 
"Some experts say so, therefore I say so". Come back to me when you have the actual basis, reasoning and evidence. Because handwaving "experts say so" on an issue like this is completely insufficient on a contentious issue like this.
The links give specific embryologists and scientists. I listed a couple.

I'm not going to bother until you give me a list of credible scientist who is experts in the field of embryology that state from conception onwards the unborn is not a human being. 

--> @dustryder


Philosophical reasoning that ignores and will not accept facts that counter your philosophy.

I am not abusing scientific definitions but using credible scientists to explain what happens. You will not LISTEN because it goes against a philosophy in your head that is not valid and cannot be shown by scientific evidence to be so. You are out on a limb and you are sawing it off,
From my perspective, my philosophical reasoning is entirely compatible with your argument, except that you keeping insisting on using the same term "human being". And to make it worse, you seem to think the use of the term is the same.
Logically, a being is either human or it is not. It cannot be both a human and not a human at conception. The Law of Identity states the A = A. A human being is a human being. It is not some other type of being.

So what do you mean when you say "human being?" Define your terms. 


We KNOW that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish a new individual human life starts. 

What do you base your reasoning on? You have not presented one fact to the contrary to his argument that is reasonable. You believe that just because you can state something then that makes it true to your mind.
We don't "know" that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish, a new individual human life starts.
Is it alive? The human DNA contained in sperm is injected into the egg where the two human DNA strands combine to form a new human being DIFFERENT from either the male donor or the woman. Then the egg is implanted in the uterus where the human being is born into the world nine months later.  


My reasoning is based on several facts. 

A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks
So what? The process of fertilization is the start of the new human being. 


Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.
A zygote is one stage of the human beings growth, the beginning stage. What does it have to do with the world?


A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.
So what? It is still a human being. It is not another kind of being.


I have given reasonable and logical evidence that I have backed up by CREDIBLE experts in the field, who scientifically study and investigate this narrow field and understand more than you do about it. 
You didn't actually provide any evidence though. Opinions of experts in the field only go so far when you yourself are unable to provide anything better.
The process of human life has been documented from conception onward. 


A seed needs germination to start to grow, just like the egg needs fertilization. 
So are you advocating that a germinated seed is a tree?
No. Read the context of your statement before this. You compared the two in an analogy. I just used your analogy to show that as an oak starts with germination in the soil, so a human begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm.


I mean the same thing that you and I are by NATURE. We don't grow into a tree because that is not our nature.
So which is it, do zygotes grow into becoming humans, or are they humans already?
A zygote is already a human being in its earliest stage of development. 


It does not change what is it in the womb, it grows into what it is. 
I don't think I advocated for homo sapiens magically changing into different species and I'm unsure why you seem to think I did.
You were the one who made the distinction between a homo sapiens and a human being. You said that some homo sapiens are not human beings.  


Whatever starts from the human egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being and can be no other kind of being.

Your logic is so badly flawed and you do not listen because of your bias and cognitive dissonance.  
You have not shown that whatever starts from the egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being. I will repeat this as long as necessary for as long as you continue this argument for as long as you continue to make assertions without evidence.

At fertilization, it is not the woman for zygote has a different genetic makeup, different blood, and it starts to grow into what it is, with its external organs becoming evident after a period of time. 

You are the one making assertion after assertion. Not once have you documented your position with anything scientific. 

--> @dustryder
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) ~
Was this definition supposed to refute what I said?
The term is from Latin. You did not supply the definition because that refutes what you said. 


Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date. 
They don't, which is what you were claiming.
What is this in context to? You cut out the rest of the dialog. 


You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are. 
You will always be a member of homo sapiens certainly. The rest of what you've said is crud in terms of my argument
I don't think you really understand much about embryology.


Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is. 
I assume you understand that a zygote does not autonomously turn into a baby and requires different inputs from the mother, whether waste disposal of provision of energy
"Baby" is a word we use to describe a specific stage of human development, just like zygote is another, or teen is another. 


