Of course it would be. Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm, a compulsory kidney transplant inevitably leads to losing a kidney. I can’t hold the state liable for unexpected twists of fate, I can hold it liable for deliberate organ theft. There is no uncertainty in regards to a compulsory organ transplant - the donor is losing an organ, at minimum.
*hums “one of those things is not like the other”*
*If* a woman were to be forced to carry to term by the state, for instance due to how advanced the pregnancy is (there’s a strictly medical cut-off point for when an abortion is a viable option, ethics aside), the only duty the state has is duty of care.
You’d like to hear a specific example of the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency? Have you not heard of prison?
Why would I “concede” when the state does things like this routinely, and always has?
EDIT: Just to put things into perspective, around 6% of pregnancies encounter high-risk complications which, if left untreated, may be detrimental to the health of the mother or the child in question. If the state were to force the woman to carry to term, duty of care would dictate that it has to provide a reasonable standard of medical care in order to alleviate such issues. By comparison, 100% of kidney transplants leave the donor a kidney short, and there is no way to alleviate this - the only thing one can ensure is that the procedure itself is safe. Comparing the two as if they’re similar is silly - they’re not. Even if potential health risks were exactly the same, only one of those procedures involves direct and deliberate harm via organ removal.