> bodily autonomy matters because there is no other situation where we force one person to use their body to keep another person alive

The state will however happily violate bodily autonomy to achieve much lesser goals, like putting needles in you for blood tests or to literally kill you.

Keeping another person alive is arguably one of the more worthy goals.

> That's somewhat analogous to pregnancy.

The comparison goes in the right direction, but it's not quite there. Your examples are all about inaction, while terminating pregnancy generally requires action.

> The state will however happily violate bodily autonomy to achieve much lesser goals, like putting needles in you for blood tests or to literally kill you.

Be that as it may, it does not and cannot force you to donate your organs or blood, even as a condition of incarceration.

> The comparison goes in the right direction, but it's not quite there. Your examples are all about inaction, while terminating pregnancy generally requires action.

Not quite true. If you were hooked up to a blood transfusion machine, you'd have to unhook yourself. Maybe a better scenario would be a dialysis machine that connected one human to another human's kidney.