It’s a good start. I’m neither PL or PC and find both sides are locked in identity politics and just parrot talking points. The philosophical argument isn’t primarily about bodily autonomy, nor the life of an innocent human, but rather parental/creator responsibility for creating something that arguably should have full moral value in a state of existential dependency. If we do that to other moral persons we are held responsible so arguably we should here as well.
To illustrate this ask someone if they could push a button on a baby making machine and whether they have any moral responsibility for the life they created or that it has any moral value? It isn’t a psychological person for those that think this is the main thing that matters morally. & nor is a baby for people who argue along these lines so many are quite prepared to give full moral rights to some non-person humans.
If someone then says well it isn’t occupying the woman's body without consent so that isn’t a problem, then we can argue that indeed it can have full moral rights, and raise the point that fundamental rights aren’t dependent on location.
Then ask well if a woman had the ability to transfer that fetus can she then claim self defense and bodily autonomy rights when its is by her actions that another moral entity transgresses her rights? When nowhere in law or moral reasoning do we allow making another moral person transgress our rights that allows us to transgress their rights.
So yes Caitlin you have hit on an important aspect this is more about enforcing moral responsibility/duty of care considerations that many are quite happy to accept in other situations rather than narrowly focusing on identity politics talking points.