Unrelated issues. In all this you presume to have the right to make decisions for other people who will then have to live with the consequences...of your decisions.
Take your assumption that couples assume the risk of YOUR morals when they decide to get pregnant. Why should they pay any attention to your morals? You pay no price for imposing on them, they pay the price and get no assistance from you. They would be foolish indeed to give any weight to your thoughts.
If a genetic test shows that their wanted child will have genetic problems you are not going to help foot the bills, economic, emotional, familial. If their wanted child dies in utero and the mother needs an abortion, one that doctors now fear to perform because of intrusive and punitive laws, you aren't going to help in any way with the injury and even death that she now risks.
You believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child, many others do not. Why do you get to dictate whose beliefs are written into law? If you can write your moral standards into law then why can't they? In our country it is constitutionally prohibited to write laws that depend on religious beliefs or teachings for their basis...actually the Supreme Court has a "rational basis" standard which holds that all laws must be entirely justifiable on rational grounds.
Everyone who commits to rationally seeking the truth is capable of judging what is true and good for themselves, and no other person. I can construct a rational and scientific argument why teaching children that masturbation is disordered will harm those children...I can't prevent the Catholic church from teaching that benighted belief.
You presume to judge for others, to decide what is "objectively wrong" in your opinion, and then feel you have the right to impose your opinion on them with the force of law.
This difficulty, the inability to discern between your opinions and "objective truth" is common among people who confuse irrational beliefs, often religious, with objective truths.
Science can establish with some degree of certainty things that are objectively true, religion can not.
Take your confusion about the way I value "life on earth". All life on earth is interdependent. Humans are ENTIRELY dependent on natural systems for survival. Placing human life on a higher level than natural systems is suicidal. If those systems don't survive then neither will humanity.
So no, there is no rational comparison of cutting down a tree to cutting down a human. Cut enough trees down and all of humanity is in mortal peril. As science has demonstrated, over populate the carrying capacity of a range and population collapse is inevitable. This is an actual rational truth.
On the other hand, reduce the human population to near zero and the natural systems that support all life, including humanity, and those systems will thrive.
In rational truth, humanity is an invasive species that now threatens to kill the very natural systems on which it depends for life itself. In rational truth, learning to control its population and its impact on the natural world, including most emphatically the ants and bees which allow that system to function, is a moral act of self preservation, as well as a values decision recognizing the relative contributions of both insects and humans to the support systems on which both rely.
