[thoughtomator]

Your arguments are very similar to those of Prof. Peter Singer, who argues that parents should have the right to kill dependent children, because of that same dependence, that the child cannot survive independently.

Contrary to your assertion, it is not antithetical to liberty to 'force' a mother not to kill her child. A mother has chosen by her own free will to undertake the acts of which pregnancy is a result - there is no compulsion to get pregnant. Once she is pregnant, however, there are now two lives to be considered, not just one, both are human, and both in a free society must have their inalienable rights protected.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Children who have already been born can survive with help from parties other than the mother. If those parties wish to provide the help, then more power to them, but they should not be forced. As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.

[GovernmentShrinker]

A mother has chosen by her own free will to undertake the acts of which pregnancy is a result - there is no compulsion to get pregnant.

Not necessarily. And when you rely on this, you are implying that if she became pregnant by means of rape of incest, then she should be free to have an abortion. But then that position doesn't square with the notion that an embryo or fetus is a full-fledged human person, entitled to protection at the expense of an unwilling mother.