Not honestly.

RvW (and the precedence it draws from) expressly acknowledges the woman's interests are only part of the issue.

The use of the "my body my choice"/'Woman's issue' rhetoric strategy is a simple context swapping and framing trick. It's a dirty usage of many similar persuasive argument tricks that surround the Motte and Bailey Fallacy. It frames the argument around a limited and easily defensible small portion, while ignoring larger indefensible parts of the argument.

It is a simple "think of the children" type of distraction from the main issue.

We see a lot of transparently low-effort fallacy tricks like this used with this topic, such as focusing on the corner-cases such as abortions in response to rape, to invalidate general positions, which could and would easily have exceptions for special circumstances. Irrelevant arbitrary claims that the fetus is "just a pile of cells", can't breath/think/express/have heartbeat/feel pain yet. We never become technically anything more than piles of cells and we don't limit basic human rights to life after birth, by any of those other things.

This flood of bad, nonsense, arguments prevent real honest discussion of the issue.