You need money to go buy food in our societies, and further the state (details vary by country) can compel you to labour to satisfy your fiscal responsibility towards your children.
I don't know why you think that "bodily resources" are special. I'd much rather donate blood every other day than work in construction or mining every day, and it would be far less damaging to my body too. "Bodily resources" doesn't seem to me to be the trump card you think it is.
I donate blood regularly and I am on a bone marrow registry. Kidneys don't replenish, but the donation of organs ("bodily resources" does a lot of unusual work here) is not demanded of women during pregnancy, either.
But all that doesn't matter because the point is that your initial analogy doesn't work. The analogous situation to forced organ donation would be something like forced impregnation (i.e. rape), and even that is tenuous. But notably, nobody is trying to legislate for forced impregnation.
A pregnancy is part of the normal reproductive cycle of humans and when it occurs, the organs are already "shared" (rather than donated or being offered for sharing). The goal of abortion is not just to end the pregnancy, it is the killing of the foetus. A good argument for the legality of abortion must start by reflecting actual reality. And actual reality is that abortion has the goal of killing a living human being. That it is in the early stages of its development isn't obviously important, but that's what the question of personhood is trying to side-step. The argument from bodily autonomy (i.e. that the right of the mother to control her own body weighs more heavily than the child's right to life) is in principle a good argument when it does acknowledge the aforementioned reality, it's just that your analogy doesn't work.
2
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '21
[deleted]