Yes, Lundberg is ridiculous.  He is correct, however, within his context (not the one Pols lays on him to say his concerns are irrelevant).  IUDs can prevent implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall (a post-fertilization action), as progestin (hormone IUDs) and copper (copper IUDs) can change the uterine lining to make it inhospitable to passers by.

Where life starts is open to debate.  Pregnancy is, I think rightly, viewed by the medical profession (and the law) as starting when implantation has been accomplished (the pregnancy established).  Other views are permissible, however, as this is a process, not a momentary occurrence.

I think the more interesting question is this.  Seeing as some anti-abortion groups don't take a position on contraception, has the religious view of the moment of fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy generated opposition to contraception, or has the desire to oppose contraception caused some groups to select fertilization as the "moment" pregnancy occurs?