With Sarah Palin joining the republican ticket, abortion's once again become a hot topic. I'm going to attempt to summarise my own stance and describe the arguments from each side.
First of all, I detest the emotive language that has developed around the issue. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are seeped in derogatory vitriol. Of course the "pro-choice" crowd aren't against life in any general sense, nor are the "pro-life" advocates against people having a general freedom of choice. These terms simply cause anger, further division and defensiveness in both camps, and don't at all help us to find an affective compromise. Unfortunately, such is the nature of language that complicated positions must be striped down to simple terms, so with reluctance I will accept their use.
Any examination of the abortion debate must start with the deceptively simple question, "When does life begin?" How one answers this question almost completely decides where they will fall in any discussion of abortion. The two most common answers are: A) at conception, or B) at birth. Like all controversial issues, it is impossible to prove this central question one way or the other: is life within the womb truly life? Or is the loss of a potential life a tragedy that must be avoided at all costs? I certainly don't have the answers, and personally believe that no one does.
That's the issue from the point of view of the fetus; the other side is of course that of the mother. Most would agree that each woman has the sole right to decide what can and can not happen within her body, but the central question becomes "Is a fetus part of a woman's body?" A rigorous scientific examination of that question would probably be inconclusive, but in this case I think the obvious answer is more than sufficient: anything within a person's body is part of that person.
But, if we decide that a woman the sole person allowed to make choices for within her own body, and that a fetus is alive from the point of conception, are we effectively giving women the right to murder their fetuses? I think we are, and that that is actually alright. It's not unprecedented, either. We give police the right to shoot criminals in certain situations, and soldiers the right to murder those of opposing army and even accept a certain amount of innocent civilian casualties—we might not approve of them, but we certainly don't try the soldiers for murder. And that's not even considering the amount of acceptable murder of animals for food, hunting, or development.
In summary, I do believe that terminating a fetus is ending a life, but that that is acceptable as no one else can say what a woman chooses to do within her own body. Consider the alternative: if abortions where illegal, one small accident—a drunken mistake, forgetting a pill, a weak condom—could leave a woman with the life-long burden of a child. It's a wonderful burden, to be sure, but also a financial and social one. That seems to me a punishment far out of proportion for such a small indiscretion. I know that life isn't always fair, but I thought the goal of a civilization was to create a society of fairness and justice for all.
