But your anti-abortionist evangelical right-winger KNOWS FOR SURE that the fetus is a person, and being in the weaker position and having no choice in its affairs, deserves more protection of its rights than does the woman.
Of course they will say that and of course they will argue. But I still contend that such an argument is terrain more suitable for the pro-choice position. That is what pro-choice means plain and simple. It is the belief that it is a fundamental right of a woman to control her own body, her own privacy, her own medical decisions, and her own family decisions. These are fundamental rights given to all free citizens. Most people believe this, the courts and our laws agree with this, and it puts the anti-choicer in the position to defend wanting to force women to be pregnant.
On the other side you are talking about what is and isn't a baby, about what "could be". And no matter how logical and cogent you can be you are fighting an uphill battle against basic human emotions, empathy, and the admittidly unnatural concept of what an abortion is to begin with. Abortions are a product of our technology even in its most primitive form and it is a cold, disturbing thing no matter how you try to portray it.
The point is though that those emotions, that empathy for the unborn, the ickyness of the whole thing is nobody's business except for person who's body sovernty and privacy are paramount in our society as recognized by both our social institutions and the vast majority of our fellow citizens.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson