No it's not. "a [human] life" and "life" are completely different things. For example: a tree

True. Although the scale for anything from sperm to baby is probably human<->animal<->bacteria life. I liked it because it definitely shows it's a form of "life" in an accessible way. Where on the scale it falls and whether that life should be protected is an entirely different matter.

I remember reading about college professors who shows a 1 day old zygote or whatever and a skin cell which appear pretty indistinguishable from one another.

Does any reasonable person believe that zygote at that stage is truly equivalent to a human life?

Next up no one should be masturbating because each sperm is potentially the next Mozart or Einstein.

How do you feel about cancer cells?

I know, right? It's not mine. I don't really care for it either (except for the "kill at 9 months" thing), but it's interesting to see the two groups argue about it. Both seem to think they're undoubtedly 100% right, as a fact, etc.

Compromises must be made!

By that logic ending slavery should have been a 'compromise' as well.

Allowing abortions up to some reasonable time limit is the compromise.