To be blunt, I do not believe a female human has a right to kill another alive individual human being because she deems the life of that other individual an inconvenience she isn't willing to take responsibility for. She does have a right of self defense, however.
Is it enslavement to require an individual to be responsible for the lives that individual has brought into existence? If it is finally defined as enslavement, the institutional basis for Western Civilization is in grave danger, for that legitimizing of refuted responsibility is also extendable to the FATHERS of the little ones, and if you doubt it, consider that any court which can force a man to pay child support for eighteen years, for a child that man has neither propagated nor adopted can just as easily relieve men of the responsibility to provide life support for their children. I suppose that's one good reason why the Declaration of Independence cites certain 'unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, that among these is LIFE, (then)Liberty, (then property, or) the pursuit of happiness.'
Since LIFE is the first listed unalienable right, I'm of the group who believe terminating a pregnancy that threatens the LIFE of the woman is an acceptable authorization for terminating the life support. That is choice, the woman's choice (and she might choose to discuss it with her husband; I have read of cases where the couple discussed it, more because the husband wanted the termination and the mother wasn't convinced yet, and the child actually made it, in some cases, without the pregnancy killing the mother).
A woman must have, in our society--given the founding principles, the right to choose between dying because of a pregnancy or living because of a termination of a threatening pregnancy. She has the right of self-defense when her life in endangered. To extend that right of self-defense to become a 'right of selfish offense' is a gross mutation of our founding principles ... and hiring a serial killer to off an 'unwanted child' already alive in her body, is in fact a 'selfish offense against humanity'.
There is no embryological doubt when an individual's human lifetime begins. There ought be no scientific doubt whom builds the arms and legs, brain and liver of the body that conceived individual human life will use for the remainder of a lifetime begun at conception.
Could the embryonic individual build its own arms, legs, brain, heart, and liver without life support from its Mother (she builds only the blood vessels that bring nutrients to the placental barrier and take away what waste is removed; the Mother's body builds none of the body parts or the space capsule the newly conceived individual built, and maintains)? Not yet, but it will not be long until scientists are able to rpovide the entire gestational process without the individual human being ever being inside another life supporting human body ... the chambers are already under experiemntation for use with higher mammals of great value, like prized bovine sprem providers or prized equine sperm providers, or mammals on the endangered species list.
Being now able to anticipate what is coming very soon from scienitific endeavors, one should ask, 'What will it mean regarding individual human life when the entire process of human reproduction can be conceived and gestated outside the human life supporting host?'
To whom will the individual belong that lives through the artificial gestational process?
What of cloned individuals gestated in such a manner, to whom will their bodies belong, whom has the right to harvest from their nascent life as they build their own body? The answers we afford for the issues we now face, will determine the level of cannibalism we will accept when the 'brave new world' arrives like a humming train, woeing any who will to join the rituals that promise extended life, enforced health.
I am, in fact, for forcing a woman to continue life support to viability for the other alive individual for whom she is responisble in her womb..
You go on to outline where science is going in terms of producing life outside the womb. Then you ask
To whom will the individual belong that lives through the artificial gestational process?
I would suggest that by removing the individual's choice in terminating a pregnancy, then you [the state] are assuming responsibility for the result, and pushing society toward embracing morally ambivelant alternatives such as artifical gestation. As long as individuals make the decisions with regard to termination, I believe artificial gestation for humans will remain just an exotic option.
Your efforts would be better spent (imo) emphasizing the negative moral consequences of abortion and emphasizing life enhancing options like adoption, than pursuing a legal strategy that would force women to carry their unborn children to term.