I also read this article, and thought the author makes an interesting point and an important counter-narrative to the recovered foetus memory nonsense.
However, and I risk repeating what I argued on the other recent abortion thread, I think the answer to this is not 'it would have been better if my mother had had an abortion', but 'it would have been better if my mother had not suffered domestic violence, not been raped and had recieved the support she needed; and in turn that her mother had recieved the support she needed (as her mother's mother committed suicide)'.
This can easily be read as a generational tale feeding into neoliberal discourses about the cycle of poverty and an underclass who shouldn't be pregnant anyway as they are not fit to be mothers. The article presents a false dichotomy between abortion and a terrible childhood, without asking what society could have done to help her mother, which would have allowed her mother to be a better parent and to keep her child.
In the current climate of benefit and service cuts, I honestly think this type of argument does women no favours at all, because it promotes the idea that what a vulnerable woman needs is an abortion and not (more expensive) help.
The most telling sentence of this article is this one: 'Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society'. It is an economic argument and a dangerous one for women who tend to be the majority sufferers from disadvantage and domestic/sexual violence.