Would you erase the abortion storyline in Portrait on Fire?

Absolutely not. I wouldn't change a single thing about the film. Including abortion makes the narrative more than a lesbian romance but more of a catch-all for pre-modern feminine sorority (all of Sciamma's 2010s films explicitly celebrate female solidarity) and feminine determination/agency in a world where that was rare, and it culminates in one of the film's most stunning moments with all those women singing around the bonfire--that wouldn't have been as meaningful if this mini-conflict with Sophie hadn't been overcome because the bonfire scene is meant to be cathartic and celebratory. The abortion plot is intrinsic to the film's language and themes.

as Sciamma describes the scene in a convo with Emily VanDerWerff from Vox:

It's also meaningful that Marianne paints the abortion because Sciamma presents Marianne's painting throughout the film as documentation, in essence women writing their own history, and in this case an image of abortion that can be a consoling source of female solidarity & strength and not something negative or immoral.

i'm not particularly fond of the movie but i think it adds character to it by giving the film a bit of a hang out vibe

Thanks for the clearly laid-out responses (and for the first time Pacinoyes, I don't know what you're talking about at all). I was exhausted last night but now that I've slept on it perhaps I can explain myself better.

I am a little disappointed that Portrait is not the masterpiece it could've been. You know the feeling...one gets mad at films which are 'almost there' way more than straight up garbage movies. I don't remember when was the last time this happened too and this intensely (GoT season 8?)... The first half or so is so compelling, cinematography is so heartrendingly beautiful and performances so precise, one almost gets tempted to place it among the finest of Hitchcock (peeping and falling in love with the work of art) and Bergman (isolated women and their struggles), but then the abortion story line comes up... and the film, after starting so nicely tackling the previous themes starts to throw a hand at one of the hottest trends of the day. The singing bit, although beautiful to listen to, is my least favorite scene of the film...it's concerns become exclusive if not political...and it's not that where I stand on abortion argument personally, just, why should the story include that? Who is the father? why must the child go? Why handled so one-sided? why celebrated? (here the difference with Bergman begins by the way: I forget that I am a man when I'm watching Cries and Whispers. in Portrait I'm reminded that I'm different from this people if not dissed completely. Crazy to think Bergman was, God forbid, a man too.) Some years ago we got The Duke of Burgundy which didn't tie lesbianism with feminism if I recall correctly... and felt all the more progressive for it.

But different times, different artists and concerns... if repression is supposed to be a theme (THE theme maybe, which of course is proper for a tale set in late 18th century: one of the interesting little things being the nod to female painters doing works under their fathers name at the gallery) it was established well enough in the story: the idea
of painting a portrait for Heloise'suitor is gold... but there has to be an obvious, conventional shutout to 'the cause' sisters no?

This all sounds like I was craving the film I wanted to see instead of the path the filmmaker was stepping on (don't we all do this though?) and that's fine but... the unfortunate disconnection remains. Good thing the film becomes involving once it returns to the leads... and come on, the first ending .