Not really.
You're (general sense, pro-lifer) seeking to protect the fetus' "right to life". To do this, the fetal incubator (bio-mom) is legally obligated to maintain the fetus' life support system until such time as the fetus reaches term. Constitutionally, there is no right to abortion. Arguably, abortion is justified under the "right to privacy" supposition, but it is not explicitly granted as an unalienable right anywhere in the founding documents (this despite abortion having existed in one form or another for thousands of years). So technically, there is no restriction of constitutional rights on its face if you criminalize abortion. There is, however, a restriction of the fetus' constitutional rights if you legalize abortion.
One could argue, I suppose, that disallowing abortion would infringe upon the bio mom's right to pursue happiness.
So then you must find a balance. By legalizing abortion, do we infringe upon the rights of one to a greater degree than we infringe upon the rights of another? Conversely, by criminalizing abortion, are the rights of one party infringed upon to a greater degree than another? In either case, which infringement occurs to the worst degree?
It's the justification for restrictive law. If the actions of one will infringe upon the rights of another, a law will inevitably exist to prevent that infringement. That law, however, will also infringe upon somebody's rights...but to a lesser degree.
Also, limited government doesn't have finite lines. Even a solid pro-2nd advocate will admit that there are practical limits on the arms which one may legally own. Even a solid marriage equality advocate will admit there are practical limits on marriage (i.e. no cross-species marriages, no adult-child marriages, no slave-master marriages, etc). Absolute freedom is non-existent. Society will always limit the legal actions of its participants.
