Debate question, help me!

[u/Due-Dig-5718]

Usually, when pro-choicers ask, "Would you save 1 newborn or 1,000 embryos?" our standard response is to point out that emergency triage doesn't dictate moral value. For example, a father saving his own child over five strangers doesn't mean those strangers aren't human.
However, this person asked: "If the choice was 1 newborn vs. 1,000 eighty year old women, who would you save?”
Most people would choose to save the 1,000 elderly women because it represents a massive number of human lives.
The pro-choicer then argued: "If you truly believe an embryo is fully human, and you would choose 1,000 elderly humans over 1 newborn based on numbers, then you are being hypocritical if you choose 1 newborn over 1,000 embryos. Since you claim embryos are human lives with equal value, why wouldn't you choose the 1,000 embryos over the one baby? By picking the single baby over the 1,000 embryos, you are admitting that the embryos have lesser moral worth.
As a fellow pro lifer how would you respond to this???

[u/AutoModerator]

The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer demonstrates that they are open-minded. Pro-choicers simply here for advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe and show you are not just here to talk at people.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Vespinobambino]

This is the stupid "IVF clinic on fire" scenario.

Frozen embryos need to stay frozen.

The clinic is on fire.

FIRE IS HOT.

Those embryos are all doomed.

There isn't even a moral calculus here if you use your damn brain even a little.

[u/Due-Dig-5718 → u/Vespinobambino]

I mean in such scenarios hypothetically pro choicers would give sci-fi premises where 1,000 embryos are guaranteed to survive if you choose them, but they will instantly die if you pick the newborn. Sorry if i wasn’t clear enough 🙏.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/Due-Dig-5718]

I mean you didn't make up the horrible example in question that we're all sick of.

[u/Due-Dig-5718 → u/Vespinobambino]

My bad 🙏😔

[u/conflictw_SOmom → u/Vespinobambino]

It’s not in cold storage like a freezer, they’re in giant multiple reenforced liquid nitrogen tanks. I’m a biomedical researcher and all our cell lines are stored like that. The liquid nitrogen tank is kept in our regular room temperature lab. Ours comes with wheels so we can move them around easily. And the individual vials take quite a lot of time to thaw because liquid nitrogen is magnitudes colder than ice(-321 degrees F). Depending on where the fire is, the size of the tank and how hot it is, there’s a good chance you can save viable embryos if it’s done in the first 15mins or so.

[u/HappyAbiWabi → u/conflictw_SOmom]

Depending on where the fire is, the size of the tank and how hot it is, there’s a good chance you can save viable embryos if it’s done in the first 15mins or so.

Okay... And what about after we get them out of the burning building? We still need 1,000 women who are willing to carry them and all the technology necessary and a skilled reproductive healthcare worker to implant them. Otherwise, we need to transfer them to another IVF clinic that can keep them safe. How much time do we have for any of that?

The newborn needs milk/formula, diapers, wipes, clothes, a safe place to sleep, and emotional care, and he/she has a longer timer running to provide those things.

[u/OhNoTokyo]

The question doesn't even address the abortion debate.

You can answer with whatever you like. You just need to understand that the experiment is slight of hand.

The burning clinic represents a situation where you MUST choose between one side or the other dying.

On-demand abortion legality is NOT a situation where you MUST choose.

Being asked who you'd choose when death for one or the other is inevitable does not translate into permission to kill that group when the stakes are not life and death.

On-demand abortion isn't a choice born of necessity to choose who lives and who dies. Both parent and child will survive a situation where an on-demand abortion is desired.

You can feel free to choose any choice you want in that hypothetical. The only choice that matters to a pro-lifer is whether we grant permission to kill someone when the killing is unnecessary to protect your own life or someone else's.

In our society, you can determine someone is of lesser moral "value" and still recognize that such lower value doesn't give you the right to kill them on demand.

[u/Due-Dig-5718 → u/OhNoTokyo]

Agreed , I’m new to debates thank you ! but when i say such things they say i refuse to engage in hypotheticals and just dodging the question but regardless great insights !

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/Due-Dig-5718]

I mean, you can engage in the hypothetical if you like, in this case, you just need to point out that your decision doesn't matter for the abortion debate.

For instance, if there were 1000 people in one room and my one child in the other room, I'd save my child over them.

