I stated that it was a majority of the profession who adhere to and believe in the standards, not all of them.
Personally, I don't classify a fetus as a human being if it is too early in the pregnancy to live outside the womb (and actually, the cut-off dates for abortions are actually much earlier in the pregnancy than that). I'm sorry, but I can't. How can it fit the definition? Until then it is just a collection of cells and an extension of the woman, unable to live without being a part of the woman. It seems that laws and medical definitions would for the most part agree with me, which, again, is why it is legal.
And OK then, you do have a point about those examples only being half a life (but then, this is actually a matter of perspective), but what is your opinion of the morning after pill which acts in a different way to the pill? It kills potential life in the same manner as an abortion.
Your point is the reason why I don't have a problem with abortion for other people, the fetus or baby or zygote or Timmy is attached to their body, no one else's. While I don't agree with the definition of what a human fetus is, I do agree that it's still 'part of the woman's body' because the woman's body has to go through many hormonal changes to support the life.
I do consider the morning after pill to be a form of abortion, but a non-intrusive, early chemical abortion.