First, a baby is NOT a women's body. It is IN her body, but it is most definitely a separate human life.
Well, actually no it's not. That's part of the argument. A fetus only becomes viable - able to exist on its own as a separate being at about - you medical people can correct me here - six months. Before that, it is definitely part of the woman's body. If you 'disconnect' the fetus from the woman's body, it will simply die.
You can't get more obvious than that about the fetus being part of the woman's body.
Second, the so-called government controlling one's body issue happens all the time; we are all victims and beneficiaries of it. A person cannot take prescription medicines unless the government says OK;
That's not the same thing. Prescription laws deal with distribution of medication, not bodily sovreignty.
one cannot have an operation to remove an ear just because he or she may want to;
Well, yes you can. It depends on where you live. You simply have to find a doctor willing and the sufficient funds.
you cannot put alcohol in your body under age 21 or if you are in a car,
Sure you can. In some countries the drinking age is much younger than 21, in past eras, there was no drinking age whatsoever and I have certainly had alcohol and gotten in a car. If I was drunk, the someone else was driving, if I wasn't drunk but had a drink, it's still legal.
a man cannot quit his job and as a result default on child support payments, etc etc etc. Such controls are commonplace and all around our lives and each is intended to be in place to help the common good
Yes, but none of these have anything to do with bodily sovreignty.
In most pro choice dialog, the baby is not considered a person and hence has no rights.
Your definintion of a baby is different than other people's definition.
This approach is a VERY slippery slop. Recall that Hitler rationalized the murder of millions because he believed it wasn't killing humans;
Yes, but in reality, Hilter was basing his ideas of who was human and who wasn't on his religious background and personal biases - shall we do away with Christian religion?. It had nothing to do with what actually defined human or a person.
This has nothing to do with the pro-choice and pro-life arguments. Actually it's extremely offensive to compare pro-choice advocates to Nazis, thank you very much.
If I had to line up behind the most logical side it would be to support no death penality and no abortions after the first 4 months of the fetus' life. To deal with the results, I would have mandatory life sentences without parole (in mean prisons) for those who could have been executed and provide adoption services for all the would-have-been abortions.
The problem with this argument is that most life-threatening birth defects are not discovered until after the first trimester. Limiting a woman to abortion options in the first trimester means forcing her to carry to term a child who will not live or will live with massive birth defects and with the knowledge that she is doing so.