This really sounds like a Republican taking-point.  As an argument, it just does not fly.

There is a deep flaw in the logic that would remove the subject of abortion from the process of human life both biologically and socially, and the context in which the continuity of generations occurs.  

To remove the subject of abortion from the question of who does childrearing and how is it done, and how are decisions made about having children--bearing children--and rearing them, is INHERENTLY dishonest.  

Any society that is not wedded to both deceit and imbalance has to face the question of how population is to be managed, so that human numbers stay roughly constant over time, and in happy relation to the world that sustains all life including human life.  In truth, history and anthropology indicate that the easiest way to resolve these issues satisfactorily is to let women make the childbearing decisions.  

For reasons that may be obscure, when men make these decisions, society moves towards imbalance, oppression, war, exhaustion of resources, and collapse.  These latter states are, of course, most familiar to us.  

By taking abortion out of its context, you can then apply a moral standard about the value of life, but that value, out of context, is itself based on nothing--it is merely made up.  

A real morality is compatible with human survival and well-being over time--generations and generations of time.  

To particulars:  Modern experience is that women always prefer other methods of birth control to abortion, when they are available.  The basic faithlessness of the "right to life" movement is revealed in their opposition to the birth control that would reduce abortion of all kinds (legal or illegal) and in their reluctance to concern themselves with the well-being of the fetus once it is born.  

That this dishonesty itself implies a deep and abiding hatred of women as a gender is a point I bring to your attention, as, if you are interested, there has been much thoughtful investigation of this matter and why it is, which I allude to but don't try to summarize here.  

In societies where birth control is available in fact (and not just in theory) we find that abortions happen in pregnancies where the child was WANTED but something  has gone wrong medically that makes the pregnancy non-viable.  This happens more often than you might think:  Pregnancy is a risky process, as spontaneous miscarriages alone should give proof.  Bans on abortions thus target women who wanted their babies, and pregnancies that are not viable.  It is hard to come up with a human explanation of why lawmakers anywhere would want to do this, but they have done and do.  You will forgive me if I do not think much of their morals or character.  

By the way, the phrase of yours I recopied is highly offensive on several levels, and if that was your intent, well and good--you succeeded, but if not, you might want to do some rethinking.  

I am sorry for you son.  The direct implication of his statement is that he is an unwanted child--and knows it.  That is hard.  

The Fates are kind.