No equivocation on my part. "Alive" means animate and not dead. Even you defined "life" as "animate matter" (post #86). So quit trying to evade issues by, ironically, fallaciously appealing to fallacy. You claimed (of Bells): "you cannot refute that it is alive". I repeat: noone does. Deal with it. Or continue to be dishonest. Your choice. So be more precise in your choice of language. If you mean "you cannot refute that it is a life" then say that. As it is, you simply said "you cannot refute that it is alive". Or are you going to equate "alive" with being "a life"? Yes, you did define them, and yet you claim fallacy on any counter-argument that uses those definitions that you don't like (see above). So your position is that a fetus is a human life, as opposed to just being alive (despite your protestations previously). We're getting somewhere, finally. So, on what basis do you consider the human life to have greater value than the choice of a person to do with their body as they wish? And here you now interject a previously hidden premise of "developing under its own unique, human DNA" to anything that has gone before. Do you not see how keeping that premise hidden, yet arguing as though it is a given, can make you appear dishonest? To be clear: noone has granted that a new organism developing under its own unique DNA but requiring the living consent of the host (mother) is anything more than just a growth. I'm not saying that it is or isn't anything more, but that is for you to argue, honestly, rather than to simply assert it and to assume it as a given. Ah, yet another example of you appealing to fallacy to evade an issue you can't (or don't want to) honestly respond to. Noone has granted that it is "a human life" but they have granted, and do not dispute, that it is "human life". You'll have to actually argue your case rather than hiding some of your premises and assuming that everyone has granted them, and appealing to fallacy when you don't like a counter to your position.