Yes, but this is pretty well-covered material in moral philosophy. Generally the arguments are from divine essence (i.e. supernatural, evidence-free), where the quality is irrelevant; and the rest depend on the properties, and/or can't sensibly be applied when the targets aren't (self-)conscious people.

Feel free to introduce a good argument that doesn't depend on personhood if you can find one. I wasn't trying to rehash the field of moral philosophy here.

For example, under consequentialist frameworks you generally try to maximize some sort of happiness/satisfaction metric over all people. This is generally nonsensical if you try to average in everyone arbitrarily far into the future, but also is pretty horrific if you don't take the future into account at all. So you generally have the certainty of the woman being of lowered happiness (otherwise, presumably, she wouldn't be seeking an abortion) offset by the potential happiness but also the potential misery of a child unwanted by their mother. Other siblings may also be negatively affected. Without any better information, one should expect that the woman is in the best position to judge whether actually the outcome is better. So you should at least very heavily lean towards her wishes at least until the fetus might be said to have wishes on its own. Then it gets more complicated. But early on, clearly, the woman gets priority.

As another example, Kant's Categorical Imperative invites you, approximately, to imagine yourself randomly assigned to any other conscious being and ask: after you're reassigned, do you still endorse the action you're about to undertake? In order to not get insensible results when transported into rocks and mosquitos and stuff, you kind of need to restrict it to sentient beings (or something). The fetus isn't even in the running for consideration, and the woman is. She wins.

Another example is the rule-based ethics about avoiding harm (justified by harm being unpleasant). But the fetus doesn't experience harm until it has the capacity to have experiences, while the woman certainly does. So, same answer again.

You can keep going, but I have yet to find anything where (1) you can even consider the fetus at all, and (2) its future needs outweigh the mother's. (Assuming normal civilized society. In a post-apocalyptic future where we're facing extinction, answers might differ.)