I already told you there is a difference between saying that "there is no test for in vivo fertilization" and saying "there is no test for fertilization in vivo." The first implies a test to determine whether fertilization occurred in the woman, the other implies a test to determine whether fertilization has occurred while the egg is within the woman.
You did not debunk shit. You are a retard that did not understand what you read and still fail to after I pointed out your mistake.
Wrong. You are the one who does not understand. There is no way to test whether an ovum has been fertilized in vivo, UNLESS pregnancy (ie:implantation) occurs as a result. There are no tests ZERO, none, nada, to substantiate the claim to know the number of ova fertilized in vivo in relation to the number of resulting pregnancies.
If you'd dug a little deeper and actually found the results of the studies you posted so hastily, you would have read that the numbers derived for in vivo fertilizations were derived (unscientifically) from a study of successful in vitro fertilization rates. Try reading your own fucking references before trying to claim an understanding of what the fuck they mean.
And you do nothing to refute the fact that a study on women who have trouble getting pregnant can in no way be applied to the general population.
(Or do I forget all you want is numbers to claim (falsely) that preventing implantation is not an abortive contraception method - even if those numbers are a lie.)
I am defending contraception that prevents implantation. No abortion can occur prior to implantation.
Yes, by pointing out the absurdity of treating a fertilized egg as life and the hypocrisy of demanding the application of it in arbitrarily chosen instances only.
And again, you cannot comprehend the very references you use to defend your position. You keep harping on the medical definition of the beginning of PREGNANCY. What you fail to address is the biological FACT that LIFE begins with successful fertilization of the ovum. Interfering with the implantation of the ovum is literally the deliberate action of one human being to terminate the life of another. Even were your figures true (which you cannot substantiate with real science) the fact that some do not implant through natural forces in no way justifies that one can deliberately cause what happens sometimes naturally.
When a human's heart stops beating and cannot be restarted, it is considered a natural death.
UNLESS, the human's heart stops beating because someone punched a hole in it (shooting, knifing, etc.) Then it is defined as a homicide.
Now, if the persons whose heart was stopped was a criminal in the act of trying to kill a cop, and the cop shot him first, then the homicide is considered justified.
Now we want to to talk about the unborn in the earliest stages of development? If a fertilized egg fails to implant (which by that time has probably reached the blastocyst stage of development) from natural (ie: non-man made) causes, then it is a natural death. However, since there is no test available to determine when or how often natural causes of non-implantation occur, there is no manner in which we can celebrate/regret such occurances.
However, when a fertilized ovum (blastocyst) fails to implant because of HUMAN INTERFERENCE, then it is homicide.
Justify the homicide.
