Honesly, I am of a very mixed mind about abortion.

As a humanist, I believe that every individual (though not every POTENTIAL individual) has inalienable rights. That includes mothers, fathers, children, atheists, Islamofascists, etc.

I prefer to use "Individual" instead of "Human" because I believe we need to recognize that many other species of eukaryotes share some similar set of inalienable rights, at least to the point of having a right to NOT be driven into endangered, much less extinct status . . . but that is another thread.

The question then to me boils down to: (a) when does a fetus stop constituting a "potential" individual and start constituting a manifest individual; and (b) how does one reconcile situations where two individuals self-interests may be at odds (as in this case where I think we can agree that it is not necessarly in the best interest of the 11 year old child to give birth to a newborn child, but it is not necessarily in the best interest of the new-born child to be killed before it is born).

Honestly, with respect to (a), I think biology can supply some good answers here. Something like 50 or 60% of all preganancies that initiate terminate spontaneously within about a month or two (I THINK; it might actually be within the first 3 months, female repro is not my specialty; Locus?? got more precise numbers here?). In any event, there is a pretty clear division of pregancy b/w the early phases when many potential-individuals self-abort, and the latter phases where they are much less likely to self-abort, and thus, statistically constitute "manifest-individuals."

IMHO, that is the BASIC (but not absolute) dividing line between a just and unjust abortion, with the caveat of congenital defects which may make even a latter stage fetus unlikely to go to term. A fetus with sufficient congenital defects that it is not likely to survive even when it has made it to 6 or 7 months could arguably still constitute merely a "potential" individual, and not a "manifest" individual.

To summarize: aborting a "potential" individual where not aborting it could result in some harm or hindrance to other individuals (e.g., the mother, or others who are involved) is not only NOT unjust, it is JUST, because it prevents harm, and does little to no harm. Aborting a manifest individual, i.e., one that is likely without any intervention to be born healthy, and to face positive prospects of basic health, is basically (though not absolutely) unjust, much like killing a toddler, infant, juvenile, or adult simply because they are demanding or annoying would be unjust. But note: killing a juvenile who has gone on a school shooting spree, or assassinating an adult like Hitler in 1939 who represents a clear and present danger to the inalienable rights of other individuals mitigates the BASIC unjustness of such acts. Indeed, exactly as aborting a potentially harmful potential-individual fetus can constitute an act of justice, terminating the life of a destructive, or harmful individual can also be just.

This brings us to the (b) item above, how to  reconcile situations where two individuals self-interests may be at odds. In cases like a Hitler, or a school shooter, it is not difficult to reconcile. An unprovoked aggressor which represents clear and present threat to others has forfeited his/her inalienable individual rights. Can a fetus/newborn, which has crossed the dividing line I described above and has become a "Manifest Individual" be held accountable for the potential harm or hindrance they will pose to others?

There is a part of me that would like to say yes. As a social and developmental scientist, I know that most of the world's problems at the macro-scale, emanate from processes at the meso- and micro-scale. By this I mean: troubled mother-child, or more broadly family relations tend to produce troubled individuals. Troubled individuals contribute to troubled societies. Troubled societies contribute to troubled international relations, which is prone to lead to international conflicts, wars, nuclear armaggedon.

So, an unwanted child is not a "no problem" situation. Families (or worse, lone mothers) struggling with unwanted children cumulatively generates more problems for everyone involved, including the larger society, and world. But here we must ask two questions: (i) does the birth of an unwanted child necessarily lead to the upbringing of an unwanted child by the mother/family which is not in a position to act as ideal nor even adequate parents? and (ii) who ultimately should be forced to take responsibility for unwanted child?

First let me answer (ii). I do not think the unwanted child should be forced to take responsibility. First of all, that child was not responsible for its coming in to existence, and it does not really have the capacity to "take responsibility" by any means other than to forfeit its inalienable rights to life. This is what abortion of a manifest individual for the convenience of the mother, family, or society generally constitutes: forcing the child to take responsibility for its being unwanted. This is very convenient, and it allows the status quo of our sick societies to carry on business as usual. From a selfish standpoint of being a man, a creature with an intrinsic drive to conquer as many female vessels as possible, there is an automatic allure to this solution. Much as I'm sure there is a similar allure to this for a female, a creature with an intrinsic drive for gratification, and satiation, no less powerful than those of the male, albeit perhaps somewhat different.

We could therefore conclude that: the parties most immediate to the impending social-developmental crisis are the ones who should be forced to take responsibility: the mother, her partner(s), her parents, her society. In a case like this one where the mother was raped, clearly this is not a fair and equitable solution. But even in other situations where there is some culpability on the part of the mother in the sense of "she got herself pregnant," it is still not really a satisfactory solution because, an 18 year old could very likely be easily seduced into doing something that she might not normally do, let alone an 11 year old.

Even a 30 year old woman can do something stupid. Two wrongs do not make a right, and forcing that 30 year old woman to care for her unwanted manifest individual would constitute a vindictiveness that would not ameliorate, and would only worsen the situation. If she gets an abortion during the early stages during which medical science still cannot fully explain how/why so many fetuses spontaneously abort, that is one thing. But if she has allowed it to progress to the latter stages, it is not really a good solution to tell her "you've made your bed, now sleep in it." We need more and more GOOD, healthy, thriving individuals, and forcing a woman to care for an unwanted child produces not just two more BAD, unhealthy, struggling individuals, but potentially a lot more than just two of them.

Thankfully however, we do not even need to pursue the question of forcing responsibility on the immediate parties any further than that. This is because: there are many, MANY people on our increasingly globalized Earth, who are unable, or unwilling to produce new people, but who very VERY MUCH want the opportunity to nurture, and parent new people. In short, adoption.