You’re proving my point, not refuting it. The unborn can have limited or contingent legal protections in specific contexts, but that is not the same as full legal personhood or equal rights with a born person.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Act concerns a fetus capable of being born alive; it is not a blanket claim that every embryo/fetus from conception has full rights. Inheritance/property interests are also generally contingent on live birth.
So “the law protects fetal interests in some cases” does not equal “all humans have identical rights regardless of birth, sentience, viability, or bodily autonomy.” And none of those protections create a right to use another person’s body against their will.
A born human has more rights than an unborn fetus, and rightfully so.