I do tend to hold to those two absolutes but I add a layer, so I'm open to adding another. My normal is:

1) Is a fetus a human? Modifier: at what point is this the case?
2) If human, is there a reasonable duration and degree of risk/burden to which a person - as the sole person able to do so - can be expected to endure to preserve another's life?

So your point, re: consequences, would I think factor in on #2. My issue is that #2 is essentially the 'burden' aspect. The continuing problem is that the burdens are mostly psychological - all too real - but still in the mind. A degree of harm sufficient to tip the scales is also, I'd think, almost by definition sufficient to rightly declare that person not of sound mind where the decision is being made. Where a significant physical risk is involved, we enter the realm of triage anyway, so only in the case of a relatively normal pregnancy does the psychological damage come into play.

Yet to utilize this argument someone must first acknowledge that a fetus is a human, or is very probably so, or it's an irrelevant point. At this, we now have a human life who will have their fate decided by a person who's justification is not without merit but is also the book definition of why we do not let individuals end others lives without a reasonable threat of imminent danger to themselves or others that isn't present here.
Not just that pregnant women who want abortions are legally incompetent by definition (though I would not say that too loudly either,) but that

If #1 is "No" then the reason given for an abortion is irrelevant. If Yes then it's a human, and a case has to be made for ending their life. Placing that decision in the hands strictly of someone who's case is that the pregnancy itself is traumatic to them violates the very core of our legal and ethical system. We can certainly say, of someone who took personal steps to end the pregnancy, that there were mitigating circumstances, none would deny it is traumatic, but that same logic cuts counter to the idea that they can make the decision and others may follow it. I can kill someone in a rage or in a state of insanity, temporary or not, and receive a lower punishment then a premeditated act committed in a reasonable sound frame of mind. I can't kill someone who someone not of sound mind has dragged before me claiming is a murderer or rapist or what have you. Their emotional state doesn't excuse me doing it. So the case for a tangible difference would seem to boil down to the idea that we wouldn't prosecute a rape victim for premeditated murder trying to end - successfully or not - a pregnancy. Not because the abortion was just or okay, but because they might be deemed temporarily insane. But again, this whole line of reasoning seriously damages their standing as a legitimate decision maker and only functions in the context of an assumption of personhood anyway. Thus it pretty much eliminates them using a doctor for the process, as they certainly are under no obligation, nor legal or ethical protection, to end another's life at the behest of someone else who can't be said to have that person's best interests in mind and be particularly raitonal themselves... and if they are rational, then I have difficulty seeing the case for severe emotional trauma sufficient to justify the death as self-defense.