Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Re: organ damage:If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways?I probably would. Again- a dog attack is an entirely different circumstance than a fetus, and habitual behavior is different from incidental circumstances. A dog with a habit of attacking can be expected to continue attacking for the rest of its life. A fetus that has caused some kind of injury can, at most, be expected to continue causing injury to the mother for about 9 months.Re: potential danger:You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur.No, not really at all. Statistics look at overall outcomes, but every single death counted in statistics has causes- they just aren't necessarily known. Really, saying pregnancy itself is a risk to a womans life is incorrect; complications that can arise from pregnancy can be a risk to a womans life, but are not always present. I maintain my current stance.Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics.I've already touched on the fact that statistics look at outcomes irrespective of causes, generally speaking. They're necessary for multiple things. But they give an incorrect assessment overall. A certain portion of the population die due to bleeding out per year; bleeding out does not occur in a vacuum, however; it is not a random chance that it just occurs spontaneously- there is a chain of events that leads to such an injury.Do you really not understand the difference between a 'general risk' and an 'immediate threat'?Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc.Yes, it comes with inconveniences. I'm fine with having an abortion for the sake of convenience, during the first 12 weeks. After that point, as far as I'm concerned, it has sufficient rights that it's survival trumps the mothers personal convenience.Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks.With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view?An acceptable reason for late term abortion? I don't think so. Some people give animals away under such circumstances, and that's fine. Others just kill them off, sometimes tossing them out of moving vehicles or drowning them (chillingly common with unwanted kittens!). I despise those who simply kill the unwanted kittens rather than spaying/neutering their animals in the first place or finding good homes for them. It would be hypocritical of me to treat abortions for convenience any differently, provided they occur after the 12 week mark. If they can't afford the child, but have no actual complications, they have two options in my book: Abort before 12 weeks, or carry to term and put up for adoption.