and a functioning brain. I would REALLY recommed you stay away from that one. More PL are sunk on that than on anything else (other than, perhaps, the outright lies about abortion somehow causing breast cancer).
The reality is that the brain is not "functioning" (Well in a meaningful way, anyway) until the snesory nerves stimuli can reach the brain's cortex. And that final connection in the brain, the connection that brings the sensory signals to the cortex, that connection (the Thalamocortical Tract) doesn't reach until about the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. We are essentially talking 3rd trimester then. there are almost no abortions at that time, and they are nearly all for medical emergencies.
So if you are talking about a functioning brain, you certainly are NOT talking about elective abortions of any kind.
Hence, I would recommend you staying away from that argument.
The mother is responsible for the child.
When there is a child, which is at birth.
She should have known what could have happened when she had sex.
Like the smoker should have known what could happen if she had cigarettes. Which brings u sback to whether we treat unwanted outcomes of self-inflicted actions.
Because she does not want the child, does not mean she has the right to take a life.
"life"? It is alive. But it is non-sentient, non-sensate. And also note that nobody have the right to use your bodily resources against your will. Nobody can force you to give blood, f.ex. So why do you want to dump such a burden onto the woman? Isn't that hypocritical, insisting that she have a duty that you yourself are refusing?
People say, "it's her body," but if the forming baby inside her really part of her body? No, it is another life.
A "baby" is not.... etc.
That aside, "life" again is vague. The burger you ate for lunch involved the taking of a bunch of lives in various forms.
And it still leaves us with where the duty to give of your bodily resources stem from. YOU sure don't have such a duty.