It is now far easier and more fashionable to defend the moral otherness of animals, or even of the inanimate environment, than to persuade people of the appropriateness of defending unborn humans in this way, although there is intense clinical pressure to identify the foetus as a quasi-child whose welfare the mother is obliged to foster. The reductio ad absurdum of would-be legal definitions of foetal rights only serves to pinpoint the bizarre confusion British and American society tolerates in this area, where the defenders of the moral status of veal calves and rainforests seem to find no problem with the moral invisibility of certain categories of embryonic humans.
Read more here, at First Apostle's blog, including this about the Archbishop's book:
As a registered Democrat, I am always a bit reticent to admit that I am pro-life, and there was even a time when I experimented with not identifying myself as such. As I read over the Archbishop’s profound exploration of choice, however, I am emboldened to stand firmly in opposition to abortion.
Buy the book here.