Just a few points:

“No human being has the right to take over another human being’s body. Humans are granted free agency over their own bodies.”

There are two problems with this statement: (a) the fetus doesn’t exactly have a choice; and (b) free agency is another word for self-determination, and I’ve addressed this. Human rights exist in a hierarchy. If abortion is OK, then what about killing your neighbor because she has food and you’re hungry, or killing her children because people like her are drawing too much money from government and your taxes are too high as a result? Where does it stop?

“Reasonable exceptions are never allowed.”

Where the mother’s own life is imperiled, it’s a question of competing rights of the same gravity: the fetus’ right to life and the mother’s right to life. In such cases, under this analysis, it should be the mother’s choice – because no one should be forced to give up her life for another.

The problem your argument has is that the competing rights are not equal. The right to life has priority over the right to self-determination.

I think that, rather than kill what may be a human being, we, as a society, should take more responsibility for the children, perhaps on a needs-tested basis.