False.
Though you may be saying so now, you were previously most certainly couching your words in obvious disagreement with the scientific fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.
Nevertheless, I will now choose to accept you at your word here on the matter, and refer back to this post if I find you hedging in the future. 
I've already told you and the irrepresible pro-abortionist Lagboltz that I did not "summarize Wikipages".
I presented the common scientifically known facts that can be found on many, many links and in your average high school textbook.
You pro-abortionists really need to let go of your prediliction to create truth-ignored sophistry.
It really gets old.
Misleading, inexact and a basis for sophistry.
First of all, to say that you "agree with me" means that you've accepted the scientific fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.
That is accurately what it would mean for you to say that you "agree" with me.
What you have actually posted here, however, is a focus that can function as a divertive digression as you hedge against accepting the foundational scientific fact I've highlighted in red.
You are focusing on "women", and you are focusing on "method".
So let me just clear this up for you so we'll know you are in agreement with me.
Men and women create conceptions, not just women. That's the normal way. And men, having an equal partnership in the creative act, have an equal voice in the welfare of the person they've thereby created ... an equal voice in the welfare ... and an equal culpability in the murderous abortion death of that newly conceived person.
If a woman does invitro without the cooperation of a man, etc., that changes nothing except for reducing responsibility and culpability to her, and, of course, any abortuary doctor who commits murderous abortion.
Who is responsible, accountable and culpable is always thereby situational, but, the truth remains, there is always someone or someones responsible, accountable and culpable in the welfare or murderous death of a newly conceived person.
And the fact that women carry a newly conceived person inside of them for the first nine months of that person's life does in no way detract from the reality I've highlighted in red above, and does in no way minimalize the right to life of the newly conceived person.
And again, the method of getting sperm and egg together to form a new entity called a conception, a new person, a unique individual human being, is toally and completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that a new human being is created at the moment of conception, and is thereby endowed at that moment with the unalienable right to life.
I just wanted to make sure you got that.
And what would that next bit be?
Would you like to tell me?
I mean, if you do agree as you say you do, that a person, a unique individual human being, is created at the moment of conception, then what's next?
Obviously the existence of that person means that person has already been endowed with the unalienable, inviolable right to life, and that from that moment on, no one, not the father, not the mother, not a doctor, not the state, not anyone, can murderously deprive that person of that person's life.
So, please tell me, Scotsman, what is this next bit to which you refer???
