On my world, a magical device known as a Reincarnation Anchor (RA) was invented. The effect of a RA is that any human who spends a significant portion of their life within sight range of a RA becomes subject to reincarnation. Within Sight Range doesn't mean that the RA must be visible, but that the RA is above the horizon of a spherical body the same size and position as the planet. In other words, a mountain can be in the way, but the reincarnation will still work through it as long as it is above the theoretical horizon. Obviously, RAs are located in high places.
Infants need not have spent much time near a RA to have been in its vicinity for a significant portion of their life, and therefore become subject to reincarnation almost immediately. However, someone not born within the area of effect of a RA must spend a significant portion of their life within the area of effect of a RA, the older the person, the longer they must spend there. A "significant amount of time" works out to be around 5% of a person's age.
For purposes of this question, reincarnation works in the following manner:
The transmissible personality, memories skills, knowledge and experiences of a person shall be referred to in this question as a Soul.
During life, the soul develops alongside the body. At death (the moment that the soul's body ceases to be a suitable vessel to hold it, some time after the cessation of all processes of life), the soul becomes separate from the body.
Some time after the death of its previous body, the soul may attach to a newborn member of the same species that is born within sight of a RA. As the newborn matures, the soul progressively integrates with the body and becomes fully integrated at physical maturity. The period of time between death and reincarnation may be as little as a second, or may be many lifetimes, though it is most commonly a relatively short period of time. It may be speculated that one or more 'bad' lives may delay reincarnation, however good lives may also delay reincarnation. There is some correlation between the reincarnation times of a particular soul. Reincarnation is not guaranteed.
Reincarnation may occur in any place that is within sight of a RA.
A reincarnated individual gains the mental skills, knowledge and memories of the soul which attaches to it.
a newborn without a reincarnated soul is not born with a soul of its own, it develops one at some point during adolescence.
The effects of brain injury and/or illnesses such as dementia do not become part of the soul. A soul may be considered to function additively, and has no mechanism for externally applied subtractive processes.
A soul's content degrades slightly between reincarnations. A soul which has reincarnated many times may typically remember roughly ten previous lifetimes, more if the previous lives were short, or less if the previous lives were long. More recent previous lives are more clearly remembered than older lives.
Rarely (on the order of 1 in 100,000 reincarnations), a soul may reincarnate into two newborns simultaneously (taking lightspeed delays into consideration). Such duplicate reincarnations lead to two separate souls, the souls do not become one again after the death of both of the bodies.
Where the species' population numbers are rising, there will be many newborns who are not born with a reincarnated soul. Where the species' population numbers are constant or falling, more newborns will have reincarnated souls, to the point where a newborn without a reincarnated soul is very rare.
All humans have souls, not only those whose reincarnation will be facilitated by a RA.
An individual may choose to reject reincarnation by performing a ritual of unbinding, and moving out of sight range of a RA.
So, the question is:
Is it reasonable that a society (as in a majority of its inhabitants, >50%) might reject reincarnation because it would perpetuate a lack of respect for human life, that when it is known that death is not permanent, killing can become the first answer to many difficult problems?
To those who think that this question is opinion-based, I would agree. It is all about public opinion, therefore all opinions are relevant, and the most upvoted would obviously be the most relevant. How can WB SE allow questions on [social norms] which are all about public opinion without soliciting opinions? The thing that makes the answerers' opinions relevant are the votes each may attract.