Usually, I agree with Ben, but not always. My concern here is the oversimplification, and the dismissal.
Pro-Abortion stances can encompass a “right” for the women all the up to a point where delivery of the fetus/baby is the next natural step. Moreover, pro-choice at the furthest level denies that the fetus baby is ever a human life. At some point, that fetus becomes a baby, and because science keeps on expanding the point at which that baby is medically viable, making the sweeping generalization that there is no logic or rational basis for a pro-life stance is problematic, at best.
Personally, I have no interest in defunding PP, not of overturning Roe v. Wade, and I consider myself a Catholic, a member of an organization that is pretty consistent on the subject of abortion. Nevertheless, I can simultaneously accept the separation of church and state, which says that I shouldn’t impose my religious views on others.
At some point, we have laws that protect animals from abuse and from being killed. I think it is theologically supportable to contend that at some point during gestation, the viable fetus ought to have as much right to legal protection as a cat, a puppy, or a horse — or any of the other animals that would be protected from abuse under the law.