"there is a diferance between volentary and involentary erasure of life." -Your quote. I agree.
In this quote, you are already accepting that the unborn is alive: you end the sentence with referring to the baby as "life."
However, you make a contradiction in your argument. After originally referring to the "embryo" as a life in the first sentence, you continue in your second sentence to say that "if an embryo can not survive outside of the womb (months 1-3) then it is not a full life...".
This is false, because to assume that something is not fully alive,… Read more it must be partially void or partially dead. This is impossible, because a human can either be alive or dead. My reasons for this argument are below:
First: because the unborn fetus is made up of cells, it meets the first qualification of life. All living matter must be made up of cells.
Second: pregnancy, which is a simple way of referring to the process by which a fetus grows inside of a womb, entails that it's cells are alive and are reproducing. This meets the second qualification of life.
Third: the fetus is able to sense stimuli and react to it. This meets the third qualification of life. For example, the baby can feel pain, and will react in one way or another. The baby can also receive nutrients and convert them into food, which brings me to #4:
Fourth: the fetus is able to take in nutrients and convert them into energy to feed its cells. This meets the fourth qualification of life, which is metabolism. One may argue that the mother's umbilical cord feeds the fetus. However, there is no qualification that states which way a living being must take in nutrients. In addition, the fetus is the being that actually converts the transferred nutrients into energy -- not the mother.
Fifth: DNA and heredity. Obviously, the fetus meets this final qualification. It carries DNA and heredity from both parents, forming its own DNA code to its growth and cellular function.
Therefore, a fetus must be an alive human, since it meets all requirements of being alive. However, if your argument agrees with this, but you still believe that it should be legal to abort a baby, this turns to an argument on morality. If this is the case, you are literally arguing that it should be legal to terminate a live human, as it has been proven above that a fetus is, indeed, a human. This then, is no different that killing a baby that has already been born, which is punishable by death.
