Here are some chilling insights into this premise from Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College:
"
Of course they do not limit their argument for “post-birth abortion” to cases where the child has some serious physical defect—although they clearly champion such cases as a key reason for justifiable execution of infants. Nor do they solely rely on the argument that the child’s life would “not be worth living”—as if any human being could adequately assess such a standard.
They point out that such considerations place far too great a reliance on the interests of the child who is being killed. Let’s not think about the baby being killed—we have to think about the parents and family who are being asked to raise this child. It is their interests that should be paramount.
The newborn child is a “non-person” in the lexicon of these professors. Only those who have reached a level of development that renders them “capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” In other words, since the child doesn’t understand their own existence and worth, they can be killed before they are capable of such self-aware thoughts.
Having labeled them as non-persons, the argument proceeds to the ultimate conclusion that it is the interest of “persons” that should prevail."
And note how "society" could come in to play--
On the other hand, not only aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.
“You are messing up my plans.”
“You are incapable of sophisticated thought. Therefore, I can kill you.”
“My life and not yours is ‘the prevailing consideration.’” "
If we follow that to its logical end, society itself should be considered in deciding whether or not a child's life should continue...
"We think your family already has too many children."
"We just cannot afford to add to the government's health care rolls at this time. So although you (the child) could live a normal life after an expensive heart operation, it isn't possible to pay for that now."
"Although our nation happens to have negative population increase, there's overpopulation in X nation, so we must avoid adding your life to the world."
Perhaps that's overkill...but as far as knowing this will never take place here, I believe that's what my grandparents would have said about abortion itself.
I'll leave you with one final thought from Dr. Farris:
"Perhaps the most perverse argument of all is the one employed by these professors to address the issue of adoption. Women often suffer from self-doubt and regret, they argue, when they give their baby up for adoption. And true, some women have such reactions to having aborted their child. But, with an adoption there is always the nagging feeling that the decision could be reversed—giving the woman a distressing lack of closure, wondering if her child will ever return. Some women, they conclude, would rather be rid of this lingering doubt. Death is final. Adoption is not. Better to be done with “it” once and for all."
Come, Lord Jesus!
ps- Thank you, postwar, for bravely sharing your story! My sister and best friend had an abortion as a teen, not long after it had been legalized (2 years later). She almost bled to death at home afterward, and had a difficult time receiving God's forgiveness 10 and 15 years later. 
For me, she puts a human face on the suffering of woman who've endured this "choice". I am for you!