I think abortions should be legal and accessible, with some restrictions. I think that we should work at the same time to reduce the number of women having abortions through public health programs, safe sex education, increasing access to contraceptives, decreasing social stigmas, etc. That's it in a nutshell.

"I think abortions should be legal and accessible, with some restrictions."
What restrictions, and how do you defend this position from a scientific and moral view? If I wrote the following statement, surely held by many in the 1800's, how would you compare it with yours?
"I think slavery should be legal and accessible, with some restrictions. I think that we should work at the same time to reduce the number of slaves held by owners through public awareness programs, safety standards for slaves and education, decreasing the slave trade, decreasing social stigmas, etc."

First off - equating me to a slave owner is about as intellectually honest as comparing me to Hitler. I don't think it adds anything to the conversation, all you're doing is making a transparent attempt to make me the villain. Clearly on this website I was the villain the moment I got here, so you don't need to do that. Now that I've gotten that out of the way...
I'm happy to explain my position further. I think with programs like the ones I described we can drastically bring the number of abortions in this country down. The vast majority of people do not take the decision to have an abortion lightly, as much as some people here think that is the case. The fact that abortion is the termination of a potential person does not escape most people who have them. So let's imagine that through these programs we have been able to get the number of abortions per year down to 15% of what they are today...
We still need to have access to safe methods of abortion for them. There are obvious cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, severe deformity, etc that would make up some fraction of the remaining cases - and I think the ethical justification for abortion in these cases is pretty easy to meet. How about the rest? I think that there are justifiable reasons to have an abortion even with a healthy baby and a healthy mother. For them there should be a cutoff in fetal development, somewhere in the late second to early third trimester when the fetus becomes viable on its own outside the womb. ETHICALLY this makes sense to me because if a fetus has the ability to survive on it's own, it has the right to self-determination, and so it should be awarded the status of "personhood" and all the legal protections that come along with it. Prior to that cutoff it's life is intrinsically linked to the life of the mother and so I don't consider it an individual or a "person" yet. BIOLOGICALLY I think this cutoff also makes sense because at this time the fetus starts to develop higher order brain and sensory functions, possibly allowing for some sort of consciousness and perception. PRACTICALLY I think this makes sense because the vast majority of people think that abortion should be legal with some exceptions, and it addresses the major concerns of all the camps.

"equating me to a slave owner is about as intellectually honest as comparing me to Hitler"
I will be doing that comparison later. :-) But, it is not I who am doing the comparison to slavery and the holocaust, but YOU - your very own words convict you.
"The vast majority of people do not take the decision to have an abortion lightly"
Please stand out in front of your local abortion mill, and that assertion will be roundly defeated. Even if it WERE true, the vast majority of murderers do not take their killing lightly either.
"The fact that abortion is the termination of a potential person"
False. It is the killing of an actual human in a stage in which you yourself, by your own admission, once passed. If you have evidence to support "potential person," please supply it. But, you have already refuted yourself when you admitted that you were once a ZEF.
"There are obvious cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, severe deformity, etc that would make up some fraction of the remaining cases"
None of those cases are valid - the only one that is valid is life, not health, of the mother. And doctors agree that when a woman's life is in danger due to a pregnancy, there is no time for an abortion - it is C-section and save them both (or go Kermit Gosnell on the baby).
"I think that there are justifiable reasons to have an abortion even with a healthy baby and a healthy mother. "
Of course you do! Nice to see you use the word "baby" there! At least you admit it - get that villain costume right back on. :-)
"Prior to that cutoff it's life is intrinsically linked to the life of the mother and so I don't consider it an individual or a "person" yet."
It does not matter "what you consider" but what is true. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion, and isn't the denial of personhood something the slavers did too? Do you see how your words convict you?
"the vast majority of people think that abortion should be legal with some exceptions"
The vast majority of people once thought that slavery should be legal too. Once again, your words convict you, Massah Microbio! :-)
So, don't come back to me and say I am playing the slaver card when it is you yourself who is playing the part so magnificently. Bravo - encore!