Can it be false dichotomy?

I have to say, as a pro-choice advocate I don't use the "my body, my choice" argument, I simply use the argument that women fall pregnant far more often than they want to and if they didn't have abortions and all the women who weren't able to look after their unwanted children gave them up for adoption, society would be in a fix. The older the foetus, the closer it is to a fully-formed human being and the line needs to be drawn before actual birth - babies born very premature survive after all outside their mother. Women don't like having abortions but the nature of life is that women fall pregnant far more often than they wish to have children. Other species of animals practice birth control to suit conditions in quite brutal ways and we are, after all, animals, we cannot forget our biology.

https://www.science.org/content/article/do-big-carnivores-practice-birth-control

My question to pro-lifers is: "Where is your pro-lifeness when it comes to those starving in other countries?" "Where is your pro-lifeness when it comes to animals slaughtered for meat?" assuming the pro-lifer is an omnivore. It's impossible to be "pro-life" in every possible way so why place so much value on a human foetus? Why is the value of a human foetus worth more than the life of a person without medical aid and nutritious food in Africa? Why is the value of a human foetus worth more than that of a cow? 

Except the radioactive one

[To Ed F]

Good answer

Most policy decisions are about navigating two (or more!) extremes, or trying to find the balance between competing 'right' answers. For instance, balancing freedom of expression with the right to be free from discrimination.

You don't have a clear-cut way of dealing with these issues because of how complicated they are - there are far too many intricacies and idiosyncrasies. So it is not necessarily contradictory for someone to have a nuanced stance (like the one OP uses as an example); to assert so would be a false dilemma.

Of course, true dilemmas also do exist.

A further comment on accident fallacy --I'd clarify to say the polar positions could be the accident fallacy (emphasis on "could"), rather than are.

The polar positions are--abortion is always murder vs a woman always has a right to control her body.  These are both generalizations and the accident fallacy occurs when one applies a generalization to situations they were not intended to.  But were these general rules intended to apply to these  situations?  Thus it would be  begging the question to say  the accident fallacy applies:  that the general rule about murder wasn't intended to apply to fetuses, or that a woman's right to control her body wasn't intended to allow her to end a potential life.  

I think "pro-choicer" is meant.

Hey, no fair reading minds....lol