The empathetic take on the pro-life movement is something I think few on the other side give much thought to, but it goes like this: If life really does begin at conception, and that single-celled embryo is a fully ensouled being, then pretty much any position on the issue other than “no abortions, ever, except maybe in medically necessary scenarios” becomes untenable.

Now, it should not escape notice that taking this position means you disagree with the notoriously liberal (?) American Medical Association about when biochemical life begins, but it is what it is: if this is where you are with the issue, then there are really no options for you if you’re an ethical person.

However, it’s not as simple as “gosh, if this is what all those folks believe, no wonder they act this way.” In fact, it’s worse than that, because while this is clearly the argument they’d like to make, it’s also abundantly clear that they don’t actually believe anything of the sort. They want to make this argument, but they have no interest in any implications of the argument beyond control of the reproductive process. Put another way, their actions (and lack thereof) make it abundantly clear that they only care about the single-celled embryos inasmuch as they allow control over women. Other contexts where such embryos are endangered, or in which they die, are completely uninteresting to them.

Read both links.