A lot of the questions about abortion actually are pretty much consensus views when it comes to scientific evidence.

The problem is more that we won't allow ourselves to pose questions of fact about the world and think about the answers when it comes to abortion. But we should. And philosophers should be first in line pointing out which parts are questions of fact and which are not (ethical assumptions, for instance).

For instance, if we give some examples of persons and non-persons that we all agree with, we can ask science: is a fertilized egg this type of person? And we will be told, for almost any set of examples: no, it is not a person in that sense. And we can give some examples of newborns and declare these to be persons and ask: okay, is this unborn child at week 39 a person? And we will be told: yes, it is a person in that sense (save for a different sensory experience).

Science might not be able to tell us whether infanticide is okay, but it can tell us whether a newborn and about-to-be-born baby are the same kind of creature, so that we don't draw counterfactual distinctions without being cognizant of them.