Not being a fan of either moustache-laden douchebag, I think that it would be fair to add that people have been murdering people in the name of [great society, god, nationalism (pick your evil here)] for as long as people existed and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Your great reference, the Bible, is a description of non-stop genocides, either by God or by his direction. The fact that Stalin was an atheist, and who knows what Hitler believed in, does not in itself makes atheism murderous. How many millions have been butchered in the name of Islam? Bottom line - when a person needs a "justification" to kill, it is easily found in many venues.

Well, since you're addressing a bunch of separate items here, let me go one by one:
Most people make omelets from unfertilized eggs. I certainly do. But when the very health-minded organically disposed individuals pay a hefty premium for free-ranging chicken eggs, very often they get fertilized eggs, without ever knowing it. But yes, that's off track - just entertaining, nothing more. Not quite sure about the comment regarding the "losing side" - didn't know there was a war going on; at least not one having to do with omelets.
Regarding your question as to when exactly does life begin? - is it not possible that humans, at this stage of their development, do not know the answers to everything? Is that alone a justification to turn to the supernatural as a simple explanation of what a human mind cannot [yet] understand? Were thunder and lightning bolts thrown down by Zeus when he was upset? And since when did the word "fetus" became dehumanizing? And does the process of becoming a human being needs to occur as a step function within a millisecond? - could it not be a continuous process?

Then please, since you're smarter than us, explain to us the exact moment it DOES become a human being. The EXACT moment in time please.

An omelet is made from unfertilized eggs you dork :)

Your question at the end is wholly irrelevant to this discussion, and is entirely outside the realm of science, we are unable to make a determination on what happens there. Nice try derailing it though while your side's losing, let's get back on track:

The question at hand, which you still have not answered, is this: WHEN does an unborn baby (or "fetus" as pro-abortions like to call them to dehumanize them) become a "human being"? Please, point out the exact moment in development when it happens. And explain to me what happened at a cellular level that it all of a sudden changed from "not human" to "human".

What's the difference? One said "we own everything, and we'll kill you if you don't give it to us", the other said "you own everything, but you're going to do what we say with it".

If you get eggs from people that are so proud of the "free roaming" chicken that they raise, that is very often what you get. When chicken and roosters roam together, that what happens. You're supposed to ignore (or swallow) the beak that starts solidifying first.

I understand what you are saying robbie, but the same can be said for small children's survival without someone to even feed them for several years of their lives.

Then the same can be said for those of us who are more advanced in years. Many times we find ourselves in nursing homes without the ability to care for ones basic needs in life. Sometimes for the rest of our lives?

I'm really NOT trying to be argumentative (I'll save that for the trolls, not my friends), I'm just seeking consistency. You say "they were once capable of independent life, but by circumstance they are no longer able," Either the "test" is independent survival or it's not, that's pretty much cut and dried.

Granted that we are talking about a bit of protoplasm that has zero ability to function outside the mothers body and that is the defining difference for me. After birth there is no question of the responsibility of the parent. There are ways to support a premature birth of the child at increasingly lower birth weights and earlier in the development of the child.

I am not able to state at what point in the birth cycle that a child may survive with full function. It seems that like many other things medical science is pushing back the "age" all the time, leaving me to say that I don't know for certain. That's the problem. Does a mother owe anything to her unborn child? I think so. Either the birth is intentional and as a planned act, she must assume the responsibility for the care of the child. Or it's a unplanned birth and there is what takes place before the pregnancy is certain, which can be forgiven. But in either case the couple engaged in a act that can result in a pregnancy - as adults we must "own" the results of our actions.

If our actions result in a pregnancy then the mother must be willing to accept the responsibility for her pregnancy and care for her unborn child. This taking responsibility is a objectivist principal too.

Remember me,

It actually starts dividing immediately that one cell becomes billions but some may not have arms or legs. Is it not a human.

That is like saying if you put identical twins in a room and gave them the same experience their response would be exaclly programmed.

So, when you make an omelet, do you make it from eggs or from chicken; or is that all the same to you? Seriously, the religious view that a cell is a human being is based on a belief that at the moment of conception God mysteriously attaches a soul to that cell (supposedly external or in any case created by God for each such cell at the moment of conception - forget about privacy here...). The non-religious view is that there is no mysteriously and externally created "soul" to be attached to a cell, but through development an eventual human being develops the qualities and characteristics that are called a "soul" by some and various names by others. Since this topic naturally drifts toward religion, here's a question for you - if an embryo (a human being in your terminology) dies of natural causes inside the womb, what does God do with that extra soul?

That is a reasonable guage.

By a commonly accepted legal definition, an illegal act cannot be a "right." If a person is taking illegal drugs, that cannot be considered to be their "right." One can argue the morality of this, but the legality seems to be quite clear.