TORN BY BAD LOGIC, MAYBE? Sounds like you are pro-murder. But that is not a viable option, in terms of societal survival. No culture can survive if anyone in it can freely murder anyone else. And only hypocrites think they can murder freely, without themselves getting freely murdered. Thus the thing we call "right to life" is a pragmatic alternative. Accepting it means that while you cannot freely murder, you can also expect to not be freely murdered.
HOWEVER, for the notion of "right to life" actually work, everyone to which it is expected to apply needs to be able to understand the concept. Since that is a thing impossible for unborn humans, there are two Logical Consequences: (1) They do not qualify as persons and therefore do not have right-to-life, and (2) they can be (partly) freely killed. --not "murdered", since that word only applies to the killing of persons, not the killing of non-persons, mere-animal entities. And I used the word "partly" because while many mere-animal entities can be freely killed, like, say, fish in a stream, the reason for it is, no one is able to claim ownership of those animals. But unborn humans always have owners (their mothers), so it is only them (or those they delegate) who can do "freely killing" of their womb-occupants.
