The pro-life vs. pro-choice is an easy enough topic to write something about. In the past, I've been firmly pro-choice (and still am), but lately I've had the cause to re-think a lot of what my original views were. I find that there exist very good arguments for both sides of the issue and I shall proceed to consider them in turn.
The strongest argument that the pro-lifers have, I believe, is that by aborting a fetus, you're destroying a sentient/conscious/self-aware human being. Notice I use the word "sentient" and not "live". I believe that humans have this special quality (sentience) that separates us from other animals; however, all animals (and plants) are alive. If you exclude the fact that we are sentient, I don't believe human life is any better than that of other animals'. To me, the choice vs. life argument would be easily resolved if one could identify exactly when a human being becomes sentient. But I don't think this is an easy task. Is the fetus self-aware? One could argue that's not the case, but then you can proceed and ask is a month-old baby self-aware? I think the same arguments would apply and therefore a month-old baby would not be self-aware. So this would mean that it's "okay" to kill a month-old given the choice, but we clearly are not (by society, and I'll refrain from commenting on this). One might also argue that a fetus is self-aware, in which case, killing it would certainly be tantamount to killing another human child, or even an adult for that matter, which again we do not have the choice to do so.
The strongest argument the pro-choice people have, of course, is the issue of the right of a female to do whatever she wishes with her body. The fetus can be considered a parasite (and it is, in a sense) which can no longer be allowed to grow. I'm firmly pro-choice if it can be shown a fetus is not self-aware. But how would you account for the motions of the fetus? Is that purely reflexive? If so, as soon as a child is born, I'd argue a lot of what it does is purely reflexive.
Interestingly enough, I think of my own fetus in third person, where as I consider myself as one month-old in first person.
On the issue of choice, in some countries, it is illegal to commit suicide. So it's illegal to take your own life! That is, if you are caught in an attempt to do so, you will be put in prison. Ironic. I am not sure of the laws of this country, but I am firmly against such a law as well. But it should kept in mind in certain places, the issue of "choice" never arises! People do not have the choice in the first place to argue about it. In this case, it so happens a choice exists and as long as there does, it would behoove us to choose the less stringent one.
To summarise, there has been a shift in my way of thinking in this issue. I formerly believed the pro-life argument to be the more idealistic one. The pro-choice argument has supplanted that position. It is my desire to be free of yoke that prompts me to say "choice". If I were a female, I would like to be given the freedom of choice regardless of my personal beliefs. So if the pro-lifers ask if I would like to be given the choice of killing a one year old too, then I would answer yes (I already have this choice in any case). One should have the freedom to do anything they want, as long as they never do what they wouldn't want done to themselves. Several males who are asked regarding the issue of choice vs. life believe that it really doesn't matter to them because they will never face the situation, or that they cannot tell what a female should do with their bodies. I think that's asking the question the wrong way. I think the question should be: "What would you feel had you been aborted?" I know, it sounds dumb, but humour me. If one sincerely and genuinely feels that their hypothetical abortion doesn't bother them, then they can be non-hypocritically pro-choice. The idea of me being killed when "I" was one seems a lot harder for me to accept than my fetus being vaccuumed out.