Beyond the general "How could a benevolent deity make a Universe with so much misfortune and suffering?" thing which you doubtless already know the stock answers to and are unlikely to get any good fresh ones. Though I'll give it a try in a minute, first:

Clarification, while technically miscarriage is a subset of abortion the two are generally used to mean accidental vs intentional and deliberate termination of a pregnancy by the mother. The Bruce Effect would be a miscarriage under either definition, there's no reason to think the mouse consciously decides to end her pregnancy.

So the Bruce Effect adds nothing new to the conversation since we already knew miscarriages happened and that many creatures in nature take actions that result in the death of their offspring, including outright killing and eating them. Nor is it a recent or obscure bit of knowledge, common farmers have kept chickens for millennium and a regular problem is hens eating their own eggs. Which is a considerably better example of an intentional abortion than the one you offered.

Now as to your point, the problem is you were dreadfully unclear about it. Not trying to be a dick here. I've had sometimes where I thought I had a deep or profound question or thought only to realize it wasn't or that I'd botched the delivery and no one got my point and not because they were being dense.

Assuming you are just asking about the problem of evil, which you could have cut out the whole mouse bit and abortion controversy problem since it isn't like any of us needed an example of bad stuff to accept there was suffering, the answers are many and various. I'll give you my preferred one, which is probably not original but at least I know of no one having mentioned it to me before.

God is perfect and infinite, or near enough. He knows all and sees all in existence and has no body of any relevance. So whereas if I copy someone, clone them, I have now made two divergent beings, this does not apply to God. Make another me, even a perfect copy, and our inputs no longer match and we experience different things. That doesn't work for Him, because He experiences everything, He sees all. So a God-copy would be identical to him and further, since They have no material body, and react identically, They are effectively indistinguishable and a very strong argument could be made that They are still a singular entity. That God is indivisible.

So He can't create other perfect entities and thus has to go the route of imperfect ones to make other people. At that point suffering as part of learning and experience is pretty much necessary, unless one assumes wisdom can be attained without experiencing sadness, pain, loss, etc. But He says "Don't worry over much, this too will pass, this life is an eyeblink and the life hereafter is good, etc, etc" and this is as far as he can take it without interfering in free will and the experience over all and its ability to create unique individuals who don't have identical experiences either, plus suffering is a relative commodity anyway.

One could argue that He does interfere, but I think the counter-argument would be a researcher putting forty people in a room. He could do and say nothing, but more likely he'll accelerate and guide things a bit more generally by introduce the basic point and interrupting when necessary. e.g. he puts out a plate of 57 cookies with 40 people and says they must all get their fair share, or the fairest share possible, without dividing any cookies.

People then, without his interruption, debate the meaning of 'fair share', some arguing the 17 largest should get the extra 17 cookies, some arguing that the 17 skinniest should, or the 17 youngest, some declining a cookie on the grounds they don't want one and wish to give theirs to another, some counter arguing that they may forfeit their cookie but do not get to pick who gets it, them counter-countering that once the group decides what constitutes fair share the groups authority ends and nothing said they could not stomp on it or give it away rather than eating it.

The researcher watches on with studious care but has informed them they will not be kept in this prison indefinitely since otherwise some might opt to engage in preemptive murder and cannibalism. this is interference. Ditto he pops in and replaces the cookies with new ones when someone accidentally knocks the platter over and he feels the experiment would be disrupted if the cookies were no longer deemed appetizing by some. This time he used 59 cookies of different sizes and types to mix things up, now that the subjects have already gotten the most basic and obvious thoughts on the experiment out in the open for discussion.

Many would say the experiment was cruel, and to a degree it is, but not as much as having left them trapped in there with limited air for instance. If it were too easy, say exactly 40 cookies and a ten minute experiment followed by ample cookies and coffee, then very little would likely be accomplished in terms of deep thought because 'everybody gets one' would be far too obvious and easy, anybody suggesting that merit or need or group survivability would be shot down as needlessly complicating things for no good pressing reason.

Is that a good answer? Well obviously I think so, it satisfies me even if not entirely quenching my thirst, so to speak, and it seems as good as any other I've heard.