A pro-choice pregnant woman has got her unborn baby kicked dead by a jealous friend. Is this pro-choice pregnant woman going to sue her friend for manslaughter? Or according to her pro-choice logic, she only wants to sue for the loss of a body part, a parasite or a non-human living organism in her body?
In majority of such cases, the pro-choice woman would want to press manslaughter charges against the killer.
But why does a pro-choice woman still want to kill the unborn herself when she herself wants to?
This is all because that she believes she can change the definition of her unborn baby depending on what she likes.
The society has to come to agreement to such important definition of what an unborn baby is. As we all know very well, our society already treats children and babies, as the most fragile and protected members. While unborn babies are even more fragile, we allow pro-choice women to have the liberty to treat them as non-human lives when they don't want the babies, basically allow them to change the definition of what an unborn baby is.
Every thorny problem is basically a logical error. Every logical error can almost always be traced to the very definition of the entity involved.
There is only one definition of what an unborn baby is to avoid confusions in all scenarios. An unborn baby regardless of length of pregnancy IS a human life.
I used the above argument and more illustrations to change a pro-choice woman to become pro-life. She majored in philosophy.
Comments and arguments are welcome!
P.S. I leave the question of whether a woman owns the unborn baby as an exercise for readers. Some pro-choice think the unborn baby is kind of their own property. LoL