This thread piqued my interest on this topic. viewtopic.php?f=22&t=156841
It seems to me that there is too much pressure from the 'versus' appearance of the abortion issue, to set it up as a binary choice, which leads us to conclusions like "pro-life is really all about controlling women." I think there are more angles here than people think.
1: The sovereignty of the state (has / does not have) sufficient extent to criminalize the act of providing an abortion for another.
2: The sovereignty of the state (has / does not have) sufficient extent to criminalize the act of commissioning an abortion for onesself.
3: The state (should/should not) punish women for having sex for reasons other than procreation within the bounds of marriage.
4: Human life, which should be protected, begins at or around (fill in the blank).
4a: The determination of the beginning of human life (is/is not) an event for which rational justification is available.
4b: Religious convictions which cannot be rationally justified to those of sound mind and character who do not share my religion (are/are not) admissible as bases for legislation.
It is noteworthy that almost all court decisions on the issue of abortion has revolved exclusively around 1 and 2.
One can also hold positions that don't fit the binary model. Consider Biden's comments on abortion in the VP debates this year. His answer looked something like this: I have a religious conviction that human life, which should be protected, begins at conception, but my religious conviction is inadmissible as a basis for legislation.
I'd be interested to know if anyone can come up with a rationally sound justification for the rape and incest exclusion that many pro-life people allow which does not involve punishing women for having sex. I certainly can't.