Effectively, the question is when does the state or society have the right to protect a human (whether that’s human fetus, embryo, baby, person). In addition what rights can be removed / protected from the mother. As the analysis points out it’s wildly different throughout the world and even in Europe and United States. The US Supreme Court ruled that prior US rulings overstepped and now it’s a 10th amendment and 4th amendment issue amongst the states - meaning it’ll become more diverse in the US.
To frame the US arguments differently — most people are uniformed about when a heart beat is detectable; when a fetus responds to pain, etc
As a general rule, when people are fully informed the consensus is “let’s avoid abortion, if we can”. The question is then, where is that line for “it’s too far”. Largely, and the article touches on this, that’s a hyper local issue.
Which personally, I don’t see an issue with, we’re typically all for self-governance. That implies freedom of movement, association, and defense. If people of an area choose a certain law so-be-it, just don’t impose your will on others. As long as you can move, if the issue is that troubling to you, associate differently or convince others to change the laws.
I view abortion much like the slavery issue historically in the US. The rights of the defenseless will ultimately be expanded. It used to be slaves had severely limited rights, but we saw the err in our ways. I believe we will do the same ultimately here, though it may take many years.
The alternative is setting an arbitrary line in the sand “birth” or “20 weeks”, it doesn’t make much sense. Why not “1yr old” or “12 weeks” they have much of the same traits. Barring harm to the mother (which ultimately is dangerous to baby), I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense. Morally, I think limiting medical intervention is wrong. And that is ultimately what it boils down to — what morally is correct to limit; which boils down to locale.