Declaring an un-implanted zygote as dead leaves the door open for killing pre-implanted zygotes by allowing them to be defined as dead simply because they are ‘un-implanted’. That’s the wrong path to be on, IMO.
You already admitted that a pre-implanted zygote is alive. Well, a pre-implanted zygote is ‘un-implanted’ and would be considered dead using your definition.
You certainly seem determined to sacrifice zygotes that you define as dead. What’s up with that?
What's up is that I think you have not followed my comments in this discussion. I've clearly indicated that I'm speaking of zygotes that have passed beyond viability. They are eventually sloughed off in the regular menstrual cycle. That's just a biological fact.
Now, "what's up" is a discussion. In the discussion, I have pre-stated my position that life begins at conception. However, if we enter into a discussion on implanted versus non-implanted zygotes, then the discussion has to be able to address all of the associated facts.
Your concern that some legalistic mind would try to interpret "unimplanted" as meaning both "pre-implanted" and "past the possibility of implantation" is a valid concern in my mind. It needs to be addressed.
If we don't have the open discussion, then we leave it to our kids and friends and co-believers to have the discussion framed by others who don't share our beliefs.
Personally, I don't like that idea.
Nor do I like the notion that just because one is discussing a subject that they are advocating anything other than what they specifically say they are advocating.
It makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Does that mean I can't discuss the realities of drugs with kids without coming across as an advocate of drug abuse?