As I stated, nobody could ever know because we are non-transcendent. You are talking about natural evil, things such as tsunamis and tornadoes that kill people, without other people being involved.
Unfortunately, there is a widespread delusion that God’s purpose in creating this world was to craft us a nice little terrarium where nothing bad ever happens. Unfortunately it may be the case that for God’s will to be carried out, we must live in a world saturated by evil.
In a world without God however, the baby you describe really has no objective moral value anyway. It has no soul, it is simply organic matter, no more valuable than a piglet or a caterpillar, as Richard Dawkins has described unborn babies. It really is a little self-refuting to deny God and then seem to mourn the suffering and death of other living creatures. Would you weep for a dead frog? If not, then why weep for a dead child? In a world in which only the natural exists, neither is more valuable than the other. You’re simply projecting your own delusion of moral value that doesn’t exist. Both are simply the product of biological reproduction, in the same cycle of life and death. It is all meaningless.
So the foetus was conceived and then aborted without anyone being aware as part of some divine plan? You contradict yourself when you claim at one instance that “every soul has a purpose” and then simultaneously state / imply that some don’t get a chance to fulfil that “purpose” because it is a “fallen” world.
The lion cannot survive without the antelope being mauled to death. The “fallen” state is the default condition.