According to the Bible parents are free to put a child of any age to death should they find them burdensome, a source of misfortune, or simply if they say the wrong thing and the parents take it as a threat of harm or the mere wish of any misfortune or embarrassment to befall them.
That is the biblical definition of curse not the recent convention of "foul language" which itself is kind of a funny concept when you consider the only word to be forbidden to speak aloud lest God be offended in any religious text is God's own name.
The fact that a fetus isn't yet a baby and until a certain point of development has no cognitive function, facts willfully distorted (also known as bearing false witness) by opponents of abortion who keep trying to push fanciful tales of perfectly viable, fully developed, screaming infants being pulled out live and vivisected makes your lame attempt at moral equivalency meaningless. But even if you want to split hairs about how we define a living person without resorting to flagrant dishonest or argue that some rights supercede others even at the expense of their lives (furthermore a theoretical future life at the expense of an already existing one and the future life might I remind you depends on the existing life for much of it's survival making it even more nonsensical to consider the existing life as less important as you do) you still run into a major problem with your appeals.
To be perfectly blunt morality itself is meaningless to you despite your attempts to invoke it as an attack on others and the hypocrisy is pretty plain to see for a couple of reasons:
First you are far more interested in slinging manufactured guilt than you are actually vested in the survival of any living thing. That's easy enough to see if you take any time at all to examine how those who "choose life" get treated and how that can imperil the suddenly much less sacred life they brought into the world, especially if there's something already marking them to judgemental eyes like young age or financial issues at which point condemnation about "irresponsibility" and "entitlement" gets leveled at them with just as much scorn as you reserve for abortion. Scorn accompanied by ostracization and even the abuse of power to limit the ability to physically provide for a child.
It is only the concept of a child or a family that interests you as it is an emotionally weighted cudgel for you to wield in discourse to bypass the need for a sound argument or even to overstep individual rights and attempt to use laws that are supposed to be fair and impartial and quite explicitly free from the influence of religious dogma to force social engineering on those who want no part of it. You see any pregnancy as the potential to propagate your beliefs rather than as the potential for an individual being with free will, and an expansion of the personal power of those who aggressively claim the title of head of the household with the expectation that they will set in stone that your beliefs will be the only valid choice for anyone in the family, something strongly solidified by engineering dependency. For example, financial dependency for raising a child, an external expectation to have a dominant male presence or else be lacking a "proper" family dynamic, and other little things that inch by inch cede agency in life and do so in a way that empowers another in a way easy to abuse and further suppress those now in their authority.
A scheme quite beneficial to those who see the quickest way to overcome the dissent of the masses to be to concentrate all social power into fewer hands so that one voice speaks for the entire family - giving the appearance of agreement when the reality may well be threat of reprisal to which engineered social norms will favour those abusing their position rather than the family that falls out of line - and is now vested in preserving their disproportionate authority. There is a sickening parallel to how slave owners counted their slaves as additional legal votes and quite similarly could simply breed more votes to give an unpopular opinion more clout. Or a religion that believes itself constantly on the brink of destruction by non-believers (despite all evidence to the contrary) more followers zealously dedicated to create "families" whose happiness and indeed very wellbeing are secondary to the pursuit replicating a restrictive social model where each individual member is judged like an assembly line product and tertiary to preserving a social power structure contingent on normalizing abuse in many forms.
But the second reason your appeals to conscience fall flat are far more straightforward and a lot more damning. The idea that hurting children is in any way un-Christian is a bad joke. On top of directly exhorting physical violence as "discipline" and the aforementioned freedom to just kill your kids if they get on your nerves the Bible has quite a few passages that outright demand the slaughter of infants, including the "unborn" by the way, as a matter of course. Usually quite painfully by rocks. Primarily in armed conflict, true, but also to settle matters of suspected adultery. Water of bitterness and what it's suggested it does to a woman's womb comes to mind. And I don't recall any stonings being put off until after a birth, either.