It's fair game to remove from a woman's body, yes. This does not imply abortion in all cases, and as science progresses it will mean sooner and sooner the woman will be able to remove the child from her body without it dying. A child that is very late term that the woman decides she does not want in her body anymore can be removed via C-section or induced labor and put in the premature birth ward.
How does that fit in with abortion as the better evil than adoption? I thought abortion was framed as removing babies that nobody wants to care for.
Some people frame it that way, but I don't. It's simply a woman's rights issue, nothing more or less. I'm completely against framing it as removing children from the evils of the world because of how terrible the foster care system is or these other arguments that people make, so you're barking up the wrong tree on that front.
There are still ethical entanglements. Say a child is at the borderline of survival, and a woman has decided that she does not want to carry this pregnancy any longer. Medical issues like pre-eclampsia are not involved, it is an act of a woman's right over her body. Will it be aborted or will a pregnancy be induced (not sure how this would work without medical justification at the moment). Who will make the decision?
This is why it's more than just a "woman's rights issue", because there are externalities - somebody else has to pick up the ethical mess.
