This is a response to a comment on one of Tomlets blogs.  I am not here to debate abortion, but if anyone wants to they can pm me.  This in response to an individual who stated unborn children are not really alive until they are born, and I am here to offer ideas that would show otherwise.

What is growing inside a woman is alive and even one-celled organisms are alive.  Obviously what is growing inside a woman is more than a one-celled organism and the organism is a product of human DNA.  Since the organism is the product of human DNA, how can it be disputed that it isnt human?  Since it is human and if it is left to live, it will develop into a fully developed human baby.  We are not humans because we have hands, feet, walk upright, can speak, etc...  We are humans because of our nature and essence, not because of our abilities or disabilities.  A person who is born without arms or legs is still human.  A person who is born blind, deaf and cannot speak is still human.  A person who is in a coma, helpless, unaware, or unmoving is still human.  Would we kill these individuals?  Well, Hitler would have, but obviously it was wrong.  So, what constitutes a fully developed human?  Is it one hour before birth?  One hour after birth?  There is no difference.  If an unborn child is not considered a human or alive until after birth, then somebody explain the Scott Peterson case to me.  He was charged with killing his pregnant wife and his unborn child.  Obviously somebody thought the unborn child was human and alive.  This is not the only case where someone was convicted of double homicide for killing an unborn child.

What is growing in a womans womb is does not have the nature of a bird, fish or animal, it has the nature of a human.  But, if it isnt human in nature, then what nature is it?  If it isnt human in nature and it is a different nature, then where did it get its origins, since humans can only be conceived by the joining of a human egg and human sperm?  Now I realize people claim since a cell in the body has human DNA and is alive so it is ok to kill it, therefore it doesnt make a difference with a fetus.  Let us keep in mind that yes, a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, but that cell only has the nature of what it is (muscle cell, skin cell, etc) and that is not human.  A muscle cell is a muscle cell and a skin cell by nature is only a skin cell.  A fertilized egg has the nature of a human and will develop into a fully developed human.  Skin cells and muscle cells because of their nature will not grow into humans.  Only a human egg can grow into a human and is alive.

So, when is an unborn baby considered human or alive?  Here is a quote I found from a doctor: Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being I have ever seen.  The embryo sac was intact and transparent.  Within the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord.  The tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes.  The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of embryos which I have seen.  (Paul E. Rockwell, http://www.wprc.org)  How can anyone say this is not a human life growing inside a mother and that it is not alive?