You are only naming two options for the sake of societal outcomes: eggs are humans or eggs are not humans. I am saying that there is a third: it's neither. You can't label them human life because there is no agreed definition for when a human life begins. And if we can't agree on an global, undeniable, objective truth, which I truly think it is impossible to define in this case, I will always side with the side that gives freedom to individuals to make the call on a case by case basis. In this case, the freedom goes to the mother as the only human with enough skin in the game to decide and suffer with the decision forever.
Discussion
I don't think it's impossible to define when a life begins, or is even that controversial. How about the simple rule of "the point after which an abortion is necessary to prevent birth." Why would you have to abort something that is not alive?
Also weird to call being a parent suffering forever, especially when adoption exists.
Truth is true whether or not anyone agrees with it, so consensus doesn't matter, only whether or not a person is willing to investigate to discover the truth. If you don't want to investigate the truth, have fun with that.
Truth is never impossible to define, since the impossible just takes a little longer.
I've never said eggs are humans or not humans, and I feel annoyed you continue to ignore what I've said. I've specified fertilized eggs, not just eggs. But if you insistent on misrepresenting what I've said, that's on you.
If you don't know personally and objectively whether or not a fertilized egg is human, by definition you can't give freedom to the mother because you don't know whether or not what you're giving her is freedom, or bondage. If this is the case, it seems like an important enough question to investigate till a person is certain about the answer, especially since neither consensus nor skin in the game defines reality.