When I wanted to make jokes around astrology and horoscopes, that's also what I highlighted to anyone highly invested in it: Sun, Moon and planets can surely in

When I wanted to make jokes around astrology and horoscopes, that's also what I highlighted to anyone highly invested in it: Sun, Moon and planets can surely influence an organism of a few cells significantly more than they can a full sized baby at birth. I was actually also curious if anyone would notice that this doesn't invalidate any astrology since it only means they missed their mark on causality by roughly 9 months (ofc, there's plenty more evidence to invalidate astrology without that :), but nobody came up with that. As for full person-entitlements at conception, for anyone who's ever gone through IVF, not all early embryos are "viable": in other words, they wouldn't ever result in an actual human baby developing (I also found this to be a helpful way to look at inseminated eggs to reduce the psychological toll of failed embryo transfers; my wife didn't find anything helpful though, so your mileage may vary). Most of these "die" out (actually, stop their cell division and proper cell differentiation) by 8 weeks, though some only do that later in the cycle. Anyway, all this to say that it's ridiculous to consider an embryo a person, at least until it's clear it will develop into one (finding a biological age where that happens is hard though, but it's not for a number of weeks). Should people whose embryos die out by that point be taken to court for murder (negligence or intentional): embryos are persons, right? If you want to go there, I am not sure why stop at embryos, when you could treat all human eggs and sperm the same way: they are on their way to becoming a person, and we need to make sure that all the eggs are inseminated, and all the millions of sperm cells get their job done (otherwise, you are killing those cells by not letting them fulfill their destiny). I hope the absurdity of the stance is clear. So if life exists right after conception, it exists just as well before that as eggs and sperm are living cells. Finally, a legal matter, especially the one that does not even concern itself with the particular question, does not decide when "life begins". It's decided by people agreeing on scientific conditions of what constitutes a new live being, and in particular, a new human being. Science is objective, but people still need to agree on particular terms. As far as I understood it, reversing this decision on a federal level will simply put existing anti-abortion laws back into validity in a number of states. They can still change those laws.