What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread

[Maxb49]

You guys don't get the point.

We get shafted if he DOES succeed with his plans.

Yeah stem cell research, which is predicted to develop treatments for terminal illness and greatly extend the human lifespan is really going to shaft you, because as a Republican you love death. Think about it. Republicans are the party of death. They love torture, hate extending healthcare to the uninsured, hate stem cell research, love perpetual war. Just like their Muslim brethren, Republicans can't wait to get to heaven. Take your party of death and get it the hell out of the United States.

We are so screwed. Nobody even knows what it is like to live in a socialised country.

Please, grow up. You clearly don't know anything about socialism. Socialism is an economic policy in which the basic means of production are owned and and administrated by the government. President Obama is not implementing socialism.

I feel sorry for you guys. You don't even know what is coming and you are blindly following a guy with NO HISTORY of success

I feel sorry for you, who blindly followed Bush, a guy with no history of success who ended up halting the development of science, technological progress, bankrupted the country, stripped Americans of their Constitutional rights, dropped the ball in the fight against Osama Bin Laden and sent us into the quagmire known as Iraq.

 

[Calabrio]

Yeah stem cell research, which is predicted to develop treatments for terminal illness and greatly extend the human lifespan is really going to shaft you, because as a Republican you love death.

Don't mind me if I interject a little bit of "fact" into your outburst BUT...
You are clearly are implying that stem cell research was banned during the past 8 years. This is 100% incorrect.

President Bush didn't ban any stem cell research. He did limit the FEDERAL FUNDING of EMBRYONIC stem cell research. And while he didn't agree with the practice, he did not ban the research and he even allowed the federal funding of existing stem cell research.

The next mistake you've made is to not distinguish EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research with regular adult stem cell research. To the best of my knowledge, and this might have changed in the past year, but despite the conventional wisdom, adult stem cells had proven more successful and demonstrated greater promise than the embryonic stem cells, which were extremely unstable.

So-
1. President Bush did not ban stem cell research
2. President Bush did not ban all funding of stem cell research.
3. President Bush put restrictions on FEDERAL funding of EMBRYONIC stem cell research only.
4. Adult Stem Cell research has shown greater promise than embryonic so far.

Think about it. Republicans are the party of death. They love torture, hate extending healthcare to the uninsured, hate stem cell research, love perpetual war.

Sorry, you're wrong again.
No one loves torture, however I personally don't think that playing bad rap music or in an extreme controlled circumstance, pouring water in someone's nose is "torture." Furthermore, your point here is inconsistant, because torture does NOT mean death, and the purpose of what you're probably calling torture is to save lives.

The issue of "extending healthcare to the uninsured" is also not about death. It has to do with the role of government. If you would like to finance the insurance policies of uninsured people in your neighborhood, I'd applaud you. I'll even let you use my pen to sign your own check.

And the issue of perpetual war is incorrect as well.
You're rant is so poorly constructed, I have to presume to know what you're talking about. Since it's the same cliche, liberal drivel that I've heard so many times, I'm confident assuming I know what you're trying to say.

The war in Iraq, or the "War on Terror" are not designed to be perpetual wars. The War in Iraq was anticapted to be a short duration war that would have the positive consequence of preventing or limiting a future conflict in that region. We can discuss the "idealist" philosophy behind the Iraqi War again, if you'd like.

And the "War on Terror" isn't intended to go on in perpetuity, nor is it a "war" that we started. It is a defensive response to an aggressive nation. Nation, not a specific state.

Just like their Muslim brethren, Republicans can't wait to get to heaven. Take your party of death and get it the hell out of the United States.

You made it this far without making a single point that was either truthful or accurate. And, to top it off, you threw in a nice touch of irrational, leftist, hatred of religion.

But to clarify your ridiculous exclamation, neither Republicans nor Christians are involved in any death cult. There is no desire to die, no reward in suicide, no worship of death.

All of your "points" demonstrate your hatred of religion, your lack of scientific understanding, and your ignorance concerning the role of the federal government.

Please, grow up. You clearly don't know anything about socialism. Socialism is an economic policy in which the basic means of production are owned and and administrated by the government. President Obama is not implementing socialism.

You're definition of socialism is incomplete.
But let me ask you this- do you think Obama is supporting policies that favor the redistribution of wealth, the government control over the distribution of resources, or the nationalization of industry?

