ife is endangered by that person and as a being of human origin the fetus is a person to whom this obligation extends.
If anti-abortionists are willing to argue that fetuses are human beings then they must be willing to agree that as human beings fetuses must fulfill the societal obligations required of human beings or suffer the consequences. Consequently, a fetus must never place its mother's life in danger and it must certainly never be the cause of it's mother's death. If any of these events should occur then the fetus should be held morally and legally responsible for its actions. They must be charged with the relevant crimes upon their birth and they must be required to repay society for these crimes just as other members of society are required to do.
This argument, of course, is absolute nonsense. Fetuses cannot be held morally and legally responsible for their actions because they are incapable of making the informed choices that we assume other members of society are capable of making and for which they are held responsible if such choices cause harm to other persons or their property. Their mothers, however, are capable of making such choices and, in most cases, people are quite happy to let the mother freely make decisions concerning the life and health of the fetus. In most cases, people would not consider arguing that the fetus was a being separate from the mother who had interests that were separate from the mother.
Nonetheless, this is precisely what anti-abortion activists attempt to establish. They argue that, as a human being, the fetus has an interest in life because between the choices of existence and non-existence, rational human beings would choose existence. If a mother should desire to abort a fetus then the mother's interests are opposed to the fetus's interests and the fetus's interest in life should outweigh any other interest of the mother other than her own life. But, if they argue tha...