Then who cares?

That's a very strange perspective.  Yes, it is the functions of the woman's body that--IN PART--allow it to exist, but it's a big stretch to say it's "undeniable" that she put it there.  There is another element required, you know.  

Sorry, I feel that this section needs explanation.  Now let's say that I believe the first sentence you wrote in that post.  That your statements have nothing to do with abortion rights.  Then I must conclude that you are sexually naive beyond mere lack of experience.  Look up fertilization.  You'll find that more than an egg is necessary.  

If you think you can build an artificial womb and get all potentially aborted fetuses remanded to it, then I honestly wish you luck.  Such a system would probably increase reproductive liberty by a great deal.  But that's really beside the point.  A fetus is not a separate living organism until it is living separately.  Up till then it IS just a body part, and nothing more.  Or perhaps you would prefer the term parasitical organism, since a fetus meets that "scientifically factual definition" to a t.  Whatever emotions you may have about it, there is no compelling reason to make it legally distinct from the mother.  

Also: you have some adorably naive beliefs about how society treats the soon-to-be-homeless!  Of course you'd be allowed to evict them.  Why should a fetus get any more consideration?

My entire point the whole time was that infanticide and abortion are morally distinct.  I've been arguing against the philosophers in the OOP.  Hell, this post is itself an argument that born persons should be given full legal rights, and greater consideration than the unborn.