Quite to the contrary:Nothing in that connects to a refutation of my argument. Those are the dots and that's the nature of my answer.
On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys. The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life". I've simply posited facts and example challenging this broad assertion on equal grounds.