Personally I feel the idea that abortion is "against God's will / affront to god / impinges on a "right" of a soul that is not their own" are not statement that I give credibility to for several reasons
I see God as "the everything" god is life, all thoughts you have, from a quantum mechanics point of view "all realities being all possibilities existing at the same time"
I beleive the choices we make choose which of these "realities" that our awarness finds more dominate, its not like the other realities didn't exist, they just dont exist subjectively or in an experienced way. As such one action that "god" (assuming one exists) shakes his or her or its head at and says "hmm im disappointed I made this to test you so you choose the "Right way for "you" - which was explained to another that you should trust over your own thoughts" or society doing likewise for non religious reasons calling it "human rights" is a little rich.
The concept that you are god and part of it and are perfect as you are - all decisions and actions are perfect but WHICH version of perfect is a choice of the individual - and the reason for life in the first place - as a soul to choose what it wants to refine is equally valid compared to any religion in my view... but all these are "perspectives" of individuals, the mess people get into is valuing one as more objective than another.
Does someone who is not educated have a "less objective" perspective than one is educated ? No .. I think "objectivity" is a myth. "learning" is not becoming more objective, becoming aware or being attentive to something isnt being more objective, it could be said that "learning" is an act of becoming more bias and "less objective".
Assuming research on a topic makes one's perspective more sensible is very presumptuous.
The concept that one may view their perspective as more enlightened and objective than another's to the point of insisting particular behavior for another that has alien values to them I view as arrogance.
If there is such a thing as a soul (Which I do beleive in) I dont think it changes anything as a soul can't be harmed, if one body or existence is changed so it cant be a vessle it will just look for another in another time/reality/existance (big assumption perhaps but on par with the assumption
a) Mom/life does the work and the new soul "appears" at time X and its its "Right" to own the vessel from T = X+ (After x weeks when features become prevalent)
b) New soul appeared from the get go and the body is ITS property from T = 0+ (conception)
c) New souls are hungry and are lining up so really all bodies of "potential babies" are their "right" ie they all own them at T = NEGATIVE X onways (ie prevention = impinging on their "rights")
Either way I can't see "aborting" has harming a soul nor do I beleive souls have "rights to bodies" what they do is USE bodies as tools.
At worst I think an abortion may delay a "desire" of a soul to incarnate and refine skills in a life, but she wouldn't be impinging on its RIGHT to do so, only removing one opportunity for ONE to ... at that time.
remember a woman that aborts at time = T1 may do so to organise sitations where she can have MANY children at time = T2, if she was forced to have one at Time = T1, she may not be able to have more later.
Life exists everywhere, that idea that more human life = better I think is like ?
huh says who ??
Qualiy of life is important also. If a child is born in circumstances where misery concerning its upbringing prevails, it effects many, it could be that 2 need to quit jobs or turn down promotional oppintunities ... true the baby may go on to be a great healer - but the mother COULD also become a great healer if she didnt have that child then ... Comparing "what ifs" for this issue is just asking for long lists supporting each side for academic reasons no more, it doesn't move the argument.
To a large extend the woman is a highly dependent medium for development. Very complicated biology is required for a human to grow from one cell. I view someones "privates" as a limb of theirs, a hand can be used to help someone, a hand can be used to slap someone. A hand can be used for many things, what the person that owns it does with it is .... a choice.
Yes the child is dependent on the mother for longer than just the time in her body.
So the idea of when the child should be considered being protected by the "state" as an "individual" I think is very strange. I can see the argument of "well in a way its an individual the moment its a seed because it has the potentional to be one if certain circumstances are favorable and its up to humans to ensure this circumstances are endeavored for" pulls a few strings I think unnecessarily.
The concept of what is an "individual" or a "potential individual" I think is what causes a lot of issues.
