That's a loaded question. Haha. So I'll rephrase it.
Do I want the government to prohibit the direct willed killing of the unborn? Yes. Yes I do. Because I believe there is good scientific evidence to say that even the earliest embryo is a member of the species homo sapien. And I believe that there is good philosophic evidence that the unborn are human beings who deserve the same protection under the law as you and I.
Why do think, morally or ethically, that the unborn are not human beings who deserve those protections? Help me understand your perspective a little.
Firstly, Nobody has denied that a female human and a male human can beget anything other than another human when reproducing.
Alrighty then, let's get started...
So in order for government to force women to give birth, and that's what you're advocating for,
women will first have to be known to have conceived.
A little background stuff...
Most conceptions are given birth to. Most pro-choice women would most likely not have an abortion, but don't want the lose the ability to have an abortion "if they feel it necessary", or their fundamental rights under the Constitution be compromised, because it could impact their life and/or long term health by government having controlling interest in their reproductive roles.
Well over 90% of abortions are performed at 12 weeks and under (60% of those are 10 weeks and under, which means the embryo is about the size of a kidney bean). So at those stages, there is very little neural or organ development, no ability to be sentient or aware that it exist. It experiences no pain. And any other stages aborted are usually because of the health or life of the woman is in jeopardy or the embryo or fetus is damaged significantly. Or in latter stages, it could be dead and pose a threat to the woman.
In your world...
But before I get to the nuts and bolts, I'm curious...
You claim that there is "Philosophic evidence the yet to be born "deserves" the equal protection to that of the born?
And what might such evidence be? Any such existing "philosophical evidence" would have to be so compelling that it would actually force the Supreme Court to overturn every decision it's ever made regarding reproductive rights for women. Thus it would significantly impact our current Constitution.
Back to the nuts and bolts...
If a conception is known about - then will be necessary for pregnant women to be closely monitored throughout the gestation process for nine months
by government. I suspect that a "new government department" (Maybe the something like the "US Reproductive Monitoring Bureau") would be necessary and involve employing a lot of people at the federal and state levels, but certainly local authorities would somehow be the loop. (How will the taxpayer's respond to this? Well, especially "conservative taxpayers".)
But none of the aforementioned can happen until there's a Constitutional revision. It will be 100% necessary to diminish or dismantle women's rights to "equal protection" under the law, end prohibition of state's inability to intervene in a woman's right to life, liberty, and property, and by doing so, the due process clause now become void and null. And it's been establish over the last 100 years that "Right to Privacy", although not in black and white in the Constitution is "Inherent" within several Amendments, which if it didn't exist, our Constitution would collapse. Thus, women's "right to privacy" will be expunged (along with medical providers).
In order to give the same protection to the yet to be born will invoke many problems known has "unintended consequences". Before you automatically decide that a yet to be born is somehow worthy of personhood rights, I found close to fifty individual and social "Unintended Consequences" of giving personhood rights to the yet to be born - after a fairly lengthy time of doing research. It suggest that it might be an enlightening investment of time for you to do the same.
And if you are ever in a situation where you have to choose between saving your spouse and a fetus,
you'll have to make the effort to give equal consideration to both. In other words, what criteria, or list of pros and cons will you use to choose between the two?
So in the end, in your world, women are not equal to the yet to be born and they certainly have no equality with men, because men can't be subjected to "nearly" all of the Constitutional pitfalls women must endure.
That's slightly it. There's so much more involved.
