Well I am very firmly pro-choice, because I don't think that even a newborn infant is actually a sentient being whose rights should supercede those of a fully developed adult - so obviously any point prior to birth they're even less sentient than that.

If there were some reason why an infant's continued existence would somehow cause an adult human to suffer, I would be perfectly fine with having that infant put to death. I don't really see how that would ever be possible, so in reality if an infant can survive outside the womb (even with the assistance of technology), I don't think it would be morally right to kill it - this is purely a (probably impossible) hypothetical where even after birth it is somehow impacting the mother's physical well-being.

So, given that those are my views on the subject, I don't really see how any revelations about whether or not a fetus is "alive" or "human" could possibly change my mind. Unless we discover that humans have their full range of sentience and intelligence prior to birth, there will never be a situation where the rights of that fetus should even be considered next to the rights of the adult woman who is carrying it. Like, even if the adult woman is simply inconvenienced by having to carry the baby - no threat to her physical or mental health, just doesn't want it because it would be annoying - she should be able to abort it. Shit, if someone wants to intentionally get pregnant purely so they can have an abortion - well that is seriously fucked up, but they should be allowed, legally speaking.

So yeah. I'm pretty incredibly firm, even though I fully understand both sides of the argument. Does that make me an idiot?