Ok. It is a fact that decisions are made every day which result in the death of already born human life. We know that a certain percentage of those who drive cars will die in accidents. If we were all forced to use mass transit, think of all the lives that would be saved - but no, we want that freedom. We know that a certain percentage of those who smoke cigaretts will die prematurely (over 1000 a day). That is an easy call for illegality but there is little chance for that because we want the freedom to indulge our appetites even at the risk of our health. We know that political differences which are settled by war will result in massive death but we have made the choice many times to endure that result to retain our freedom.
There is also the desire of some to retain the freedom to stop the process of reproduction well before there is emotional attachment to that potential human life and well before that potential human life has developed consciousness and well before that potential human life has the ability to function on its own. Why is that partially developed, potential human life more worthy of legal protection than the already born with a developed consciousness and emotional ties to others (like those in the above examples)? Note: The above examples are just a few of many instances where mature(?), conscious, functioning adult human beings do things which result in premature deaths; there are laws dealing with some of those things but a large number of those activities are still legal because we want the freedom to make those choices. Before you try to get into my family's reproductive decisions, first deal with those death producing decisions made by and for conscious and functioning human beings. But, if you are successful there, this will no longer be a free country.