I do appreciate your counter argument, however the flaws in it are so blatant, I will have to address them on a point by point basis.
1)You state that you do not understand the principle I am appealing to. Clearly that is the case, as I am not appealing to any principle, I am simply stating a fact, that a woman who wants an abortion will get one, one way or another regardless of the illegality. How would you choose to punish a woman who got an illegal abortion? Force her to adopt a child?
2)You then go on to state that rape will always happen. A sad but unfortunate truth. Although I find it interesting that you would bring up rape in an abortion forum, as rape is the largest argument used against your cause. The withholding of abortions from rape victims would change nothing aside from a spike in the suicide rate, an historically proven fact.
3)Laws are in place to protect innocent victims from unjust acts. The definition of victim is as follows "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident." The key word in that definition is person. Despite your arguments, Canadians have decided through the governing process that person hood does not occur at conception.
4)Government exists to protect society as a whole, the protection of individuals is simply an obvious extension of this core goal. As a result, laws are frequently enacted that protect or fail to protect those that commit unjust acts, but benefit society as a whole, in fact the entire notion of the corporation is based on protecting the maker of decisions from the legal implications of that decision.
I look forward to a rebuttal, may I recommend the inclusion of factual information to better support it?