Well, I didn't mean to imply there were people that did, but I did mean to imply I find it as repugnant as any pro-lifer does, that, aside from your premise, which I do agree with, the prime mover for my decision to side with pro-choice are the pragmatic reasons, as stated, more than any other reason, as I am trying to create a rationale, as stated, that a pro-lifer *might* see the light that being pro-choice, based on the pragmatic reality, is consistent with their objective.
See, being pro life, i.e., rendering abortion illegal, in reality, doesn't actually achieve their objective, which is to end abortions, that the best they can do is reduce abortions, and reduce harm to women, and if they can understand it merely from a pragmatic reality point view, a point of view where your premise will not be persuasive in the slightest ( which is why it was omitted), they *might* accept that R v W does more FOR them, than against.
You see, I used to be a republican, and I used to be a pro-lifer, and it was for ONLY the above, which allowed me to change my mind. I believe a fetus IS a human being when it has a heart beat, (so your premise will not work on a pro-lifer) but as a pragmatic reality, that because R v W saves the lives of women, whose right to life, I believe supersedes that of the fetus, I sided with R v W as a necessary evil. If I ever got married, I would make it clear to my wife, before tying the knot, that if she ever got pregnant, I would not consent to an abortion, though I couldn't force her, of course.
This is why I stated my post as I did, to toss a rope to pro-lifers that there is a path, not in conflict with their beliefs, that could, if they value the lives of women, that repealing R v W doesn't stop abortions, that it actually endangers the lives of women, especially the poor,
they might be able to accept R v W.