Some questions about the abortion question

All of this talk about Rudy Giuliani's position on abortion and the fact that he changed it from anti to pro when he ran for mayor of New York City (see this New York Times piece) and now seems to be drifting back toward the anti position started me thinking about the whole issue and I came up with a couple of questions.

Some people want to overturn Roe v Wade and throw the entire issue back to the states were it was before Roe. If this were to happen then some states would allow unrestricted access to abortion, some would outlaw it all together and most would allow it, but with some restrictions.

My questions are these:

Is the above scenario acceptable? What is the difference between each state having its own policy on abortion and each state having its own policy on slavery? If the Negro in South Carolina before the Civil War was just as "human" and therefore just as deserving of all the protections of the Constitution and the ideals of the American founding as the Negro of New York then why is not the unborn child of New York just as deserving of the protection of the law as the unborn child of Utah?

Here is the other question. Most people who favor restricting abortion would allow an exception in cases of rape and incest. Is this moral? The Constitution of the United States specifically disallows the concept of the "corruption of blood". This means that it is unconstitutional to hold the children responsible for the crimes of their parents (as was sometimes done in Europe). The argument for the rape/incest exception would be that the mother did not become pregnant through any choice of her own and should not be forced to endure the resulting pregnancy.

This makes sense, except that if we are to take it as a legal principle then we are saying that the rights of the mother are categorically more important than the rights of the child and in that case what business do we have placing ANY restrictions on her "right to choose"?

The same can be said in the case of abortion due to the child having some defect such as Downs Syndrome or Spina Bifida. Since we do not euthanize persons who have made it out of the womb who suffer from these conditions then why should we kill children in the womb who have them? To allow these unfortunate individuals to be killed just because they have not yet exited the birth canal again implies some categorical difference in our perception of the humanity of an unborn child. And again if we make that distinction why then do we tolerate any restrictions on abortion at all?

In short I believe that the only positions on abortion which are logically and morally consistent and defensible are either complete prohibition (except when the mother's life is in danger because we all retain an absolute right to use deadly force in self defense) or no restrictions whatsoever except for minors who should have to obtain the same parental consent for an abortion that they would for any other medical procedure.