Is There Truly a Difference?

It is a tragedy.  A woman in Ohio has been indicted for murdering three of her children in three separate incidents over the course of about 13 months.  The indictment by the grand jury was handed down yesterday, with the most recent death having occurred a week earlier.

The indictment says that the woman killed one of her children when the child was 3-months old, in July of 2014; that she killed the second child when the child was 4-years old in April of 2015; and that she killed the third child when the child was 3-months old earlier this month.  It is a tragedy, and under Ohio law, the indicted woman could face the death penalty.

I have heard no one say that if this woman indeed did kill her three children (we must preserve the presumption of innocence unless and until she is found guilty), it is OK.  On the contrary, I've heard only negative comments regarding this woman's alleged deeds.

But here's what I find ironic: if this woman had chosen just about 90 to 120 days earlier to allow a doctor to terminate her pregnancies (speaking specifically of the first and third children who died) before the children were born, many people would have said that would have been perfectly fine.

OK, this is an honest question, one that I would like people who say that it would have been OK to terminate the pregnancies at 8-9 months of gestation, but prior to birth, to answer: what is the difference if the pregnancy was terminated or if the child was killed by the mother 3 months after birth?

I am looking for an honest discussion.  No name-calling, no vulgarity, no condescension.  Just discussion.

Is there a difference?  If so, why?