Testing the limit of pl's "you did this" argument

We need to set the stage first and agree on a binary comparison.

A blood donation is a lesser harm to one's body than a pregnancy. I think this is an easy distinction. A typical blood donation last less than an hour, is minimally invasive, and your body fully recuperates in less than 8 weeks. Whereas a pregnancy last 9 months, is extremely invasive, and you body may never fully recuperate.

If we can compel a pregnancy, surely we could compel a blood donation using similar logic.

And yet we don't. Such a compulsion is viscerally anathema. There has never been such a compulsion codified into law, as far as I am aware.

I could slit the jugular of my child and be a perfect donor, and I could not be compelled to donate blood to them. There is no legal mechanism that would allow this. Currently accepted legal theory would protect m from any such compulsion, even for the commission of a heinous crime.

Let that sink in a moment. I could nearly kill my child from active and malicious blood loss and be the only suitable donor and I still could not be compelled to donate that blood. I could not be forced to engage in that minimally invasive procedure. We hold bodily autonomy in such high regard that even for the worst human being on the planet we would not require them to use their body to benefit another, even if they were criminally responsible for the predicament.

And yet pl thinks that engaging in a legal act that did not involve the 'person' with which the use of my body is now being violated for is not only proper...but just and righteous.

Square that for me pl. How can a legal act be treated as worse than a criminal one? How can current legal theory make that work?

It doesn't.