Aye, there's the rub. Those who are pro-choice DON'T believe it is murder, particularly the earlier the pregnancy. Throw in the rabid folk who believe that since the pill rarely acts as an aborifacient and thus should be banned, or that an IUD in preventing implantation is "killing a baby," and the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense.
Until such time as you can get a majority of people to believe that a 2-celled sperm/egg is the same as a baby, you're not going to get abortion banned.
Historically, I believe, the use of deadly force has been condoned in the prevention of murder.
If abortion is murder, and I think it is, than what degree of force is justified in the prevention of those murders?
We can't have it both ways. Not logically anyhow. Either abortion is murder and needs to be prevented, or it's not and we have no business calling it baby-killing.
I'll help you out. While it might be murder in the moral sense, it's not murder in the legal sense. Quite simply, law recognizes that right and wrong cannot be left to individual conscience. Individual conscience varies too much. An individual might believe he is entittled to kill his fellow man (or woman) for his own gratification (ala Bundy), but the individual will always know that society has said "No, that is illegal and this is the punishment."
In the case of the abortion doctor, if upon review of the circumstance, the physician finds nothing in the moral compass to contraindicate abortion, he/she then looks to the laws that his/her society has laid out, and again finds no prohibition, then the doctor has a green light. The doctor has searched his/her own conscience and THEN ASKED FOR PERMISSION VIA THE LAWS THAT GOVERN.
This a gulf a mile wide between a doctor would perform an abortion with the permission of his civilization, and the one who would do it without.