I understand the deontological argument for abortion that you're making. What I'm saying is that, within my perspective and my moral context, the points you're making would have merit if I weighted the things I value in a utilitarian way (insofar as I think that bodily autonomy, gender equality, and children being alive are all good things, and that it's possible to argue that the first two (especially the second!) are more good for more people than the third), but don't given that I weight them in a deontological way (insofar as I think that it's categorically wrong to kill somebody who is impinging on your autonomy unintentionally and through no fault of their own, and that the 'potential human being'/'living human being' distinction is, in this context, spurious).
I think family planning is something that the state has a very clear and positive vested interest in promoting! That's why as a matter of public policy the use of any form of contraception that takes effect before the ovum is fertilized should be widely encouraged, even though I have religious reasons to find that morally questionable as well.
How can an entity that is not self-aware and is not fully formed be capable of making an unconscious never mind conscious decisions or acts? The definition of impingement rests solely on the person experiencing that (the mother). The zygote/embryo cannot reciprocate. In effect the zygote/embryo isn’t ‘doing’ anything, but the mother is ‘feeling’ it (impinged). Bacteria are, in respect to themselves, fully formed. We carry more of their cells than of ours. They aren’t consciously or unconsciously ‘doing’ anything either (in fact they are doing more than embryos; they breed). But they can impinge. We can take action against that if we consider harm.
The only way to avoid the harm of pregnancy is to either use contraception in the first instance (which you have to separate from the joy of having sex, despite being flippant about that earlier. Contraception is about preventing pregnancy or controlling the conditions under which someone may become pregnant; in what capacity someone enjoys a sexual act is entirely independent of that), to abort or to induce labour whether viable or unviable. That’s it. If it’s viable, it’s ‘born’; the state of pregnancy has ended. It is no longer an ethical battleground. Otherwise you accept that morally, you prohibit a woman from taking any action against any physical or psychological harm caused as a result of her pregnancy. And of course that only applies to women by default.
Your definition hasn't removed 'harm'; both physical and psychological as experienced by the woman as an issue. It is still there. It is still elicit. What is your response? What do you do about it? Or do you not consider it to be 'real'? Or do you take a utilitarian approach to that
If you’re placing value on the semantics; classifying the removal of an object that is the result of pregnancy as a human at any point, then your argument is not a truly deontological one, because your argument rests on the fact you see the unborn ‘status’ of this zygote/embryo as human (therefore abortion is wrong), which means you place status on the
consequences of the end result of a pregnancy. Being human (and placing self importance on that) is in itself consequential with respect to evolution.
You are also in danger of making an assumption that there is a standard, definable almost Kantian ‘duty’ on someone, specifically the mother (as she is the subject here) to give birth each time it is presented as an option. There is no net effect on the father. Or do you believe that gender/sex gives people different 'duties'?
As I mentioned in a previous topic, any position that places a definitive ‘this is it for everyone’ start and stop on the spectrum of human life is based on trying to make an external definitive measure of life as if life is ‘scientific’ and measureable. Pregnancy is a unique female experience; it is part of her life, part of the act of her experiencing life. Definitions are understandable from a biological and medical perspective, being as they are studies of the ‘whole’, but aren’t something that should necessarily be adhered to by the person who is living it.
Duty based ethics based entirely on the perceived duty expected of her by a third party; whether that be another human or an appeal to something greater or transcendental has paper thin authority on which to appeal to.
