No, because there is no valid argument to be made to do so. She retains a choice that accomplishes what it is she seeks. That being not pregnant.
Nonsense - what she seeks is to abort the child. A "child transplant" is undoubtedly a more invasive procedure with additional risks. By your own logic, she has a right to govern her health and so the choice should be hers.
Unless you think that child retains its own rights. In which case any logic or morality applied to your fairytale world must also be applied today.
Today, the case is made that the unborn death is the result of no alternative, therefor it has to be accepted.
WTF!?! I have never heard anyone make that case except for you. Of course there is an alternative - carry the child to full term. When the rights of two individuals (mother and child) conflict, the temporary physical accommodation of the mother clearly does not warrant death to the child. Agreed?
Just sayin - ain't sayin