To clarify my prior response:<quoted text>
My fingernails (which I was not talking about) still grow. I was talking about all my LIVING cells, which indeed are developing. They are not "toddlers," and no one's arguing that toddlers should be aborted. Your arguments seem awfully convoluted.
Fetuses are undeveloped proto-humans in the womb, and vary from a small collection of multiplying cells to a near-human ready for birth. No one ever said any of these were "not human," only that we can decide whether we want the process of development to continue or to end.
During gestation, the fetus is wholly dependent upon the mother for nourishment, warmth, etc. These needs are met by the mother-the act of fulfilling these needs is done not through overt action, but through the gestaional process itself.
After the birth of the child, the infant is still wholly dependent upon the mother for everything, but now the mother must take overt action to fulfill these needs where she did not previously.
The reasons to not want the child are still there (financial hardship, added responsibility, you can name them). If the woman now decides to to end the development of the child of her own volition, it is a criminal act. If someone other than the mother ends the fetal development of their own volition, its a criminal act in many states.
That's the illogic I'm speaking of. Parsing exclusive authority of life or death out to one person at an arbitrary point in time while punsihing that same person (or others) for the same act at any other point in time is beyond reason.