OK, a serious post...
Abortion is a never ending debate, as you have all shown here.
On the one hand, anti-abortionists are not interested in forcing their beliefs on others (as most people would like to believe) but instead trying to protect the life growing inside the womb. Their theory is simply that the act of sex (if consentual) led to the pregnancy and now an innocent 3rd party is not being given a chance at life. This is hard for me to really agree with (me=pro-choice) but they are giving a point that you cannot argue with.
For the other side, it's a matter of choice, the choice to be free to control a woman's body regardless of it contents. The right to end a pregnancy is a liberty that they believe is based on the principles of our country (see KSig RC's comments). To impose a law against abortion is infringing on their rights to have an abortion.
I'm biased so I follow the pro-choice model because I believe a person is free, and once you place restrictions (any no matter how small or big) then you are hitting a slippery slope that adds religious problems to the law. You wouldn't want someone to make a law that violates your religious beliefs, and this same issue is found in Roe v. Wade.
As far as the protection of an unborn fetus goes, until they breathe air they aren't a citizen with protections yet. The question of viability (when is a fetus able to survive on its own) is very complex and impossible to draw a line until birth. While the thought of killing potential life is morally wrong and has its merits in the anti-abortion cause, we really can table that argument for now. This world has worse atrocities being committed everyday, and we kill people for lesser things. Plus, I just can't get myself to support the hardcore anti-abortionists when they think a rape victim doesn't derserve to abort the fruits of that crime.
Man, where is that euthanasia debate thread now
RUgreek