Abortion is right(pro) or wrong(con)

My opponent argues that abortion is not immoral because the fetus:(i)Has no will to live (it doesn't even know what a "will" or "life" is)How do you know it doesn't have a will to live? Everything living has a will to live, if it didn't it would already be dead. For example, when a small tree is overshadowed by a bigger one, it grows, bending and twisting its way towards light. Why? Because it has a will to live. Another example, when two bacteria DNA transfer (I believe it is called conjugation) and exchange traits, so they both may survive. Why? Because it has a will to live.(ii) Has not developed the ability to feel any painWhether it can feel pain or not doesn't really matter. There are many ways you can kill somebody with out inflicting pain, but you can still be charged with murder. In the end you are still bringing an end to and killing, a living thing.(iii) Has not developed any consciousness or self-awarenessSelf-awareness isn't typically developed until out of the womb (http://www.parentingcounts.org...), however every living thing has vague knowledge of its existence. Considering the fact that you have stated that third trimester abortions should be considered immoral, and self-awareness isn't developed until out of the womb, this part of the point does not relate to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions. Now I have narrowed your statement down to: Has not developed any consciousness. Alright then, we shall talk about consciousness. This is quite similar to the pain thing, it does not matter whether or not a living thing is conscious. If you kill it when it's conscious, it dies. If you kill it when it's unconscious, what do you know! It still dies. It being unconscious does not justify killing nor does it make it moral."With these three facts in place, we can see that it is self-evident that a creature which all (i), (ii), and (iii) apply to shouldn't have rights like we do. Why? Because there is no harm done. You know you are not doing anything against someone's will, hurting them, and causing negative effects on their conscious awareness ect..."There is harm done. You are doing something against someone's will, and you are killing someone (or something if you prefer), so you are hurting them one way or another."If this type of creature is causing inconvenience in the life of someone who:(i) Has the will to live, and the will to get rid of this creature (ii) Has developed the ability to feel pain(iii) Has developed consciousness and self-awarenessThen it is clear that there is no harm done. The fetus isn't being psychologically damaged (there is no conscious mental activity), and their is no pain (no neocortex), and no will to live being smashed. Its hard to see how abortion (in the first and second trimester) are immoral. In the third trimester, the neocortex develops, and this is when abortion should be considered immoral (the subject may be able to feel pain). However, around 90% of abortions are in the first and second trimester!"I'm not going to restate all the points that I just argued, however if the baby/fetus is an inconvenience to to the mother, it is still not a reason to kill it. There are plenty of better options.So, I'm going to go back to my first point.Point 1: A fetus is a life.The argument for this point, or evidence is in round 2.Point 2: Abortion kills.As it says in point 1, a fetus is a life, therefore terminating/disposing of it, is killing.