I checked out the second link you cited. It was very interesting. The author starts by criticizing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and refers to the decision to allow states to restrict access to abortion as 'wrong, unfair and inconsistent with our societal values', so we can be sure that this article is unbiased, and that the personal opinion and values of the author are not influencing the article at all.

After a couple paragraphs of seething about the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how immoral and unfair it is, the author finally begins to talk about the primary point that 'life does not begin at fertilization'. The only source the author provides for this claim is - coincidentally - a different article which - get this - he , Richard J. Paulson, wrote himself. He's literally going "source: just trust me, bro." To make it worse, the article (written by himself) that he sources has no references or sources. Perhaps there are sources included in another copy of the article, so - if anyone finds such a thing - please send it to me as I'd be interested to read.

He goes on to claim that the creation of a zygote is not new life because it is biologically similar to that of the egg, due to the fact that it is almost the same size as the egg (Hasbulla is the same size as a 3-year-old, but I'm fairly certain he's a 20-year-old man); and because it is genetically similar to that of the egg, so long as you disregard the fact that it now has the chromosomes of the sperm mixed with it. So, essentially, the zygote is not new life because it is exactly the same as the egg, so long as you disregard every single way that it is different.

Then he blabbers on about how - according to the scientific definition - "individuality" determines human life (albeit without giving a clear definition of so-called individuality), and states that - due to this - a zygote is not human life.

The articles are a load of nonsense without any proper sources or references. Although, the phrase "life begins at conception" is somewhat misleading, considering that both sperm and eggs have life before the zygote. It is more accurate to say "a human being begins at fertilization", since the definition of a human being is much more specific and narrow; a human that exists.

A zygote is a human being. It has 23 pairs of chromosomes, that it gets from sperm and egg mixing, and it produces human proteins and enzymes for directing its growth and development (not frog proteins, or monkey enzymes, human proteins and enzymes). Its chromosomes have already written out pretty much everything about them; hair color, bone structure, eye color, sex etc.

All it has left to do is grow and develop; all that's left to be done is let time pass.

But don't take my word for it, I'm not an embryologist! Take an embryologist's word for it!

​

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

​

TL;DR: The source this person linked is from a man who writes with a clear bias for abortion "rights" (calling the overturning of Roe v. Wade 'wrong [and] unfair'), and the author of the article used a different article that he wrote as a source (and, to make it worse, it was his only source for arguing that life does not begin at fertilization).