The left is more likely to remove the choice of gun ownership, the choice of who you can do business with, what size soda you can buy, or what you can say as a religious leader.
The right is more likely to remove the choice of whether you can kill your fetus or baby (depending on your viewpoint)
Whether abortion should be legal really comes down to a belief. When does a person become a person? If you believe a person becomes a person when they exit their mother's womb, then you should have no problem with the term pro-abortion. If that's your belief, then you shouldn't even care if there are fewer abortions. It's just a medical procedure extracting unwanted cells from a woman's body. If, however, you believe a person becomes a person before that, then under no circumstances, other than the certainty of making a choice between the mother's or the baby's life, should someone be allowed to kill the baby at that point.
I've heard people point to many tests to determine person-hood: viability, heartbeat, sensing pain, the ability to survive on it's own (which may not really happen well into childhood). It's really a question of when does a child obtain rights.
Personally, I find it unscientific and arbitrary to say a person becomes a person because they changed location.
Kjella, I really enjoyed your comment. You have much more understanding of the Christian worldview. The problem is that when you come at evidence with preconceived notions, which we all do, then evidence will be interpreted based on those preconceptions. If you believe that only natural explanations are valid, then you will interpret the evidence to support a natural answer. If, however, you believe that there is a God who exists outside of our space/time continuum, then the evidence will be used to construct a model reflecting such intervention.
Both creation and evolution advocates exercise faith in ideas they deem true, and will cut off people from the dialogue when they disagree. On the creation side, it happens when you discredit what we see as documentation passed from the creator. On the evolution side, it is when there is mention that it may not have been natural processes or that evolution does not extend past limits of kinds of animals.
I had a friend who did not believe in God posit this to his biology professor, that the evolution community, at least in behavior, acted just like a religion. There are unproven things taught as doctrine, and any who disagree with this doctrine will be excommunicated or removed from the community where consensus will be derived. He said his professor conceded that it was true, but that they were right so it was ok.
This is not reason vs religion, it's a battle of worldviews or presuppositions.
Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor