Since I'm bored, I'll put in my two cents. I'm with the people that say that an unborn child is not a part of the mother's body. Sure, it's dependent on it's mother's body, but it's got it's own unique DNA and potential. I'm actually kinda torn on the whole issue of abortion though.

Now, most people believe that a newborn child is the moral equivalent of any other human being. Killing one is considered immoral. But what's the difference between a child two days before it's born compared to two days later? Nothing really, just where it's located. Essentually the same creature. How about two weeks? Again, a child born two weeks early does just fine. The same with a month early, no problems. Two months early? They don't do as well, but can survive with support and grow up normally. As technology progresses younger children will be able to survive independently of their mothers. So where do we draw the line? When the brain develops? When the heart starts beating? It seems to me like any distinction we make woud be arbitrary, and I don't like guessing about something like this. So although I see that calling a ball of cells equivalent to a human being doesn't make a lot of sense, well, they don't stay balls of cells for long, and really the whole idea of abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: And it's cool that we can have some kind of decent conversation about this without being at each other's throats.