"Your views are incoherent"

That's often what happens when you fabricate positions. For asking so many questions, you really had no problem jumping to conclusions when it suited you.

My reason for saying that not all fertilised eggs have moral relevance, was NOT based on implantation, it was based on the very same criteria that pluripotent stem cells could have moral relevance. This is only tangentially related to the really egregious lie...

"Then why is your aborted egg immoral but discarded stem cells aren't"

It isn't. I already said that pluripotent stem cells ordered towards development of a grow person are morally relevant. You are flat out lying here.

I was even the person who brought this up explicitly to point out that the fixation on fertilised eggs by you (and most lay philosophers especially the pro-life ones) was flawed. Do you even remember what I said about it? I brought it up to account for a very specific edge case that I think the fertilised eggs argument fails on. I don't think you remember or even understand what I said.

"By which you mean reasonable to me"

No, I mean reasonable as in very likely to. I would say over 50 percent provided we do not intervene in lowering it, but arguing over the specifics of the amount is not a debate I was interested in getting into, and you are clearly unequipped to do so.

"IVF clinic ... I imagine a world"

Again, nobody cares what YOU imagine.

"You would also save the baby"

This is indeterminate, you can't actually know what my actions would be.

I already gave an argument about why one's actions in this circumstance would not be morally relevant, and you just ignored it without any reasoning besides "I think it would be crazy!"

And yet again, this argument is presupposing that the baby is morally relevant but the embryos are not.

"Bodily autonomy....despite it's simplicity"

So you have no idea how moral systems are constructed.

The simplicity of a moral principle is not relevant. Saying "killing is good" is a very simple moral principle, that does not make it a strong or good principle.

The importance of complexity is in situations where we derive a moral principle. Not the actual complexity of the moral principle

We derive moral principles from simple situations to evaluate more complex situations.

All of these arguments that you insist are only solved by a right to bodily autonomy, are better accounted for by minimisation of harm. You seem to try to reject it as "trying to estimate harm" or "societal consequences" but you give no reason as to why these should be rejected. I gave a very good reason why bodily autonomy should be rejected as a description (because it fails to account for many circumstances, and better descriptions already exist for the circumstances it does account for) and you have flat out refused to rebut it.

FYI, the fact that it can be hard to estimate risk of total harm, does not mean that it is not the basis because there are obvious cases that are permitted with minimum risk and prohibited with high risk. In other words your arbitrary rejection likely relies on the continuum fallacy, but that is indeterminate because you never elaborated on why.

"The only conclusion....for religious or social reasons"

Yet again fabricating nonsense to make an argument (in this case poisoning the well).

For your information my pro-life position is relatively recent (probably about the past year) and comes from trying to reason about my positions and actions more formally (since I already studied formal logic as part of my coursework). I used to be pro-choice and over time I realized that it involved carving out exceptions that we have no basis for (aka special pleading). I would also like to add as a centre-left atheist, I do not in anyway benefit socially or religiously from my positions. Infact I'm largely equally enemies with my political and religious compatriots based on their reasoning for positions even if I agree with the conclusion.

While I think your argumentation is better than most people, you fundamentally didn't understand many topics and arbitrarily rejected arguments without ever addressing the basis for them. All in all, it was a complete waste of a conversation/debate, but hopefully some other people will benefit from it.