In this instance the question is one of defining when life begins.
Under more ordinary circumstances, most conservatives would argue at conception.
An embryo has been conceived, not just sperm or eggs, but those combined, so yes, by the concept that life begins at conception, an embryo is a life, just in arrested development.
To quote the Declaration: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Note that Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are in order of precedence: the succeeding Rights cannot be observed without those which come first.
We do not have a society in which all those rights are respected by everyone; hence: government.
IMHO, that should ideally be kept to the absolute minimum. Considering that, however, the protection of the Right to life is one of those things for which our governments was created, a fundamental duty to the People. If, by the reasoning stated above, the embryo is a life, it should be protected, as should the developing baby in the womb. Note, please, that an ectopic or tubal pregnancy is not in the womb, and that we have generally decided that the preservation of the physical life of the mother (half the means of producing progeny) takes precedence. At that point it should be a medical matter, not the decision of Government. It is only through the extension of those boundaries through social excuses (i.e. Eugenics) that the need for intervention arises.
