Should a state grant its citizens the right to abort a pregnancy? Yes, because it cannot interfere with what one does with its own body. Is abortion murder? Yes, provisionally: I do not know how to disprove that interrupting the development of a body equals to destroying that life.
Any argument trying to disprove this based on knowledge of the human nature such as whether there is or not a nervous system already formed, or of legal nature, such as when by definition we declare one's rights valid, cannot convince some; because these arguments circumvent the issue through the expression of a convention, which is OK to decide what to do, but does not actually disprove the claim that abortion is equivalent to murder which is based on purely ethical, religious and subjective considerations about the value of life.

Ethical problems usually polarize public opinion in extremely aggressive factions. It seems to me that the pro-choice discourse focuses on the right of the individual to exercise freedom on its own body, without the state interfering. Pro-life stances are concerned with the consequences on society and its well being, especially regarding the ability of the individual to accept and cope with life's toil and one's responsibilities; the embryo which is forcibly denied its right to live is presented as the scapegoat of the selfish individualism.

The quarrelsome nature of human beings, together with the need of a pictorial symbol to manipulate otherwise abstract ideas (especially those we don't like) was promptly put in action by delivering archetypes and myths:

• Pro-life: bigot, traditional and chauvinist, possibly rural with an education varying from being an uneducated brute to a notionist pedant, whose solid declared public virtues are, eventually, comically desecrated by well rooted private vices emerging to the public.
• Pro-choice: wealthy, progressive, urban, possibly with expensive education, socially aware and concerned, elitists getting pleasure from belittling those who cannot boast their intellectual and moral achievements; all of which are, eventually, comically desecrated by showing the true selfish nature of their social commitment: they want abortion because they want the privilege of getting away with their immoral behaviour.

As hinted, most of the confrontation -- in this case as in all divisive issues -- works on exposing the inconsistency of the opposite faction. It is an ad hominem, where the target is the archetypal supporter, representative of all men and women who share the same idea. Conservatives, being champions of the individual over the state, now advocate for the state deciding what a woman should do with her uterus; progressives, normally advocating the state to scold or give candies to the citizens and assuming them not mature enough for their entire lifetime, now want the state not to mess with their own business. Human beings harbor inconsistent, fuzzy beliefs. It is a pleasant pastime to find and make fun of such inconsistencies, but I think that it is up to an individual to find his way out of his own contradictions, if he or she finds suddendly that they are, and above all without indulging in embittering ridicule.
It would take less than nothing to find an ocean of contradictions in what I think is true and right and what I think is false and wrong.

Not all the people deciding to voluntarily interrupt a pregnancy are young metrosexuals who don't want to pay the consequences of their libertine lifestyle, nor middle-upper class couples who are horrified by the idea of having to give up their freedom because their child will bear some handicap. And even if they were, this is not enough to limit their freedom: you might end up in their same situation. I think that it is better to have a liberal law, than a restrictive law with lots of exceptions. And my opinion is motivated by the conjunction of the following points:

• We don't know beforehand all the scenarios for which abortion might be acceptable. If we ban abortion, and then we correct by adding lots of exceptions, we might end up with a very complicated system of rules.
• Voluntary abortion per se is not comparable, in its consequences, to murder; regardless of your beliefs, knowing that there has been a murder in your block does not alert you as knowing that somebody interrupted pregnancy. That it would carry to an extinction I think it is at least right now not a primary concern, but I might be wrong because I don't know the numbers.
• Unrealistic point, but worth mentioning: since abortion is sometimes a lesser evil and a valid therapy, it is important that there are people able to perform one. By banning completely abortion (which is, as I mentioned, unrealistic), there would be no skilled practitioners.
• It is concretely a mother that can decide, out of frailty or courage, wickedness or goodness, selfishness or selflessness, of the life and death of the unborn. This is for me enough to give her supremacy on its destiny; if you want to be sure that nothing 'bad' happens, either you'd have to get the foetus out of her and nurture it in a machine, or put the woman under constant surveillance. Or you might grant her the right to perform an abortion from a trained practitioner and to get proper care and support; in short, I prefer the state to be a hitman rather than an inquisitor.

The above, especially for those who might agree with this view, does not exempt any individual to seriously reflect about his or her own actions and their consequences; because not all people advocating for life over abortion are bigot, chauvinist fascists or uneducated, superstitious and short-tempered villagers. And even if they were, it is not enough to label as garbage what they say: it might instead deliver you from your grief giving you a new perspective.