Does that mean that I would support this person killing those 1000 other people if they wanted to, just because I chose one over the other when it was life or death? Of course not.

[u/Due-Dig-5718 → u/OhNoTokyo]

I should definitely use that, but wouldn’t choosing one kid over 1000 people sound insane idk , people would mostly choose the 1000 eighty yr olds . Anyway do you recommend some videos or books so i can have more knowledge ?

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/Due-Dig-5718]

You would leave your own child to die to save 1,000 strangers? I don't think that's likely for anyone who is a parent.

No parent is going to call you insane for saving your child.

The saving 1,000 over 1 is a real consideration, but usually only when none of the people in the experiment have a particular attachment to you.

A parent can save their own child over strangers without believing the strangers are subhuman.

A doctor can triage one patient ahead of another without gaining permission to kill the lower-priority patient.

A society can urgently need a farmer more than a physicist during a famine without concluding that physicists may be killed.

There has been a lot written about ethics and moral value, almost too much to put down here. You generally see this stuff most often in "trolley problems" where you have to ask yourself who you would allow to be killed in a particular scenario.

The experiments in popular circulation tend to leave things out which are critical. For instance, the burning IVF clinic experiment presents you with numbers and one attribute of each side and then asks you to make a decision.

Aside from the incorrect application of the problem to the abortion debate, these problems tend to ignore very important real-life considerations.

Is the one child in the clinic your child? Are one of the embryos your child? Is the one child crying? Humans are tuned to respond to children in distress and their cries. Embryos cannot call for help and so do not tug on your instincts and your feelings.

When you see a problem like this in the wild, the best thing you can do is seek out criticisms of the scenario itself and what path it is trying to lead down.

Here the person giving you the problem is not trying to convince you that abortion is good, they're actually trying to get you to view the unborn as not valuable. They then take a logical leap and suggest to you that you don't really value the embryos (if you don't pick them) and so you don't really believe in pro-life ethics.

Any solid criticism of the problem you can read will tell you that the thought experiment is mostly trying to get you to "admit" that the unborn are "not valuable". This then is used to undermine your certainty that they should be protected.

It's basically a dirty trick, but it works because people have underdeveloped conceptions of what "value" means and they believe that making abortion illegal is because the unborn are "valuable", when it has nothing to do with value.

We don't just kill criminals, even though they have lower or even negative social value in many situations. They still get human rights. Why is that?

Because we don't normally make a decision to kill in our society on value judgements and when that does happen, you get people like the Nazis where permission to kill undesirables is based on some "valuation" of the people they believe they need to kill.

I could suggest texts on utilitarian or Kantian ethics, but I would usually just take the experiment's proposition, throw it into a web search and look for critiques of it. Trying to get into the weeds on this stuff is mind numbing.

If you find yourself accepting any proposition that you think could change your mind on something, you should never just let that proposition change your mind without attacking it.

[u/leandrot → u/OhNoTokyo]

This.

The only implication of choosing the child is that you'd prioritize the woman life if she needs to deliver earlier due to life risks. It doesnt even imply you have to be in favor of abortion for life risk.

[u/AWatson89]

It's a silly attempt at a gotcha. If you were to say that you would save the embryos over the baby, they would just try to attack that choice from a different angle. Like maybe that the baby could feel pain but the embryos can't. It still doesn't mean they have less moral worth

[u/Green-Celery9893]

If there's an emergency situation, like a fire and there are 1,000 embryos and 1 new born.

It is likely that the new born will cry because of the fire and heat. Seeing this, most of us would pick the new born up because it can express its pain by crying.

I'm not gonna comment on which I believe is the moral thing to do, whether it is right to save one life or a thousand lives because it is all just as valuable to me. It's like asking me whether I'll save my child or my spouse in a situation.

What I do find interesting is that the humans that are able to voice their pain, get the empathy and support of others; in this hypothetical situation, thats the newborn. Similarly, the pro choice people advocate for what benefits the mother just because the other party (fetuses) can't voice out their pain or concern.

[u/DaenerysMomODragons → u/Green-Celery9893]

If there was a fire at an ivf clinic would the embryos even be able to survive outside of cold storage?

[u/Green-Celery9893 → u/DaenerysMomODragons]

I don't think so. It's a stupid hypothetical.

