Nobody gets pregnant because they want to get an abortion. Women choose to get one because they view it as the lesser of two evils, and largely people have broken into two groups depending on which evil they think is lesser. On the one side is pro-life. They believe that after conception, a fertilized egg is 100% a full human with the same rights and protections that any other full human has. From that perspective, it’s easy to understand why pro-life is so vehemently against the mass murder of innocent children. On the pro-choice side, conception is more of a gray area. Yes, the fetus has the potential to be a person, but it doesn’t have a brain or a nervous system, etc. It’s not really a person yet.
 

Regardless of which stance you take on the issue, it’s not the legal system’s function to push your personal beliefs. Rather, laws exist to stop people with different beliefs and perspectives from killing each other every time they disagree. In order to solve the problem of abortion, the matter must be viewed from the position of the judge, not the parties filing the suit. Let’s take a look at each argument from the arbiter's position, and see how it holds up.
 

Pro-Life

Let’s assume for a moment that the pro-life assumption of full personhood at conception is correct. If that were the case, abortion would be equivalent to murder. Not only that, we have different degrees of murder depending on the severity of the crime. A woman or doctor who gets/gives an abortion would be intentionally committing murder that is willful and premeditated which is murder in the 1st degree, the worst kind. Legally speaking, there are definitely grounds for prosecution, if you take a pro-life stance on “life begins at conception”.

Pro-Choice

Taking the pro-choice stance, that the fetus is not a full human with full-human rights. It’s still completely dependent on the mother, and the mother is more important than the fetus. The mother should get to decide if her life or the fetus is more important. After all, it’s her body, her choice, right?
 

The problem with the pro-choice argument is that it assumes you have autonomy over your body, which is not true. To some degree you can make your own decisions, but the government can remove those rights if it is deemed in the best interest of society or it infringes on the rights of others. Police officers have the right to detain you with just cause. The courts can throw you in prison for breaking a law. What about men who are required to sign up for the draft? The government can conscript you and send you to fight in a war if congress decides it’s the right thing to do. There are many many cases where the government controls and restricts your bodily autonomy for the greater good.
 

Luckily, the courts don’t have to choose which side’s definition of life is correct. There is a problem with outlawing abortion, and that is even if pro-life's definition is right, the killer cannot be separated from the victim. Outlawing abortion is as futile as outlawing suicide. When a law is unenforceable, we must resort to negotiation. By listening to women, addressing their concerns, and creating incentives, we can persuade those who are undecided that they should carry their pregnancy to term.