"But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety"

Now answer the question:
To finish your argument; At the precise moment of conception a woman loses control of her body and cedes it to some theist committee?
Is that the breezy utopian ideal?

Since you've taken that position, I would like to ask you why?

To avoid a long post, I could summarize why as the following, if you want the full reasoning behind it read my edit at the bottom or I can clarify parts.

1. Especially in the early stages of pregnancy, I consider zygote, embryo etc, as a lesser human, a developing "human" with lesser rights then the mother right to choose what goes on in her own body. Brutal in that wording, yes, but concise. This developing human potential is still a very special and precious thing that should be protected, and as this fetus develops it becomes yet more human like it becomes closer and closer to an equal to the mother. The mother has more rights to choose what goes on in her own body then this potential human has a right to live within that body.

2. This very special and precious developing human is wholly dependent on the host mother for a large part or nearly all of the average 40 week pregnancy depending on the circumstances. Something that is so utterly dependent on the human host gives up much of its rights to the human host as a human host has powerful rights that should be protected.

In conclusion: my personal opinion is: a women has the right to a choice on what goes on with her body over the right of the developing humans right to live.

Fortunately, at a certain point a potential human can survive w/o the host mothers body with reasonable chance to reach at least 1 year of age. If the women has access to a modern well staffed NICU That is around 25-26 weeks for a 50% chance to reach 1 year of age. For much of the world's poor, that is unfortunately is closer to 36 weeks, all the way up to a natural birth at around 40 weeks. When those options are available, attempts should be made to save this precious developing human instead of doing an abortion as the mothers own body rights no longer apply, and the developing human rights to live takes priority.

But demarcating what is and isn't a human life is a scientific question. I don't see the need for making it an opinion. Those are two separate subjects.

The science is already in, and the conclusion is clear, human life does not begin at fertilization or when the heart starts beating, or when a central nervous system is developed etc, human life is a cycle of cellular reproduction and passing of dna, fertilization of the egg is just one, (indeed profound,) step along that cycle. We can only instead form an opinion on what step along that cycle of humans is one where the right for this human in the cycle supersedes the right to another human's right to decide what to do with their own body. .Since we cannot all agree, we all have different opinions, and when there is no solid conclusive answer based on real world evidence and study, the decision instead should pass to the one most affected and closest to the dilemma. The mother the one whose rights are being debated over to begin with it is the best we can do with a very difficult situation.

Fortunately thanks to science and medical advancement we are increasingly reducing the need of a host body for a long period of time. We could well see in a 100 years or less, at current rates of advancement, that we can take a "host" mother out of the equation entirely. For people that want to save every fertilized egg, the means to do so without infringing on anyone's right to their own body could be mostly achieved. Another very icky moral question comes up then as well, if the technology exist, should we then mandate that science intervene in every pregnancy to reduce the 30-50 percent rate that all fertilized eggs do not reach birth due to natural causes? We tell parents they must make every reasonable effort to the well being of their kids after they are born, why not before?

As to the Morning After pill, as far as I understand its a contraceptive, not an abortion pill.

We are both wrong/correct. Most commonly used morning after pills, (like plan B,) does a combination of things. Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary. Prevents fertilization. Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. If you consider a fertilized egg a pregnancy, then sometimes the morning after pill ends the pregnancy. (Remember, it can take anywhere from a few hours to 5 days after intercourse for fertilization to occur.)

------------------------------------
------------------------------------
I started first writing a reply, and it got long and then I realized it got off topic. For those interested, or want to further understand my reasoning feel free to read below.
------------------------------------

I think we both agree we are made up of cells. I think we both agree cells have a cycle, the cell grows, performs its functions and when the cell gets too large, it divides in half where it creates two near identical copies of itself, also copying the dna instructions. DNA instructions that also tell cells what type of cell it should be, (in function,) how fast to grow, and when to die. The cells in our bodies as they split up into their different functions during all live, die, and split at different rates, but other than a few rare cases, like brain neurons for instance, have all split but also died off, a constant state of renewal. If you are 40, the average age of cells in your body is somewhere around 7-10 years old according to carbon dating.

We humans want to think in absolute terms, we are 1 entity, 1 start time, 1 end time. That is simply not the case. We are a constant process of cells dividing, passing along dna information that tells the cells what to do.

Back to fertilization of a mother's egg. Yes, a very special and unique thing happens, evolution has created a system that having 2 complex cellular groupings working in concert, that have a very specialized exchange of very slightly different instructions allows for greater efficiency and survivability of the clusters of cells working together. Than simple endless cell division. Quite simply the exchange of dna occurs, in humans and many other animal cases.

That is all fertilization is, an exchange of similar dna. No more, no less. The building blocks (cell or in this case a single cell) existed before that, where did that come from? Why from cell division from the mother of course! (The male sperm cells only exchange information and does not divide, but are instead created from other base non sperm cells that divided.) Where did that mothers cells come from? Her mother! On and on all the way back to an original cell, all the while the dna being edited, added too, subtracted from and so on.

We humans are part of a cycle of cells passing along dna information a cycle made manifest that greater efficiency is wrought from doing this particular type of cycle over simple endless cell division. During that cycle there is a key point where dna information is exchanged and 1 cell divides to create all the component over again to create eventually a separate highly complex grouping of cells working in concert with dna instructions. It is just a step along the cycle, not the beginning nor the end. Even when a particular unique collection of cells working together we like to call human ceases to be able to work together causing total cellular death the cycle continues on, a beginning that could be traced back to the origin of cells, and the end when all cells has died off and all dna information is lost.

-------
I stopped here then wrote my responses on top, if anyone is interested I can finish out my thought process on this.