This is basically Judith Jarvis -Thomson's argument with the violinist and the kidney machine. Yours has much impact however, because it deals with real life situations. I made the same argument in the essays linked to the page below, even using your example of donating a kidney.
I think you're partially right when you say "Laws are not made to uphold specific morals". That is one of the principles upon which the American Constitution is founded. That's what you call the principle of unique and autonomous personhood, but that is itself a philosophical and moral principle. It is one that needs to be defended, and I am glad you are defending with such eloquence and passion. But you need to own the fact that it is a philosophical principle, because that is the only way it can be consciously defended now that people are trying to re-establish some kind of theocracy.
There are also other objections to the Jarvis-Thomson argument which I list and respond to on the page below. The job of defending the right to choice is complex and complicated. I hope you will find my other responses compelling and useful.
