If a person completely owns the right of there body, then they would have the right to choose, whether or not the baby is born. But a "Pro-life" person might say, "Well it's not really your place to answer another persons right." Arguing that the person pregnant does not have a say in the POTENTIAL living human. Bringing up the second question, and simply just making a dog chase it's tail.
An agreement between two groups may be, that when the fetus becomes a baby, and can support itself out side of the host, it shall not be terminated. The Pro-life side may still argue that the fetus is a living being, and should not be, as they would put it, murdered. But I believe this might just be the sanction between the two sides.
A woman may also have reasons for dismissing the unborn being. Perhaps birthing the baby may be detrimental to her heath, or perhaps the child is due to a raping of the women. Surely the women shouldn't have to birth the baby, or should she? Irony, ha ha, quite funny actually. The pro-life side wishes against abortion, therefore they are hypocritically arguing. A mother, may have a condition that possibly may kill her, if she does have a baby. What then? Do we still proceed with the birth? What type of Pro-life group/person would say yes to that answer, but then again, what type would say no? For you are still killing something/somebody. .
A very strong argument from a Pro-life stand point would be to point out the different ways of birth-control other than an abortion. The easiest way birth control that is 100 percent accurate is not having sex at all -- abstinence. If one does not have sex, then I find it very difficult to see a way of accidentally becoming pregnant. Another method that is widely used, is by means of a condom, this method leaves a three percent margin for error (out of one hundred percent).
A way of abortion that has grown controversy a bit of a smaller extent then traditional ways of termination comes in the form a pill (Mifepristone or RU-486).