I have argued extensively here about many things other than feeeeeelings. This is not my bottom line, it an example, and I'll thank you not to be putting words in my mouth in place of responding in detail to detailed arguments.
"Having a baby is a serious act with serious repercussions on the part of a woman--she and her rights, and the depth and nature of her feelings,..."
Since it has been determined by documentation (DoI) that happiness isn't a right, and you have shown NO specific right that is being abridged by enforcing the right of life for the fetus, most of your arguement now involves her feeeeeeeliings! But I did also address the alleged right of inconvenience, which doesn't friggin exist. So show us a right that is being trumped by the baby's right to life.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Ever wonder why the FF's put those words in that order? Read through the Constitution, BOR's, and the Federalist Papers sometime. The inescapable conclusion is the FF's understood that some rights had priority standing simply by their importance in relation to other rights. Take a look.