Abortion law, consistency, and morality

So today I was curious as to whether there are cases (as I'm sure there are plenty across the country) wherein the murder of a child previous to 20 weeks has been charged against someone in light of the mother's desiring to not abort that child. I wasn't disappointed. Read the following, it's not too long and very interesting to see how someone will attempt to bend and twist to charge murder for the death of something they do not see as human in other situations.http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040128.html 

Following here are interactions with the more maddening parts of the article:

1. "Many students agree, moreover, that a fetus has moral worth that requires that as long as the mother is prepared to sustain the physical and emotional burdens of pregnancy, others must refrain from harming her fetus. In response to the ruling in Keeler, the California legislature amended its murder statute to add "fetus" to the class of victims whose malicious killing would qualify as murder, coupled with an exception for consensual abortions."

Here they introduce the idea, which is commonly held, that the fetus maintains a moral value only as long as the mother deems it to. The full responsibility for the definition of the value and life of the child is given to the mother as the carrier of the child, in effect conferring upon her the position of God. A 10-day-old fetus is valuable, and in fact has human rights (see more later) when the mother determines it does. Should she determine otherwise, it is no longer human and may be killed immediately.

 2. "A truer analogy, then, is not to the man who slips on a subway platform but rather to the man who shoots at a woman who is lying in her bed but whose bullet kills not only the woman but also a child concealed underneath the woman's blanket. Though the shooter did not know about the child when he aimed his gun, his actions were nonetheless intentional, and he specifically meant for those actions to result in a person's death."

I agree with this completely. In fact I think the analogy could be expanded and applied to all abortions in one way or another.

3. "Because the right to choose abortion is a right on the part of the woman to physical integrity and not a per se right to kill an unwanted fetus, the moment that physical integrity becomes compatible with fetal life, the right to maintain one no longer includes the right to terminate the other. (For similar reasons, a genetic mother has no right to terminate a surrogate mother's pregnancy, no matter how much the former wants to avoid becoming a genetic parent.) The constitutional right to abortion is simply a right to stop being pregnant, no more and no less." 

Put more simply, "Abortion isn't about killing a baby, it's about a woman's right to have her body to herself and do what she wants with her life."  While a semi-positive side effect of this line of thinking would be that abortion post-20 weeks should be taken right off the table immediately (given the potential viability of babies born after that point), the use of viability as a determining factor in the value of the baby is both absurd and horrible. It opens the door to arguments for a family member's right to end the non-independently viable life of any of their relatives; or the hospitals and governments to end the lives of patients and citizens. Sure, you may say now, that only involves people in comas (horrific enough) who aren't likely to recover at all. But that definition can and certainly will be broadened. When a member of my family had major surgery and complications occurred, he was arguably incapable of living outside of the artificial support given him for over 2 weeks, in terms of his body being able to live on its own. For that matter, anyone on a ventilator or with a pacemaker could arguably be deemed non-viable because they can't live on their own. The implications for who will live and die in future generations can only be feared at this point.  

We continue...4. "With the willing participation of the pregnant woman in sustaining the life of her fetus, it is no longer morally relevant to ask whether the fetus's lungs could breathe air if its mother were to deliver it immediately. The fetus is "viable," as against an assailant, because if left in its mother's consensual care, it will probably continue to survive. If a woman is willing to be pregnant, the fetus is thus "viable" as long as it is alive."

In other words, California law clearly states that from conception onward the fetus IS viable AS LONG AS the mother intends to carry the child to term and deliver him/her. They only apply this to the case of an unwanted abortion because they're unwilling to infringe upon the rights of the mother, but it is totally absurd to determine that a child is viable and indeed holds all the rights of a fully grown human being from day one ONLY if the mother chooses to keep him/her alive. If a child is human because the eventual result of that conception is a fully alive human being, if carried properly and delivered, then the child is human regardless of the will and desires of the mother. In fact, her determination to NOT carry said child to term should be just as much an infringement upon the viability of the child as the assailant who kills the child through a violent act. The law is clearly indicating that the biologically inevitable (given no intervening events) future result of the pregnancy confers upon the conceived child all the rights of any other human being, whether one day old or 115 years old. Otherwise, to follow their reasoning, the child's life ought to remain directly in the hands of the mother for as long as the child infringes upon her "physical integrity", which would certainly at least include the period of time wherein the child is breastfeeding. To further my argument in point three, the California laws essentially state that a human being is a human being only as long as directly involved family members are willing to suffer the setbacks of caring for him or her. In the (slightly paraphrased) words of Doug Wilson, a woman's right to do what she wants with her body includes her right to cut off a finger or a hand. It does not include a right to do what she wants to the separate body existing within her.

It seems to me (and I'd appreciate input, as I don't always think clearly when first interacting with articles) that California law should provide sufficient groundwork for the banning of all abortion. Certainly it provides us a useful tool in battling pro-abortion rights people, since I think most of them would agree that terminating a "wanted pregnancy" should be murder. Their argument is untenable, so long as we're all being consistent.