I supported it on grounds of "health of the mother, incest, rape" but it was actually Seamus Coughlin's repeated assertion that you don't abort in "health of the mother"; you perform an operation that is intended to save the mother's life, but MAY lead to the ACCIDENTAL death of the child that ended up swaying my opinion.

Phrasing and intentions change everything in this case: Aborting the child to save the mother means an intention to kill the child; unacceptable.

Incest I'm still shaky on, rape I'm also a little shaky on due to the trauma of childbirth on a girl or woman's body, but a child of incest is the single most difficult thing to overcome.

With rape, adoption is an option and some mothers may prefer to keep the child anyway. The adoption system has its own awful, awful problems (and child trafficking) but at least the child has a fighting chance.

With a child of incest, the question of viability as a species comes into play: their DNA often ends up damaged, and even if it doesn't present within one generation it could present in a future generation.

I would love for someone who has specifically gone down this rabbit hole to give unbiased information to sway me one way or other on this specific instance.

Jumping back to the top though: Seamus' core argument essentially boiled down to "we can't make moral or legal arguments based on a very small minority of people in relation to the majority", and that has resonated. I didn't articulate that very well, I'll possibly come back later and trim this post.