I feel sorry for you, who blindly followed Bush,

...another mistake.... no one "followed" Bush. George W. Bush isn't any kind of messianic leader. That's the mistake that it appears so many Obama supporters are making right now.

a guy with no history of success who ended up halting the development of science,

We've addressed this one.. you were wrong.

technological progress,

You haven't mentioned an example for this yet, but I'm confident in saying that you're wrong anyway.

bankrupted the country,

Incorrect again. But if you'd like to provide some specifics, I'll explain the error with your conclusion.

stripped Americans of their Constitutional rights,

..let's be specific. Who's constitutional rights did he strip?

dropped the ball in the fight against Osama Bin Laden

This would be wrong too.

and sent us into the quagmire known as Iraq.

Well, he did lead us into the war in Iraq. Despite the UN mandates, and despite Bill Clinton's Policy of Regime Change in Iraq, Bush was the President who is responsible for that invasion. But it's not a quagmire, nor does it have to be unsuccessful.

 

[cadillackman]

Retards that voted for Obama at my job:"did you see that Bush is raising the price of gas again?" F^ck!ng ignorant. This is how he won!

 

[fossten]

Wow, Cal. That was quite an evisceration.

Max, you might want to look behind you, your small intestine is on the floor.

 

[halo001]

cadillackman is right, ignorance played a HUGE factor in Obama winning. That and the fact that he made more than twice as many campaign promises than any other candidate in recent history, 512 campiagn promises compared to Bush's 177, and Clinton's 204. He basically bribed the ignorant masses with promises of more welfare.......exactly how does that motivate them to work? You can go here to see exactly what he does and doesn't live up to here......

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

I wish failure on his more communist leaning promises........and things that will bankrupt our country.......like universal healthcare. But at the same time I don't want to see our country go into the fetal position and die cause he does fail.....I just want the country to survive long enough for someone how knows what they are doing to get in office.

 

[MonsterMark]

Take your party of death and get it the hell out of the United States.

Um, whatever you say Maxb49.


PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

I guess I'm for this plan after all. Looks like we'll have fewer Obomobots being born over the next few years.

 

[fossten]

Um, whatever you say Maxb49.


PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

I guess I'm for this plan after all. Looks like we'll have fewer Obomobots being born over the next few years.

Contraception will also prevent more taxpayers. Never thought about that, didja Pelussolini?

 

[foxpaws]

The ‘taxpayers’ that Foss is referring to are children of poor families – the Republicans should be all over this – fewer Democrats in the future. And, if you believe Ann Coulter (yes, I have started to slog my way through 'Guilty'), fewer strippers and criminals. This is a win - win for the Republicans.

And, isn’t that what this really is about – bottom line? If lower income people have access to free contraceptives, then maybe there won’t be so many babies born that need the Government’s help. Or perhaps fewer people with STDs that need Medicaid...

For the cost of a condom we could be saving the government untold amounts of money. From birth to death in prison, all paid for by government funds. All able to be avoided by a free $.50 condom.

Pretty good return on the money...

 

[MonsterMark]

And, isn’t that what this really is about – bottom line?

Yep, Democrat sponsored, endorsed and funded genocide.:eyeroll:

 

[fossten]

The ‘taxpayers’ that Foss is referring to are children of poor families – the Republicans should be all over this – fewer Democrats in the future. And, if you believe Ann Coulter (yes, I have started to slog my way through 'Guilty'), fewer strippers and criminals. This is a win - win for the Republicans.

So what you're saying is that Republicans, although openly and vehemently objecting and even voting against abortion in any and every form, secretly want them to occur so that the Democrat base will shrink?

You've officially outsmarted yourself. There you go again, mischaracterizing conservatives in order to make a point. That's the trouble with you libs - you assume that conservatives are just as twisted and politically bent as you.

Did it ever occur to you that Conservatives might just care about life? Nah, it couldn't be that, right?

 

[Maxb49]

<i>Don't mind me if I interject a little bit of "fact" into your outburst BUT...</i>

You have no facts.

<i>To the best of my knowledge, and this might have changed in the past year, but despite the conventional wisdom, adult stem cells had proven more successful and demonstrated greater promise than the embryonic stem cells, which were extremely unstable.</i>

You're eyes must be brown because you are so full of chit. We need funding for BOTH embryonic and adult stem cells to reach cures for some of the worst diseases known to mankind. George Bush withheld the necessary funding for stem cell research, effectively ending progress within the field. Obviously developments don't occur in unfunded research programmes.

