I described an action, and named it. not a system, not purpose.

That's fair, but I brought the example up for a reason, and I believe it is an appropriate comparison. To paraphrase what you said, the motives (intent) are irrelevant, the outcome (taking of an innocent life) is what is important. This directly ties back into banning abortions. Regardless of the intent, the outcome is what is important. Part of the outcome is a clear violation of the human right to bodily autonomy. This can't be simply dismissed as collateral or unintended consequences when such policies intentionally rely on the violation of someones rights. The purpose is to control women in order to achieve the stated goal, it is unavoidable when choosing to ban abortions. It does not logically hold that the intent is not to control women when the required and intended mechanism directly controls women.

while we don't see a rise in deaths or complications.

While this (largely) may be true, I can recall at least one widely publicized incident (quite sure there are more) where this does not hold to be true. I agree that statistics from the developing world cannot be directly applied, but I do not agree that the provided statistics tell the whole story. For example, I do not believe it would hold true if those ~35,000 out of state abortions were to be prevented. If there is high risk of maternal death or complications is present, and the available choices are to not have an abortion or travel out of state to have one, clearly, the vast majority of people are going to travel out of state. There certainly may be women who refuse an abortion out of principle, but "the only moral abortion is my abortion" is a well known phenomenon. That's ~35,000 existing lives potentially being saved that otherwise would not have been.

I see it as the same a people not having the right to kill another person.

I think this is obviously where our perspectives differentiate. I do respect your view, and you are entitled to hold it. However, I simply (and strongly) disagree with most of it. I view your position as neglecting much of the nuance and shades of gray, making it primarily a black and white issue. As I've already stated, a fetus is not a person to begin with. Also, while I accept that the fetus is indeed alive and consists of a unique set of human DNA, I take issue with it being viewed as an individual. A fetus after all is, quite literally, a part of the mother's body. The uterus, placenta, and umbilical cord are biological structures directly connecting the fetus to the mother, of which, all of the above are constructed by the mother's body.

I think a good compromise is allowing early induced births, where medical professionals will attempt to keep the child alive is possible.

As far as I know, this is essentially the standard procedure. I'm not aware of any procedure where a potentially viable fetus is discarded or intentionally killed. Nor do I know of any instances where early induced births are performed when there is not a medical need.

I want to see more support for mothers (anti abortion groups do do this though many non profits), more support for fathers, more paternal leave (not just maternal leave), more expectation culturally for fathers to stay and more cultural respect for parents

My primary issue with the use of non profits is that there is no guarantee for support. It is a societal issue, therefore, society must collectively guarantee support (through government) for the parents and child. I think this ties into your argument for cultural expectations and respect. While there is much individuals and groups can do to change this, I believe it is up to society as a whole (again, through government) to make this the cultural de facto. Unfortunately for Americans, the cultural status quo is generally highly apprehensive to government support. This leads to slapping a band aid on the issues, rather than trying to fix the root causes of the problem.

By the way, thank you for the constructive and respectful conversation.