No, that's why a cost/benefit analysis should be performed to see if abortion benefits society. My intuition tells me that abortion probably does benefit society, but I don't know that for sure.
Yea, that's not in support of personal freedoms and choice. That is collectivism in the extreme. "Do it because it benefits society." But that is the basic truth of how the world works. SOMEBODY is going to make that judgment call based on whatever criteria they want, and it is either society as a whole that decides what they value (based upon very basic, primal principles of "like and dislike", common appraisals for most human beings) and what direction they want, or it is a minority of the population with power and influence over the direction of society that makes that decision and sets the trend. Society/the collective doesn't "decide' anything, it just reacts unintelligent, like a reflex that causes your arm to move away from a hot stove. Powerful thinking individuals provide intelligent direction for the rest of society. This dovetails nicely with my earlier points on controlling society, and that other thread about social control.
Whether people like to think it or not, the individual is controlled and influenced by everyone else in society, and it is those with enough ability to think outside of it who raise themselves above the fray, and exercise influence as an individual upon the collective (i.e. politicians, corporate execs, bankers). The collective follows because the individuals it is comprised of don't have the will, the knowledge, or the ability to truly rise above collective intelligence and maintain their individual subsistence by impressing their view of reality upon the population at large. That is the social order of man.
As it applies to abortion, it means that we can continue to argue and argue amongst ourselves about whether its good or bad, right or wrong, until those with power set the standard once and for all. There have been many groups in society who have succeeded in asserting that abortion is good and happy, but those groups haven't succeeded in influencing enough of the population. Once a critical mass of people are under the influence of such beliefs, the debate will meet a quiet demise. That will happen if someone comes and grants the population a new "pragmatic" perspective on the issue, by looking at the overall economic benefits (or not) to society, as Lat suggested.