I have still yet to see an anti-abortionnists who doesn't rely on the same, repeated argument of "possible outcome to an action = full consent" that gives as much protection to a fetus than to venereal diseases or a smoking cancer.
Or the exact same protection to someone who knock down people in a theater and harvest their organs. Not trying to pull a strawman, just mentionning how acceptable or sane the basic logic actually is for their very central argument.