You're 'strawman' argument appears...
That's "your 'strawman" argument appears..." But that's okay. You're entitled to a typo.
For the last time, a fetus, up until viability, grows and develops within the womb of a woman ONLY by her consent. After it becomes viable, the mother retains her rights of self-determination and privacy, but such must be balanced now with protecting the life of the fetus too—the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development. However, if a woman's life and health are threatened by the pregnancy, her interests must take precedence over that of the fetus, by virtue of the fact that she is the citizen, not the fetus.
Of course, that's the ideal. It assumes that all women have easy access to abortion clinics, and no woman would be manipulated by others to doubt her choice, causing a delay; we hope no woman would have to wait past the time of viability for her abortion. But it happens. Abortion clinics are hard to find in some communities. Women are poor. But women do not willy-nilly get pregnant, forget about it, then suddenly decide it's not what they want in the 30th week of pregnancy. Usually, if a woman wants an abortion after viability, it's because something's wrong with her pregnancy, and she's in danger.
I'm not interested in a nit-picky examination of abstract notions of rights. I'm just about done here, and if my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.