A fetus is a fetus is a fetus
The view of a liberal European agnostic is that life and death decisions cannot be left to any religion, because that would inevitably imply discrimination of those with other convictions. We are all for the strict separation of church and state, or religion and politics.
Inherent in all religions is that they consider themselves to be the best, if not the only way to salvation (relativism is the death of religion), which implies that they consider their own views in these matters to be superior to those of others and thus feel that they have a right, or moral obligation, to impose their views upon others for their own good.
Liberals and Agnostics on the other hand consider that anyone should have the greatest possible liberty to decide for themselves, so that all creeds and convictions can be equally free in their expression. The only limits imposed by the law should be of practical and rational nature.
As mentioned by others, in times when medical science had not progressed very far, there was no talk of a child until it had been seprated physically from its mother, and it did not officially exist as a human being until it had been baptised (or otherwise ritually presented to and accepted by the community). The progress in medical science has made it possible to separate a child from its mother at points in its development when it is in fact unfit for survival, but with the aid of science (no god in the machine) they can be kept alive and carried to the point where they can be separated, not from their mother but from the machine.
I propose that we return to the old definition of a child in a rewording which also covers the possibilities offered by modern science: A fetus does not legally become a child until it has been separated physically from the body of its mother
and is able to maintain heartbeat and respiration and body temperature independent of machinery. So up to that point the decisions concerning the fetus are entirely up to the expectant mother and/or the doctor in charge.
The question of a soul is totally irrelevant in this matter considering that it is a religious concept, which is not universally recognised, and for which no empirical evidence can be produced (DNA tests will reveal possible genetic defects, but not the presence/absence of a soul).
Finally, in this overpopulated world, I consider that any conviction that seeks unbridled increase of the human population is irrational and a threat to the survival of the human race. But then again, survival of the human race is irrelevant to the religious extremists, who are only concerned with the survival of the human soul (whatever that may be), and some actually long for the end of the world, because they believe they are the chosen ones and will be rewarded for following the only true path to the only true salvation by the only true god.
(In fact, some fanatics are so eager to see themselves proven right, that they can't wait for armageddon (past predictions as to the date have unfortunately proved to be rather unreliable) and kill themselves, taking a short-cut to bliss as they see it, which is of course a way to reduce human population pressure so I cannot condemn that, so long as they do not impose their self-chosen fate on others, like the suicide/martyr bombers of late.)
). There are members of my family and friends who are religious, in that they are Christians or Buddhists. Others are atheists and anarchists (please don't ask me to explain anarchy! I couldn't answer with any sense). 
