this whole debate comes down to a definition of when a fertilised egg becomes a live human

Why? People dont usually abort things that are dead and if it's not human then there's no need for an abortion. I reject the false equivalency objection that somehow a human embryo is not "human" the same way I reject that a toddler is somehow less human than an adult.

This "live human" stipulation is a pilpul fabrication meant to inject moral ambiguity. This allows abortion to be morally justified as an acceptable practice at least up until some arbitrary stage of development (even though it's clear that pregnancy, barring complication, means a baby is on the way.)

You will never get consensus on your "live human" criteria. That is by design.

I posit instead that the crux of this debate comes down to the sanctity of life and personal responsibility. Calling me cruel for "denying care" is odd considering I'm arguing to prevent the termination of healthy pregnancies conceived with full consent and knowledge of the man and woman involved. A pregnancy isn't a "risk ending badly" it's a blessing and a responsibility (for both woman AND man).

To break it down simply -- babies come from sex. More specifically they come from the product of sucessful egg-sperm fertilization (e.g. the early stage embryo and fetuses that are aborted by the millions each year) This occurs in the womb which is naturally equipped for this process. It's pretty clear what is going on.

Determining termination based on some level of cognizance is an arbitrary standard and frankly one that opens the door for other judgements that are only limited by imagination, rhetoric and charisma.

At what point does this evolve into screening fetuses, altering genomes and treating early human development like some science experiment. Aldous Huxley, a eugenicist, explores this future in his novel Brave New World.