I don't disagree about personal autonomy being a right. My disagreement is with the notion that abortion - which negates the child's right to life - is somehow a right and should be treated as just another form of contraception.

At a certain point, it's not just the woman's life that has to be considered but also the life of the child inside of her. And yes, if the child can survive independent of the mother, then I don't see a problem with seperating the two bodies. Or the mother can give birth and put the baby up for adoption.

But to address your points about blood transfusion/organ transplants (both actually making exactly the same point): I think the key to answering this is with the distinction between voluntary and involunatary action.

If a person doesn't wish to donate blood, then forcing them would be to coerce an involuntary action - a clear violation of bodily autonomy.

A pregnant woman, however, must first become impregnated before abortion is even a consideration. Her pregnancy was preceded by the voluntary action of having sex. Therefore, an argument can be made that in having sex (even if she didn't want to become pregnant) she tacitly accepted the possibility of becoming pregnant (making it voluntary).

I suppose my point can be summed with as simple a statment as: I don't consider it the woman's right to extinguish the life inside of her (with the extremely rare exceptions of impregnation by rape, incest, or if the fetus poses a risk to the life of the mother).

Murder is not a right, but self-defence is. Abortion is not a right, but the mother has a right to preserve her own life.