The discussion is in many ways the question of Cui bono, Cui Malum, ( Who is done “good”, who is done “harm”) the argument being:
No actual children are harmed in an abortion......
As a “Christian” ( in symbolism) Gamer and Reincarnationist, I tend to view the question of “Fetus/Baby/tenant rights” vs “Free Will Being”/mother/landlord rights” more in terms of Contractual rights of possession and Tenant law than “morality” per se.
I subscribe to the notion (without asserting the truth of it) that the party “wishing /being driven” to incarnate ( hereafter “Child”) performs a sort of contractual bargain with the party who is tasked with providing the actual body of incarnation ( Hereinafter “Mother”) The manner of this “bargain” may range from loving co-operation and communion to “home invasion”, but is in any case beyond the assertion of jurisdiction by any secular temporal corporations of US government and justice.
I view the decision of the contractor for the construction of a domicile for a “Child” to terminate that construction, in much the same terms as a prospective tenant being refused occupancy of a dwelling, and remedies are provided in the proper venue ( JUDGEMENT DAY!!!!!!). In practical terms, there are other habitations immediately available, and in the short term, the “child” simply finds another vessel of occupation and suffers minimal inconvenience.
Or, perhaps, in a different analogy, having been refused transport by one Taxicab, the “child” is free to “catch” another. He may bring such suit against the original transport as seems reasonable. Short term, the “cabbie” has an absolute right to refuse a passenger, for any reason she deems sufficient. The actual “harm” done to the prospective passenger is limited to how long it takes to “catch a different cab” ( in these days, roughly similar to the next cab in line at an airport que competeing for fares- which is to say very short wait, very little “harm”)
Further analogy? the “child” is refused access to a video game over the “mother's” computer.
Admittedly mine is not a “mainstream” view. It is, nevertheless, the basis of my morality.
Hence, the free will choice to continue to incarnate a “child” is the “mother's” to make, right up until the child no longer needs the mother's body to support it's own.
In any case, there is no question in my mind that the greater harm is in forcing a mother to bear the huge cost of such an incarnation, as opposed to the minimal harm done to the “child” by forcing it to “catch the next taxi”
There is no question of the actual “Killing of a child”, the spirit is immortal, and is minimally inconvenienced at that stage of incarnation. Disputes between Mother and Child over civil contractual obligations are beyond the jurisdiction of our government.
You may or may not embrace my thoughts as justification for a woman's absolute right to abortion.
Where it is relevant is the insistence that a “fetus” is not an actual “Person” ( one of “The People”) and is thereby not harmed. The “mother” is an actual person, and bears considerable cost in the production.
Where this is seen as hugely hypocritical by “Abortion Opponents”is the notion that My right to own the means to defend myself , absent harm to others, must be curtailed “if it saves the life of one child”, in the face of the absolute fact that though “spectacular”, mass shootings of children, or any shootings by “assault weapons” are of absolutely minimal importance in “saving the life of one child” when compared to such things as abortion, cars, swimming pools, and the presidents murdering selected US citizens by drone.("collateral damage" of 176 DEAD Pakistani children, at last count)
That is the “overlap” between “Rights” vs “harm” that divides the left and right in Hypocrisy.
Personally, I'm pro-death. I support both a womans right to kill any parasitic growth within her, and also my right to own any weapon I choose in order to protect myself by killing other peoples dangerous children.
Just as no actual "children" are killed by abortion, so no actual children are "saved" by violating my right to defend myself and my family. Hypocrisy, hype, and demonization don't t lead to reasonable discussion on either side.