Abortion is one of those subjects where a mutually satisfying consensus is impossible to achieve because neither side is willing to give an inch - on one end we have people who want to refuse abortions to rape and incest victims, on the other we have people perfectly comfortable with the concept of aborting a child 5 minutes before its due date - neither stance is reasonable and both sides will defend their point of view to the death.
Overall I'm leaning towards the Pro life side of the argument - I think abortion, in the gross majority of cases, is murder for convenience. That being said, there are several exceptions from the general rule, for instance the aforementioned incest, rape, as well as serious medical conditions that would either put the mother's health at risk or would otherwise lead to severe disability of the child, at which point the parents should be given the option.
We live in a world where contraception comes in more flavours than ice cream - there's pills, dams, sprays, patches, implants and even the old faithful $1 Rubber Johnny. But hey, let's say that you weren't particularly careful and fumbled at all of those - it still takes 72 hours for the fertilised egg to even nest where it's supposed to, which is where the morning after pill comes in. If you failed to act for three days, at that point I feel that it's on you, and a part of being a grown-up is facing the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. This may sound harsh to some readers, but what's more harsh to me is requiring society to pay for your mistakes. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I value life, even unborn life, more so than a stranger's aforementioned convenience.
On the subject of a "woman's right to choose", I think that the term was completely perverted over time. I do not think it's "the woman's body, therefore her choice" - not only is that statement demonstrably false, it's also a gross oversimplification of the matter. I've personally heard a good number of stories from would-be dads whose significant others went behind their backs and aborted their pregnancy - I don't think that's fair at all. I can't even begin to imagine what it feels like to be deprived of being a parent with no prior notice. I fully understand that it's the woman who has to carry the pregnancy to term, but if the man has already declared willingness to care for the child for the next 18+ years, all I see is short-term inconvenience.
Sadly, we live in a world of quick fixes, and abortion is a quick fix to a "problem" that very well may have better solutions in each individual case, just ones that require a modicum of effort or sacrifice. There's a lot of posturing going on, but not a lot of stepping up to the plate and facing the challenge that, ultimately, everyone affected created themselves.
As I said in the beginning, I'm merely leaning one side - I'd be perfectly happy with a compromise. Many European countries have set reasonable timelines for when abortion is permissable and when it isn't, and I'm okay with that so long as it saves some lives without necessarily affecting women who need abortions for legitimate reasons.
Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?
Funnily enough, there is a citation for that. As you know, Christian religious tradition is rooted in Jewish religious tradition, which in turn addresses abortion pretty directly. Not to ramble for too long about old holy books, but the Torah explicitly states that an unborn child has not achieved the state of personhood yet (it does not have a "soul", or "nefesh" yet), however it is both alive and the blood of man (Genesis 9:6), so there are penalties associated with abortion. To be more specific, if a pregnant woman is struck and loses her child, the perpetrator owes monetary damages to both the woman and the man who impregnated her, and if "further harm" was done to the woman (as in, she died as a result of the assault), the penalty is death (Exodus 21:22). The Talmud goes as far as to say that fetuses are in fact included under the Noahide prohibition of bloodshed law (Sanhedrin 57b), although it is not "fully alive". The Mishna further clarifies when killing an unborn child is in fact permissable in Oholot 7:8:
If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.
Meaning that if the woman's life is in danger as a result of pregnancy, it is permissable to terminate it. Graphic, but gets the point across. You might think that this only accounts for medical issues, however it does in fact account for rape, and perhaps even incest, if it occurred without consent, as those do "put the women's life in peril" due to the risk of suicide, or at least that's how the text is interpreted nowadays.
Long story short, there is religious precedent for abortion laws, and the cases where it is permissable seem quite reasonable - whenever continuing the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother. In Jewish tradition, the life of those already bestowed with "nefesh" takes precedent over the lives of those who haven't yet, so abortion is allowed in those cases, but at the same time, it is frowned upon when there is no legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy.
Not really an argument for or against, just an interesting peek at what was people's stance on abortion thousands of years ago. Unsurprisingly it isn't much different than how we feel about it nowadays.