Ric, I’d just put my faith in the Lord, and I know I’d be ok.
If the evidence used to attempt to indict an alleged serial killer was obtained in breach of her right to privacy, the defendant would benefit from her right to privacy just like the abortionist. The evidence would not be admitted and she would not be indicted until tried for her next murder.
Tru dat Ric, tru dat.
Excuse me, but, how can a woman get pregnant from her sister? 
(Inbred, on drugs, and a serial killer? [EDIT] The first two sound better than being dead.) 
Sorry, are crackwhores the point? Abortion means killing an unborn human fetus. Who the mother is (rich, poor, black, white, straight, lesbian) has no logically necessary bearing on what she desires. If we say “pro-choice” then we have to make some sort of ownership assertion of the mother over the life of her child. Saying a potential human is property is problematic; what if mothers could sell their aborted fetuses to corporations for research? (Unseemly, I know, but it probably still happens.) At any rate, to me the issue is about what the desire of the mother is, and whether or not we can and should talk about the desire of the unborn.
I think your question is badly framed if its intended to specifically be a dilemna for abortion.
Clearly, the answer does not hinge on anything to do with abortion.
You have already assumed that abortion is murder (and presumably that murder is usually wrong) so what is the relevance of it being a fetus that is dying?
Irrelevant of any issues about seeing the future… let us say for argument that there are only two possibily types of future. Either the child is born and becomes a serial killer, or the mother has an abortion (any attempt to kill it after born will be unsuccessful). In any world in which the child is born, the child grows up to be a serial killer. This, I think, bypasses all the irrelevant questions of foreknowledge, even though foreknowledge is an interesting philosophical issue of its own.
Back to the issue… we have assumed acurate foreknowledge, and assumed that killing a fetus is murder. Surely the relevant ethical question now is whether it is acceptable to murder to prevent greater murder?
Now, this is another interesting question on its own. All first-order ethical theories will have something interesting to say about it I am sure. It is not, however, specifically a dilemna for abortion. In fact, the answer to the relevant question for abortion (Is abortion murder?) specifically has been assumed for purposes of your dilemna.
So how does this make any difference to anti abortionists at all? It does not.
He’s right.
I agree that logically this should make no difference to the anti-abortionists, but they’re not logical. It would make a difference. Those people are generally very sensitive. If it sounds contrary, they attack!
(We’re not “sensitive”, we practice Kierkegaardian subjectivity.) 
Irrationalism is fine. That’s what makes them sensitive. They’re probably tired of constantly getting pushed around by rational types and have become sensitive as a result. I’m not saying it’s in the nature of the anti abortionist to be sensitive, it’s just a symptom of the world’s injustice toward them.
Yeah, I’m not trying to abuse pro-lifers, either. The difference is philosophical, not political.
The problem of course is that if we make it illegal, people won’t stop getting abortions. Really, I think we should remove abortion from the table entirely one way or the other–legislate it federally so that it’s illegal everywhere (even though this won’t stop it from happening), or just go ahead and amend the constitution so that abortion is everywhere legal and regulable.
How about the flipside of the question: Given a pro-choice POV, are there conditions which should limit the right to abortion?
Why is it always split pro-choce/pro-life? Can I be pro-abortion? Is there a bumper sticker for that?
I don’t think it should be limited in any way. People just need to be educated about what that entails. I doubt that legalizing late term aborions would cause a big spike in the number of them performed given that people knew how gross all that stuff looks when it comes out.
I know, right? Who’s looking for a “safe stance”? 
Incidentally, I think this is already on maddox.xmission.com. You can buy a t-shirt for the “Regressive” party sporting the text: “Against Abortion. For Killing Babies.”
That page is awesome.
I don’t believe in hate
Mercy
Or absolute codes of conduct.
I beleive in result…
Any action or non-action has result.
It only becomes a “moral problem”
When the two [or more] options have conflicting interests or desires.
Scott while I agree that some pro-life people hold their beliefs irrationally, it is definately an over generalisation to say that all of them do, and that because of the fact that some of them do this becomes a “dilemna” for them because they are irrational.
Such a view is arrogant and out right false.
If you really intend to present a PHILOSOPHICAL dilemna to a group of people, then you have to assume they are holding their beliefs irrationally. If they are genuinely irrational, even present with a real dilemna they can merely say “well I don’t care I’m still right!”
Assuming the opponent it irrational at the outset (especially when they are not present to defend themselves) is like having a wrestling match with a blind, deaf parapalygic kid - sure, you’re going to win, but there’s just somethign that doesn’t seem quite right about it.
Isn’t winning what matters?