I think there are points I have raised that do address your concern about dependence on the mother. The right to life is the foundation of all other rights. Without the right to life other rights simply have no foundation. For example, if the government declares that everyone has the right to free speech, but then the government does not recognize the right to life of those who would exercise their right to free speech, then what good is the right to free speech? As you can see, if people are allowed to kill other people, then that trivializes the entire concept of human rights. Additionally, the entire concept of human rights is also built on the foundation that human rights are universal. If our constitution says that free speech is a human right, then that means that said right is applied to all human beings. If we say group X has the right to life, and group Y does not have the right to life (and group Y has done nothing to abdicate that right), then we are not really arguing that life is a human right. Human rights by their very definition have to apply to everyone equally in a society. If we don't apply them equally to everyone, then they cease to be human rights. What we are really talking about is not human rights but favoritism given to group X on the basis of some sort of discrimination to the exclusion of group Y. The way I see it there is no foundation for you to argue that murder is a human rights violation. If you really want to say that a woman has the right to choose, then you have to accept the consequences of that position by saying that there is no right to life. And then there is the entire of issue that you do not recognize a pre-born woman's right to control her own body. So this so called "right" really isn't a right. It is favoritism shown towards a specific group while discriminating and excluding another group from the benefits of that favoritism. So in the end abortion violates both the right to life and a female's right to control her own body.