Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .
Actually, whatever pro-choice person said that an unwanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother was mistaken. In the case of a pregnancy to which a woman does not consent, it can be argued that the presence and behavior of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus fits the legal definition of rape/sexual assault, at least in all parts of the definition except that of conscious intent. Hence, legally, nonconsensual pregnancy is not "like" rape, but a form of rape.
There have been legally insane rapists. It is recognized that some psychiatric disorders are not under the voluntary control of the people who have them, and their criminal behavior cannot be used to find them legally guilty of committing those crimes on that account. But while they are threatening or performing that criminal behavior, the victim and third parties can use deadly force if necessary to prevent/stop that behavior anyway, because at the time of the threat or performance, it is not the intent that matters - only the behavior that threatens to victimize or actually victimizes matters.
Technically, it would be just as illegal for a zygote, blastocyst, embryo to come into existence in a woman's body, implant in her uterine tissue, stay implanted there, and do all the things that is usually does, without the woman's consent, as it would be for a legally insane rapist to put one of his body parts inside her body without her consent. The wording of the laws against rape and sexual assault and about the use of deadly force against the threat/commission of those crimes is such that those laws could technically encompass the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus if the woman has not consented to pregnancy in advance and does not continuously consent during the pregnancy.
This argument is not intended to persuade anyone of the morality of abortion. It is a legal argument that was developed in the 1990s as a defensive move in the face of the claim that zygotes and fetuses are persons to protect the legal right of a woman to abortion and the legal right of a doctor to perform abortion, regardless of anyone's moral objections.
Earlier, the philosophical argument used to support the right to abortion even if challenged by the claim that the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is a person was the Judith Jarvis Thomson argument that no person has the right to use another person's bodily resources for life support without that person's express and ongoing permission. But the law concerning the right to use deadly force to stop someone might not apply if a person forcibly used a person's bodily resources that way, as that forcible use might be interpreted as mere assault and not, e.g., sexual assault or robbery.
As to your last statement, it would be legally impossible to counter this as you suggest simply by claiming that fetuses have no choice and that the woman was forcing the zygote, blastocyst, embryo to be there if the woman had not consented to pregnancy in the first place and did not continuously consent to pregnancy.
But the better argument is that, if a government bans abortion, that government is threatening to rape the woman using a fetus or a doctor as a rape tool during childbirth because in vaginal delivery the fetus penetrates the vagina and in caesarian delivery the doctor cuts open one of the woman's sex organs (uterus) with a scalpel, and if the woman refuses to consent to the first, it's rape, and if she refuses to consent to the second, it's aggravated sexual assault. The fetus and doctor are then completely innocent tools of a criminal government. That could, in fact, be worked into an excellent legal argument against the banning of abortion.
If people do not want such a legal case to be made on the grounds that it is distasteful, then stop trying to get government to assert that a zygote is a person, as that is also distasteful.