Every diary on abortion that I've seen here misses the point, IMO, including
this one.
The people who are pushing to ban abortion and certain kinds of birth control are doing it because they see human life as beginning at the moment of conception. They believe they're preventing the murder of human beings. No arguments about the quality of life of the mother or the child can overcome this fundamental point. That's why prolifers contemptuously talk about abortion in terms of it being a "convenience." It's also why they will allow an exemption in the specific case cited:
that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
They grant an exemption here because the pregnancy will result in the death of the mother.
Where a choice has to be made - the life of the child or the life of the mother - in that case and in that case alone, the life of the mother can be chosen instead. Cases of incest or rape are all horribly unfortunate, but irrelevant in this view.
The key to winning this issue, IMO, is not just to draw a line in the sand and aggressively differentiate (Lincoln 1860 strategy), but to differentiate on the basis of when human life begins. Prolifers say human life begins at conception. It's not that they don't see the social and personal burdens that arise from ending access to abortion, it's just that these are of lesser weight when balanced against what they see as murder.
I believe the key to framing this issue has to be in drawing the line as to where human life begins. Prolifers say it's at conception. Hardline prochoicers say it's at the moment of birth. My understanding is that the law as presently written avoids taking a firm stand on this question. It suggests that up to the end of the first trimester the fetus is not a human life and therefore abortion is a personal medical issue; that for the last trimester the fetus is at least a quasi human life and therefore should be subject to broader legal regulation; the middle trimester is a battleground between the two ends of the spectrum, with "viability" the moving line of demarcation, with medical advances always pushing that line earlier.
Many people who don't like abortion but aren't religious fanatics pick up on the legal waffling on this point and go with the least harm principle: if a fetus is a human being, it's more important not to kill a human being than to inconvenience a woman. That's why prolifers keep hitting the inconvenience meme. It works for them with people who haven't really thought the issue through.
We need to be able to reach all those people who haven't or can't wrestle through all the ethical and moral issues but who tend to act on the least harm principle. We need to remove the fudging from this as a legal and philosophical issue and state clearly where we believe human life begins, or where it begins to be an authentic legal consideration. Viability is the natural point. If the issue is stated this way, the general population will come down on our side of the issue.