Read and learn.

In just a few weeks, Michigan voters will have an important decision to make when casting their ballots. Not just who they want to be president, or to represent them in Congress, but what they want the state to do about stem cells. And the way they vote on a ballot measure called Proposal 2 will determine the fate of a Michigan law that currently restricts research using embryonic stem cells.
Meanwhile, in other states, stem cells are emerging as a key issue in many races.

To cast an educated vote on stem cells, voters in Michigan and beyond must understand a complex, fast-emerging new field of medicine – no easy task. Stem cell research is generating great interest and investment worldwide because it could lead to possible treatments for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes and other diseases. But some aspects of embryonic stem cell research may pose an ethical or moral dilemma for some people.

The main thing is to understand the goals of stem cell research and to sort out fact from fiction. There are several key facts that citizens can keep in mind as they navigate through a flood of often conflicting information about stem cell research, say University of Michigan stem cell scientists Sean Morrison, Ph.D., and Sue O’Shea, Ph.D. Morrison directs the Center for Stem Cell Biology at U-M’s Life Sciences Institute and is a faculty member at the U-M Medical School. O’Shea directs the Michigan Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research at the Medical School.
Here are the five key things they feel every voter should know about stem cells:

1. Scientists generally agree it’s crucial to push forward rapidly in all three key areas of stem cell research: embryonic stem cells, tissue/adult stem cells and induced pluripotent (or “reprogrammed”) stem cells.

Around the world, these three kinds of stem cells are under intense study for possible treatments for conditions from spinal cord injuries to juvenile diabetes. It would be shortsighted to pursue only one kind, O’Shea says, because each may hold particular promise for understanding and treating specific diseases. “Results in one area of research will continue to shed light on work in the others,” she notes.

Some intriguing new studies suggest that understanding how embryonic stem cells behave will bring new insights into cancer. And learning how embryonic stem cells can go awry may make it possible to intervene and avoid birth defects.

Morrison observes that much of the attention has focused on embryonic stem cells.

“Embryonic stem cells are one type of stem cell that people are very excited about because these are cells that come from the very earliest stages of embryonic development, from microscopically small clumps of cells. And these cells have the capacity to make every cell type in the body in unlimited quantities,” he says. “So, when you’re trying to cure a public health problem, the capacity of embryonic stem cells to make any cell type in unlimited quantities is a powerful advantage.”

2. Embryonic stem cells that scientists study come from early-stage embryos.

These embryos are created in fertility clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment. But for a variety of reasons, not all embryos can be used for fertility treatment, and many embryos are discarded. In Michigan, it currently is legal to discard embryos that cannot be used for fertility treatment. It is not, however, legal to use them in medical research that might help patients. Proposal 2 would give patients the option of donating for medical research embryos that cannot be used for fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded. Many of these surplus embryos, which number about 400,000 nationwide, are otherwise discarded.

“The embryos that are used for research are microscopically small clumps of cells, smaller than the period at the end of a sentence on a piece of paper,” says Morrison. “They have no specialized tissues of any type; there’s no nervous system, there’s no heart, there are no limbs. These are clumps of cells that oftentimes in a fertility clinic don’t develop in a healthy manner and that doctors would not be willing to implant in patients.”

Scientists in most states, but not Michigan, are allowed to use embryos from these clinics to create stem cell lines and develop disease therapies in their laboratories.

Things are moving fast in the embryonic stem cell field. Clinical trials — research studies involving human patients — are expected to begin in the next few years for embryonic stem cell-based treatments for juvenile diabetes, macular degeneration and spinal paralysis.

The cells scientists use come from embryos just five days after fertilization. Embryos at this stage, called blastocysts, are spheres containing about 100 cells that have not yet differentiated into more specialized cells. If some of these cells are placed in a lab dish in the right conditions, they can become stem cell lines that can be maintained indefinitely in an undifferentiated state, or guided to become specific types of cells.

Scientists want to use these embryonic cells because they have the capacity to turn into any of the 200 cell types in the body. These “master cells” promise to provide large enough quantities of specialized nerve, pancreas or other cells to effectively help patients whose own cells are not functioning.

3. Adult stem cells are like supporting actors in the quest for stem cell treatments.

Adult stem cells are more specialized cells that arise from embryonic stem cells. Also known as tissue-specific stem cells, they are present in adults – but contrary to their name, they’re also found in children, newborn infants and developing fetuses. They have the ability to make one or two kinds of cells, such as blood and immune system cells, brain or muscle cells. Adult stem cells have a more limited capacity to replace themselves than do embryonic stem cells.

