We are trying to present a difference between two persons to kill one of them. That's totally normal.
We kill people in war, we kill on the road, we kill people with pollution.
We tolerate the deaths. Because these deaths are for a greater goal: Security, Freedom, Wealth.
We don't tolerate murder. As opposed to the above, a murder is killing for the personal benefit of the single murderer.
You are allowed to kill, when you belong to a tolerated group. e.g. Army, Cardriver, Energyprovider ...
We have a pretty weird morality when we talk about killing. This could be solved. Imagine two worlds:
a) Killing is totally legal.
At best every human behaves in a form that there will be no reason for the other human to kill him. A world of eremites?
b) Killing is not tolerated in any case
That would mean that the reasons for killing must be nullified. Eg we have to provide enough social workers, that conflicts would be solved early enough. We should share our wealth that there is no reason for other countries to attack us. We should provide technical barriers that cars can't kill ...
To solve the problem of abortion, we should not try make difference between different stages of fetal development. We either declare it as legal. Because we cannot make the difference between a child in a first world country or a child in Kabul. Both would be killed by a person.
We declare all life as precious. Than we should begin to give mothers a chance to raise the kid in without loosing income, social status or freedom. This would afford a massive investion in healthcare, psychological assists, jobs ...
And we have to get rid of all weapons, armies, ...
Tell me the difference between a child killed on the road, a child killed by a bomb, a child starved from hunger and a child killed in a womb.
No, don't tell me, tell it the desperate mother.
Tell her from face to face.
In private, when you are empathic enough to listen to her sorrows.
I couldn't tell her.