To be fair, I don't actually think that there is much wrong with this one.
If I were to serve you dinner, and you asked for table salt, or sodium chloride, and I gave you sodium and chlorine, I could go to jail (if you inhaled too much chlorine).
Yup, if sniff served me an exploding metal and a poisonous gas for dinner, s/he might well go to jail.
There is a substantive difference between the parts and the whole
A subjective judgement to be sure, but not a wholly unreasonable one.
most people recognize that.
Open to debate, but not especially unreasonable. I think most people would except that the statement about parts vs whole is reasonable.
Once a sperm has fertilized an egg - everything is there, it is whole, just immature.
Well, that's not quite right, not "everything is there", an embryo does not have a brain for instance, but it is not wholly unreasonable to argue that an embryo is whole, it is after all a whole embryo, arguably even a whole human, merely an immature one.
The bit about "everything is there" is materially wrong, but, other than the general irrelevance of this to the morality of abortion, it is the only bit that is wrong.
Meh. I wouldn't even give this a 1.
