To make the organ donation scenario analogous to most abortion scenarios you need to make it so the person being asked or required to donate directly caused the donee to need the organ for survival, and it is an organ donation that the owner recovers well from most of the time such as a liver donation (liver donations from living donors just take part of the liver, and the remaining liver will regrow the taken part).

We probably still would not force an organ donation in such a case, still leaving it entirely up to the person, but their choice could affect the consequences for them depending on how and why they caused the person to need the organ. If they choose to donate and save the person then they might only be looking at some kind of endangerment charge for causing the person to need an organ. If they choose to let the person die they might be looking at murder charges.

I feel like I'm starting to get an idea that this agency-obligation construct seems to be a important to the reliability of the analogy for many people. While I don't share the same sensibilities, I'm interested in how it came to be important for people. I get that from a narrative, or a just-world sense, it's easy to see how two comport, but I'm curious how people other people view this and why is it so important? Is it something that "just makes sense" or does it follow from first principles, and if so which ones?

It might help to analogize with some other examples: say for instance I get into a car crash with another driver and am compensated by an insurance agency. It makes no difference to me that the money comes from the insurance account rather than the other person involved. The end result is the same for me - I can repair the damage. Would it seem as though other people are much more concerned in the other driver paying the obligation themselves? Or perhaps there are other reasons?

The more that I think about this, the stranger it gets. It feels like a categorical imperative-type argument to justify their own obligated existence.

> No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you.

The government already has rights over your bodily autonomy in many ways; just the right to incarcerate someone is controlling their body pretty dramatically. They regulate where your body can go, and to an extent what you can put into your body.

Yes I know. Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority over you in matters of imprisonment, that the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body? I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies while others are basically saying, "let 'er rip!"

> Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority [...] the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body?

Yes it does seem backwards. However, nobody here is making that argument.

> I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies

Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs at this point, but "No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you." is just such a broad brush that it's trivially refuted for certain scenarios. Maybe you're talking about medical authority?

In any case the rule of law is very concerned with what happens when rights collide. It is possible -- perhaps common -- for individual's rights to be in conflict.

> Maybe you're talking about medical authority?

Maybe. It has much less rhetorical flourish though ;) I still think it's a valid ideal and even if realistically unobtainable in the absolute, it still incredibly worthwhile north star.