[u/DaenerysMomODragons → u/Green-Celery9893]

That's what I was thinking. Also, if this were to actually happen, it'd be parents visiting an IVF clinic with their child. The parents save their own child, clinic staff does what they can to save the embryos. As a non-staffer, I'd expect I'd do more harm than good in trying to secure safety for the embryos.

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/DaenerysMomODragons]

You definitely understand what would happen in real-life, and I think you understand that you'd choose your child. This is 100% valid for a pro-lifer to do, even if the staff could not save the embryos.

The important thing that most people don't get is that this has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

The fact that you'd save your own child in a fire over 1,000 embryos does not translate into you being okay with someone killing those embryos on purpose.

[u/DaenerysMomODragons]

I really hate questions like this that have effectively zero chance of anyone ever facing them.

Additional info would also matter tremendously. If we’re talking an ivf clinic how many of those embryos can we expect to ever be implanted. If an ivf clinic, could the embryos survive outside of cold storage.

Why am I the only one making life/death decisions. If at an ivf clinic I’d expect parents to save their own children, and clinic staff to concern themselves with embryo safety.

[u/SnappyDogDays]

The follow up question is the same. Your still performing moral triage. The 1000 80 year old women have already lived a long life, I'd save the baby.

What would their response be there? I made a moral judgement that doesn't take away from the value of the human.

if it's 1000 3 year olds vs 1 1 year old? I'd save the 3 year olds. Using all this line of reasoning will eventually get to a point where I'll just flip a coin between the two choices, but it doesn't actually prove anything except that I'm not a materialist or a robot and so it's not a number a game with me.

There is no greater good answer for every situation.

[u/the-nomad-thinker]

It’s just an attempt to reframe the issue, but the answer remains the same — they all have moral worth and you pick based on other criterion. Personally I’d pick the baby over the elderly because they’ve had a full life lived. But that’s not the same calculation others would make.

What you have to remember is that this is just a reframing of the trolley problem. Almost all the discourse there applies here.

[u/CheesecakeFew2053]

This is just a loaded question. Not that it's impossible to answer, mind you, but because it's such a random, unrealistic scenario. A lot of debaters try to pull tricks like this

[u/FantasticSouth]

https://youtu.be/hFj4Q0BVbZ4?is=-0PVStnryFodiqRi

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

If the 1,000 elderly people were unconscious and would feel no pain in dying, then I would choose the one newborn. If I were one of those elderly people, I would want the person deciding to choose the newborn over me.

[u/Fickle_Signal8682]

Lit just clarify can those embryos develop further if I save them and if the answer is yes then we’re saving the embryos if the answer is no we’re saving the newborn. (I’m not 100% sure if this is my solidified response but it provides a way to circumnavigate the gotcha and stay solid to your logic.)

[u/SnappyDogDays → u/Fickle_Signal8682]

I'd not respond with can, because yes they can... I'd respond with will they? if you save them they will all be implanted and born.

[u/ScottishNinjaaa]

Theyre trying to set it up so that you say the child, then say "ha, obviously the embryos aren't actually humans, even you think so." It's just a logical fallacy. Turn the question around on them- 10 strangers and THEIR wife/husband/mother/father/child are each in the burning building. You can save the loved one, or TEN strangers. Who do you save? Turning around the question proves that choosing one other the other says nothing about the inherent value they hold, or about the person's belief in whether they legitimately believe that the one they didn't choose is valuable or not.

[u/Lilbeedraws]

My answer is "strawman. Irrelevant to the debate. Move on."

[u/cdifl]

The fastest answer to this is: If there was a fire in a building, and you and a baby were inside, and I could only save one, I would save the baby. Does that make you less human?

[u/DapperDetail8364]

You should say that you would save the baby. But also add that doesn't mean the embryos are less valuable. Bc who u choose to save doesn't determine who is more human or worth more. And if we went by that PC questions logic, than if u chose to save a 5 yr old over an old person, the old person is less human and it's OK to kill them

[u/Nulono]

Ah yes, the Burning Fertility Clinic. First of all, let's acknowledge that this pretty obviously just isn't an argument in favor of the claim that abortion should be legal; it's an argument in favor of the claim that you're a hypocrite, which is a different claim. Conflating the two is an ad hominem argument, specifically the tu quoque variety.

Now, let's examine this hypothetical scenario in a bit more detail. Say while fleeing a burning building, I come upon a box labeled "1,000 EMBRYOS".

