I have two comments.
Firstly everyone has a temptation to view this issue through the lens of their personal morality.
But we aren't discussing what you would do in these circumstances, we also aren't discussion whether we think something is "bad" behaviour.
What we are discussing is whether the state should use its coercive power to stop people doing something.
We live in such a regulated, government funded world that it isn't obvious that what we are discussing is a medical professional being told they cannot help a woman when both the medical professional and the individual involved voluntarily wish to proceed - and when, in something like 80% of the cases, all that is needed is prescribing a hormone.
In this context we aren't talking about personal morality - we are asking what things the state should stop and control - what rights the state has to interfere with the private decisions of a woman and her doctor.
Secondly, I do find the insistence that "life begins at conception" a very unconvincing argument.
At no stage since the first stirring of LUCA (last universal common ancestor) has life been created. Every time, living tissue passed onto living tissue and so on for eternities of generations.
Put living tissue in the right environment and it will continue its life. Put it in the wrong environment and it will die.
Take a swab of my nose cells and put them in the right environment and they will form a human being - one, due to the natural mutations which life is prone to, which will be different from the DNA which initially created me. That nose cell could even be put in an environment where its DNA will split allowing it to merge with an egg cell to create a totally different being, rather than a semi-mutated clone.
A sperm is living tissue, an egg is living tissue, your liver is living tissue - and most fascinatingly a cancer tumour is living tissue; and all of them can take their genetic inheritance and pass it on. Infectious cancers of dogs and Tasmanian Devils are some of the most incredible examples of how life will out - a cancer which has mutated enough to be able to jump from animal to animal effectively changing from a tumour on a dog to a parasitic animal.
Should society coerce a woman to put some living tissue before her life, her health, her career?
If she chooses to not provide that living tissue with the environment it needs to survive, it will die.
This is actually not a uniquely female dilemma - many people are faced with making a choice - should they offer their kidney to their sibling, or their bone marrow to a parent. If they do not provide them with the living tissue they need they will die - lacking the environment they need to live - an environment another could have provided.
Again, I want to reiterate we are not asking what is good or bad, or what we would do ourselves - and quite definitely I admire people who offer to sacrifice their kidneys or whatever so another can live.
What we are asking is whether the state should coerce someone to provide that succour if they decide this is a burden they do not wish to carry.
The state does not force siblings to provide their living tissue to allow the living tissue which makes up a brother or a sister to continue living.
I do not think the state should force a women to carry within her body living tissue if she does not wish to take on that burden.
If that life is viable and can live without the sustenance of the women - then the state can take the burden on itself and adopt the baby into care, but until that time I pretty strongly think the decision is solely with the women, just as it is with a parent, or a sibling wondering if they should donate a part of their bodies to help a loved one live.
What is the difference? Do we want to have such a coercive state?