If you create a fertilized egg and then deliberately let it die, you have killed that fertilized egg.
Yes, but if you don't deliberatly let it die, and it dies of natural causes anyway, then you haven't killed it.

Taylor's use of the legal definition of life beginning (and ending) with brain activity actually addresses this, of course. Which means the talk of "killing" is irrelevant, because we're not talking about killing a human being during IVF.
This is true.

Following on from the above, the logic of the anti-abortion lobby (life begins at conception) should mean that the same people are opposed to IVF. But they aren't. They do seem to be opposed to using the additional embryos created during IVF for stem cell research.
I'm not sure about this. It seems that the conception is life crowd should indeed be opposed to the waste of "lives" involved in IVF. I think that many right to lifers though aren't realy part of the conception is life crowd anymore, and are more like taylor in that blastocysts do not count as life per se, and so can be used for great benefits such as IVF or Stem cell research.

The question (for anyone reading) is why.
Eh. With IVF, barren folks are breeding; with abortion, fertile folks are stopping themselves from breeding. One seems to bestow a miracle the other to reject a miracle. I suppose it all comes down to ones own philosophy.