Anti-choice arguments are, generally, contingent upon specific religious beliefs that a soul begins at conception. I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.
The issue of abortion sits at the intersection of biology, philosophy and ethics - if it was as simple as "God said so" versus "I don't believe in God", we wouldn't have a whole field of bioethics. The discussion is entirely off-topic, but since you've never heard of that kind of stance before, I'll give you a quick, rough rundown.
Let's make a safe assumption that we value life, and as per the generally accepted medical standard we want to do no harm, or least harm. I think that's pretty universal and generally unobjectionable.
With that groundwork laid out we have to define whether we're dealing with one life or multiple lives. At conception the DNA of the mother and the father recombines into a new, unique strain of DNA. It is different than that of the father or the mother. It is also growing via rapid cell division, so it is exhibiting the characteristics of a living organism. The DNA is, undoubtedly, human in origin, so we are talking about a separate human entity at an early stage of development - this is separate from the discussion regarding personhood, more on that later.
Now that we've assessed that life is valuable and that the fertilised egg is a form of human life, we have to tackle viability. A fertilised egg, by itself, is not viable - it is not uncommon for women to expel a fertilised egg as it has failed to nest and as such cannot develop any further. With or without our intervention this life is destined to die. With that in mind, the earliest point of viability we can possibly consider would be the moment the egg is nested and pregnancy proper has begun. That's the point when the fertilised zygote had undergone cell division, progressed past the blastula stage and is beginning to form a fetus. That kind of human life is viable - at that point, if uninterrupted, the new life will continue to exist as long as it is provided nutrients. It cannot gather nutrients independently, but neither does a person in a coma and we don't consider those patients to be non-human, so we can scratch that objection.
Next we have the problem of sentience. An often-mentioned objection is that a fetus lacks personhood because it is not sentient. This, in my opinion, is an oversimplification of the matter. Sentience does not grant personhood - if it did, you could reasonably argue that a person in a coma, or someone who is merely asleep, temporarily lost their personhood as they are not conscious and they're not responding to external stimuli, thus they're not exhibiting signs of sentience - that's obviously ridiculous. Personhood is a subject of vigorous debate, there is no universal agreement on what grants it other than "our moral standard at any given time" which is relative. It can be easily argued that if it is in fact sentience that grants it then a fetus has as much right to achieve it as a person in a coma has a right to regain it. This is especially relevant to fetuses that have already developed a brain and show signs of a functioning nervous system.
There's also the problem of bodily autonomy. We have already arrived at the conclusion that a fetus consists of cells that are unique in nature, it is a separate entity from the mother on a cellular level. Depending on the stage of development, there may be multiple organs in the fetus that are separate also, maybe even the brain, which leads to the aforementioned troubling issues in regards to consciousness and sentience. As such, it isn't so much a decision in regards to one's own body, but rather in regards to another body that is temporarily connected to the mother. This shifts the paradigm quite a bit. It is akin to a situation where conjoined twins share vital organs - although they are joined together without mutual consent, separating them would undoubtedly be considered as killing one of them. Naturally they may come to an agreement and wish to be separated regardless, but a fetus lacks this ability, more on that later. Point being, one twin cannot choose to remove the other against their will - that would be murder.
We've established a couple of things - we are dealing with a life form, that life form is human in origin and unique, it is separate from the mother rather than an integral part of the mother's body, depending on the stage of development it may or may not be sentient. We've also established that the fetus cannot consent to being removed - cases where an individual cannot give consent due to their age, disability or a variety of other factors are accounted for in law. It is not beyond the pale to think that the government can step in to protect those who cannot protect themselves - in fact, it does so all the time. As such, the government wouldn't be legislating what a woman can or can't do with her uterus - we're not interested in that from this perspective. Rather, the government's interest would be what she can or can't do to the human life inside of said uterus, which didn't choose to be inside of it anyway and is there either as a direct consequence of the mother's actions *or* as a result of rape. We can consider the former as a matter of personal responsibility, we cannot permit the latter due to lack of consent.
With that we end up with a logical framework for what would be justifiable - abortion permissable in the case of non-viable fetuses (pre-nesting, observable disability or damage of the fetus), in the case of protecting the mother's life (life being paramount, if the fetus directly endangers the host, it must necessarily be terminated or they both die) and rape (lack of consent). In other cases, protection of human life being of utmost importance, you could argue that the fetus requires some form of legal protection up until it can be separated from the mother without killing it, which is admittedly a burden and inconvenience for the mother, but is consistent with our findings. Perhaps pending some negotiation we could arrive at a mutually acceptable cut-off period that minimises loss of life.
In regards to protecting the mother's life I would even go as far as to say that mothers who are seriously suicidal due to their unwanted pregnancy could fall into the permissable category as mental health is as important as physical health. If the possibility of suicide is verifiably high, it is more ethical to save one rather than lose both.
No bible thumping in this train of thought, just a logical progression. Naturally this is very broad, it's a huge topic and I don't expect you to agree with any of it, but it might be a new perspective you haven't seen before. If there is ever a thread specifically about this then maybe we'll argue about the finer points. For now let's limit ourselves to the election, I hope you enjoyed the mental exercise.