Use your BBQ lately?
Morality is almost entirely subjective, and generally clings to that path which better promotes society. I believe society is better served by my definition over yours in this instance. You have every right to disagree. The examples you provide above represent detriments to society. Do you see the difference? The issue here is where to draw the line, not whether to keep or remove it entirely.
If pigs want to organize and lobby for protection under the law, I'd certainly be willing to listen.
Anyway, that's a deflective answer. The question remains. Either human life, which we've distinguished and codified in law, is "precious" (meaning it is of intrinsic value and cannot be taken by others for any reason without penalty), or it is not.
If we assume momentarily, that you would enjoy protection under the law from someone who would wish to take your life, the next question becomes why that protection isn't afforded to an unborn, living child? It's not an issue of morality any more than the murder of a 35 year old would be.
Where to draw the line is precisely the question. All things being equal, one must assume that a conceived child will live until nature says their time is up. That might be 9 days, 9 weeks, 9 months, or 90 years.
Outside of nature serving as the arbiter of death, our role - if we're to have one at all - should certainly not be to hasten death's arrival.