Says Morrison, “There are many different types of adult stem cells present throughout our tissues. They differ from embryonic stem cells in that they’re already partially specialized, so that blood-forming stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to all types of blood cells, but not to cell types in other tissues. Adult stem cells are still useful, but they’re more specialized than embryonic stem cells and they don’t have the same capacity to give rise to unlimited numbers of specialized cells.”

Decades of work with adult blood stem cells have led to successful bone marrow transplant treatments that are used today to treat people who have leukemia, lymphoma and some inherited blood disorders. Today, blood stem cells can often be isolated from the blood rather than bone marrow.

While adult stem cell research holds much promise, blood stem cells offer the only proven therapies that can be carried out using adult stem cells. The claim that adult stem cells have been used to cure more than 70 diseases has been widely discredited.

Although scientists continue to try to expand the use of adult stem cells, a key limitation remains. So far, it has been very difficult to get many types of adult stem cells to reproduce in sufficient amounts to lead to effective treatments.

4. Induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, are adult cells reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells.

Recently, Japanese and American scientists have developed a third type of stem cell, which are skin cells that have been “reprogrammed” to be similar to embryonic stem cells.

About these cells, which are called “induced pluripotent cells”, Morrison says, “This is exciting because it will really enhance our ability to study particularly inherited human diseases. But these cells aren’t ready for prime time in terms of clinical use because the reprogramming process involves the use of viruses, which predispose those cells to cancer, and so none of the reprogrammed lines that we have so far at least would ever be usable in patients.”

The discovery of iPS cells demonstrates the promise of embryonic stem cell research to lead to breakthroughs that would change the future of medicine; the ability to reprogram adult human cells was discovered as a result of research on human embryonic stem cells. While iPS cells are an exciting discovery, scientists agree it is too early to assess the technique's full potential and determine whether the reprogrammed cells truly can function the way embryonic stem cells do.

5. Michigan scientists want to explore all types of stem cells to look for treatments or cures. But they currently lack a key tool: the ability to develop their own embryonic stem cell lines.

Most Michigan scientists, along with many Michigan citizens affected by debilitating diseases, want current state law to be changed. If the Proposal 2 ballot initiative passes, the law would change to allow Michigan scientists to do what they currently cannot: develop new embryonic stem cell lines using early-stage embryos from fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded.

“Under current law, we in Michigan can study cell lines that are created outside of the state, but we can’t derive our own new lines within the state,” Morrison explains. “That’s a crippling problem because most of the lines that we would like to be able to study, in order to study the diseases that affect the people of Michigan, don’t exist yet.”

O’Shea notes an important fact about Proposal 2: it requires that the allowed embryos are ones that couples designate for research. The proposal outlaws the sale or purchase of embryos for research and states the research needs to abide by federal law.

 

[Maxb49]

Um, whatever you say Maxb49.


PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

I guess I'm for this plan after all. Looks like we'll have fewer Obomobots being born over the next few years.

Sperm cells are not human beings. Get a life.

 

[Maxb49]

Wow, Cal. That was quite an evisceration.

Max, you might want to look behind you, your small intestine is on the floor.

Nah, that's Cal's intestine after I cannibalized him in my last post. You luddites can't be for real. In your world, a cup of semen is a human being, bodies have ghosts inside them that float around somewhere after death, and science is whatever suits your political agenda. It's all bull*hit, the world knows it and that's why you were soundly defeated in the last election.

 

[Maxb49]

So what you're saying is that Republicans, although openly and vehemently objecting and even voting against abortion in any and every form, secretly want them to occur so that the Democrat base will shrink?

A sperm is not a human being, neither is an egg, neither is a zygote. If you think it's a human being you're an imbecile and deserve to be laughed at.

 

[Maxb49]

Nobody smacks 'em down better than you Calabrio.

Maxb49 is an angry dude. I'm sure once he graduates college, gets a job, gets married, buys a house and generally becomes a productive member of society, his views will change.

He has enough venom in him to make a coral snake jealous.


I love liberals that go on death tangents when they are the 1st to kill babies and now even want to slice and dice embryos. So confused are they.

Married? Check.

Job? Check.

Homeowner? Paid off years ago.

Productive member of society? 10, sometimes 12 hour workdays.

