There is no should here, without anyone here imposing their ethics over what you ask.
Despite most of us expecting and wanting our laws be based on science or another intersubjective (take this one as the first keyword before asking, again, anything regarding society) behaviour or tradition, that does not occur. Quite frequently, the king, ruler, dictator or major/winning political party imposes their agenda.
Democracy is not about should, but about people electing you for your charge, and your charge giving you the right and duty to define new laws. Usually, these laws can be constrained by international treaties, but in the case of abortion, no international treaty strictly enforces yes or no to abortion.
So, just for start, once you're in charge you should do what you believe is right (beware! more on this later). It is widely accepted that we should obey what the people outside claims for, but that doesn't mean you are compelled anyhow to do that.
Now, getting deep into abortion, you have two boundaries (and their middle/gray positions):
- Pro-choice: The pregnant being has the right to choose whether to continue, or not, the pregnancy. This is not strictly right, since a right is granted by the current state of your legal system, but just intended as somehow a divine or natural right to do that.
- Pro-life: We should respect human life above everything. Then, it comes choice. This means: ensure your baby's birth - you can bring them in adoption later if you don't want to raise it.
This is just a matter of axiology here, and before saying yes, no, or context, you should understand what do you consider as your core set of values. This is a far from complete set of questions you must ask about yourself or the state you are asking about:
- Would you consider the embryo as a human being? (a matter of science/biology)
- Would you consider the embryo as a person? (a matter of rights/laws)
- Should every person born/being in your country be protected regardless any distinction? [age, race, kinship, height, any physical trait, development] (a matter of pure ethics here)
These questions are part of this hot topic of debate in Argentina, right now, so you (or your state in question) would like to start from these ones to define the axiology beforehand. Remember: the answers to these three questions are choices, and not an absolute fact which is true or false here.
Once you define your axiology, avoiding cognitive dissonances will imply you will take, now, a "should" (this implies that doing the right thing should also consider this matter of cognitive dissonances) like the one you are asking for. Avoiding cognitive dissonances is quite important in laws, since most of the trials and definitions or laws are based on precedents. A precedent reflects the need of people like you and I (and even more in the case of a desperate person who wants to abort) to receive a predictable response from our laws system (specially the criminal code) regarding our actions: should I / will I be punished for this, or not?. Avoiding cognitive dissonances will move you (or your state) towards equal treat of different cases (under similar circumstances) along time, and perhaps you'd like to have this feature.
In particular, if you are pro-choice, at least one of those questions will be answered as no. Don't worry, since more questions will arrive later.
Remember there are many flavors of being pro-life or pro-choice. Those flavors are given by the context you ask for, and so more questions appear.
Let's assume you are pro-choice. People will ask you many questions (specially pro-life people) like these:
- Could I -as a healtcare specialist- invoke objection of conscience and not attend you if you want to abort?
- Should your mate also have the right to decide whether your... content (which you refuse to call a person deserving right to live beyond your choice) should be aborted or he/she will take care of it just born?
- Should the state allow it? Or should the state also guarantee it?
- Should we consider situations where abortion should be allowed (malformations, your pregnancy existing from a rape, your life is at risk if the abortion is not performed, economical factors, ...).
Now let's assume you're pro-life. People will cast you many questions (in particular, pro-choice people will):
- To what extent does the pregnant one have any right to decide over their body?
- Should the state guarantee and improve alternative means which are [allegedly] proven as a failure? (here you enumerate: sex-ed, adoption, access to resources,...).
- Should we punish people who aborts? Should we only punish doctors who aid and actually execute the abortion procedure?
- How should you consider handling the same contextual situations described in the pro-choice side?
So, with regards to what you ask for:
- Right now, almost no anti-abortion law is 100% against abortion, except in few countries of South america. Most of those laws consider the context on which an abortion is performed (pretty much like most of those laws consider the context on which you kill someone, like in self-defense).
- On the other hand, most of the countries allowing abortion also consider a timelapse (i.e. your right to abort ends when the embryo evolves into a fetus, or the fetus reaches 5 months, ...), so they are not strictly 100% in favor (I don't know if there is any exception to this rule).
- There is no should before you ask which values is your state (or you) defending. Ask the proper questions beforehand. But if your state (or its people in-charge) claims to be pro-life, they will likely prohibit abortion, except when the life of the pregnant is in risk if the pregnancy continues.