So, Neko, I tend to agree with your assessment of the status quo. But what would happen if we all backed away from the table one step and rethought our assumptions? It might look something like this.
1. Stakeholder #1: the fetus will continue to term unless there is an intervention. Therefore, we may say that the fetus "prefers" to continue the pregnancy and will not/cannot take a different initiative that affects the ethical outcome. (A spontaneous abortion is not an initiative.)
2. Stakeholder #2: the woman is subject to conflicting forces, some of which incline her to carry the fetus to term and some of which incline her to terminate the pregnancy.  Since the actual decision is eventually hers, the question is whether the negative factors can (or should be) neutralized.
3. Stakeholder #3: family/society are also conflicted about the pregnancy, desiring to support both fetus and woman. The questions is whether family/society can resolve the conflicts. (More after dinner is cooked...)