It's not about a "child"

Right from the start Grazie Christie makes it pretty clear that nothing resembling a legitimate argument will be forthcoming. The whole piece is just a series of logical fallacies strung together. Relying on the idea that having a doctorate with experience in radiology qualifies Christie as an expert in virtually all aspects of both medicine and ethics is a sickening use of the argument from authority. It’s also quite bogus. Christie's abuse of even basic terminology makes it obvious that facts mean nothing to this asshole. The title itself,"Abortion is about a child, not a choice", does a pretty good job revealing as much. 

No, it is quite literally not about a child. By definition it cannot be about a child.
According to the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary a children are:
"noun (children)

1.a boy or girl between birth and physical maturity.

2.one’s son or daughter.

3.someone lacking experience or understanding in something an absolute child in financial matters.

4.derogatory an innocent or naive person.

5.someone seen as a typical product of a particular historical period, movement, etc He was a child of his time."

Yet, according to the Collins Dictionary of Medicine an abortion is:

"Loss of the FETUS before it is able to survive outside the womb (UTERUS). The term abortion covers accidental or spontaneous ending, or MISCARRIAGE, of pregnancy as well as deliberate termination, whether for medical reasons or as a criminal act. At least 1 in 10 pregnancies ends in abortion, the great majority of these being spontaneous. Deliberate termination of pregnancy is called induced abortion. When this is legal it is called ‘therapeutic abortion’. Abortion may be performed legally under certain circumstances and in approved hospitals or clinics. Two doctors, who have seen the patient, must agree that continuation of the pregnancy would be detrimental to her or her baby, or her existing children's, physical or mental health. The term derives from the Latin aborior, to set, as of the sun."

In order to be a child you have to be born. The only reason to conflate a fetus for a child is to appeal to people's emotions. this is a tactic Christie uses repeatedly. The unverifiable anecdotes used are also meant to play with people's emotion in the hope that they won't notice that there is no real substance. 

Of course, Christie also glosses over pesky details like the fact that the overwhelming number of abortion are spontaneous naturally occurring ones. So if people are immoral have choosing abortion doesn't that make God an immoral sadistic asshole? I really don't uinderstand why CNN bothered with this poorly written piece of shit even in their opinion section. It's the same crap the "moderate" anti-abortionists routinely pen. There is nothing even remotely resembling insight or arguments worth spending any time on.

"Abortion: Whose Religious Beliefs Should Prevail?"

The answer to the question posed in Georgette Bennett's HuffPo piece, "Abortion: Whose Religious Beliefs Should Prevail?", seems both very clear and obvious to me; no one's. When it comes to medical questions, and she is talking about abortion in both a medical and religious context, no one's religion should be allowed to interfere in other people's care. If, as an adult, an individual wants to either confer or defer to religious doctrines when making medical decisions for themselves they have that right. However, they should never been allowed to enforce their highly subjective religious views on other people in any context and escpecially not in a medical one. It should also not be allowed to be the sole basis of any laws or public policies.

Most of what Bennnett writes about is completely irrelevant and relies almost entirely on the assumption that religious beliefs should automatically come into play when making medical decisions. In other words, it's laced with bullshit.