First, let's understand what bodily autonomy is.
Bodily autonomy originally refers to “self governance”. The ability and "right" to do what we want to with our body.
If we're going to assume bodily autonomy is a right, then let's treat it like other rights.
As a right, just like any other right, bodily autonomy is a "restricted" right, for at least two reasons:
1. Other people’s rights supersede our “right to autonomy”, like the right to life, freedom of expression, property. This way, no one can cannot do with their...
...body anything that results in damage to property or a person, claiming that they can do whatever they want with their body.
2. There are laws that restrict our rights.
Out of convenience sake, some pro choice advocates have given a specific tweak to...
...the argument of bodily autonomy so that it suits better the pro choice agenda. It is now seen specifically as the right "not to be told what to use one’s body for," which is not different from the original claim, but it has a specific new connotation.
With this new approach, the idea of this right is that "society should not be able to tell pregnant people that they must use their bodies to keep a human embryo in her womb alive. It should be their "prerogative" to decide if they want to do it or not."
Through their perspective, this "right" supersedes all other rights.
But does it really?
The answer is no.
There is no real reason to separate this ‘specific’ right from the normal right of body-autonomy, because the principle behind still is to...
...“do whatever we want with our bodies”. It is just a specific application of the same the principle.
Secondly, the embryo is not part of the body or an extension of the body of the pregnant person. It's simple biology. Unborn children are their own unique organisms.
This means that the right of autonomy of the pregnant person has to be measured against the rights of a different person, the unborn child.
Therefore, in order for the pregnant person to exercise bodily autonomy, they must not only breach the unborn child's bodily autonomy...
...but they have to breach the unborn child's right to life as well.
At best, this constitutes a stalemate, therefore the only logical conclusion is to allow the unborn child to live.
To wrap up this thread, it would be useful to point out that in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court did rule that if fetal personhood is established, then any argument for abortion is redundant, because the unborn child's right to life would supersede.