You just answered your own question, which I guess makes it rhetorical:

"What else could the debate be about?"

"Whether or not it is a person could be a debate point. "

I agree that "life" is a somewhat ambiguous term (though the context of Justice Blackmuns opinion and the rest of its text make pretty clear he was talking about a being, not cells in a petri dish, as does saying, "the babys life, " rather than just "life" ). Whether or not it is a person is most definitely a debate point; in many ways it is THE debate point, because whether or not one considers abortion acceptable often hinges entirely on whether and when one considers the fetus a human being rather than a lump of nonsentient cells. Otherwise we'd have to debate the legality of removing tumors and male masturbation, because those cells are every bit as much human life as any fetus; if sperm weren't alive no fetuses ever would be.

Another of the thing the debate could be about is whether the trauma of raising her rapists child, serious injury up to and including sterility or certain death, is simply a matter of "convenience" for a woman, or whether we're also talking about weighing her health or her very life against what may or may not be a baby.

Moving to other things I hadn't already stated the debate could be about when you asked, there's the old issue of whether laws against abortion actually prevent any of the, or simply means thousands of women are injured or killed along with fetuses during illegal and unsafe abortions.

There's three options, one of which I haven't already presented you with (in this thread; I do recall discussing it with you a few times at wotmania, and "they deserve death" still isn't an acceptable rebuttal).