Re: Control by men of the woman's uterus is based on ancient religious beliefs.
It seems (almost at least) entirely obvious, that expelling a 2 celled zygote is in no way morally troublesome.
It seems entirely obvious, that aborting (with end of life* following) a foetus/baby seconds before natural birth would occur, is only in some very narrow scenarios even a conceivable course of action (scenarios in which the end of life is a side effect and in which the actions that lead to that end of life is to preserve the life of the woman or perhaps a twin).
Human nature is to conclude that there must be some cut off point in between those two. Some point where it shifts. That is, of course, not necessarily so.
In the coming time I think a very important point will be the state of medical science, and our ability to incubate those that are born too early and 'carry them to term', so to speak, without the involvement of the mother being necessary - here initially talking strictly about someone who wants a child, but gives birth prematurely.
I fully support the right to abortion, but I think there's quite a complication looming as medical science improves.
Not having to carry an unwanted foetus is one thing, but what about when an abortion doesn't have to mean end of life? Who gets to decide if an abortion also means end of life - and who pays for the potential incubation if it doesn't (not the woman, I would say)?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that women absolutely have a right to choose, and I while I don't think you need many more arguments than something along the lines of what Judith Jarvis Thomson I think more exist.
The only real gripe I might have comes with the increased capabilities of medical science. I don't think the right to an abortion necessarily gives a right to end of life (I also don't necessarily think that it doesn't give that). It's not currently a highly pressing issue, but as we progress I suspect it might become more relevant.
To refer to Thomson's argument. You don't have to let the violinist remain hooked up to you, but do you get to decide that he shouldn't get to try a more risky procedure when he is unhooked from you?
* I use end of life to try to avoid using "kill" or "death" or similar. I'm not sure if it works as intended for all, but the intent is to avoid loaded terms that imply something more than a living collection of cells no longer living. "Life" might be too loaded for it, but it's the best I could think of.