Right, so apart from semantics, I'd say it's the same question. I feel like the widely-presented pro-choice arguments simply make that assumption and then concl

Right, so apart from semantics, I'd say it's the same question. I feel like the widely-presented pro-choice arguments simply make that assumption and then conclude, well there's no human in the womb so let's move on. I'd like to probe into this assumption - and if with good reason the conclusion is that, indeed, it's not a human, then so be it. But it being a "naked", or poorly-supported assumption, irks me.