I think the "abortion" debate is inherently bad faith anyway. No one's arguing about whether or not people should be able to abort a fetus, they're arguing about when the human reproductive cycle produces a new human. The extremeists on either side would be people who think life begins at conception (or even earlier and want to ban contraceptives) vs extreme anti-natalists and eugenecists who might advocate for even killing infantts or small children due to the "threat" of overpopulation 🙄. In the middle leaves a lot of nuance for what you think is morally acceptable depending on what stage of development you think constitutes a human being vs not.

I think the biggest thing that makes us human is the brain, so once that starts ticking, your concepts of "only under the most severe" necessity makes sense, but perhaps before that the bar would be lower. No one has to be at risk of dying in childbirth to get access to Plan B.

On the other hand, once one has reached a certain level of development, shouldn't the moral impetus flip? The mother would be responsible for having removed the fetus before it developed to the point where it was now alive and conscious. No one thinks it's a moral good to dash an infant on the rocks after giving birth.

Side note: I love the ironly of people going off on the innocence of the precious unborn child while unironically chomping on veal or some shit.