Killing newborns is much more common than killing older children.
As far as death by homicide goes, you’re more likely to be killed on the day you are born than on any other day of your life.
This, for me, could justify outlawing abortion at the local level: If abortion functions as a way to keep the mother from feeling guilty, by enabling her to legally kill a child she would want to kill anyway after it is born, then it should not be allowed.
The purpose of outlawing abortion in such a case is not to sanctify political leaders or legal systems, nor to make overfed, middle-class hypocrites feel the warm glow of self-righteousness. I’m sorry to say that those are some actual motivations of the modern anti-abortion movement in the US.
Rather, if while she is pregnant a mother expresses the desire to kill her child after it is born, then we must conclude that she needs help. Most likely, she has psychological problems or she is socially maladjusted; the father is an immature, worthless loser; her family is stoned, drunk, violent, or nonexistent; and she lives in a community full of puffed-up, tight-fisted, fake-Christian suburbanites who want to micromanage the lives of all the idiot proles by passing more federal laws.
The mother should be forced to confront the existential reality of wanting to kill her living newborn child, and at that point some sort of medical, counseling, social welfare, adoption, or custody process should take over. Up until that point, though, taking any kind of anti-abortion or pro-abortion action is simply an evasion. The pro-abortionist wants to evade responsibility for even considering killing a living child, not to mention actually doing it; whereas the anti-abortionist wants to evade responsibility for actually helping the mother and child by criminalizing the mother and confiscating any zygotes by force. Both fantasize that by changing the definition of someone’s federal civil rights, they can magically warp reality.