The Roe V Wade decision keeps popping up in debates on the abortion issue. It should be recognized that the decision has created contradictions in U.S. laws. Your other laws do not use "viability" as a determining factor in recognizing that the unborn is human. They grant rights equal to those granted to a person regardless of the stage of development.
". . . but you want to force the woman to keep an unwanted child." Yet after "viability" is recognized, your laws do force her to keep the unwanted child. What's the difference?
"The woman should decide what happens to her body." I agree, but there is another body that is not hers. The other laws recognize that other body as human. If a human is in my care and totally dependent on me, am I allowed to disregard that human's right to life? If the human in my care is not terminally ill, may I withdraw care for no other reason than I wish to discontinue?
"It is not a person." That might be true when it's a embryo. As the judges observed, it could not be determined when the unborn becomes a person. In the Rowe V Wade decision, it was decided that the unborn is recognized as a person at the time of "viability", so the issue is: Is it wrong to kill the innocent unborn human or is it wrong only when the human is a person? Your other laws don't make that distinction.
Can this contradiction be fixed?
One last comment: Is the right to abortion on demand an example of the end justifying the means?