That sounds like a conflict of interest. Charge for contraception, use shit contraception, get a repeat customer for abortion...... Repeat. Literally printing money.

Nope:

To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed.

In the case of the riots the mob has five hostages [demanding a judge to name and hang an offender when the judge has no evidence], so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five. The question is why we should say, without hesitation, that the driver should steer for the less occupied track, while most of us would be appalled at the idea that the innocent man could be framed.

It may be suggested that the special feature of the latter case is that it involves the corruption of justice, and this is, of course, very important indeed. But if we remove that special feature, supposing that some private individual is to kill an innocent person and pass him off as the criminal we still find ourselves horrified by the idea. The doctrine of double effect offers us a way out of the difficulty, insisting that it is one thing to steer towards someone foreseeing that you will kill him and another to aim at his death as part of your plan.

Moreover there is one very important element of good in what is here insisted. In real life it would hardly ever be certain that the man on the narrow track would be killed. Perhaps he might find a foothold on the side of the tunnel and cling on as the vehicle hurtled by. The driver of the tram does not then leap off and brain him with a crowbar. The judge, however, needs the death of the innocent man for his (good) purposes. If the victim proves hard to hang he must see to it that he dies another way.

But TBH reading the introduction text about the doctrine of double effect is potentially more interesting. We always just reference the trolley problem as a hypothetical, but the doctrine of double effect actually basically 'solves' the trolley problem, in that it answers why we're fine with a bad effect in exchange for a good effect in some cases, but not in others.

If it was alive and then isn't, it is dead. That's what dead means. A fetus that died in the womb is still dead, and died, and there is no other way to define what unborn is than to describe it as a previously living entity; thus dead.

A fetus is only a potential person, but it's still a living organism. After it's aborted, it's dead.