There is a lot of fear from pro-choice advocates that if life were defined to begin at conception it would then require that the life of the child be held above the life of the mother in certain situations at women's rights would be superseded by the rights of the child. Apparently they believe its impossible for both lives to be held equally in those situations and these situations have no comparison.
This is not true however because these exact same unavoidable ethical questions have been brought up repeatedly concerning the separation of conjoined twins. While it may be easy for pro-choice advocates to say the tiny, less obvious life is less of a human being than the mother, I wonder which life they would argue is "less human" in the case of conjoined twins that both could speak up in defense of their lives?
If you agree that life begins at conception but are still wobbly on making direct intentional abortions illegal in all cases, then whatever you are willing to allow to be legally done to the unborn child in defense of the mother you must also be willing to allow to be done against the unfortunate of the conjoined twins whose life you have found to be worth less than the other.
While the medical decisions in these situations are not always easy, it should be just as easy to hold the life of an unborn child equal to his/her mother as it is to hold the lives of conjoined twins to be equal under law. While taking this stance may be a long and messy process where there are many failings, upholding the Truth is the right thing to do. I think there can be little doubt that defining life to begin at conception will result in a lot less blood and tears than standing up and fighting for Truth and the rights of African Americans required.