Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms.
Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is.
In any event, I don't think being against birth control suggests the belief that a fetus deserves the rights of a child is necessarily implies the belief is in bad faith. Or at least, no more so than believing that murder should be a crime but supporting policies that indirectly lead to more murders (e.g. supporting policies that increase poverty or gun violence).
The more interesting gotcha for me is when pro-lifers concede an exception for rape. I don't think they believe a child born of rape is somehow less deserving of life than a broken condom. So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices.
I don't think it's that, but rather a realpolitik reason: a new bill that contains such an exception is easier to pass into law.
You might need a source on this one. This certainly applies to some religious types, but is it a "general" truth for people who would pass the heartbeat law? A law which still allows abortion but identifies a test for when life begins? I don't think so.
Funny, that's the exact same strawman OP was talking about.
And things aren't so simple. You cannot demonstrate the unborn are sentient anymore than animals. We cannot demonstrate that either. We choose to err on the side of the unborn out of fear if we're wrong.
I actually know a farmer who only eat his pigs when they die of old age (he use them to find mushrooms, expensive mushrooms), pigs being very successfull in front of the mirror test and definitely sentient and more self-aware than a 4-year old, i wonder if he took that into consideration.
I for sure don't care, but if i was forced by the law, i would stop eating meat without protesting, so i guess win for the overall suffering and win for the climate? Maybe your church is onto something.
I understand that the things you believe are facts, and the things others believe are opinions?
Whether abortion is murder is a strictly philosophical question, not a scientific one: there are a lot of facts to consider (beyond religious principles and thinly veiled misogyny) but they are only as relevant and decisive as one considers them.
I should have been clearer. What we are really questioning is what counts as a human life. These days many babies that would have died from premature birth can be delivered early and survive; that line moves further back in pregnancy every year.