While those arguments are well and good, there is one obstacle to overcome: the legal definition of life (specifically in the context of humans). IMO, this is really the only thing prochoicers have in their favor, and really it is the only reason Roe v. Wade floats and has yet to sink.
My understanding is that one is legally dead if there is no brain activity and one's heart isn't beating (well, the latter is an indicator of the former, at any rate). However, there is a point in the developement of an embryo where before that there isn't anything we could tie down as "brain activity" nor a "heart beat."
However, we have a powerful rebuttal in our favor, if we exploit it. Think of it this way: why is it if a child drowns, someone trained in CPR will do what one can to save him or her. conversly, one can get a legal order called a "Do Not Resussitate"(sp?) in the event that they are terminally ill and they happen to legally expire. Why do we do such things?
Legally, a d
they truncated my comment. 
oh well, i suppose is shouldn't ahve been rambling in that format.
Wow, good post. Hooray to activism! Let's unite and get involved and, if possible, sink the Bismarck- er, I mean Roe vs. Wade.
Hi there
I have a message board (see blog) devoted to social conservative issues. If it's okay with you,I'm going to copy the whole "How pro-choiers argue" series and post it there (with credit) so that I can easily cut and paste when necessary.
I hope that's okay.
I've just linked to this series from my blog. I had been about to undertake a similar endeavor, but you did such a gosh-darned good job that I don't have to! 
Thanks!!
Well done Jivin J.
As you pointed out, civil and well reasoned arguments that do not veer from the crucial question (is the unborn a human being?) are the way to win this debate.
All too often we are portrayed as a bunch religious sheep that are completely lacking in reason or compassion.
Thank you for presenting this so well.
Commenting by HaloScan
