In Randy Alcorn's "Why Pro-Life?", he reminds us that the pro-choice position is chalked full of inconsistencies. For example, many states have fetal homicide laws, declaring it murder for anyone but the mother to deliberately take the life of a preborn child (p. 40).
So, if a woman is scheduled to get an abortion, and on her way to the clinic her baby is killed, the killer will be charged with murder. However, if the murder does not happen, the woman and her doctor can legally kill this exact same baby.
What is the difference? The killer and the mother have the same intention: to end the life of this child. I guess a pro-choice advocate would say, "The difference is that the killer has no right to kill the child, but the mother does have a right to kill the child." My conclusion: to be consistent, pro-choice advocates should at least say that all mothers should be able to kill thier children whenever they want (it is their choice). Honestly, what is the difference between a preganant woman saying she cannot afford this baby and a mother of a 5 year old baby who cannot afford him?