I think it depends why a person believes that life begins at conception. "Life begins at conception becauce God told me so" is a religious view. "Life begins at conception because a new, genetically distinct organism is first formed at that point" is a scientific (or philosophical?) view. Neither view is inherently political so much as likely to have political consequences. There are people who say life begins at conception who are pro-choice, after all. And you can say the same things about the view that life begins at birth (supposing anyone really thinks that). The view that we don't have a definitive answer about when life begins is maybe more inherently political... though it could also be a scientific or religious or philosophical view, depending on where that belief came from.

I admit that (while I wouldn't choose to put it that way), I do want to use the power of the state to force women to bear children they don't want. The alternative, from my perspective, is to allow people to be killed if their mothers do not want them to live. My goal is not to stop all abortions at any cost. It is to reduce abortions as much as reasonablly possible using any moral means - economic, legal, social, etc.

Let me ask you a hypothetical since you seem wiling to to go there. You've written a lot about the difficulties of a pregnancy. As medical technology improves, pregnancy will get easier and safer. Is there some point at which it could get easy and safe enough that it would change your mind?

And a second question - if the parasitic twin situation happened with two adults, you said the healtiher adult would have the legal right to try and forcibly remove the other. Does the twin who will die as the result of the seperation have the right to try to fight back? If it was me, I would kick and scream and do whatever I could on the way to that surgical theater. What if I punched someone? Would you say I should be charged with assault? I know this sounds like an absurd situation, but I think it's relevant.