There are reproductive rights. The right to procreate is one; the right not to procreate is another. But no one has the right to kill an innocent human being. So no one has the right to kill an innocent human recently born, not even the mother. Infanticide cannot count as a reproductive right. Now if there can be no right to infanticide, how could there be a right to kill an innocent pre-natal human being? (The 'innocent' is of course redundant but helps underscore the obvious for the inattentive.)
If you deny that the fetus is human, I will ask you: is it then lupine, porcine, bovine? None of these, of course. It is actually human. Some say that the human fetus is potentially human, but this is a mistake. The fetus is potentially many things, a speaker of a language for example, but it is actually human. So if it is wrong to take innocent human life, then it is wrong to take the lives of pre-natal humans. Will you say that a human being is first alive when it is born? That would imply that during the gestation period in utero the human fetus is either dead or neither dead nor alive — which is course manifestly false. It would be similarly absurd to say that a human life begins with its first breath, a view that Pete Buttigieg takes seriously.
My main point, however, is that the natal-prenatal difference is not a difference that makes a moral difference. Or do you think that a difference in spatial location makes a moral difference? There is a difference between killing me in my house and killing me outside my house, but that difference in spatial location does not a moral difference make.
You will tell me that there is a temporal difference between the pre-natal and the natal. True. The difference may be a day, a week, a month, a trimester. These temporal differences do not make a moral difference either: they do not justify a difference in treatment. Compare the temporal difference between the neonate and the two-year-old. That is not a difference that translates into a difference in rights or a difference in the moral gravity of maltreatment.
I invite you to think of the other differences and reflect on whether they make a moral difference. For example, the neonate breathes on its own whereas it did not while in the mother. Is that a difference that makes a moral difference? If it does, then is the right to life of an adult on a ventilator in any way impaired by his having to use such a device to breathe?
You say a woman has a right to do anything she wants with her own body? I'll grant you that if you grant me that the healthy human individual developing within her is not her body. It is not her body nor a part of her body in any sense of 'part' that could justify her doing anything she wants with it. It is a separate biological individual. It has a life of its own despite its living inside the mother. For those who cannot think without a pictorial aid:
So yes, women have reproductive rights. But abortion is not a reproductive right. For again, there cannot be a right to kill an innocent human being. There is a grave moral issue here that Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg and others who slouch leftward do not want you to see. But the issue is not going to go away and you need to address it as honestly as you can.