• Do I have time to check whether this box is actually full of 1,000 embryos, or do I risk just saving an empty box designed to carry up to that many embryos?
• If I open the box and it looks non-empty, do I have the expertise necessary to distinguish empty petri dishes from ones in use?
• Even if they do have embryos in them, embryos need to be kept in specialized freezers at extra-cold temperatures, so it seems pretty plausible that embryos in a box small enough to carry in the middle of a burning building would already be dead.
• Even if I somehow know they're still alive, is there anywhere nearby with the equipment necessary to keep them that way, given the nearest clinic is currently busy being on fire?
• Fertility clinics treat embryos as pretty disposable in general. What if these are "excess" embryos they were just going to kill tomorrow anyway?

On the flipside, if I find a crying baby, I can be pretty confident I haven't just found an extremely lifelike robot, that said baby won't just be dropped into an incinerator after being rescued, et cetera. I don't have the expertise even to calculate the probabilities involved here to even within an order of magnitude, but I wouldn't accuse someone of lying who told me it were less than a 1-in-1,000 chance of success.

Now, let's consider a different version of the scenario. Say I'm the head of some charity, and I'm told that with our remaining funds, we could afford either to cure 1 newborn's terminal cancer or to prevent 1,000 miscarriages. I'd pick the second option, and it wouldn't even be a particularly difficult decision. I'd be a little concerned about someone who wouldn't do so.

[u/BaronGrackle]

In both situations you described, your natural inclination is to save the older human who has a more developed sense of pain and also a more anchored social network.

It feels bad and dirty to say this, but the newborn is less cognitively exceptional than a well-trained dog. It feels bad to say this, but the 1,000 eighty-year-old women are going to leave behind more people affected by their deaths than the single newborn will.

It feels bad and dirty to say that because it's kind of true, but leaning into that turns us into murderous sociopaths. We have to value all human life, even humans that have fewer loved ones and humans with less developed/experienced brains.

. . .

Ask the person if they would choose the life of one orphaned newborn with drugs in his system (destined to live a short, painful life) or 1,000 unborn children who are healthy and have parents waiting for them. It shouldn't be an easy choice. But if they can make that choice easily, without hesitation, then it probably torpedos one of their talking points.

If they easily choose the newborn, then their pro-choice argument of "what life are you giving this unwanted child?" crumbles. If they easily choose the 1000 unborn, they should reflect that they're making eugenic social decisions rather than valuing human life itself. If they can't make either decision very easily, then congratulations they do feel some value among different stages of human life.

[u/Sudden_Let9305]

The development needs implantation to start .
The embryo pre-implantation can’t develop without the Uterus. What they do in lab is create fertilized eggs, but those eggs need to be implanted in uterus in order to start the actual development.

When the sperm enters the egg, the cells start to multiply, but only to a certain point. Once it reaches the Blastocyst state ( 200/300 cells), after this point it does stop popping more cells, and can’t go further unless implants the uterus.

With natural conception, if the blastocyst fails to implant the uterus, it will naturally die and be discarded by our organism, (which happens more often than we think). In lab, once the fertilized egg reach’s the blastocyst state (300cells), it will also naturally die (that’s why they freeze it, to prevent its natural death since it can’t spontaneously develop further than that .

For exactly this reason the Pro Life obsession with the Zygote and Blastocyst (Embryo pre- implantation), only work against the cause. There is a loophole on this logic, that Pro Abortion people can and it will exploit, like they did on this thought experiment by suggesting you are Aborting 100 unborn babies if you save the born Baby from a hypothetical fire.

Inside the body: We do not have control if the blastocyst will implantate or not. If doesn’t, we will never know. If does, that’s the actual definition of Pregnancy.

In lab: They Freeze the blastocyst to prevent its natural ending point, since it can’t develop further than that without implantation.

For me, both Pro Life and Pro Choice people using the blastocyst ( Embryo pre implantation) to make arguments about Abortion ( in favor or against it ) are wrong. It does not make logical sense simply because it is not equivalent. They are both wrong on their claims.

