I don't think you have a background to understand what I am saying.

You have to start with a definition of what is a human being. If you don't know exactly what it means to be a human, then you don't exactly know when you are killing one. This definition cannot be descriptive, especially if you only focus on biological functions, because our biology is in no way unique and descriptions compensating from the facts will be prohibitively long. This is why I linked Diogenes vs Plato debate - it nicely demonstrate fallacy of trying such approach.

Easy way to demonstrate fallacy of such definition is deconstruction - given a human being minus a leg, is it still a human being? You can remove pretty much any part of human anatomy and still have a human being.

To spare you a crash course in philosophy - what matters is our cognitive abilities, or sentience. What makes us human is our ability to collect, store and process information about the world around us. Cogito ergo sum.

Nitpicky stuff:

Wart is a virus, it hijacks your body cellular mechanism to produce its own tissue. This was used to demonstrate that simple continuation of existence is insufficient.
Cadaver is a whole body, this was used to demonstrate that wholeness is not a good test.
Tissue in a petri dish (or brain dead person on ventilator) shows that 'of human' is not a good test.

Since you cannot come up with a working definition of human being that would also include fertilized egg, then you have to concede that both suicide and abortions are issues of control over individual's body.

You are obviously welcome to try coming up with a definition that would solve your problem and I will continue demonstrating it to be flawed.

[Linked Image]