The fundamental flaw with the prolife argument

The argument of the prolife movement is that of right to life. According to wikipedia, "The right to life is the belief that a being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity including government."

But the sentiment of "right to life" is highly misleading, specifically in the abortion debate.

The defining factor for prolife is not life or death. 

It's action.

Herein lies the issue with the prolife argument.

The prolife movement should have life at it's foundation. However, upon further examination, it actually has another foundational block underneath that, and that is about preventing people from doing things that they deem as wrong. It is about action vs inaction.

If life can be saved through action, it is not permissible if it violates someone's bodily autonomy. Why? Because that would then involve doing something wrong (taking action.) But if life can be saved through inaction (such as banning abortion), it is permissible even if it violates someone's bodily autonomy.

In the case of unwanted pregnancy, a pregnant person is disallowed the right to their bodily autonomy because of their need to act. And many prolifers also believe that women should be subjected to continued pregnancy because she took the action of having sex. However, in a similar bodily autonomy vs. right to life scenario, that of forced organ donation, here right to life does not take precedent. If it were about life and death, violating the bodily autonomy of those who exercise their right to it through inaction would not be given a free pass. Yet currently, to violate the bodily autonomy of one who exercises it through inaction is viewed as immoral and is disallowed.

Someone still dies when they could have been saved.

The focus, however, is not on that at all. It is focused on the morality of the one exercising their bodily autonomy. Action is the defining factor, not whether someone lives. 

If we are okay with violating the bodily autonomy of those who take an action or need to take an action, we likewise should be okay with violating the bodily autonomy of those who take inaction if the premise is that life is the most fundamental right. 

The fact that prolife places the focus on action vs inaction instead of ensuring life is not lost needlessly, showcases the fundamental flaw and deception from the prolife movement. If the concern is to be prolife, how a person is ensured their life should not matter.

Further, there is actually a discrimination occurring here, not just towards women and pregnant people, but to those who are born. 

The advent of organ donations is a fairly new one. In an attempt to explain away why abortion bans were acceptable but mandatory organ donations were not, the Catholic church came up with the ordinary vs. extraordinary argument. The idea is that pregnancy is ordinary care expected of women, while organ donation is not expected and that your organs were meant for you, while, disgustingly enough, a uterus was "meant for" your offspring. (And I say disgustingly because the argument can be made that a vagina is "meant for" a penis. However both organs are meant for her use and her use alone. Nothing should be occupying those spaces unless she intends for their use, which is defined by her desire for them to be there.)

So basically, it is discrimination against born humans. Born humans are not worthy of their right to life if it means trespassing upon someone's bodily autonomy. However, in the case of ZEFs, it is perfectly acceptable to trespass upon someone's bodily autonomy. Why? Because of the defining factor seen within that of an action. It has nothing to do with inherent value of any kind, seeing as born humans have this same exact value. If violating bodily autonomy is acceptable in the case of the unborn so that they may have life, there should be no reason not to violate it in the case of born lives. And there should be no exceptions made for inactions.