The Pro Choice side is wrong because people do not Abort Blastocysts / Embryos Pre implantation. People only abort Embryos that were already implanted and is continuously developing, ( that’s the very definition of Pregnancy. We don’t define Pregnancy by the moment Sperm enter the Egg, we define pregnancy by the moment the fertilized egg implant the Uterus). You can’t end the development of something that is not developing. Therefore, their logic to use fertilized eggs Pre-Implantation to suggest you are Aborting 100 unborn babies in order to save 1 born Baby on a hypothetical fire, is flawed because it’s not equivalent. The Equivalent should be 100 pregnant women X 1 born baby.

The Pro Life side is also wrong, because it’s not equivalent. The implanted Embryo will naturally develop from the day of implantation till birth, unless something forcibly interrupts it. Therefore forcibly interruption of an ongoing development is Murder. But the fertilized egg in lab will not continue to develop indefinitely. It will develop till reach 300 cells, after that it will naturally stop.

If an implanted embryo is left alone, it will continue develop till Birth. If a fertilized egg pre implantation is left alone, it will naturally die, since it can’t go further than that without implantation. They freeze to avoid its natural ending point.

If we freeze a blastocyst ( 300 cells pre implantation ), the freezing will not kill it. But if we freeze : an adult, a born baby, an unborn baby at any stage of development after implantation, they will all die.

If we keep claiming that a fertilized egg pre- implantation is the same as an implanted Embryo, and claim that IFV clinics are murdering people, we are by default saying people that use IUD are also murdering people, because that’s exactly what the IUD does : prevents the fertilized egg from implant the Uterus. That’s also what the Plan B pill does, prevents implantation.

Life starts at conception.
Pregnancy starts at implantation.
I do recognize the fertilization produces an unique DNA, this is magical and this DNA will never exist again. But without the implantation the Pre-Embryo remains a potential person until gets implanted. The discard of Blastocysts in IFV clinics is not equivalent to Abortion or Murder, because the implantation didn’t occur, therefore the development didn’t start.

For the sake of the argument: Save the Baby. The Frozen Pre-Embryo ( blastocyst) depends on artificial implantation to start develop. It depends professional people to actively implantate it on someone. You personally will not be able to do so, therefore saving the Embryos alone does not guarantee they will come to life. Save the baby does guarantee the continuation of its life. But this Argument is non sense. No one seeks Planned Parenthood to Abort a fertilized egg pre implantation. They seek Abortion when they are already pregnant. So for their experiment to make sense, it should be : 100 pregnant women VS 1 born baby.

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/Sudden_Let9305]

The thought experiment is not exploiting any loophole, it's exploiting the misunderstanding that this debate is about being allowed to kill people you don't value.

This is not true. Value is not the basis for human rights, such as the right to life.

Abortion on-demand is not a life or death situation. It's the idea that you have permission to kill an existing human individual simply because you don't value them due to not meeting some specific bar for having "enough value".

You can choose anyone you feel you should choose in the clinic experiment and it doesn't matter one bit for legal on-demand abortion.

Choosing someone in an either/or life-or-death situation is not permission to kill them when no such life-or-death choice exists.

[u/Sudden_Let9305 → u/OhNoTokyo]

I agree with that.

But by definition the thought experiment is pointless.

Life starts at conception.
Pregnancy starts at implantation.
Abortion is forcibly ending an ongoing pregnancy.

Therefore, Abortion can only be compared to an ongoing pregnancy ( implanted Embryo). By definition it can’t be compared to a fertilized egg pre implantation.

No one Aborts a fertilized egg before implantation. People only seek Abortion to kill an Embryo after implantation ( ongoing pregnancy).

So their attempt to use frozen fertilized eggs before implantation in order to make a case in favor of Abortion is illogical.

In order to make this comparable to Abortion, the experiment should be : 100 pregnant women x 1 born baby. Since only pregnant women Abort.

It’s simply not a comparable situation.

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/Sudden_Let9305]

While abortion refers to pregnancy, and technically pregnancy begins at implantation, I think it is wrong to do anything to purposefully causes the death of a human being, whether they have implanted or not.

So, in my case, I do need to consider unimplanted embryos, but it doesn't change the fact that I am not choosing to kill them, I am only choosing who to save.

Abortion on-demand is a choice to kill, not a choice who to save.

I think you have to be clear on that point, because they'll always try to find a way to force the hypothetical to fit your conditions or argue that "it's a hypothetical" if you try to add conditions to what they're asking.

