The problem here is with this odd assertion that a lot of people seem to make that bodily autonomy is a right that, unlike literally every other right we have, is completely unrestricted. MRDA to me saying this, but this just isn't the way normal moral reasoning on the subject works. Seatbelt laws and breathalyzer tests are obvious, straightforward infringements on bodily autonomy, but nobody thinks of them as human rights violations. The bodily autonomy argument for abortion rights is strongest when the point being made is (as Beet says above) that pregnancy is a uniquely demanding process, not when it's framed as this absurd claim that no violation of bodily autonomy is ever acceptable under any circumstances. That just isn't how people actually think about right and wrong.
That’s exactly how they justify it. Raising an infant is not less demanding than pregnancy, for that matter. Human babies are somewhat uniquely incapable of even the most basic tasks for years. Singer and Appel have explained before the minimal distinction between a baby up until 6-12 months and even a fetus at 8-9 weeks.
Singer and Appel are notorious galaxy-brained ghouls who think about morality completely differently from almost literally everybody on earth who doesn't have the misfortune to be a professional bioethicist. Again, that is not how
normal people understand right and wrong.