Hey, hold it right there, I'm right about everything!
I don't think your points have much bearing on the ethics of the situation. The ethical demand that considers the foetus' life more important than others' convenience would hold regardless of the type of person who invokes it, whether they are male, female, premiership footballer or dwarf.
first, you persist in discussing "convenience." please stop ignoring the fact that it childbearing is actually life-threatening, first of all. And beyond that 9 months of incredibly intimate and constant servitude (in which your body is 24hour at the service of another in what is often painful and tiring ways), loss of job and livelihood, loss of educational opportunity, potential loss of partner or other social connections (having a baby can be totally isolating), these are not trivial. Do you really think that all that goes into bearing and raising a child is :convenience"? isn't it rather more important than that? if it is so important, why should it be enforced on a happenstance?
beyond that, your equation (fetus vs. all) is a false and easy one. that equation leads to systematic inequality, because it does not account for all the costs to people involved in creating a fetus, and how those costs are distributed. it's not just fetus vs. others' individual rights, it is fetus vs. the systematic enforcement of women's inequality - and that inequality is not "natural" since (as I pointed out before), nature 'allows' abortion alongside lots of other things. It's true nature has only women get pregnant, but after that nature has little to do with fetal survival. In nature, women could kill the foetus any number of ways. this seems hard for people to grasp, but it is society that forces childbearing on women, not nature.