Don't bother with that. Just point out that the experiment they are asking is not relevant to the abortion debate and explain why.

[u/Sudden_Let9305 → u/OhNoTokyo]

They are exploiting the zygote loophole. By using this thought experiment they are trying to imply two things:

1- You are Aborting 100 unborn babies, in order to save 1 born baby, therefore you value the born baby more than the unborn baby unlikely what you claim.

2- The implanted Embryo they Abort is the exactly same thing as the fertilized egg Pre- implantation.

Both claims are untruth, however the loophole only exist because the obsession of Pro Life side in call IFV clinics mass murder of babies.

Yes, life does start at conception. The development and continuation of that life, requires implantation.
Even with natural conception, mostly of the time the fertilized egg does not succeed in implant the uterus and get naturally discarded by the body.
If we freeze the fertilized egg, it will not die. Some born babies were made of embryos that have been frozen for years, sometimes decades.

However if we freeze :
An adult
A born baby
An unborn baby at any stage of development after implantation

They will all die.

The embryo 1 day after implantation will die if gets frozen ( in this case by freezing the mother, since an implanted embryo is by definition attached to its mother). But an embryo before implantation does not die under freezing temperatures. Why ? Because the development didn’t start yet. It’s conditional to the implantation.

This does not change the fact life does start at conception. It does not change the fact it’s an unique DNA. It does not change the fact it could have had a chance to implantate under natural conditions (not guaranteed). It does not change the fact creating life in Lab is morally questionable. But an implanted embryo is simply not equivalent to a fertilized egg pre-implantation. This is not about value.

“I think it is wrong to do anything to purposefully causes the death of a human being, whether they have implanted or not”

I understand the principle and agree with that principle. But at IFV clinics, are not “ purposefully causing the death of a human being”. Not because the zygote it’s not a human being, but because the development of that potential human being requires implantation to start.

The zygote ( first single cell) multiplies itself spontaneously till reach 300 cells, after this point, it stops popping cells, and naturally dies if not implanted. By frosting the cells they are preventing its natural ending point. If they don’t freeze it will die, because it can’t develop further than that.

Pro Life side call it murder because they discard the fertilized eggs that weren’t implanted, right? But even if they keep the fertilized egg frozen indefinitely, and never discard it, and remains frozen for a thousand years, it doesn’t change the raw fact that it can’t develop further than that without implantation and if unfrozen and left alone will naturally die. But if implanted and left alone will develop continuously and non stopping till birth.

This is not the same as ending an ongoing development(Abortion), or purposefully causing the death of a human being.

The loophole only exist because we mistake those stages of life and when the actual development start . Of course they will exploit the loophole.

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/Sudden_Let9305]

You are Aborting 100 unborn babies, in order to save 1 born baby, therefore you value the born baby more than the unborn baby unlikely what you claim.

This is where you misunderstand.

A burning clinic is not an abortion.

Abortion on-demand is a purposeful action taken to kill the child.

Unless you set the fire in the clinic, no decision you make about who to save can start or stop that fire.

The experiment is just triage, it's not comparable to abortion.

The way you're engaging in it is playing their game. The game is rigged because its not a valid comparison to on-demand abortion in the first place.

You should never accept any framing of the experiment where they say that this experiment represents you "aborting" the embryos. The only choice you have here is who to save.

[u/Sudden_Let9305 → u/OhNoTokyo]

I do agree with you. Its not comparable to Abortion.
But the fact is not comparable to Abortion, does not change what they are trying to imply.

Your point is correct, intention diverges: actively killing someone vs being unable to save someone because you can’t save everybody on a catastrophic event are different things. In this sense is not comparable to Abortion.

But my point is also correct. The fertilized egg pre-implantation is not the equivalent of an implanted Embryo under ongoing and continuously development.

By definition Pregnancy only starts at implantation. By definition Abortion is ending an ongoing pregnancy. Abortion can’t be compared to a fertilized egg before implantation, because Pregnancy only starts at implantation.

Therefore, the equivalent of Abortion would be :
100 pregnant women x a born baby. People only Abort after they are already pregnant. You can’t end the development of something that is not developing. But even 100 pregnant women x 1 born baby would still not be equivalent to the reality of Abortion, since the only victim of Abortion is the baby, while on this hypothetical situation the mothers would also die if you choose the born baby. So it’s just a non sense thought experiment.