It was an honest effort to ask a question in my first statement. I meant no offense with the question. It was sincere.

The other was an inquiry into healthcare for women since pregnancy overshadows a majority of their lifetime.

In answer to your alphabetical list:
a) Yes, the entire gamut of pregnancy is a health issue, abortion is a component of that. Women develop complications and lifelong afflictions from pregnancy. Women die from child birth. Women, or young women, have serious consequences for their lifetime from childbirth. Pregnancy is a medical condition and abortion as an extension of pregnancy deserves no less treatment in a medical capacity. Not in backrooms and alley ways.

b) You say there is no evidence for the positive physical benefit of abortion. I would have to disagree. After the third child, a woman's body begins to break down, the uterine wall, her bladder and colon and health. And, you have separated psychological well-being from physical well-being as if the two were mutually exclusive.

As far as the "religious belief" that the human soul begins at conception, that is not a universal belief.

c)  That the absence of a prohibition against abortion using the word abortion means that in religious tradition there is no prohibition -- this conveniently overlooks both the prohibition against murder in the Bible and the religious belief that the human soul begins at conception.

I recognize and support the right of women of all stripes to believe what they are going to believe, either way.  But truthfully the divide between whites and blacks in terms of how things like abortion are viewed won't change unless and until non-religious folks (or folks who believe that somehow abortion is "religion neutral") understand that even for those who tolerate the legality of it, who would not champion laws against it, it is a moral wrong, that most of the time is in furtherance of a previous moral wrong (promiscuity/fornication/whatever you want to call it.) And that the political "value added" of trying to tell people they are wrong about their moral views is.....zero, such that it is better to just let folks think what they are going to think and focus more on how one can come up with mutually agreeable compromise solutions.

There is a sound philosophical belief that personhood begins at birth. In a country founded on the concept of "governments...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," shouldn't it be up to those who believe personhood begins at conception to prove the opposing belief to be wrong?

There was some promotion of the "genetic theory of individuality" some two decades ago, but that was a minority voice even within the antiabortion community, and they didn't directly address the "birthist" point of view. The use of the term "partial birth abortion" actually comes closer; it agitates birthists, telling them "You ought to oppose this procedure too."

In addition, there is a religious belief that the souls of animals are equal to human souls. Should we understand that even for those who "tolerate the legality of" meat-eating, "who would not champion laws against" meat-eating, "it is a moral wrong?"