Your definition of an independent life dodges the issue - does that genome have a right to suckle sustenance from another's body, while inside it? You would call that independent? That seems arbitrary and capricious to me.
The State it can't force a woman to incubate that life with her own body, and not violate both her right to be secure in her own person, and her right to not provide servitude to another life. (much less succumb to a rapist's dominance)
You are entitled to your opinion, but dont read into the constitution what isnt there. Men and women have their liberty restricted when medical procedures and other matters afffecting our bodies are regulated by the state. The supreme court has not abolished medical regulations. nor have they abolished the FDA. The state can forbid us from taking dangerous drugs, from taking even non-FDA approved lifesaving drugs ... and likewise can forbid for various reasons medical procedures such as those that kill the unborn. Indeed, whether we think the unborn have a 'right to life' or not, saving such lives is indeed a 'compelling state interest'. If the result is the compulsion to bear a child as nature takes its course, it is no more a threat to constitutional rights than forcing homeowners to carry flood insurance or forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets.
There is no Constituion "Right to abortion" - that was an invention of the Supreme Court in a notorious case of judicial overreaching.