Death is not part of the equation.
What’s sad is that the Roe v Wade decision was that it doesn’t even matter when human life begins - because “legal” personhood is different than biological personhood.
As a result of Roe v Wade the door is open for “legal personhood” to be ruled to begin at any point on the continuum of biological life - or never. And there are “ethicists” who argue for “legal personhood” beginning at age 2, age 18, and/or never (for people deemed “unfit”, ala Hitler’s eugenics program, which was also supported by his colleague and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger).
A long but fascinating read about that subject: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/stith/locationandlife.pdf
What’s really ironic about that gal’s amendment talking about the “waste of sperm” being an act against unborn children: Roe v Wade refused to call a fetus a human life; instead the term was “potential life”, and the court asserted that the government has a compelling interest in regulating “potential life”. So what this gal put in the amendment is actually consistent with what Roe v Wade says the government role is. According to Roe v Wade the fetus is legally no different than sperm, ova, the act of intercourse, human anatomy, etc: they are all simply “potential life”. And the Roe court asserted that it is the government’s interest to regulate “potential life”.
So guys, be prepared to have to register your individual sperm and account for each drop of seminal fluid. Or be prepared to have sterilants put into the drinking water in order to “save the earth”, as several of Obama’s unaccountable “czars” have said would be justified - because the government has a compelling interest in what life is allowed to exist and what must be stopped.
That is precisely the radical view that Roe v Wade supports. Most people don’t know any of this.