The story is told of a young mother who went to the Doctor to confirm that she was indeed pregnant. Yes, she was, which was a problem to her. She told the Doctor that she was not ready for another child just yet--after all, her older son was less than 2 years old and it would be just too much trouble to have two children so close together. Besides that, she and her husband weren't ready financially for another child. The Doctor would have to "do something" about this new life--an abortion.
The Doctor told her that he understood, that indeed they would be close in age and that would be a little harder. He then confirmed that she only wanted 1 child. After she confirmed this, the Doctor laid his hand on the toddler by her side. He told her that it would be easier to kill the toddler than to perform an abortion, because there was at least a slight risk for her from an abortion, but of course there was no risk to killing the toddler.
As you can imagine the Mother was indignant--why the very idea of killing her precious child. How could this man call himself a Doctor? The Doctor then continued, telling her that she was indeed right--it would be murder to kill the toddler. But what was the difference between the two children? Both were alive, both were growing, both were her offspring. The Doctor could no more kill the one inside her womb and it not be murder than he could kill the one sitting by her side.
The debate abour abortion is not about whether the fetus is alive or not. It is, but rather about the "choice" the Mother has. I am quite amused when a person is charged with manslaughter, murder, whatever exactly it is, when they harm a fetus, through a car wreck, fight, etc. Of course this fetus is a person and therefore should receive monetary damages. If that same fetus had been aborted, no one is at fault because the fetus is "not a person". Consistency, thou art a rare jewel.