My belief is that this question is a non-issue. What the real question here is: are you pro- or anti-choice? If you're pro-life, you're anti-choice. Those who are pro-abortion should actually be classified as pro-choice, because what they tend to advocate is for the right for a person to choose what they can or cannot do with their bodies. In addition, as far as a legal argument is concerned, it's not even a legal argument as well. Whether or not you believe that a child is alive in the womb, the key is that the government, both state and federal, have defined that a human being "exists" once it has an identity. While it is in the womb, they have decided that it does not have an identity, meaning that they do not recognize that baby as a completely autonomous person until after it is out of the woman's body. If it is in the body, and the government has decided that it is not going to recognize it as a legal human being, then that means it is still part of the woman's body thereby returning the argument back to whether a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. Now the government could decide to change that stance, and issue social security numbers and certificates of life to embryos (which would require finding out the sex of the baby as soon as possible since, in order to assign a social security number to a person, you have to have a name - something assigned by sex; and this was actually something one state government tried to do but the bill failed), but then a woman could be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child abuse and neglect, and many other things simply by having a glass of wine or smoking a cigarette (a questionable practice at best, but something that's not currently illegal), or even being a drug addict, or not keeping appointments if the child is the product of rape. How many more criminals do we want to make? Think about this: a pregnant woman pulled over by a police officer because she ran a yellow light while going 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit could now actually be charged with wreckless endangerment for doing what she did. So, how far do we really want to take this issue? People are always telling me to look for the good in others, yet we want to mandate that the federal government legislate morals like this; why can't we just leave things to the best judgment of people, and hope they will do what is best for themselves and others? Oh yeah, that's right, this is the U.S.A., we can't let people decide anything for themselves, it would be horrible to let them make up their own minds.
Let's make it so people can have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies then the asker, and respondents, of this question can decide for themselves what is best for them.