I've had encounters with people who favor legal abortion before, sometimes in person, most recently on the Internet.
I get really, really tired of the standard 'pro-choice' argument. It goes something like this:
I'm a rational pro-choice person. You are an irrational antiabortion person. My position is based on reason and science; yours is based on some kooky religious belief you want to impose on the rest of the world.
I'd like to say, once and for all, that that position is simply untrue.
Pro-life people point to science in our defense of the unborn. We can tell you when the unborn child's heart starts beating, when there are brainwaves, when there are fingerprints. We can tell you when the 'embryo' begins to be called the 'fetus' and what those words mean; we can also point out that a significant number of abortions destroy unborn children in the fetal, not embryonic stage. We can explain that from the moment of conception the unborn child has his or her own DNA and is, therefore, genetically distinct from his or her mom and dad. We can illustrate that any line of 'non-personhood' drawn between conception and birth is completely arbitrary and unscientific.
It's the pro-choice people who are holding, not a religious, but a philosophical position. They assert that an unborn child shouldn't have rights, without attempting to fortify that position with anything stronger than their own opinions. They assert that the mother's rights are clearly paramount, when that isn't clear at all. They assert that the unborn should be considered less than persons because that's what seems good to them. In their relativistic worldview, the woman's right to create her own reality trumps all, even when her reality involves her willing participation in the death of her own offspring.
They have the right to have those beliefs. But they shouldn't have the right to impose them on the rest of us.
And they especially shouldn't have the right to confuse their strong feelings with either reason or science.