That seems like a pretty old fashioned thought. Like it was from before science (through DNA tests, ultrasound, and other modern technologies) showed us that the unborn is an unique living person, and the young person is simply dependent on it's mother for nourishment and shelter, in the same way he or she will be dependent on others for years to come. Instead of an umbilical cord nourishment is server with a breast or bottle, then a spoon and waste is taken away in a diaper.
About the hypocrisy, it is all through the 'reproductive rights' issue. For example, and this also goes back towards the recent civil rights thread. A man an women create a life that is partly both of them, but there is no equality for the result of that relationship. The male has a lot of responsibility, but really no rights. He can not legally chose to terminate the new life, yet he can be held responsible for the financial support of that very life. If he wants to raise and nurture the life the two have created, he has no right to keep her from destroying that life. Basically he has responsibility with no rights.
So far we have the mother as the judge in whether the unborn person (I won't say baby because then the semantics games begin, but DNA testing will confirm the unborn living being is in fact human). In this case, sadly, the mother has been killed, so she is out of the loop on whether the unborn should be destroyed or not. Now it is up to whatever convoluted laws the legistlators wrote and how well the lawyers can make the judge see what was really meant by those laws.
