What has murder of this woman, and the loss of the child she was carrying, have to do with abortion?
Under any decent healthcare system, any abortion would have normally taken place place months ago. By the end of week 12 the baby, although perfectly formed, is still only 3.5 inches long from crow to rump and weighs only one ounce; abortion of 1st and early 2nd trimester pregnancies is demonstrably different to a late term abortion of a nerologically complex and developed unborn.
Late term abortions always get bandied around in these conversations and it sometimes gives the impression that such things are a) common and b) entered into lightly. I'll leave it for others to dig up the facts.
As to the arguement 'under certain legal codes if a person causes the death of an unborn it is murder but it is not murder if the mother aborts it', well, yes?
Do you imagine for a moment that women haven't been stopping pregnancies for millenia? Many animals can stop a pregnancy or hold a pregnancy until the time is right. The fact a woman needs some form of chemical or physical intervention to achieve the same ends doesn't mean it's unnatural to me, as it's been happening WELL BEFORE there were even such concepts as natural and unnatural.
It's clear to me there is a difference between a women doing what has been done for millenia and an act of violence. The only way that you can condemn the actions on the same terms is by bringing in some belief structure regarding what the point of conception is on some supernatural level; that's a personal decision/belief.
Obviously people are free to have personal beliefs; I have a personal belief that anyone who deloiberately harms a pregnant woman has so exceeded the bounds of humanity that they have everything that is coming to them.
(subject to trial, obviously)