Embryos are not human beings. You're a fool to think otherwise.

If you paid attention to your elementary school science teacher you wouldn't be so confused. Oh wait, you were probably home schooled with mama's bible lessons.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't think anyone is arguing that a single sperm or a single ovum are human beings, so you can put that strawman away.

Embryos are not human beings. You're a fool to think otherwise.

And you base that statement on what, exactly? The checklist you provided?
You argue that he is a fool to argue otherwise. If you feel that way, then I suppose you can tell all of us the precise moment a human being comes into existence. If so, enlighten us.

If you paid attention to your elementary school science teacher you wouldn't be so confused. Oh wait, you were probably home schooled with mama's bible lessons.

To the contrary, some of us studied science past the elementary school level. Perhaps that's your problem, maybe you didn't study enough biology.

 

[fossten]

Embryos are not human beings. You're a fool to think otherwise.

Spoken like a true jackass. Not one of the black robed geniuses who voted that way back in the 70s had a medical degree.

 

[MonsterMark]

tell all of us the precise moment a human being comes into existence.

For max I'm sure its the moment the brain is sucked out the skull prior to being pulled from the womb.

Or the moment that Embryo turns into a liberal.

 

[Maxb49]

Spoken like a true jackass. Not one of the black robed geniuses who voted that way back in the 70s had a medical degree.

I'm surprised at you Fossten, you strike me as smarter than this. It's time to be honest with yourself. Embryos are not human beings. They have the potential to become human beings but they are not yet human beings. They lack all of the necessary conditions to be a human being.

 

[MonsterMark]

They lack all of the necessary conditions to be a human being.

You're right I guess.

Embryos are pulled from the womb and the following necessary conditions are transplanted into them: brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, stomach, etc.

Let's see you really stretch out here max. When DOES this embryo become a human being.:waving: I'll wait for you to search the Daily Kos for your answer. I understand.

 

[Maxb49]

I don't think anyone is arguing that a single sperm or a single ovum are human beings, so you can put that strawman away.

And you base that statement on what, exactly?...To the contrary, some of us studied science past the elementary school level. Perhaps that's your problem, maybe you didn't study enough biology.

Have you studied science beyond elementary school? Let's assume you did.
You will recall, then, that the embryonic period occurs between fertilization and the eighth week of pregnancy. An embryo cannot survive on its own because it has no organs, body structure, and organs. During the 6th day of pregnancy as many physicians and biologists are apt to point out, the embryo is comprised of only 100 cells. (You point out to me a human being with only 100 cells ) The inner cell mass of the blastocyst is undiferentiated and the genes remain unprogrammed. It's a blank slate with the potential to not only produce a human being, but any organ it is programmed to produce. Therefore, while this tissue (like a sperm and an egg about to combine) has the potential to become a human being, it has not done so yet. Think about that. While you're thinking, I'd like to remind you that an embryo is not a fetus. You will find it very hard indeed to prove that a small cluster of cells which have not transformed into organs or structures a human being.

 

[Maxb49]

You're right I guess.

Embryos are pulled from the womb and the following necessary conditions are transplanted into them: brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, stomach, etc.

Let's see you really stretch out here max. When DOES this embryo become a human being.:waving: I'll wait for you to search the Daily Kos for your answer. I understand.

Is everything with you the same labels and talking points? I've never read the Daily Kos in my life nor do I plan on reading it. These questions are answered by credible scientific knowledge. See the above post. When the embryo transforms into a being with a functioning brain, a beating heart, etc etc, then you can make an argument that what we're talking about is a human being. You folks have run up against a wall, probably due to a lack of understanding the basics human gestation. Read your biology as to avoid confusion future over the subject. This stuff isn't debatable.

 

[MonsterMark]

So when does an embryo become a human being? Put a time frame on it. Your the science professor here.

And at what point does 'god' jam his spirit into it, or not?

 

[MonsterMark]

It's a blank slate with the potential to not only produce a human being, but any organ it is programmed to produce.

I remember the time I got my wife pregnant and we had a kidney. It was so cute.

And, not to be outdone, my wife's sister had an ankle. Came in handy when the Mrs. sprained hers.

 

[MonsterMark]

This stuff isn't debatable.

Great ending.

Mr. DNA, have you ever considered that that little sperm and egg contain everything necessary to become a human being? Nothing is added except for nutrients and oxygen.

A sperm without the egg and an egg without the sperm are not human beings. Combined, they are.