>

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "life begins at conception". Many religions, Christianity being particularly well known for it, say that human life has innate value. They don't say that sperm has innate value. Conception is where they draw the line between having innate value and not.
So, to answer your first objection, it's not the life they're judging it on, it's the innate value. Ditto to your second.
To your third, "you can't make a cake without breaking eggs". Miscarriages are necessary consequence of trying to have children. 
Life begins at conception is a very good argument against abortion, but only if you have the necessary values.
/u/kabukistar (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Here’s why it’s a good position. It creates a line that can’t be moved somewhere else based on personal preference. For example if the line is heartbeat, why can’t it be moved to frontal lobe function? Why that and not the other? It solely comes down to personal preference. 
On the other hand life at conception creates a principled position that doesn’t move based on personal preference. Any point after conception is just one big grey area, but at conception removes all that grey area. Why not when they develop fingernails as opposed to autonomic nervous system development? There isn’t a principled argument for one but not the other. 
Then you have another problem, after conception what makes it a life? If it is as some argue dependency on the mother that makes it not yet a life then we have a problem. Because we could take a fully grown person, put them in a giant womb, make them dependent on the host, and now we’re able to kill them because they’re dependent on the mother. Life at conception removes this problem by saying it’s as much a life at all points in the womb as much as it is outside of the womb. 
Sure Carl Sagan can say that life began millions of years ago but that’s just a way of slick talking your way out of the problem. Because that unique set of genetic material did not and has never existed previously so you can say that the life that made it existed previously but the genetic material and the life it creates did not. Basically what he’s saying is that life existed previously therefore this is no different because it’s life, that’s a very shallow surface level (and I say intentionally so) way of looking at it. 
Your argument about miscarriages is incorrect. Because first murder requires intent and there is none, so it doesn’t meet it on that front. Second a miscarriage is the embryo or fetus dying on its own, there is no input from the mother in its death. If we were to call that murder then we would have to call dying of a heart attack murder. 
To say that life begins anywhere after conception means you have to contend with the fact that any line drawn on abortion is almost purely arbitrary, >

What if the mother does something intentionally or unintentionally to cause a miscarriage? >

Then they played a part in its death of what they did was attributable to its death. >

So basically, if she pounds energy drinks while pregnant, she should be tried for murder? >

I personally don’t see a real issue with states being unique in their laws as long as they adhere to the constitution. If you if you smoke in your car with your kid and they get a lung disease shouldn’t the parent be held responsible? And I don’t know what absurd level of energy drinks you would have to chug. >

One study linking it doesn’t really say much, what you’d need are multiple studies to create a larger pool of people and a meta analysis of those studies to find the trends so we can’t actually say if caffeine leads to miscarriages. But caffeine intake is already discouraged during pregnancy just due it’s effect on blood pressure and hydration alone. 
If the kids lung cancer can be directly attributed to the parents smoking then how is that any different from the parent slowly poisoning the kid? >

Do you believe that inaction on your behalf that results in the death of someone is morally the same as action that result in the death of someone? >

No. >

When an embryo fails to implant or a woman miscarries, there is no action that was taken to end the life. In the case of abortion, explicit action is taken to end it. One can argue that life begins at conception and believe that sometimes it naturally ends there too. >

The metaphor I was thinking of, is that choosing to spin the chamber and pull the trigger is the equivalent of choosing to try to get pregnant/having unprotected sex in the first place.  And then whether that results in an implantation or miscarriage is the equivalent of the chance of whether that particular chamber is empty or not.
So it's more that the choice to put the child (if you see a zygote as a child) in the danger in the first place is the problem.  Choosing to have unprotected sex is the "action" in the case of the miscarriage or failure to implant.  
Sorry if this was confusing from my original metaphor. >

The issue is that its the same act that you compare to pulling the trigger that is the means of creation. you can't have that child in the first place if you dont have this risk. so it's unfair to say that this is an action comparable to killing when if you dont take the action the life never exists to take. 
I feel like a better metaphor would be an artist with a rickety easel.  as soon as their brush touches it, it could fall over at any time ruining their painting, and sometimes it does, but they'll never be able to make art if they don't risk it, and even then, a single dot on the canvas is, to some extent, art >


The issue is that its the same act that you compare to pulling the trigger that is the means of creation. you can't have that child in the first place if you dont have this risk. so it's unfair to say that this is an action comparable to killing when if you dont take the action the life never exists to take. 

Can you expand on this and why this is a reason I should change my view? >

Basically, the idea is, yes, fetuses and zygotes will die naturally, but the risk of that is part of bringing a baby to term. It happens without the input of the mother and as such should not be looked at as taking an action to terminate because without the supposed action to terminate, the embryo couldn't be created in the first place. this is a distinctly different situation than abortion where explicit action is taken to end the gestation of the embryo. 
if we assume that life does begin at conception, then abortion is murder and a miscarriage or failed implantation is just natural causes. >


Basically, the idea is, yes, fetuses and zygotes will die naturally, but the risk of that is part of bringing a baby to term. It happens without the input of the mother and as such should not be looked at as taking an action to terminate because without the supposed action to terminate, the embryo couldn't be created in the first place. this is a distinctly different situation than abortion where explicit action is taken to end the gestation of the embryo. 

I got this part, but can you connect it to my view and which part of my view it shows I should change?