Could someone try to "convince" me of the pro-life position?

[RFayette]

I might write an effortpost later.  But for now, there is a line of reasoning here I want to question.

In short, there is no simple answer to what is ‘right.’ Each option involves something we should rather avoid. Which option to take is a question of profound personal and, importantly, moral, nature; the answer to which will differ from case to case. 

You rightfully point out that restricting abortion access does impose certain hardships on people.  But I think the fact that harms exist for all options doesn't preclude there being a clear answer to something being moral or immoral.  The pro-life argument is that the right to life is so fundamental that it supersedes other rights when the two conflict.  This point seems pretty hard to dispute, and as such, I'd argue that this debates stands or falls on the personhood issue - if we recognize the unborn is just as much a person as you or I, then abortion ought to be illegal. 

As for the personhood question,  the simplest argument in favor of it is the SLED test   In essence, the differences between the unborn and humans we all consider to be persons are not significant enough to justify deeming the former to be 'non-persons' and the latter 'persons'.  This itself doesn't show that either adults or the unborn possess the right to life, but it does show that if there are objective, universal moral laws, including against murder, then it would apply to the unborn just as it would to adult humans. 

[RFayette]

I might write an effortpost later.  But for now, there is a line of reasoning here I want to question.

In short, there is no simple answer to what is ‘right.’ Each option involves something we should rather avoid. Which option to take is a question of profound personal and, importantly, moral, nature; the answer to which will differ from case to case.  

You rightfully point out that restricting abortion access does impose certain hardships on people.  But I think the fact that harms exist for all options doesn't preclude there being a clear answer to something being moral or immoral.  The pro-life argument is that the right to life is so fundamental that it supersedes other rights when the two conflict.  This point seems pretty hard to dispute, and as such, I'd argue that this debates stands or falls on the personhood issue - if we recognize the unborn is just as much a person as you or I, then abortion ought to be illegal.  

This is where I struggle. I'm not sure it is true. It would be very difficult to live a modern life if we took this seriously; nearly everything involves some sort of risk to life (crossing the street, driving a car, taking a bus & so on). Few would argue WW2 was unjustifiable, for example. In the COVID pandemic I think we have to balance "life" with civil freedoms and, frankly, what makes life worth living.
Now I suppose the counter-argument is that abortion is murder, not an incidental loss of life; that something calculated and pre-meditated is inherently worse. This is an argument that has been deployed against the death penalty (which I believe you support) - and one which I find partly convincing, but probably only because I think there are so many other good arguments against it. Was the murder of Osama bin Laden justified? Can the police be allowed to use potentially lethal force to save or protect others?

Btw, this is an important moral question I'm trying to get my head around, not an attempt to "outwit" people - if indeed I were capable of that...

The issue here is that situations like driving a car are about behaviors that risk life but do not guarantee the ending of anyone's life.   So any personal freedom "gained" by an abortion necessarily means a life lost, while most people who drive cars have never killed anyone.
Whereas abortion always takes a life, by definition.  So on a pure utilitarian level we are talking about the rights of the masses vs. the lives of a few vs. the right of one vs. the life of one in the case of abortion.  Your other point about premeditation and intentionality are also relevant - that there is something intrinsically wrong with abortion that there isn't with driving a car, and this is a key factor as well.  

As far as the death penalty, the key distinction here is that the unborn haven't committed a capital crime.  When someone commits a crime, they merit or deserve punishment, and I do think some crimes rise to the level such that the death penalty is an appropriate response by the state.  I think a similar argument can be made with respect to self-defense that people who unjustly attack you or your family forfeit their right to life - and furthermore, this asymmetry I pointed out earlier (personal freedom vs. life in case of abortion) doesn't apply so much when your own life is in grave danger.  I do think war is your strongest argument here and I don't have a simple answer, since wars are fought for so many different reasons, but I do think that similar to self-defense of a person, nations have a right to defend themselves against unjust aggressors.  Of course, defining this and determining when circumstances truly justify war is much easier said than done.