[Cathryn Crawford]

I agree. That's absolutely true.

But how is stating that going to change the mind of someone who disagrees that a baby is a baby? Isn't the point to save lives? Shouldn't we do that any way we can, using any argument we can?

[Psalm 73]

"But how is stating that going to change the mind of someone who disagrees that a baby is a baby?"

Well, if you're trying to argue from a point of logic only - then lay out all of the scientific evidence (medical, genetic, biological) that proves, from a purely logical point, that what we are talking about is an actual human life - distinct and seperate from it's life-support system.
Yes, just like black people in the 1800's and Jews in the 1930's - real human beings.
And this is NOT an emotional argument - it is pure logic, cold hard science.

[stands2reason]

But how is stating that going to change the mind of someone who disagrees that a baby is a baby

Believe it or not semantic discussions on the words "baby" and "murder" are not moralistic questions.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Ultimately the argument boils down to the definition of when a human being becomes a human being. Two choices: conception, or an arbitrary date during the birth cycle. The latter obviously logically ultimately reduces to infanticide.

Citing the health risks of abortion isn't all that persuasive: abortion increases risk of breast cancer? Well, let's study ways of performing abortions w/ a corresponding medication that will control the hormonal changes that increase the risk. Abortion increases chance of infertility? Well, let's study ways to improve the abortion procedure so that women's bodies can be unharmed. Citing health risks can be met w/ the counter-argument of, basically, "Let's build a better mouse trap."