I'd rather not turn this into an abortion thread, but whatever:
I'm personally pro-life. I have a very hard time justifying abortion in any case other than rape or physical danger. While I could never make this decision for anyone else, I personally could not bear my child being aborted for any reason whatsoever, and I have a hard time agreeing with the defense that it'd be her choice alone in the matter.
That said, I believe in pro-choice politics with a strong social support for women who may have difficulties raising a child. 2 years of government paid leave, child care support, and education related to the dangers of an abortion. I think that providing women with an alternative to abortion that results in a healthy mother AND a healthy baby is ideal. The reason why I still support pro-choice is that back-ally abortions may result in the death of the mother and the child both; an absolute waste of life simply because of a morally based law that doesn't consider the realities of the situation.
So with a socialist child care system, you'll have less women having abortions. The percent of women who still wish to be rid of the child in their womb would have access to medically safe (however immoral) abortions. This ultimately results in LESS deaths than banning abortion all together.
That's how I see the issue, and how I think any reasonable pro-lifer should see the issue. If you can honestly say you'd rather have women and child dying through back-ally abortions, than you're really misguided in your idea of what "life" and being "pro" means.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