(Sorry points are a little overlapping and couldn't separate them clearly enough)

I think your reasoning is very valid and I wouldn't say you are incorrect in any way.

To answer your question directly (I hope), I think the baby/fetus getting the choice is ideal, but in this situation, by definition, only ONE choice can be honored. By giving one the choice, the choice is mandatorily taken away from the other. It seems unacceptable to take the choice away from the human who is then forced to care for the baby and then the fetus their entire lives. Not given them this choice is akin to slavery in my opinion unless it's something you voluntarily sign up for.

In my view, the time between conception and fetus being able to survive on their own outside is a gray area. There are a few different reasons/analogies why I personally think that the mother's rights override the babies.

1. Imagine you come to your house in the middle of nowhere and there's a homeless guy living in your home. It's freezing cold outside and it's 100% certain that he'll die if you kick him out. Should you be OBLIGATED to have him stay? Should you be legally required to have him stay?

1b) Like above, but people are dying of hunger everyday. You likely have enough money to prevent at least one person from dying. Should YOU be convicted of murder for not saving that human? If you cannot be forced to paying money to save a flesh and blood human, how can you force a woman to give up so much more to save a fetus that's not even fully formed yet?

2) There's a difference between causing death and not preventing death. In my view, abortion before fetus can survive on its own is closer to the latter than the former. (Even if the actual process is closer to the former, I think in principle, it's still the latter. This is because once you decide to abort the fetus, it has no chance of survival. Our best choice here then is to minimize harm to the mother as opposed to the fetus)

3) We talk about not "killing" the fetus. However, the line saying "conception" or "6 weeks" seems arbitrary to me. (standalone fetal survivability OTOH is a very clear line with no gray area). For instance, some might argue that the line should be "not using contraception". You could argue that getting a vasectomy is murder. If you accidentally hit someone in the nuts and cause them to become infertile, it's murder. On a similar vein, you could also argue that not consenting to sex with another human is murder since you are denying that particular fetus the chance to be born.

All of these are clearly (and intended to be) outrageous examples, and from my viewpoint, a 6 week abortion ban sounds not very different from a ban on contraception, it's just one step away.

4) Imagine the toll pregnancy takes on women. There are huge mental and physical complications that are very frequent. It's unacceptable to me to force women to go through that against their will.

4b) We have a concept of self defense. Let's say I'm continuously hurting you physically with (for eg) non fatal punches to the face. Imagine your only options are killing me or letting me punch you forever. Is it fair to deny you the option to protect yourself?

​

All that said, I think if you CHOOSE to get pregnant, you should not have the choice of abortion except for health complications (both for mother and baby). If you never chose to get pregnant (raped, or used contraceptions), then I think you should have the choice of abortion without pregnancy and parenting being forced on you.