While I know that this isn't your focus, here, I feel obliged to add a bit of fundamental biological science to the entire scenario. It's the gigantic pile of crap that some folks want to use as an argument about "when human life begins". Biologically, this is all uninformed rubbish. At the most basic level, life is always CONTINUED (after it began around 3 billion years ago). Metabolism -- the use of chemical-potential energy in foods to power the myriad biochemical and biophysical processes required for cells to sustain their functionality is the most basic (although admittedly reductionist) measure of any animal cell that is alive. Both sperm (not so much) and eggs (bigtime) have a vigorous metabolism, using food energy to power their lives. In other words, they are very much alive, especially the egg, a giant cell with a considerable metabolic rate. In their combination during fertilization, life is therefore continued. I raise this because the "life begins" argument is, among several others, one of those anti-scientific tropes that one regularly hears in defense of the anti-body-autonomy position. It's reminiscent of the autocrats who rubbished that I should get vaccinated for the good of society -- with a vaccine that had a negligible efficacy of preventing transmission. Beware --- the know-nothing science crowd with its autocratic pronouncements seems to be everywhere, these days.