To be fair, I believe there are valid reasons to make an exception in the case of rape.

Rape victims are different because they don’t have the earlier choices that most women do. Moreover, to force a rape victim to go through the additional ordeal of having the offspring of her attacker grow, daily, inside her--and in its own way, take over her body just as surely as the rapist did--would simply be too cruel.

I also believe there could be exceptions in cases of incest--this time, more to preemptively spare the offspring from genetic calamity. However, as gains are made in genetic analysis, perhaps we may be able to foretell the child's   health with sufficient accuracy to enable many non-threatened fetuses to be carried to term.

What about the issue that abortion advocates often raise about unwanted children's bleak life prospects in general? To my way of thinking, this case simply doesn’t hold up. The demand for adoption of certain types of babies is so strong, and the screening processes are consequently so thorough, that these children can actually look forward to having better homes and more loving parents than the norm.  

At the very least, advocates for abortion should be willing to require some sort of evidence that a baby is not adoptable before society is willing to let its life be ended.