Because every individual case is different, it is difficult to formulate a hard-and-fast optimum and universally applicable way to resolve the abortion issue as the U.S. Supreme Court has sought to do.
The best thing that can be said about the Court's venture into deciding a moral and political question as a legal one is that the consequences of its efforts are arguably no worse than were produced by its Dred Scott ruling in 1857-- though, it bears noting that Roe vs. Wade already has resulted in far more corpses than did the Civil War . . . and the Roe decision's death toll is continuing to climb.
The difficulty in reconciling the starkly opposing views on the issue is compounded by the fact that extremists on both sides dominate the debate. They and media reports on the subject use euphemistic terms to obstruct a clear understanding of the issue rather than clear, simple, and accurately descriptive language about it.
For whatever it is worth, a recent essay has made an admirable effort -- without coming to a conclusion on the issue itself -- at cutting through the commonly used miasmatic verbiage to clarify the issue and the actual positions of the contending adversaries on it. The essay is the best thing that your torn blogger has found on the subject to date. It can be accessed by clicking here.