I might write an effortpost later. But for now, there is a line of reasoning here I want to question.
In short, there is no simple answer to what is ‘right.’ Each option involves something we should rather avoid. Which option to take is a question of profound personal and, importantly, moral, nature; the answer to which will differ from case to case.
You rightfully point out that restricting abortion access does impose certain hardships on people. But I think the fact that harms exist for all options doesn't preclude there being a clear answer to something being moral or immoral. The pro-life argument is that the right to life is so fundamental that it supersedes other rights when the two conflict. This point seems pretty hard to dispute, and as such, I'd argue that this debates stands or falls on the personhood issue - if we recognize the unborn is just as much a person as you or I, then abortion ought to be illegal.
As for the personhood question, the simplest argument in favor of it is the SLED test.
The L-prong of that test is wrongly presented and thus wrongly counterargued in your link.
It is not simply that a fetus has a lesser level of development than an adult, but that it has not reached the level of development for it to achieved personhood. Using the counterargument that link uses against its strawman presentation of the L-prong, one could just as easily argue that four-year olds should be able to vote and otherwise make all decisions as if they were adults without supervision or guidance from their parents or guardians.
