Sorry I don't have much to contribute, but I heard that a few days ago and I've been particularly torn over it.
Being torn over an issue is actually a good sign in that it demonstrates that you are allowing yourself to assess a variety of perspectives and information without being static and set on a viewpoint.
I have always been torn on this issue as well since many of the arguments were not satisfying, on both major platforms, but eventually I came to my own conclusion, that is definitely open to adjustment and expansion to other similar dilemma's related to this issue.
Also, I enjoyed what Scarf had to say. Being on a "side" isn't necessary to having a valid viewpoint. Really, it shows that there has been some form of personal assessment of the various factual and philosophical information regarding the issue, or any given issue.
Even the Supreme Court rulings have been quite vexing for myself. Though I agree with the ultimate end of legalization and fewer restrictions on abortion, the Roe v Wade decision and follow-up cases regarding reproductive rights has a very convoluted reasoning applying the fourth amendment to privacy rights, zone of privacy, undue burden, ect. among other elements of Constitutional Law. It's this legal gray area that leaves these sorts of cases with 5-4 decisions since there doesn't exist a standard way to apply circumstances with broad rights afforded by the Bill of Rights. The Court doesn't delve into public policy, would address more than "rights of the woman" but rather assess the value of public policy and its effects on the populace. For this reason, it seems like the right to an abortion shouldn't really fall under a Constitutional right, but rather a right that is associated with good fiscal public policy.
Of course, this sort of analysis, isn't popular since it contradicts certain aspects of both major movements. My classmates were also quick to contest the viewpoint, which is fine, but it was just discouraging to see everyone need to conform to the viewpoints of a dominant political movement rather than formulate their own perspective by analyzing the merits and downfalls of these major viewpoints, among other perspectives. Further, most of these claims were mere truisms, "because it's wrong."
Further, Scarf brought up an excellent justification in that it's not just "choice" for the woman's freedoms, but goes into as to why lack of choice has negative impacts, rather than simply stating that choice is an inalienable right or an entitlement without any justification. Similarly, those who are against abortion procedures often claim, it's wrong, against God's will, it could have been a child, ect. Though, I am sure there are some arguments against abortive procedures that don't rely on baseless truisms, but I have yet to come across any that are compelling enough to change my prospective on what is the more effective discourse for public policy.
Sidenote, congrats on making it through one day without any petty or bitter arguments thread! This is a PC-abortion-topic first