How can you claim to understand pro-choice logic if you are not pro-choice? You're missing the point there. I don't claim to understand pro-life logic because it does not make sense to me, and that is why I am pro-life, because the pro-life logic makes sense to me.

In my personal beliefs, a fetus is a living being when it reaches a point in development that a conscious being exists, which I would define as the point in which there is a brain and some sort of activity. That's a very hard point to accurately determine, so we go by weeks in the maternity process. After a certain number of weeks the abortion process changes, and at some point it becomes illegal to perform the abortion at all. If the fetus doesn't make it to this point due to health issues or natural causes, it's a miscarriage. If the miscarriage is purposely induced by the mothers choice, I would consider it an abortion. If miscarriage is induced for the safety of the mother or if there is significant development issues, I would call it a suggested abortion or something along the lines to clarify the context. Abortion is just too big of a word and abortions happen for too many reasons to consider it a black and white matter anyway. People add too much personal connotation to the word too. I think the argument of whether or not this fetus was living or not is a null point because the mother wanted the child and was in the maternity process.

The simple fact of the context at hand is the officer is the reason this woman miscarried. She had no intentions of not having the baby. You can chalk the series of events in a number of definitions but the chronology is there and the situation is absolute no matter how you skew it with words. The officer is the reason she miscarried.

Have you ever been around someone that's miscarried? Usually only the woman or the woman and husband cry and bawl about it. It's pretty fucking uncomfortable to discuss and miscarriages happen for literally hundreds of reasons.