What's going on is that there is a recognition that the unborn child has rights.
Less than 2% of abortions are done due to rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. That means 98% of them are done because the woman decided that she didn't want to be pregnant or because someone else forced her to have an abortion. (In at least one study, 60% of women seeking an abortion said they were doing so because of pressure from someone else.)
NO ONE is saying that you need to raise a baby you can't afford. You can place the baby for adoption. With open and private adoptions available, you can still choose to have contact with the child. You can even select the parents.
Some people will say, "Well, it's better they're aborted than end up in the system". Consider this: less than half of children in the system are even available for adoption. Some are in care temporarily. Others are born to parents who couldn't care for them but have not given up their parental rights. Are you prepared to force abortions on women who apparently can't care for their children? Moreover, would it be acceptable to kill an already-born child just to prevent him/her from ending up "in the system"?
You should know that actually, an unborn child can be owed a duty of medical care. As a nurse, I can be sued for negligence up to 21 years after the birth of a child. The parents can sue on the child's behalf up to 18 years afterward, and the child has an additional three years to sue. How can a duty of care be owed to a "non-person"?
It is incumbent on women to recognize that sex can lead to babies, no matter how careful you are. It's also incumbent on them to recognize that once you're pregnant, you already have a baby. Ending your child's life because it's not a good time for you to be pregnant is not an option.