With the right "favourable circumstances" your liver cells can be made into a new individuals.... by cloning ... yet we "kill off many potential clone-individuals that just need favorable environment to become distinct and individually human" each time we drink wine ... they will have the same genes as the "parent" but identical twins have the same genes also ... and they are recongised as different and may have different souls.
Actually is their one soul in each of your liver cells waiting to be cloned ?
Snapping a glass of wine out of a mans hand and saying "your aborting countless people ! / baby killer ! You have no RIGHT to impose on THEIR RIGHT to be BORN as individuals ! You know that with the right biological conditions you have the means to ensure they could grow to become people you sick fool"
would have most men blinking thinking ... whoa slow down hon.
It could be said "yeah but that is artificial its not nature's way so it doesnt really count but natural abortion is bad, your being ridiculous with that stance" ... also doesnt make sense.
Neither are cloning nor natural births are "artificial" if one choose to view everything as "life". Your own thoughts actions and capabilities are "life" .. which may or may not include abilities of making your own cloning laboratory and supplying liver cells for massive amounts of mini-mes. (which is a perspective)
Debatably cloning and natural births are are "man made"
(ie without many choices from "parents" it wouldn't have happened).
Ethics is highly subjective.
"Right" vs "wrong" is highly subjective
What is "objective" ... is subjective.
Choices simply give different probability bias towards different outcomes, all possible outcomes are "life"
I personally view that utopia should be strived for - creating heaven on earth for those that are living on the earth as "independent" individuals.
Independant and individuals though is not a concept that really exists until they are independent CULTURALLY ( ie you can walk into the utopia and walk out again without issues - you engage into its values when it suits you)
Society taking the view that the parents MUST do this or that or be thrown in jail for abuse via neglect of care etc is not giving them freedom to do what they choose without threatening to remove increasing amounts of liberties. I think that culturally the biological parents must assume responsibility for its raising and development is HIGHLY backward -and the current view of this causes many passions to flair over this issue.
Many of the elderly that are able bodied or those that simply want to and are educated would be far better parents than the biological parents in many instances and would gladly want their life part of younger generations and would adore to aid their raising... but be solely responsible with consequences of not being consistent for 18 years ? ... no...
I would adore to see the child itself view all of humanity as its teachers, its "parents", its friends, its helpers its supporters.. etc we (humanity) are one big family, the sooner we stop trying to wedge people into historical family units the better (the average "working" healthy family units I think is broken anyway due to too much influence of particular individuals in the childs upbringing not letting them be rounded as being raised by a group of elders would give them)
Women generally do have strong maternal instincts with their own children, if they wish to act of them ... fine.... role of the biological father to provide the means for it even if they don't want to ?
Men generally have a strong instinct to sow their seed ... role of each woman to raise any that come from this to do their duty and raise it ?
Role of the mother to pay for it ? No. Role of the elders of the mothers choosing to raise it when she wants to run about doing other things ? I think so. Elders have a lot to teach, they are more worldly than biolgical parents and like have seen it all before. This also would stop generation gaps forming, less pressure and stress for all ... "single mothers" stop being relevant .. (As they are not expected to raise them on their own) ... all good I think.
I also beleive it would stop the need for "two people different genders need a house each" rubbish ... this try to mimic the historical "family unit" is causing us all harm.
Culturally while society puts providing means on the shoulders of the the father with massive consequences of loss of liberty if he doesnt "do this and that" the farther should have rights to the decision also. If the mother to be chooses to go ahead against the fathers wishes - the state expecting the father to pay for it I think is a little rich.
Ideally I think the mother can choose while it is IN her body.
When it is out ... its societies role to provide the means of raising, not the biological mother nor the biological father.
If the elders insist on something that retards this a little to stop it getting out of hand - we take their advice very seriously - not because we will be punished by law if we dont - but because they are in those positions because their view is respected (not enforced)
I also think inheritance is a not healthy culturally also - it encourages greed, and removes a lovely opportunity to re-distribute wealth and resources and power evenly or on a merit / need basis.