Why limit it to the fertilized egg? The sperm cell is alive, and it also has the potential to be a human being. As for the 50% thing, you're saying that every time a woman has a period, they kill 50% of a human?

The sperm cell has no potential to become a human. Neither does the unfertilized egg. On their own, the egg and sperm will never become new, distinct human beings that have the general lifecycle you'd expect from a human. The organism that results from the fusion of the egg and the sperm - that's already the human being. There is no potentiality to speak of at all.

The sperm and the egg do have the potential to create a human being, but to say that they are potential humans is simply incorrect and inconsistent with basic logic and science. No humans are killed when either the egg or the sperm die, because no human has yet been created that can die.

And no, I'm not saying that every time the woman has her period she kills 50% of a human - you are actually saying that by equating the sperm and the egg with actual, distinct human beings.

And, according to the link below, the sperm cell also posseses a unique DNA.

I think you've misunderstood what the article says.

Essentially the sperm carries the 23 chromosomes from the father. These chromosomes essentially carry certain traits, some of these traits are more prone to pass on and some less prone. What the article means by differences in the genes is that some sperms carry some traits and other sperms carry other traits whether those traits are haircolor, eyecolor, height, bodytype etc.

The article doesn't state that the sperm has a distinct, unique code of DNA - what it actually says is that different sperms carry different genetic traits that are to be passed on - all of these traits belong to the father. If all the sperms would carry identical genes, then they would always produce identical children with indentical traits - clones of each other pretty much.

And why are you even using science? Did you not argue that science doesn't belong in the question of abortion? Or does science only have a say if it furthers and helps your cause?

No, because that's the mother's choice. If she does not want the child, but the government forces her to carry it, then that is what is not right. If she actually wants the fetus, then let her take care of it. It's her responsibility. But unless you are willing to pay for the raising of that child, it's her choice.

Why should the mother have a choice to end someone else's life simply because she finds that life to be an impediment? Doesn't she have a moral duty to be responsible for her actions?

You did not address my hypothetical about harming the fetus as. Would you lobby for repealing laws that restrict what women can consume during the pregnancy? If a fetus has no right to life, it has no right not to be harmed via alchohol, tobacco etc. Later, when the child is born with deformities - well, that's too bad but the mother had the right to control her body. The deformed child should be grateful he got to be born at all.

I really wanted to know your opinion on this, but unfortunately you ignored this hypothetical.

The U.S is already in debt, and the various fundraisers are not even close to supporting the glut of children in the various orphanages. It's not a viable option.

The system is very much viable.

The U.S is in debt because they've done incredibly stupid financial decisions - mainly starting un-necessary wars and maintaing un-necessary military bases around the world. You could literally save trillions by cutting the military budget. From there, funding orphanages would not be a problem.

Sadly, to the U.S policing the world and bombing third world countries is more important that taking care of your children at home. The expenses of oprhanages isn't the problem - it's the government. You don't fix the symptoms, you fix the disease.

The thing you are talking about is social security. That involves people actually paying a seperate tax to support it. But, unlike unwanted fetuses, everyone is going to need of this at some point because we all grow old. Whereas unwanted fetuses are something that happens because of dire circumstances.

It depends on the welfare system.

Secondly, raising children and making sure that they get a quality education is an investment - they are essentially future taxpayers. It would actually be in the interest of the nation to support orphanages. This increases the sustainability and the quality of the population.

Here's the deal. You make a fundraiser and raise enough money to pay for and raise every single unwanted child in the U.S. That's an alternative. If you are so devoted to the idea that a fetus is a life, prove it by providing an alternative. We already have an alternative that is as efficient as one could want.

You can actually do it. How? By cutting your astronomical military spending.

And despite what you say, the ends justify the means. It's basic math. Would you rather lose fetuses, or would you rather lose actual people due to the Donohue-Lewitt effect?

Fetuses are actual people - that's the whole point of the pro-life movement. Also, it's difficult to take Donohue-Lewitt seriously, especially when Lewitt himself admitted that there was a computing error that inflated the abortion-crime relation almost by half - also take into account that there is actually no compelling evidence to suggest that abortion and the crime rate are causally related.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/11/28/everything-in-freakonomics-is-wrong/

Secondly, you once again ignored my question - should be bring back corporal punishment? If the ends justify the means, would you support dismemberment, beatings, lashings etc.