The right to life does not trump the right to our bodies. We have a choice whether or not we want to donate an organ to preserve life, and that's the same with abortion. The mother has the right to deny the fetus the use of her body for its incubation time. If we valued life over the freedom of our bodies, then we'd just seize people's organs for the greater good (forced organ donation).
And fuck anyone who says its an inconvenience issue for the mother. Inconvenience is an insult to anyone who has actually given birth. Does it look like a mere inconvenience or possibly one of the most painful experiences someone can go through in this modern society?
I challenge someone to argue my categorical imperative reasoning that 'sanctity of body' trumps that of life. My analogy holds in all relevant ways, so it's moot to argue any trivial differences in my argument when I have reduced the issue to the main concepts. You cannot both agree with a law-forced pro-life stance and be against the govt seizing people's organs to save life. It is possible to argue that there is a relevant difference in the analogy if you were to say the mother was actively taking the fetus's life away by aborting it, but there is no casual difference between denying it bodily nutrients (and it dying as a result), and actively aborting it. The only difference is that aborting it would be more merciful. The mother is the only one that can provide it the nutrients it needs to live, but I'll modify my analogy a little to counter the only foreseeable criticism to my categorical imperative. Even if a single person was the only person who had the right kidney so that someone else may live, the govt has no right to seize that so the person might live. If you agree with this, you are pro-choice, if you disagree with this, you are a lunatic who believes the govt can seize people's organs for the greater good.
This is my moral argument, since the law is the application of the best morality of the time, I say, the law should allow abortions up to birth. It is also stupid and futile to argue from the law to absolute correct morality or what is The Good since laws are subject to change with better moral systems. Your appeal to the law in the form of 'right to life' is moot. The US used to have laws banning black people from having rights.