Dirius, what circumstances can you acknowledge where a woman's decision to seek an abortion is not merely a matter of "convenience"?
[Hint: I've reviewed some of them multiple times. Further hints available upon request.]
I don't think you actually care that much about human rights. You're anti-visible minorities if they happen to be poor. You would force a homeless woman to bear a child she doesn't want and cannot properly care for, yet claim no responsibility for the rights of the child after birth.
For you, Dirius, a day before birth, a fetus has inviolable rights to life. Yet a day after birth, the baby has no rights to life.
What rights does a dirt-poor baby have, after it is born? And what would it take to ensure those rights?
There are cases when the pregnancy will not carry to term on its own due to some medical condition, or when the pregnancy endangers the life of both the baby and the mother. Termination is required in some of these cases, but these where not viable or healthy pregnancies to begin with - in these examples the child would not have survived either way, and the abortion process is usually the result of saving the mother's life. But these are a very few exceptions.
Our societies have always claimed responsability for poor children. In christian societies, orphaned children have always been taken care of (in most of history by ecclesiastic institutions), and have always had access to food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Adoption is also available when the parent is not fit to care for the child. Not to mention that "right-wingers" as you put it usually run lots of charitable institutions to help those in need, particularly children.
This idea that conservatives or libertarians don't care about children the day after they are born - is just a lie from leftwing propaganda.