You are an insulting pissant . . . I have no respect for liars like you . . .You are the type of fecal floater I've been advised to flush rather than wrestle with.
Cute, and the ad homenem flows like milk and honey, or something like that. You know, if you want some to take you serious, it might help if you stop using logical fallacies to try and prove your point. Now, if you have not already done so, I suggest you wipe the spittle from your screen, and listen carefully to what I am about to say: there is a short time, after the penetration of the egg by the sperm, but before the last meiotic division of the egg, where the egg is merely "fertilized" and not yet a zygote, therefore, a "fertilized egg". Now, soon after this last mieotic division, the genetic material from the sperm and the egg join to form a zygote. Then development does procede in the manner in which you explained in your last post.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
Lastly, the act of purposeful cancellation of life support for the newly implanted entity is abortion (and thus it is killing of another human, being a normal human at that stage in the lifetime begun at conception) any time during the 40 weeks of gestation. I will pass on discussing the rejection of life support as caused by withholding life support prior to implantation as the thread is focused on the redefining of conception, and the notion of application particularly to implantation which begins pregnancy.
Abortion 'clinics' practice serial killing, focusing on the most vulnerable and silent class of our fellow human beings. I consider that wrong and will not back away from characterizing it as such. Now, if someone wants to raise the issue of religious perspective regarding the wrongness of abortion, I'll leave that task to others.
********
The right of privacy misapplied by the leftist/liberal SCOTUS of 1973 does exist as far as the right to reject becoming pregnant . . .There is absolutely no truth to this statement whatsoever. Uh, if I restate the obvious, would you address that also? seriously, I wish to posit that the Constitution does protect the right of a woman to choose not to become pregnant (not in wording of 'right to privacy', that was judicial fiat on the part of the SCOTUS) and can be supported, I believe, with fifth and fourteenth amendments. Perhaps I misstated what I intended to address, namely, that a woman has a right, for her life, to NOT get pregnant if she so desires, but that right should in no way be misconstrued to mean she has a right to hire a serial killer to off a second individual human being based on the presence within her body as long as the act that brought that innocent individual to be there is not forced. As one can readily discern, I'm a goat where legaleaze(sp?) is concerned; I refuse to be a sheep for the fiat-laden social engineering of the leftist court, however.