I actually believe that human life is precious regardless of its phase of development. It has nothing to do with "personhood", and I don't believe parents should be able to kill their severely retarded children. The bottom line is that both sides make arguments for what is most convenient. For me, it's a matter of what I consider human...and I consider a fertilized egg to be a human being at its earliest phase of development. Does that mean that a woman who miscarries because she stumbles down the stairs because she was wearing high heels should be found guilty of manslaughter? No. Similarly, should abortion be illegal? No.
Well, you might ask, if a fertilized egg is a human, wouldn't abortion be murder? Maybe, I say. That's why I stand against it. People can argue all day about what's what, and the answer will never come until we have an understanding of human consciousness. But even if we understood consciousness, what about the severely mentally handicapped? I couldn't in good conscience put a four-year old child with special needs in a blender just because the idea of raising that child made me uncomfortable. And so I refuse to do it to any human life, regardless of its stage of development.
As for the law? I think abortions should be allowed, but I also think that pre and post group therapy should be mandatory (and paid for with tax-payer money) lest the woman face charges of medical negligence.
Are these feelings based on anything truly rational? Probably not. I base them mostly on my children's smiles. But that's why I won't vote against abortion. But I would vote in favor of making it more difficult a procedure than having your hair dyed.