What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?

If it is not living it can't be alive. 
I'm not sure what you're so confused about. It's the difference between living a life and having lived a life. A zygote certainly hasn't lived a life
It is starting to live its life. It is the first stage of its life (or an artificial divide we use in describing the human being). 


Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature

By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being. 
"will". Future tense. I'm not advocating for abortions once a zygote has expressed its personhood. I'm advocating for abortions when it hasn't.
Do you understand what human nature is? It is your nature as a human being to be a person being just like it is the nature of a bird to fly. Even if it has not flown yet that is its nature, not our nature. If you are a human being you are developing a human personality and are a personal being.  


And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.
No, you seem to keep telling me a human can't change into a dog. Which is cute, but ultimately irrelevant.
It is you who do not recognize when an individual human being starts. It is you who set up this artificial distinction about homo sapiens not always being human beings. I had to straighten you out on your deception. If it has human parents it will be human once fertilization takes place. It can't be any other kind of being if its parents are human. It is as plain and simple as that. 


Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature. 
This is ultimately irrelevant to whether it is a human being or not, for simple genetic make up is not my criteria.
Everything seems to revolve around your faulty concepts. If it is not the woman's DNA how can you say it is part of the woman and not a separate human being? You can't (but you will because you are confused).


They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life. 
Appeal to emotion.
Just stating a simple concept that you do not appear to understand because you continually misrepresent factual information. 


When you give me a factual argument I will counter it. 
A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.
So what? It does not change what is starting to grow in her. 

Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.
How Long Does the Zygote Phase Last?
The period of the zygote is quite brief, lasting for about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst.

A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.
Irrelevant, so what?

One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundings
One way, in part, but that is not what makes it human. Being human is determined by your genetic makeup and nature and that gives expression to what you are in so many ways.  

Hence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being


That is precisely what it is, a human being. Although our experiences enhance our humanity our genetic make determines that we will be human beings and that genetic makeup that makes us who we are starts at conception. 

--> @disgusted
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores. 
Prove it or admit you are lying.
Nothing I say will prove anything to you. You do not accept God's word. 

Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and bloodguiltiness
be on you.

Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

My God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths and they have not harmed me, inasmuch as I was found innocent before Him; and also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime.”

‘I am pure, without transgression; I am innocent and there is no guilt in me.

Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

Over and over we see that God punishes the guilty, not the innocent. 

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.


Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these as He pointed to little children. 
I asked you for proof not another claim. It's patently obvious that your god doesn't restore them and you can't prove otherwise, lies don't cut it.
There again, you do not accept the Bible. As I have said many times before the biblical God is under no obligation to prove anything to you. If you don't accept His word then you make Him a liar and that has consequences. So, if you die and there is no judgment you have won since everything is meaningless.  


What happens to the souls of the aborted.


I believe they are with God in heaven, but the point is that those who kill them or are accomplices are guilty of wrong before God. Without repentence and trust in the Savior, those who condone abortion will be judged for their sin. Only God has the right to take an innocent life because only He is able to restore it.
So the abortionist has done them the greatest service they can ever have. Your argument is self defeating, the aborted fetus enjoys the eternity of paradise and not the short time afforded it with birth, do you hate these fetuses? 


Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and bloodguiltiness
be on you.

--> @disgusted
No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female. 
You deny all women's right to their bodily autonomy you don't do that to men, you are hypocritically lying.

I want the law applied equally. If a male decides to use his body to kill another innocent human being he should be charged with murder. The same goes for the female. 
--> @disgusted
When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].
Here is the godist lie writ large, the bolded is not a part of that alleged quote, but the truth is not somewhere a godist dare approach.
More secular leftist lying propaganda which doesn't know the basis for truth.


I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included. 
You have never made the distinction and the context is that billions of humans mate with billions of humans everyday and what you claim happens is an outright lie, but de rigeur for a godist.

No, you want to twist my words out of context and demonize me as you always do. Find someone else to bother.