The baby's right to live superceedes the mother's selfish right to be free from "inconvienence".
Having your womb inflated like a balloon for 1/2 a year, being anchor-chained to something that drains you for nourishment, followed by 18 years of indentured servitude is hardly an "inconvienence". If a stranger did that to you, it would be kidnapping, enslavement, battery and theft. The mother's rights in this regard are not so much used toilet paper, and there is not such thing as "inalienable right to life", any more than there is such a thing as "inalienable right to life and liberty" which the mother supposedly possesses. Rights come into conflict and have to be adjudicated in the real world. There is no right to life bulldozer that tramples all before it. The right to life of a blob of goo that might someday qualify as a citizen, without a nerve cell, does not outweigh the assault and enslavement of an existing citizen with full rights. The law exists to serve the existing citizens who are willing participants in it's social contract. It is both dangerous and stupid to extend those rights, willy-nilly, to anything else.