Well, according to svsg, the odds are about 78%.

But I don't think you can fairly argue a case for when life begins based on the mathematical probabilty of what will happen.

That's like saying "Let's put someone on trial for murder because they beat someone senseless and the docors say that they have only a 25% chance of recovery."

No, let's wait and see if the victim dies first before we decide to try their attacker for murder.

Same thing here.

Let's wait for it to be born and be a baby or, at the very least, be viable outside of the womb, before we start calling it a baby.

Until then, AFAIC, it's still part of the woman's body, very much physically attached to the woman's body, and totally dependent on the woman's body for even a chance to ever become a baby.

I'm all for limits on how far along a woman should be before sacrificing her right to an abortion, although I'm not exactly sure at what point that limit should apply, and I'm sure that cases will arise that deserve to be exceptions to the rule.

But just because you say that it's a baby the moment the woman is impregnated, that doesn't necessarily make it a baby.

Arguing about "when life begins" does not "trivialize" or "rationalize" the subject.

That's really the crux of the whole argument, because I'm certain that there is no one who favors pro-choice that also favors killing babies.

But IMO, a fetus is not a human being, a person, or even a baby.

It's a completely unique organism, a significant step in between sperm (there's live stuff in there, isn't there?) and the unfertilized egg, and a baby.

And aborting a fetus is not the same as "murdering" or "slaughtering" a baby.

I believe that this came up earlier today, Snake, in another thread:

Just because you believe something to be so does not make it so.

I absolutely respect your opinion 100% as well as your right to have it and express it, of course, but that's all that it is: your opinion.

There are people who don't quite see it exactly the way that you do.