If I may be allowed to give an answer to that question to offer, perhaps not all points related but some that are relevant to understand this. I know how you feel because I too was anti-abortion except in special cases like rape, the birth being dangerous to the women or the fetus' birth being unsustainable, as it would die soon after birth.I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "anti-woman". It's not a term I'm familiar with and seems like the statement containing it is very generalized, would you elaborate? I don't know how divorce factors into this either, if you could explain that.
I agree about people having full control of their bodies but surely you know the opposing argument is that the baby is a distinct entity, it is not the mother; being located within her does not constitute being her.
But I've talked this issue with other people and it has opened up my mind a quite bit. Truth be told the idea of killing a fetus still doesn't entirely sit well with me, but I can understand the arguments in favour of this when you consider everything else. As you've mentioned, there are two sides here to consider, the rights of the woman to choose and the rights of the fetus/embryo/baby whatever you choose to call it that it has fundamentally no voice and is virtually defenseless. Sure defending the fetus sounds noble and worthy of praise because it is standing up for something that cannot fight for itself or talk.....................BUT there is a problem with that, by which by defending the fetus' right to live, you instantly trample over the woman's rights because she has no other choice but to carry the fetus, ergo the woman status effectively becomes incubator and is thus reduced pretty much to a sub-human level i.e. the rights of an unborn being eclipsing those of an actual adult person and member of society. You cannot defend the rights of the fetus without in some way causing injury to the status/rights of the woman because ultimately the burden falls on her the most.
A woman's ability to choose is thus FUNDAMENTAL for a woman's capacity to exercise rights as a person that shouldn't be downgraded. As you said well too, perhaps the most troubling issue is finding consensus on when do we consider the fetus to be a living person, since biologically speaking it IS a parasite. Several countries thus decide to hold certain thresholds for when you can abort or not, which is fairly reasonable given fetuses don't have heartbeat or brain, or respiratory system until much later and some of these are essential to meet the criteria of a living being scientifically speaking.
But beyond that there is another pressing matter. Say you force the women to have those children, then who takes care of them? you could argue that adoption would be a solution and that would technically be true...................if only each and every orphaned kid was already taken over, and we all know orphanages over the globe still have tons of kids left without any family to take care of them properly, thus we know that "supply and demand" do not meet, and the consequence is kids left to fend by themselves, and once they turn 18.............good luck!! But you know, this could be resolved quite easy, all we have to do is make sure every person chanting for anti-abortion and get babies into the world is made to adopt every single one of them!! Babies are not aborted, they get to protect lives and beyond all they are made responsible for what their actions cause, everyone wins right? errrr nope............
"But I don't have enough money" some will say "I already have 3-4 kids, I cannot deal with 1 more" others will say, and just throw any other argument by which all these anti-abortion people will give you to say they won't be adopting kids, and you know? that's fine, having kids and taking care of them IS costly, IS difficult, IS taxing, so not having to deal with all of that is a fine choice if you aren't up to the task. BUT then what about the women forced to do the same when they can meet one or all of the conditions needed to "not be up to the task"? Why force them to give birth when they cannot take care of them the same way the anti-abortion people can't or won't? Why force kids into the world knowing that none of few of them will be adopted by the anti-abortion people for any reason, or just not be adopted by any family in general regardless of their stance on the matter? When someone is anti-abortion and isn't willing to adopt, that's one kid in the world and one less family to adopt them, and there are millions of families unable or unwilling to adopt and those are millions of homes the kid won't be in, or just say the woman "raises" the kid without actually wanting, I can only imagine how that dysfunctionality is going to work so well. Yes not all cases like this end in tragedy or a bad family, but that's not the norm, and because it isn't the norm it means you have many woman-kid relationships that are just hazardous for everyone and don't work out well for nobody, and so long as that happens, forcing down births is just a bad idea for everyone.
"But life matters and should be protected!!" yeah ok, then I'll ask you quite honestly........does life only matter when you're a fetus? if the argument is that life is precious, must be protected and only God can take it away, then why not offer GENEROUS Cradle to Grave benefits to take care of that life? Life is precious in all stages of life, when you're a baby, when you're a kid, when you're a teen, when you're an adult, when you're an elder, and not giving out said benefits to ensure to wellbeing of that person is actively participating on that person's lifestate decline, and potentially causing its death in one way or another. Inaction in this case is not neutrality, it is being complicit, but see if any anti-abortion politician is gonna be on board with giving out such benefits OR even adopting one of those kids, and all you'll hear is crickets, see the hypocrisy now? This little caricature here illustrates the issue perfectly
A bit back to the original question and why does this all happen? The answer to that is simple, if women are given the ability to choose, that alone equates to female empowerment. Who loses with female empowerment? PATRIARCHY. That's it. This is WHY anti-abortion is anti-woman, because by preventing woman from choosing and forcing them into giving birth regardless of how they feel about it, or their ability to handle it, this sole fact of obligating them to give birth, instantly downgrades their status, and the only ones who win with that are your entitled males, because it forces women into the role of incubator and to some extent make them subservient to men taking care of them for sustenance (The patriarchy wet dream, males work and bring in the money and set the rules, while women are birth machines and housewives and are obedient).
The more women have the ability to choose, the less they are forced into roles, thus the more freedom they enjoy to have their path in life, thus causing their growing independency and thus causing the collapse of the Patriarchy model and by proxy the power of all the males out there who want women to be beneath them. And this is why Anti-Abortion is about being Anti-Woman rather than being Pro-life.
Let's remember something, being pro-choice doesn't mean FORCING abortions, it simply means giving an option, leave a door open so when the need comes, a woman IS able to make a choice and not be constrained into roles/duties, etc. for which she's not able to take care of or that only seek to degrade them. "But women shouldn't opened their legs" some may say and in fact this is first and foremost argument I hear from nearly all anti-abortion elders, but remember a baby is made up by two, so why are so willing to punish the woman first and not the man too? This is also cultural and is meant to ingrain the idea that women ought to be punished for "being sl*ts" (see how this is becoming more about anti-woman than defending lives?).
As an additional and closing line, let's look at mother nature a bit ok? Lions are said to raise only those that can climb back. Hedgehogs will eat their offspring if they feel like not having them. See where this is going? Even MOTHER NATURE okays abortion and not raising each and every single possible kid that can be born/brought to the world, because ultimately it IS impossible. Not every parent or potential parent can take care of all of them, not every parent or potential parent is WILLING to take care of all of them so forcing to give birth is simply the worst that can happen both for a mother that doesn't want to be a parent (and that's the worst kind of parent ever) and for a kid that will live in a dysfunctional, abandoned environment. And all of this could be handled SO well if stuff like Planned Parenthood that doesn't only provide abortions but also counsel, psychological aid, etc, etc. was more widespread and encouraged, but then you have Republicans wanting to break it apart and defund it (even tho market decided it IS good). You know already the reasons why they want to do that, might as well add that giving money out to such services is just anathema to conservatism in general, because less government is ALWAYS good.
And that's what I can tell you, I prolly didn't add all possible talking points or things to consider on this issue, but here you have a detailed explanation of why anti-abortion is anti-woman and the hypocrisy behind most "pro-lifers", make of that what you will.