Not withstanding the issue of whether illegalizing abortions will cause more dirty unsafe abortions, the argument that the right wingers are imposing morality on you doesn't make sense. Are you saying it's not right for the government to impose morality on serial killers who believe they are serving God through mass murder? It may be hard for us to determine what is "right" and "wrong" since so many cultures have so many perceptions of it. But we can say with some conviction what is harmful and what is not. The government makes murder illegal when it is harmful to society (that's why self-defense isn't illegal) and no one argues with that. So then, the issue is whether or not abortions are similar to murder.
Pro-choicers argue that a fetus is an extension of a woman's body and not a living being. Therefore, abortion is exactly what it sounds like: "cancelling" a pregnancy, nothing more. A woman therefore has the right to make the choice of giving birth or not. Pro-lifers argue that a fetus is a living entity as soon as it is conceived and it is not the woman's choice whether or not to kill it. Clearly if one believes a fetus to be alive, this makes perfect sense. Otherwise, that would mean it's okay for a mother to kill her six year old son, because he's a burden to her. (Ever see that episode of South Park where Cartman's mom wanted to abort him?) So we can now narrow down the argument to "is a pre-born baby alive or simply part of the mother?" Because if it is alive, then abortion would be no more moral than murder.
Now here's my opinion on it. It is very difficult to determine exactly when a pre-born child becomes human. Most people would agree that one minute before birth, a baby is as human as it's going to get, because if it were born premature, it would be able to live unassisted. However, a zygote, immediately after conception is no more advanced than the skin cells of our arm, which we kill every day when we take a shower or scratch ourselves. So we can't ever say for sure that a pre-born baby is alive, and we can't ever say for sure that it's not. Therefore, I chose to look at it more as a potential for life. As soon as a child is conceived it WILL become a living breathing human being provided that there is no interference. That potential for life does not exist in the same way before conception, because the act of sex still has to occur. Thus, is it the mother's right to eliminate the potential for life? My belief is not, it is not. That potential for life does not belong to the mother but rather to the future child, the enitity that will exist once it is born. Whether or not you feel that the fetus is alive at the time of it's abortion doesn't matter. Because from conception to birth that unborn child has that same unchanging potential for future life.
That is why I believe abortions are wrong. I want to point out that I am not religious, nor am I a conservative. I'm very liberal and I am pretty much an agnostic. However I made this conlusion simply by thinking it through logically, whithout the assistance of politics or religion. So when might abortion be okay? If the unborn child has no potential for a real life, meaning it will be born and live painfully for a few days, then abortion is not eliminating any potential there. I also believe abortion is okay if the mother will die by giving birth, because she has a right to chose if she lives or not. That situation is similar to self defense, where killing someone is necessary to save your own life. However, if the life of the mother is not threatened and the child has the potential to live a normal life, I feel abortion is morally wrong.