Sorry that Im interjecting when an agreement has already been reached and sorry that this post is so long but bear with me, trustwomen:
There are many arguments you can make for abortion, but the "bodily autonomy" one is decidedly extreme even for pro-choicers.
1) If you consider the fetus a human being (your stipulation), the mother's right to bodily autonomy does not supercede the unborn child's natural right to life.
2) Your argument by analogy is invalid because there are a number of fundamental differences between a fetus and an adult on dialysis (who is attached to the general "you"):
a. the baby was product of your bodily autonomy since by voluntarily having sex (and therefore putting the fetus in the position to be on "dialysis"), you hold a greater level of responsibility or at least culpability to it (if you knock over a vase, you're still responsible for breaking it regardless of your intentions, i.e. it doesnt matter if you meant to get pregnant or not.. and rape would be more like someone smashing the vase on you and thus not your fault). So agreeing to be put on dialysis for another person would only apply to pregnancy if you put that person on dialysis. And if you somehow directly effected that person's dialysis, then he/she would certainly sue you (and likely win) to be his/her source of dialysis if you were the only source available (like a mother is for her child, in your analogy). In the fetus' case, it is obviously unable to sue. But that doesn't mean it's just to abort it. In a just world, in either of these specific cases, your right to bodily autonomy would be inferior to the dependents right to life.
b. Taking the dialysis patient "off of you" (whatever that means) may not be murder since another person may be found, but aborting a fetus (if you consider it human) certainly is.
3) Lastly (and I admit this isn't a logical argument, but an emotional appeal), if you did something to someone to cause them (and you) 9 months of dialysis, wouldn't you want to follow through with it in order to completely heal that person (the other option being to kill that person), even if it infringed on your bodily autonomy? Again, abortion might be defended through a number of other arguments, but it's low for pro-abortionists to defend abortion by saying that a potential mother should have 9 months of freedom in trade for a life (assuming, as you said yourself, that the fetus is human).
You're probably right that most anti-abortion people here are too opinionated to try to understand your posts. But I also strongly suspect that the pro-abortionists haven't read or tried to fully understand the whiteandred posts either. At least, there haven't been any valid arguments posted.