Try this one on him...
Fetal viability is well before the end of gestation. IOW, after a certain point... That child could be born and survive even though it hadn’t gestated the full nine months. As technology improves, that timeframe extends backwards towards conception.
In light of that, how is ending that viable human life NOT murder?
You know this, and I know it, and he deep down knows it.. but he sticks to that annoying legalism about what the definition of “born” is. He’s one of those wimpy “I’m personally against it, but I wouldn’t tell a woman what to do” people. A flake.
The best I’ve gotten is to ask him: if a state changed the legal definition of “born” to the time of fetal viability, would he concede his case in that jurisdiction? He squirmed a LOT on that one, and tried to claim that states don’t have that power. I asked him to point out where this supposed limit on state power was established, and he couldn’t answer.