I doubt that's the comparison being drawn here. My understanding is that OP is comparing a lump of unthinking cells to a tapeworm.

What the people not understanding this are missing is that no rational person has ever supported late term abortions for anything short of a life threatening illness related to the impending birth. The usual stance for pro-choicers is to allow differing degrees of access to first trimester abortions, rare exemptions for second trimester abortions usually accompanied by mental health scrutiny, and almost no late term abortions. I only really hear about radical pro-choice stances from pro-lifers unsurprisingly enough. According to this poll (that you can see by searching the document for the word "second"), more than 60% of those polled during 4 separate occasions from 1996 to 2011 support 1st trimester abortions, more than 70% are against second trimester abortions, and only 1/10th of those polled support third trimester abortions. In addition, this article posits that 91.4% of all abortions performed in the U.S. occur before the 13th week, while under 2% occurred in the 3rd trimester. What this means is that public opinion on the pro choice side does not support killing babies, and even when legal, the resounding majority of those who want an abortion do so while the embryo is just a 3 inch embryo. If you actually read the article, it actually says that 64% of abortions are performed by 8 weeks.

So the question becomes, where do you think life starts? Is it when the sperm cell enters the egg cell? Is it when the fetus can completely control its autonomic nervous system by itself? is it when the embryo becomes a fetus? Is it when a fetus develops the physical components necessary for conscious thought?

So we can agree or intelligently disagree on terms, i understand the first trimester to be weeks 1-12, the second to be 13-24, and the third to be the remaining duration till birth.

Back to the 4 hypothetical stances, in the first case, any abortion is murder, since a proponent would believe any fertilized egg cell is a human life. This is a common pro life stance. In the second case, anything at the end of the 2nd trimester, starting from roughly 20 weeks to 24 weeks, would be murder. The fetus may survive outside the womb with luck and medical care. If within the womb, the fetus is still in "dream mode", cycling between active and inactive rest. In the third case, any abortion after the 1st trimester would be murder, since an embryo becomes a fetus-- a recognizable human outline with arms and legs-- at 10 to 12 weeks. In the 4th case, the earliest at which human consciousness could be found is 24 weeks, the end of the second trimester. At this point and to a lesser extent the 2nd case, the fetus can survive outside of the womb with intensive medical care. Now you may be saying to yourself "well what about that girl who survived outside of the womb at 21 weeks?" Well, she would fall under the second hypothetical, in which the primitive functions of the brain are in place but need help to function. Coming in at the end of the second trimester, an abortion at 21 weeks would be morally dark grey if not immoral.

My personal opinion is that women should not have to explain themselves for a 1st trimester abortion. At the end of the 1st trimester, a heartbeat is just detectable, but the embryo/fetus is at most 3 inches long. At this point, a tapeworm is more developed, more conscious, and equally parasitic to the mother-to-be. To me, removing an unwanted pregnancy is little different from removing a tumor or tapeworm. Between the end of the first and the end of the 2nd trimester, abortions should be legally allowed, but heavily restricted both for moral reasons and economic reasons. At this point, specifically the second half of the second trimester, human consciousness and function is defendable. A bowel movement begins to form, movement can be detected, and the fetus can respond to outside stimuli. And to be clear, by the third trimester, the mother-to-be better be hemorrhaging or otherwise be in imminent danger from her pregnancy for me to support her abortion, and should be judged on a case by case basis. At this point, the mother's "wants" do not outweigh the fetus', but her "needs" do. In this case, the person that contributes to society already-- the mother-- is a more valuable asset than the (potentially world changing) fetus threatening her life. If she is willing and physically capable, she can try again for a healthy pregnancy.

Tl; dr: OP is comparing an embryo or early stage fetus to a tapeworm, not a late term fetus or "baby". Any claim otherwise is willfully ignorant of the moderate, average pro-choice stance.

1st trimester: not a human life yet; i can't with intellectual integrity intact, support denying abortions across the board;

2nd trimester: arguably a human life; abortions should be regulated, mothers-to-be scrutinized; a fetus at this point is capable of assisted living outside of the womb.

3rd trimester: the fetus is (with few caveats) alive; abortion at this stage should be a last ditch effort to ensure at least the mother lives. Anything less necessary would be immoral.

I hope this clears up the logic behind OPs post. While I agree with OP on an intellectual level, I find the tapeworm comparison to be somewhat insulting and needlessly inflammatory in what is already an unfortunately emotional debate.