The strongest thing I can say is that we don't force anyone to donate their body to keep another person alive, even when that person will die without it. Picture someone who needs a blood transfusion or a kidney — we ask, we don't compel. Pregnancy is the same deal: it's one person's body sustaining another, and the law doesn't normally conscript us like that. The other side can argue the fetus is a person all day, and honestly there's a fair case there. But even granting that, bodily autonomy still wins, because if it doesn't, we've quietly made organ donation mandatory.

Think about this real-world rule: in most places, nobody can be forced to give blood or a kidney, even to save someone dying in the next room. That's not because we don't value the vulnerable; it's because we don't own each other's bodies. My opponent says we must protect those who can't protect themselves, and that's a fair instinct. But protecting the vulnerable can't mean conscripting someone's body against her will. If it does, we've turned pregnancy into mandatory donation, and that's a line the law doesn't cross anywhere else.

The other side's two points actually cancel each other out. Separate DNA doesn't create a right to someone else's body — the stranger in the next hospital bed has separate DNA too, and we still don't take a kidney. And "you chose intercourse" is like saying a driver who chose to drive must donate organs to whoever they hit. We don't harvest a careless driver's kidney, because responsibility for a risk isn't consent to being used. Same logic, same line: nobody's body gets conscripted, even to save a life.