How can Fetal Homicide Laws be constitutional but Anti-Abortion laws not be?

I don't understand this double standard.

The "personhood" of an individual shouldn't be decided arbitrarily by the decision of the party giving birth to that individual. So why is it that if I drive drunk and kill a pregnant woman I'm charged with *two* counts of vehicular manslaughter. Whereas if that same woman were on her style to a Planned Parenthood she would have faced no criminal charges.

Shouldn't it be that both types of laws are any constitutional or not?
Why not variety it a crime every time a guy spills his seed into a gym sock? Technically, sperm are living. You never hear conservatives mention that. The intent of the mother is the difference.
I agree with the other person's answer. It's all nearly intent of the mother. Regardless of whether or not the woman wants the baby, the simple fact that the babe-in-arms is taken by a drunk driver makes it homicide. The courts have ruled that abortion is legal, thus, its endorsed for her to do so. However, I agree that the definitions are arbitrary, but I do not see how they laws can realistically be changed. I think you are really pretty much axiom you're against abortion. And as am I, I'd have the baby. But think around these rape victims who are 13 years old, same age as I am. I mean I don't approve of these girls going out there and have under age sex but I don't go around bombing abortion centers. That's immoral.
Actually the standard is both the intent to bring the life to full term, as well as the age of the fetus. Someone who is solely in their first term and is killed is not predictable to be considered two lives, but if the fetus is near ful term, it most certainly is. Partly because the mother clearly intends to bring the fetus to full permanent status (its no longer legal to abort) but also because if something happens to the mother, at the third trimester, the fetus life can be sustained surrounded by a hospital. This last is critical in being competent to prove legally that a second life was taken.

Lots of these issues are what can be proven lawfully, not what is considered to be "life" or a "person" in a religious sense.
You may have to look at the letter of the ruling, where it stipulates any exceptions. For instance, in the case of abortion the directive may state it is legal under certain circumstances, whereas within the case of vehicular manslaughter, the law may be stated in a different channel. It's not like a person who wants an abortion on her agency to the clinic is suddenly hit by a car and both die as a result. I would see a conflict in that instance.

Otherwise, I couldn't tell you.