Abortion law says the fetus is more valuable, according to logic

It seems curious that if I was 28 weeks pregnant and presented to my doctor saying there was no way I wanted to continue with the pregnancy, the doctor would not be able to refer me for termination unless I met the restrictive criteria which have been outlined. It would be assumed I had an obligation to the fetus because it was potentially viable and I had passed the point of viability. I therefore would be compelled to maintain its life and deliver the child. In contrast I have a two year old, and if he suddenly became ill, and needed me to donate an organ to survive, I would probably consider myself a heniously immoral woman if I did not concede to that demand. However there is no law in the land that could oblige me to do so. In effect we impose greater obligation to women to preserve the life of their fetuses than we impose to preserve the life of their born children.

In abortion law we are therefore distinctly privileging the life of the fetus over the wishes of the woman in a way we do not do in any other form of medical practice. I would therefore argue that the current abortion law is ethically inconsistent in the way it permits abortion in some circumstances but not in others and that it in denying abortion it undermines the basic principle of individual autonomy which is accepted in the rest of medical practice.

Source.