The dreaded “A” word

Our Lord is very clear on the sanctity of life as it relates to abortion. For Christians especially, there is no possible way to twist scripture which would ever successfully condone this violent act. (The exception being that when the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim.) I would like to examine this within a framework of moral consistency and then posit a question if you would indulge me for a moment.

Those who deem themselves pro-choice use the argument that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. I would agree, up until the moment conception. When a man and woman make the choice to come together, it is at that point when their prior intentions become irrelevant. For once conception occurs, a life has been created. This is a scientific fact. Cells begin to form and multiply at a geometric rate and nine months later a child is born. The nonsensical argument by some has been that this child is not a “real” person until a certain point within the conception to birth window. Yet even opinions within the pro-choice community vary on this tremendously. One moment it’s identified as an unborn viable tissue mass, the next moment it’s a child who has rights with a chance to live. They cannot pinpoint this exact moment simply because it is an argument based on a false assumption. Likewise, opinions within the pro-life community remain consistent as previously noted. The child's spirit dwells in the fetus at the moment of conception. Being a parent myself, I can testify that this is true.

Here is my simple question: Those who are pro-choice are intensely concerned for the rights of the mother, thus giving her the benefit of the doubt in regards to choice. However, since these same individuals argue for an undefined window of “personhood” concerning the unborn child, why do they then refuse to give equal benefit of the doubt that this child also has a choice and rights of their own?

I perceive a moral inconsistency subject to a vague assumption.
 

James