Before I share anything, let me say very, very, very clearly I am pro-choice.
Ok, that out of the way, I do think it is worth pausing to note that there are important moral and ethical dimensions that we should all acknowledge, and be honest in admitting the ethical priorities that undergird our positions. I also think it is worth noting that there is a spectrum between the (bat $h*t crazy) "every sperm is sacred" crowd, and the (equally bat $h*t crazy) crowd that in fact claims to be morally ok with infanticide within some limited period after birth.
So, there are a few sets of stakeholders that we need to think about here:
Person carrying the unborn
Father of the unborn (genetic and non-genetic if relevant)
Broader family and community
The rabidly anti-choice crowd ethically prioritizes the unborn, and, perhaps, a certain view of the broader family and community's interest in that unborn's potential. (I'd say the father, which is sometimes true, but that turns out to be pretty dang fraught in practice). They put the person carrying the unborn pretty low on the list of stakeholders that matter (and as one of those people, at least potentially, eff that noise).
The rabidly pro-choice crowd ethically prioritizes the person carrying the unborn, and, perhaps a certain (different) view of the broader family and community's interest, and I think put the unborn pretty low on the priority list (but is that the right way to run an ethical society?).
Not many people have an intellectually consistent view of the subject. This is because I think it is incredibly difficult to be both intellectually consistent and ethically responsible. I think the polling suggests that most people prioritize the person carrying the child's choice up to a certain point (usually "viability", whatever that means to them, health of the mother at any point, non-viable unborn, and in the case of bad act pregnancies (rape and incest)). At that point there tends to be a shift to prioritizing the unborn and other interests. And I'm not sure that is wrong.
And also, the fundamental difference in what the broader family/community's interest is in the unborn drives a lot of the controversy. Is the unborn a "burden" on society that the person carrying should be able to decline? Instead is the unborn a potential "gift" to society that should not be squandered? And in either case there is then a second set of debates as to how society should support (with tax dollars or otherwise) both outcomes.
I come out one of those intermediate doors - I do think that there is a point in an otherwise viable pregnancy where non-spontaneous abortion is unethical (though I'm queasy on the legality points). I'm still working out when that is - I know birth is an answer, and my own views are inalterably colored by the experience of micro premie children but also multiple pregnancy losses and friends and relatives who have terminated, and I know that other people come out other doors on this. And I also think society should do a better job a supporting all children and that it is sad that many who do seem to want to bring children into the world aren't willing to put their money where their votes are once the unborn is in the world as a person. But I'm trying to be honest enough to admit where I am and not just repeat talking points.
And, NONE of this has anything to do with the actual Constitutional underpinnings of Roe (piss poor), and whether it matters after 50 years of "settled law" (I actually think precedent of this age should have meaning, and that comparing this to Dred Scott is at best intellectually dishonest as that case was not taking away a person's rights that existed, unless you want to be the asshole arguing that the slave owner's side of that equation).
Ok, that's my piece. Blow me up now