Some of you are also assuming that the abortion issue is as important to the average voter as it was in the past.  This poll does not account for that at all.  Frankly, I think many people have just accepted the status quo even if they themselves are pro-life.  That is one of the reasons why Catholics are very pro-life but still voted for Obama and Democrats in general.  Very few people are one issue voters.

NPR had a good piece that addressed this talking about Obama's Notre Dame trip:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104107546

Support on campus for Obama's visit has been strong, as was his showing in last fall's presidential race, when he became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Indiana in 44 years.

"The majority of students and faculty are really thrilled and honored to have President Obama coming to Notre Dame," says Anne Hayner, an associate director at the university's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

"This hasn't come across as a huge point of division on campus, and it has been a chance to raise really important issues to think about," Hayner says. "Abortion is just one of his many, many positions — and he stands for a lot of things that people on campus support," she says. "It doesn't have a feel that it's splitting the campus."

Not to turn this into a religious argument, but you can’t apply logic to a story, and then claim it’s fact.

First you need to determine that that passage is in fact true before it can be used to conclude anything further.

Portions of the Bible have been proven true, and due to the nature of the book the rest we have to assume is either true or false (hence why religion is faith based). As a Christian, you would believe the Bible is fact, and therefore make logical arguments with it. And as she noted, this is from a Christian perspective. So there is nothing wrong with her statment. Those who don't believe the Bible is fact would of course disagree with the argument based on that fact.

We could devolve into a "is the Bible fact" debate, but that is not for here or now.

Well if it really does show the same amount of feeling as an unborn child then it must be in a vegative coma induced by an accident or illness and is only being kept alive by machines, in which case I believe yes, you can 'kill' your child by pulling the plug (though that's another ethical issue altogether).

Now I don't belive in late abortions either and I think that if it (somehow) comes to that and the mother still doesn't want the child then she should give it up for adoption. However this notion that life begins at conception is ludicrous because it relies on the concept of 'potential' and 'potential' applied in this context simply doesn't make any sense. The argument you have centres around the notion that aborting an embryo is murder because it has the 'potential' to become a baby. Well, yes but then why arn't condoms considerd murder because they prevent a 'potential' baby. Again same with contraceptives, surely they also destroy 'potential' babies? In fact why not having sex at all, or resisting a rape?, because they could both result in pregency.

If we mesured everything in 'potential' then we're all comiting murder every second of everyday.

@ZZetaAlec: Slippery slope. Woot. See the problem with your "potential" argument is that once a embryo is formed, it is growing into a human shaped person. Does it have the potential to be anything but a human? Not unless you read science fiction. So a human embryo is not a potential human, but a growing baby.

Is it Human DNA? Yes.
Could it become a monkey? No. (some parents might think so after the baby is born and climbing on everything....)

The whole argument boils down to when is an embryo a human, and therefore given rights, specifically the right to life? Once you form a new string of DNA from the mother and father seems logical. Before that they are simply parts of yourself, and can be controlled, so you whole slippery slope analogy is invalid.

There's always adoption.
Honestly, for my age I've seen a lot about people persevering through and have seen how much they cling to life.
I've seen Mom's washing clothes and fish in waters they defecate and void in because that's all they have.
I've seen kids steal from people's trash cans just to have a meal.
I've seen orphans trying to make a living by themselves while taking care of siblings.
It might sound like some sad TV drama but situations like those are real.
They want to live, and they try no matter how hard it is.

Now ask me again if I'd rather she kill the child or let it experience life.
Especially in developed countries where life is much much more easier.

With regards to the faith and scientific perspective.
The scientific perspective is much more cruel, since we or our "self" is defined by our brains, and if we die we're gone forever. Which means once you abort a child, that "individual" will never ever get to experience life.
Unlike the Faith perspective where a soul just shelters itself in a body, and when that body is killed it will just move on and experience life elsewhere be it heaven or reincarnation or someother after life.

It's ironic that, majority wise, the religious are the ones who are opposed to abortions.
And the more scientific community are the ones who are okay with it.

Also, my second cousins wife had a premature baby in the early 5th month of her pregnancy and she is about to celebrate her 2nd birthday in a few months.

You are mistaking KNOWING something is true (i.e. I know God exists) for BELIEVING something is true (i.e. I believe God exists).  No one knows if God really exists, and it is sort of blasphemous to say you do. 

Furthermore, the stuff you are quoting in the Bible is not historical fact because it involves something supernatural.  Its part of the overarching Judeo-Christian story.  That doesn't mean it is fact.  For instance, its the difference between "Jesus was crucified" (historical fact) - "Jesus died so that God would forgive the human race's sins" (Judeo-Christian story).

Thus, pro-life people BELIEVE that life begins at conception.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Its sort of just a difference of opinion on what "life" really is.  Technically, life begins before conception.  An egg and a sperm are both alive.  There isn't a magical barrier between life and death that is passed.  That globule of chromosomes can now develop into a fully functional organism, but it is no more alive or dead than it was before the egg and sperm united.

So more people believe in teens becoming parents instead of allowing them to get abortions. Great!

I think the main problem with the abortion issue is that too many people think that the world works by some kind of divine set of morals.

Which it doesn't.

People die all the time. Life is for the alive, and fetuses are not alive. Also, this graph is sort of important too. That nice article you provided had an awful lot of graphs.

There are too many "ifs" regarding abortion. Graphs like these show more on the issue.

Exodus 21:22-25: And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

I think this is a suitable counter passage supporting abortion. Basically, as long as no injury is occurred to the woman during abortion.