Absolutely, and the key to it is the requirement for the mother's body and the mother's absolute sovereignty over that body. There's nothing viable about the embryo whatsoever w/o the mother's body being involved, until some later stage of the pregnancy — later stage being the keyword. For the purposes of this discussion, contraception is essentially what's involved here.
A human being comes into existence when the information from an egg and sperm combine to create a new unique individual or set of individuals in the case of maternal twins (unlike cloning which comes from a single existing individual's DNA).
To purposefully abort a human being or to use contraception that does not prevent conception, by definition, ends the existence of a human being and is wrong. There are forms of contraception that prevent conception, and by definition, do not end the existence of a human beings. Unfortunately the most popular form of contraception does not prevent conception, only prevents a uterus from being viable for pregnancy. This is how the standard birth control pill and the morning after pill are similar as pointed out by Dr. Ron Paul in one of the debates.
Ending the existence of a human being at any stage of their development is wrong, whether a non-productive senior that requires someones dedication and complete care for many years, or a baby in the womb for 9 months (and that is what most proud pregnant people call a human being inside them).
Simple logic.
"A human being comes into existence when the information from an egg and sperm combine to create a new unique individual or set of individuals in the case of maternal twins (unlike cloning which comes from a single existing individual's DNA)."
Information? The information is roesent in any human cell. Any human cell is human life and contains all the information necessary to develop into an adult — a unique person. Any of them is derived from some prior union.
"To purposefully abort a human being or to use contraception that does not prevent conception, by definition, ends the existence of a human being and is wrong. "
Your "definition" is faulty. A human being is defined by adult characteristics, not potential characteristics. An embryo, or close to it does not meet, or even come close to those characteristics. It also is not viable w/o someone to join in union with it and become a part of it just to exist. A woman's body, or some technical creation is required for that. Notice that to become a part of it is required! An embryo is mostly the person of the mother and consists of almost nothing that resembles a person. It's the parents who announce, "it's a baby!" It's the parents who attribute personhood as God did at some point in man's evolution.
It is a fundamental right of the parents to decide if and when to call that person a child, baby, and give it the gift of personhood, not anyone else. That right derives from the sovereignty of will granted to the mother over her own body and the free will of both parents to procreate as they see fit. If the pregnancy is not wanted, the parents have a right to stick with that decision and no one else is justified in calling it a homicide.
"There are forms of contraception that prevent conception, and by definition, do not end the existence of a human beings."
You are welcome to your belief.
"Ending the existence of a human being at any stage of their development is wrong, whether a non-productive senior that requires someones dedication and complete care for many years,"
Seniors are still sovereigns. Living wills that include DNR orders and quick painless endings in terminal conditions are not homicide either. That includes the use of anesthetics and the withholding of food and water in cases of inevitable death.