> So you're saying that if more pregnancies ended in miscarriage abortion would be moral?

Not saying that at all. Just like last time, we are still just discussing how bad your analogies were.

> If your curious ~60% of embryos do not make it to a live birth,

I'm well aware of this, and although most of this is accounted for very early on, it's still pretty high. And of course in many cases the embryos were not viable.

> Why does the number or miscarriages matter at all?

I haven't discussed this, it was you that brought it up. With acorns, only 1 out of 10000 becomes a tree, so killing an acorn is substantially different from cutting down a tree. Not even taking into account that these are different forms, an acorn is not a small tree.

You speak as if the issue was black and white, clearly it isn't. Even you think that killing an 8 month old foetus, which has a heartbeat, can dream and even recognises its father's voice, is fundamentally different from taking a morning after pill and stopping a 4 cell cluster from turning into a human.

From a religious point of view, it's entirely reasonable to believe that anything after conception is sacred, since it's the beginning of a specific human being, but even progressive atheists realise that an 8 month foetus most definitely is a complete human.

A fetus is not a small child either.

At 8 or 9 months it clearly is. It looks like a child, it dreams, it kicks, listens to voices. Its nature doesn't change when it leaves the womb.