I agree that only the most ignorant argue that a fetus isn't alive, but I assure you that millions of Americans hold this view or a view close to it, and it needed to be rebutted.

I don't understand your second paragraph or what precisely your objection to the deprivationist account is.

Your subjective perspective objection runs into problems with abandoned infants who cannot think about wanting to live and are not missed by their parents, as well as suicidal people who may believe their life isn't worth living but who may change their mind at a later point if they make it to that point. In broad historical terms, neither of these examples are exceptional; infanticide was one of the primary methods of family planning for longer than abortion has been.

The deprivationist account has broad applicability, and gives us insight into why the education and nutrition of children is morally significant (it affects their future). Future timelines of currently living people have moral import; this should apply to fetuses as it does to infants and kids.

I don't think you have really grappled with the deprivationist account, much less made my entire argument collapse.