Bravo to you for taking a serious look into what is still the hottest debate today. There are no easy answers to this question because so much is tied up in the issue, and due to this many don't like to hear answers that can prick the conscience. In reality, the epicenter of the debate has nothing to do with who can or can not choose, it has to do with when something is alive or not. The strongest argument pro-choice supporters aim to use centers around the term 'fetus'. Scientifically termed, the fetus is not considered 'human' since it does not portray the qualities understood to be a human baby. However, scientists have been too heavily relied upon to determine things outside their scope of expertise. If you are pregnant, any doctor you go to will never tell you that you are carrying a fetus within you, or use some other form of lingo to explain conception. A doctor will always tell you that you are pregnant, meaning that an egg has been fertilized by sperm and that a new developing being is beginning.
How do you define what is or is not human? Even if something is called a fetus, is it not still a stage in the development of human life? Let's say someone healthy is involved in an accident and ends up in a coma. That person no longer apparently functions as a person and medical officials often called it a 'vegetative state'. So is that person no longer human? What happens then when they come out of the coma and resume their life? Were they human, than not human, than human again? I know I am speaking in pure 'what if' categories and please forgive the argument, we are constrained by time and space. It is not possible for something to 'become' something out of the blue. If a human is not human at conception, then from where does it suddenly gain its humanity? The human species does not morf like a butterfly from a caterpillar. Our species is constant in its development.
It hard to argue against victims who become pregnant of rape because of the physical, emotional, and psychological trauma involved. Indeed, to say it is wrong under this circumstance makes one out to seem uncaring and inhumane. I wish no individual to suffer such an unfortunate and heinous crime! Nonetheless, is it argument enough to justify abortion? Unfortunately not. Once another person's life comes into play that choice cannot be anyone, the child has already its inherent right to live.The same goes with the 'back-alley butcher' argument. Legalizing abortion has not stopped deaths or future complications by abortion. De-legalizing abortion also does not necessarily mean 'back-alley butchers' will be rampant. It is a mere supposition that women will seek such services, which I think is a serious injustice to women's intelligence.
Being safe about your sexuality means being smart about your sexuality. We cannot fool ourselves, sexual intercourse between man and woman always carries the likelihood of conception, and that means baby creating. New evidence is arising of the harm done to the woman when she aborts, and most of this is due to failing to understand sufficiently how the woman's body works. I am sorry I can not recall now my source. Basically, it is noted that although the 'fetus' is removed from the womb, the body still continues to produce the hormones and such common during pregnancy, meaning that the body cannot shut itself off with the mere removal of a fetus. Since the biological elements being produced are meant for the fetus, which is no longer there, the woman unwittingly poisons herself. Hence this is where complications arise later with fertility problems, cancers, etc. Any doctor a woman will see in the future about fertility problems, cancers, etc, will be asked if they had an abortion. The medical community would not ask it if there did not exist a connection.
Again, as time and constraints limit the discussion I will leave it here although I hope I have added a serious answer to your compelling question. Bravo again for your interest!