We know there at least four bullet points concerning abortion. Where people align themselves various across the divide.

• First, is the old Aristotelian distinction between potential vs actual. Some regard pre-birth, potential births, as life while others do not, preferring the actual born babies.

     A subordinate consideration is the quibbling over what constitutes life.

• Then we have the debate between killing life regardless whether potential (at whatever level of development) or actual birth.

     There exists those who see abortion as simply killing. Killing is bad, therefore, abortion is bad. (Albeit a simplic formulation of their argument, nonetheless addresses the ad rem, to most, of the debate. Under what conditions is killing acceptable.)

• Moving further comes, what I describe as the red herring issue*, concerning 'women's body autonomy’. 

     There is a substantial body of literature addressing the varying nuances of 'body autonomy' in the public sphere independent of the abortion topic. For the sake of brevity, and with due apology to both sides I shall make a hash at summarizing the collective points as pertaining to abortion specific.

     On the one hand, women have a right to do with their bodies as they choose. Some might accept that absolutely while others might attach a soften qualifier.

     The other side might argue, the woman does not have that right alone when there is another life in consideration, attached or unattached. (Let me add a popular point usually made by this side, just as a woman/mother has an obligation to her 4-year old child, her 14-year, and, perhaps, her 40-year old child, so too she has obligation to her unborn child. Of course, ‘obligation' imports the whole discussion of normativity, there arises whole sorts of moral debates including religious, utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.)

• Then there is the issue of the state's involvement which can be described by three attitudes.

     The obvious two is the tussle between whether or not the government should endorse abortion through assigning legality of such action. An attached debate is government funding, direct or indirect, of abortion which is implicit endorsement, e.g. government can make abortion illegal while through providing public services which might include abortion as an option.

     When a democratic based government gets involved, what was once an individual / private concern now becomes a public issue. (An elected official represents the interests of those who elected them. The taxes paid are supposed to fund the interests of the people. If the government subverts that in any way, then there is a problem. Let me make the explicit acknowledgement that within this set of people, there are those who take issue with the government funding, directly or indirectly, or through available public services an action they find objectionable, for whatever reason; and there is a subset of them who feel like morally sinful accomplices by letting such action happen.)

     Then there are those who hold the position that the government should not (/never) weigh-in on such individual, private choices, independent of their personal acceptance or objection to abortion. In other words, the government in no way be involved in abortions, not via funding, through legislation, nor via public services.

* So why a "red herring"? Body autonomy is a separate issue from abortion, in fact, abortion is a subordinate issue to the major topic of body autonomy. In particular, the position one holds concerning body autonomy retreats to outside underlining premise(s) independent of the abortion topic or falls back onto one of either bullet points so cited.