Nickhere...even those who agree with you as to the scriptural source of the "dominion" quote have differences about its interpretation. Some wish to allow almost unlimited hunting and fishing, while others want to allow 'only the minimum required to sustain life' ...which has led to unusual stances...such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with often contradictory rules of behavior and various defenses of vegetarianism. Some will not eat animals for supposed health reasons, some for perceived religious reasons (Jainism) and some simply because of what a friend of mine once called 'BBES'....Big Brown Eyes Syndrome.

I am absolutely confident that many who oppose ALL abortion begin emotionally with the equivalent of BBES, then adopt religious concepts to justify their stance and avoid it seeming arbitrary.
Now...please understand, I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty or outright Gerrymandering of the conscience in this. Most are sincere and feel they have made a perfectly natural connection - but it IS difficult for many of us to see the causal factors in our own motivations. (We might admit it regarding choosing the color to paint the kitchen, but not about 'serious' matters.)

I'm not sure the above is the best I could do to make my point...which is: Since there ARE such wide divergences in opinion and perceived justification FOR opinion, we must allow some pretty broad tolerances in law for consideration of issues of marriage customs, sexual preferences, abortion etc. This will upset those who feel the need for simple, tidy, one-rule-fits-all answers to complex questions, but true fairness requires something like that....and yes, I do know some problems in determining which situations can be treated as I propose...... it really ain't easy.