First, you say that abortion is the "killing of an unborn life". You are incorrect.
Well let's go over basic biology, shall we?
First question: is the fetus alive? Yes. How do we know? Because a fetus takes in nutrients, expends energy and grows.
The fetus therefore lives up to this definition of "life".
Okay, so what kind of lifeform is it?
Seeing as the fetus is born of two human beings, and every human fetus turns into a human being (i.e. no individual organism turns into another species) then we can safely conclude that a fetus is a human being.
I cannot believe there are still people out there who do not know that basic biological fact. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.
Abortion terminates a pregnancy by expelling fetal tissue that requires the use of a woman's body for 9 months to survive. By scientific definition, it is a parasite.
Biological offspring cannot be parasites. Parasites are creatures who, in significant numbers, will cause significant damage or death to the host.
By design, parasites harm their hosts. The hosts are NOT designed to sustain the lives of the parasites.
However, the uterus is designed to sustain the life of the fetus.
Another point to take into account is that parasites are of a different species than their hosts.
Fetuses are of benefit to the species because their survival ensures the survival of the species. Large numbers of real parasites could mean the extinction of a species.
If fetuses were truly parasites, then ALL women would want to get rid of them because they would be harmful to all women. But they are not truly parasites. They are only considered parasites, i.e. by analogy.
Therefore, they do not meet the scientific definition of a parasite.
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is the same as forcing you to support another human by handing over your body; your liberty; your health to keep them alive.
Guess what: we do that. We are forced to support other human beings by our taxes, our effort, our bodies, our liberty, and so forth.
Why? Because we have a moral responsibility towards other human beings.
We do not live in a society that says "oh, you're dying from my lack of assistance-- tough luck pal! I have the choice to ignore you."
What kind of heartless, callous society is that?
And I know the next response-- that we don't force people to give up their kidneys for others. No, we don't expect people to undergo the loss of an organ to help someone live. People have a right to bodily integrity.
But the difference between a kidney and a uterus is that a uterus exists for the survival of that other person. In fact, the placenta is a creation of the fertilization of the sperm and ovum. The placenta itself exists for NO OTHER REASON that to keep the baby alive. The uterus serves other functions (like hormonal regulation) but even hormonal regulation has an important reproductive function.
A woman's body is designed to be a home to a newly conceived human being. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with the notion of bodily integrity-- that is, to respect the body's proper design and health-- to prevent women from killing their unborn children.
Nobody requires you to "lend" your body to another human being to let them live, so why should women be required to do so? Answer: they should not.
That fetus is not just some stranger. That fetus is the woman's offspring, her child. That entails moral obligations.
The mother has no right to reject those obligations. Certainly not the right to kill an unborn child.