What you are implying is twofold, and either way the argument fails to reach the level of a normative theory, because both views, objective and subjective has to present a thesis, before proceeding. The normative implies just that, a normal interpretation of the problem at hand.
What normal is, here, depends on definitions of normalcy, for both: the mother and the new born. What constitutes a human being, what is the normal level of pain and suffering, even if, by an admission the mother can initially be considered normal?
Lastly, can normalcy in both regards, be better be constituted by a paradigm shift, from a more ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ criteria.
I think I can safely say that for various reasons, the foremost on my mind is your critique of non down to earth speculation.
Then on the level of typology the requirement of defining objectivity versus subjectivity places a n appearent barrier to further insight into the real meaning of abortion.
It is very well to leave them -the concepts where they are, and have a discussion about abortion based on reified concepts, but are not such ideas basically fluid and changing?
This is why there is a tendency for those seeking deep seated psychological places, to set the thesis of argument, (in this case-objective & subjective) and try to fathom the depth: as in case of the Freud/Jung approach innanalysis.
The point relevant here, is that Jung had the courage to get into the depths of the psyche by adopting the vernacular of that region of consciousness. Freud could not, he was much too conventional.
I bring this, with the idea, that hopefully no one on these boards is compelled to reject, or exclude various regions, by virtue of the quality of the vernacular. The culprit is modern communication, where absolute notions such as subjectivity and objectivity are still used within conventional rhetoric.
As a consequence, modern stream of consciousness, may still hold together, and metaphor needs to excavate meaning, from the outside, from extrinsic sources. These may very well have some connections to the reactions one’s own body exhibits to them
The measurement of the divide is impossible at any rate, and that is meant to imply no negation of the divide, but only that the divide is hidden.
The Dasein, really, is hidden, and practical applications do not recover it’s meaning, in specifics.
It is a general, universally constant, which involves and contains all possible pertinant action.
Covered here are all values, good and bad, where moral choice is made at the time of specific application.