1st Moral Argument
A living being doesn't have to be a person in order to have intrinsic moral value and rights.
Is ending the life of a human fetus moral or immoral? Well... does the human fetus have any value and any rights? It's a scientific fact that a human fetus is human life. Those who argue that the human fetus has no rights say that a fetus is not a human. But even if you choose to believe that, it doesn't mean the fetus has no intrinsic value or no rights. There are many living beings that are not humans that have both value and rights: Dogs, cats, and other animals, for example.
2nd Moral Argument
On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a fetus's worth? We certainly don't do that with regard to a newborn child. It is society, not the mother or the father, that determines whether a newborn child has worth and a right to live.
When challenged with the first argument, those of the Pro-Choice circuit usually change the subject to the rights of the mother, meaning the right of a mother to end the life of the fetus under any circumstance, for any reason, and at any time during her pregnancy. Is that moral? It is only if we believe that the human fetus has no intrinsic worth. But in most cases, nearly everyone believes that the human fetus has essentially infinite worth and an almost absolute right to live.
When a pregnant woman wants to give birth. Then, society, and its laws, regard the fetus as so valuable that if someone were to kill that fetus, said person could be prosecuted for homicide. Only if a pregnant woman doesn't want to give birth, do people generally regard the fetus as being worthless. Now, how does that make sense? It doesn't seem to; either a human fetus has worth or it doesn't.
3rd Moral Argument
No one ever asks a pregnant woman, "How's your body?" When asking about the fetus. People usually ask, "How's the baby?"
Remember, it's society, not the mother nor the father, who determines whether a newborn child has worth and a right to live. So, the question is why should that be different before the human being is born? Why does one person, a mother, get to determine whether that being has any right to live? People respond by saying that a woman has the right to "control her body" and that it's her body, therefore, her rights. Now, that is entirely correct. But the problem here, however, is that the fetus is not "her body;" it's in her body. It's a separate body.
4th Moral Argument
Virtually everyone agrees that the moment the baby comes out of the womb, killing the baby is murder. But deliberately killing it a few months before birth is considered no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. How does that make sense?
5th Moral Argument
Aren't there instances in which just about everyone, even among those who are pro-choice, would acknowledge that an abortion might not be moral?
For example, would it be moral to abort a female fetus solely because the mother prefers boys to girls as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere? And one more example: Let's say science develops a method of determining whether a child in the womb is gay or straight. Would it be moral to kill a gay fetus because the mother didn't want a gay child?
People may offer practical reasons not to criminalize all abortions. People may differ about when humanhood begins and about the morality of abortion after rape or incest. But with regard to the vast majority of abortions, those of healthy women aborting a healthy fetus; then let's be clear. Most of these abortions just aren't moral. Good societies can survive people doing immoral things. But a good society cannot survive if it calls immoral things moral.