Can you explain the last part? I think most pro-choice people would say that there are reasonable limits to when in the pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, with exceptions based on medical emergencies.
Agreed, and it should be pointed out with modern medical advances such medical emergencies that threaten the mother are rare.
The main area of disagreement is how the argument is framed. The biological humanity of a fetus isn't the point to the pro-choice person, but rather whether or not the fetus's rights to the mother's uterus supersede the mother's right to decide if she wants to carry a child to term.
My response is two points -
One, modern medicine has allowed mothers to give birth to the baby within the beginning of the 3rd trimester and the baby has a very high survivability chance. This has made 3rd trimester abortion completely unnecessary.
As for 'the fetus's rights over the mother's womb' this is the only possible debate in which the (A) is acknowledged to have rights, but (B)'s rights are judged to have a higher priority, so (A) is executed.
Murders on death row have more rights than the unborn.
The most rational point for pro-choice with limits position is that the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy until the fetus is viable, around 20-25 weeks, at which point, the fetus can begin to be considered its own entity rather than completely dependent on the mother.
This we can agree on, the restriction of abortions in the 3rd trimester.
But for pro-lifers such as myself, we consider 99.999% of the abortions committed in the country to be murder, including 1st and 2nd trimester abortions.
If you have a rigid belief that the embryo should have primacy over the mother, then you are welcome to defend that point, but you are going to have to eventually tackle the issue that such a policy has historically been shown to have some serious negative consequences on society.
Ok, I have an open mind about this.
What are these serious negative consequences to society?