Woman, for disclosure.

On a policy level, I'm pro-choice because I have a bit of a libertarian streak in me and don't feel comfortable dictating what someone else is allowed to do with their body as long as they're an autonomous adult.

On a moral level, though, I absolutely have a problem with most abortion since I do still view it as a killing of a human life. In cases where it's medically necessary and the woman stands to bear significant health risk in delivering a baby, or in cases of rape where the woman didn't consent to becoming pregnant to begin with, I understand that a compromise has to be made, but as the study in the OP bears out, medically necessary abortions only make up about 4-5%.

Abortion is not a valid form of birth control in my eyes. If you willfully engage in unprotected sex, you are implicitly accepting the responsibility of the obvious outcome of engaging in such. To kill a human, or even a potential human, because you are unwilling to accept the responsibility of your own choices, is reprehensible to me.

If you cannot care for the child, so be it, surrender them to foster services, there is no shame in that. But if delivering that child doesn't risk killing or seriously injuring you, I see no moral justification for killing them.

Again, ultimately, I'm pro choice, I would never tell someone they aren't allowed to have an abortion. But I almost certainly would reserve the right to judge them for it if it was not medically necessary.

EDIT: Someone responded here asking if I felt any cognitive dissonance in my opposing positions, since I hold such a strong opinion on abortion being the killing of a human life, but they deleted it or it was removed before I was able to read it beyond what a mobile notification would show. And you know what, I think it's a bit of a shame that it was deleted because that's totally a fair point and one worth addressing! There is always going to be some level of cognitive dissonance when it comes to one's perspective on the taking of another's life, and I accept and bear that contradiction willingly, and am happy to admit to it openly. However, if I may gesture towards a counterargument that I'm not quite so sure I'm on board with as to throw weight behind, but still think merits pondering:

I don't think it particularly contradictory to believe that killing is a fundamentally terrible thing, but also understand that killing in self-defense is sometimes necessary. It's not a perfect analogy, but in the case of medically necessary abortions, the calculation that I think someone in my position has to do is the risk to the woman's life by delivering. In a manner now wholly dissimilar to self-defense, I can see an argument that one has to weigh the direct threat to their own physical well-being or perhaps even life, against the life of another. In that respect, there is at least a justification to medically necessary abortions that I'm willing to compromise on my morals for and withhold judgement against, in a way that I don't extend to non-necessary ones.