Abortion of a normal pregnancy should be illegal, really just want to talk with an opposing view

This is my first debate as well, so this should be relatively equal in terms of site usage. Primarily, I think the assumption that abortion is only a solution to the inconvenience of motherhood is a blatant error. While this may be what some women use it for, many use it as a means to not perish during childbirth. USA Today states this more eloquently, "Abortions are sometimes needed to save the lives or health of pregnant women," I think this is the easiest argument to win against the Pro. For conversational purposes however, the Con can fall into one of two categories: A) Freedom of choice or B) unintended motherhood/fatherhood A) Freedom of choice In general the united states prides itself on Freedom of decision. The ability to choose what will happen with your life and what happens with your body. This is the primary argument made for Con, that a woman's body, for all intents and purposes, is her property. The Government, has no right to infringe upon the woman's right of choice. In fact Merriam-Webster defines freedom as, in addition to other things, "the quality or state of being free: Such as the absence of... constraint in choice or action" (https://www.merriam-webster.com...). By limiting the choice of what a woman can do to her body is inherently anti-freedom. However, this is where the most common pro argument bears down: the mother making this choice affects the life of another individual and therefore should be considered unjust. I will address this point at the end of the argument. B) Unintentional mother/fatherhood Condoms are only about "85% effective " that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year," (https://www.plannedparenthood.org...) unfortunately this is common many contraception measures do not always prevent conception (http://americanpregnancy.org...). So for those who give in to societal norms, contraception may not always remove the possibility of conception. This can have a significant impact on the future of the mother and father, economically, socially, and mentally. For the sake of brevity economics would be the most straightforward argument so I will only contend this fact. Supporting a child takes significant monetary and time investment, and those who cannot afford it should not be responsible for the detriment of a child. Hypothetically if a mother and father pair (or one or the other) was force to care for the baby would have to spend as much as "$14,000 annually," (https://www.cbsnews.com...) which in addition to the time investment it costs to raise a baby (there's a reason some mothers/fathers become stay at home moms/dads) it can but significant financial burden on to those who cannot afford it. A counter to this may be giving the child to an orphanage. First thing, this is against the Pros argument because its purpose to to relieve the mother/father of the inconveniences or detriments to the child. Secondly, orphanages have notoriously bad conditions. Harming of an individual Technically during the early stages of conception the individual is essentially a blob of cells which drains nutrients from the mother to grow. While, I support the idea that abortions should be illegal after the point where the individual had a high chance on living outside the womb with no consequences. In the beginning stages the individual has little more life than the germs that lie on the exterior of your skin. And later in life, little more than various parasites. For the remainder of the debate I would like to submit two quality necessary to be considered life: 1) The ability to exist outside the host 2) The ability to maintain awareness or sentience to the outside world ***I used the term individual because I could not think of a word to replace it. Please note this is not acceptance of its life as a human.