I do enjoy a good logical argument, and you have used quite a bit in this essay.
However, I want to add another point here.
If we consider the fetus to be a person, and thus worthy of life and thereby not allow the mother to abort, a more complex relationship arises that actually grants more rights to the fetus than we do to a person.
A fetus, weather alive or not, has a parasitic relationship inside the mother. It takes her blood, her nutrients, crowds her organs, changes her hormone levels, and essentially has a parasitic relationship. Now don't get me wrong, that's not necessarily bad, I have a child myself and would happily enter another such parasitic relationship with another hypthotetical future human. Many people chose and cherish this relationship.
However, no human being currently has the right to be in a parasitic relationship, with another human, without ongoing consent of the of the host. Each person who choses to donate their blood, organs, or have their body mined of minerals at the expense of another person, consents to it, and can chose to or not at any time.
For example, there are people who rely on blood donations, without blood donation, they could die, and some people do. Some of these people are innocent children. If I give blood once, to help a friend of mine's child, that doesn't mean that child is entitled to my blood again, or again, or as long as the child needs it. My blood is my blood, and I can chose to give it to my friends kid or not. Because I give blood once, doesn't mean I have to keep giving that child blood, even if that kid will die without it.
Same with organs, many people die because they need a new kidney. That doesn't give them the right to demand a kidney from someone else. A person has to consent to give their kidney away. No one, not even a dying child, has the right to demand an organ, blood, tissue, or another other part of another persons body. No person has the right to demand the use of another person's body, even if they can't live without it.
To outlaw a woman getting an abortion out of the fetus, would in fact be giving the fetus more rights than other humans, because it says the fetus has the right to live, at the physical and medical expense of another human without on-going consent of the host, namely the mother. Meaning a woman could not consent to donating her body to this endeavor, but is forced to.
By this logic, a person who is dying from kidney failure should be able to demand an organ from a healthy person. People would be required to donate kidneys. Blood transfusions could be mandatory, as there are people who will die without them and they have a right to live, even at the expense of other's bodies.
I recommend considering this point in your well-thought out logical argument.
It should also be noted, that countries that outlaw abortion, have a significant increase in infanticide. I know it's questionable if a fetus is alive or not, but once a baby is born it is defientlely alive. Killing after birth is definitely murder. I think that alternative cost more innocent lives being lost than abortion. This is because outlawing abortion doesn't actually stop it, people just go to more extreme methods to have it, including killing newborn babies.
