I am personally aware. Yet why do you believe people declaring chanting "life begins at conception" do not make preventing miscarriages into a part of their national political platform the same way as criminalizing abortion?
That's like someone who says "cows are people" and wants the death penalty for hamburgers, but they're a-OK with dairy farms and leather.
It shows that even the proponents of the slogan don't actually believe it.
Embryo selection is the easiest way to minimize the risk of miscarriage.
The only reason why you would say that there is no way to prevent them is that I infer from your posts that you are most likely against embryo selection.
The comment I was responding to suggested eliminating miscarriage as a policy objective. I said that was impossible. Your response with a suggestion to minimize risk while increasing the amount of total human death does not address the point, regardless of my comment history (ad hom.?).
> why do you believe people declaring chanting "life begins at conception" do not make preventing miscarriages into a part of their national political platform
Because it's already a national political consensus?
National health organizations go to serious lengths to make sure women are not unknowingly consuming things which would cause them to miscarry. Assaulting a woman and causing her to miscarry is penalized with charges above and beyond what would be assigned if not for the miscarriage. Societally, we try to encourage people to be gentle, careful, and accommodating towards/with pregnant women, and to encourage mothers to not drink or smoke while they're carrying.
What strawman world are you living in where this isn't the case?
You're right that there is a consensus of "miscarriages are unfortunate, let's try to minimize how often it happens."
What does not exist is a consensus that a blastocyst is (consistently) equal in personhood to a newborn, with equal levels of loss and tragedy. I trust that this is obvious without the need for lurid comparisons.
So while the two vectors may share a direction, the amplitudes are very different. Kind of like how it's important to floss your teeth, it's not so important that failure becomes a crime.
You would be surprised. Plenty of (sufficiently religious) people will indeed hold funerals for and bury miscarriages, if they're at all identifiable. What you seem to expect is that they attempt to force other people to do so -- but unlike killing an organism, "failing to mourn" an organism is not really a crime under any moral framework, so the impetus just isn't there in the same way.
That's like someone who says "cows are people" and wants the death penalty for hamburgers, but they're a-OK with dairy farms and leather.
It shows that even the proponents of the slogan don't actually believe it.