Once the competing rights are defined correctly, progress can be made in resolving this issue. You have made a good start, above, but your definition does not consider the following:
There are cases in which pregnancy is involuntary, as in the case of rape, and statutory rape.
Statutory rape also effects the liberty, and property in the form of expenses, of the person who is responsible for the pregnant female minor.
How do you propose to deal with the many cases in which pregnancy is clearly involuntary? You must remove your head from the sand on this one.
I have offered a principle which would lead to a solution - consistent with the 4th and 13th amendments, governmentally protectable life begins at physical independence, and consistent with the 10th amendment, state legislatures should decide at what moment in a person's life physical independence begins.
What is your solution?
Actually I have responded to you on this question in #308. But I will remind you of my line of reasoning:
You may argue that a mother who has conceived because of rape had no choice. This is true. But the father had a choice and should be duly punished for his violation. Many of the best and longest-lasting societies punished rape as heavily as murder and rightly so. Indeed most states at the time of Founding prosecuted it as a capital offense to the astonishment of some Europeans at the time. We seem to have lost sight not only of the grievous offense of rape, but also no longer take such precautions as both prevent rape and make prosecution of it possible. But, the resultant child who is as much a victim as the mother should not be executed for having given no offense. The mother may be traumatised for the rest of her life and if she should seek termination of the unwanted child, her crime might be mitigated, perhaps even completely, because of such trauma. But make no mistake, that child is not an intruder. That zygote committed no violation of natural nor political law.
But, you have not responded to my objections to your applications of the Constitution, and have yet to show what at all in the Constitution has a bearing on the abortion debate. I suggest you read the ninth amendment where it is clearly stated that simply because the Constitution protects certain rights of the individual and the sovereignties of the states, it should not be construed to mean that there are not other rights that in the light of the tenth amendment fall altogether outside the domain of the federal government.
But perhaps you are under the spell of the Supreme dictates that there are certain penumbras in the Constitution that give forth emanations giving life to certain zones of privacy, or to put it plainly that there is an unwritten and yet still binding amendment that protects the absolute right to privacy and makes the Supreme Court and its executive henchman the guarantors of such hidden rights. It is a very difficult amendment to debate over, because it is difficult to discern the meaning of what is not there. But before you respond I suggest you read my post #401.