Wood believes that because women will have abortions anyway, we might as well make it safe and legal. Her argument assumes that the fetus to be aborted is nothing more than a piece of tissue. If she is right and the fetus is no more human than an ingrown toenail then her argument is valid. However, if she is wrong and the fetus is more than merely a "product of conception," then the issue really is moral, rather than economic.
Moreover, her insistance on the killing of unborn babies as a solution to society's problems is, in a word, wrong. The fetus, at the moment of conception, is an individual, distinct from either the mother or the father. It has its own set of chromosomes, which determines its identity for the rest of its life. Who the "fetus" is and will be is completely determined from the moment of conception.
In conclusion, a mentality that can allow a human life to be discarded simply because it is "inconvenient" (i.e. causing economic and social difficulties) is, in my opinion, barbaric.