This got longer than I intended. I think my first issue with your argument is that you think women do not grasp what they are doing. We are rational creatures capable of research and understanding. Some women may get abortions without understanding the full scope. But for most it is a very difficult decision taken with a good understanding of the facts/difficulties/moral dilemmas involved. With an understanding of what life would look like for themselves and the child if they carried to term.

Here are my arguments. They are stated strongly for the point of emphasis:

For some women, abortion is a matter of survival. They have good cause to believe that carrying to term will cause them permanent injury or death. Is the life of a fetus worth more than that of an existing person? I do not believe so and I'm always concerned by the notion that the life of a woman becomes worth less as soon as she becomes pregnant.

In some cases, the child has a serious defect that will either result in a late-term miscarriage or a short and painful life. Is it fair to subject the mother to giving birth to a still-born child when it could have been ended with less pain or trauma earlier? The job of a parent is to minimize their child's suffering and in some cases the best way to do that is to not have the child in the first place.

In some cases the child might be expected to live, but have permanent issues that will leave them dependent on their parents for life. They may never talk or walk. They may never be able to feed or bathe themselves. They may never develop intellectual capabilities beyond those of a child. Caring for a child with these needs may take time or money that the parents cannot provide. It leaves them with the worry of what would happen to the child if they passed away, because there would be no-one to care for them. It may prevent them from ever being in a position to have other children if that was what they wanted. It raises the question of what quality of life is worth living.

In some cases, the child was the result of a traumatic assault. You say that as soon as a woman has conceived, her body is not her own and she has no right to change that. What right did the rapist have to change that, and why should the woman have to bear the consequences for the rest of her life when the man is likely to go either uncharged or go to prison for far less time than the rest of his life? Can you imagine the mental anguish of carrying something inside your body that was put there against your will, knowing that half of it came from the type of person that could force themselves on another in that way? Being told that because of the terrible actions of another, your body is no longer your own? That the rights of a tiny clump of cells incapable of thought or self awareness trump your own right to recover from your trauma in the way that is best for you? Some survivors may come to love the child they carry and kudos to them, but it is not everyone can nor should they have to.

In some cases, yes. People choose to have abortions. Because they cannot afford to raise a child, or because they do not want a child but mistakes happen, or because they would have to raise the child as a single parent and they don't feel that they can do that, or for any host of other reasons. This is where you get into the issue of "where does life start" and that's a hard one to argue because it's very subjective. If someone thinks there has been an accident with birth control and takes Plan B, is that morally wrong or responsible? Because all the ingredients for a successful pregnancy were there but steps were taken to prevent it. This is where it becomes more difficult to argue, because I think that the rights of a fully formed person supersede the rights of an unborn potential person and you disagree. And that's a hard canyon to bridge.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the role of the male parent in this. Do they have the right to walk away from things, or should they be required to be with and support the person whose bodily rights they have helped in taking away? Do they have the moral obligation to do all they can to avoid accidentally impregnating a woman because in doing so he is taking away her right to bodily autonomy? Because if not then the real issue here is not abortion but women's rights.

I think that I think one of the most concerning things about accidental pregnancies without the right to abortion to me is that the consequences fall disproportionately on the women, when two people were involved in the initial act. It permanently affects the life of the woman, but the man is often unscathed or left paying child support from a distance. She might not be able to continue school. She might miss out on career opportunities because she can't find a sitter. She might have to limit her job options to ones that are flexible enough to allow caring for a child. She might face the scorn of friends and family and have to live with that stigma for the rest of her life. She might have difficulty finding a life-partner because people often don't want to date young mothers with children.