Any Fallacies on this Abortion argument?

So, in response to the question:

Is Abortion the Woman's Choice? I answer with the following:

In some ways yes and in other ways no. The right to do what one wants with one's own body does not extend to be able to do what one wants to do with their body at the expense of others. If that is the way human rights worked then we might as well grant female suicidal terrorists to blow themselves up in public places because after all, it is their body isn't it? 

Note: I am not actually suggesting we grant terrorists to blow themselves up in public places. The point I am trying to make is that the right to bodily autonomy does not equate to a license to do what one wants to do with one's own body as that could prove to be very undesirable.

I am wondering if any fallacies I made here might be an appeal to extremes, slippery slope or some other fallacy?

I think it is a well stated response.

In some ways yes and in other ways no. 

Here you establish that this is nuanced and it cannot be fully explained in a meme or bumper sticker.

The right to do what one wants with one's own body does not extend to be able to do what one wants to do with their body at the expense of others.

Here you state what seems to be an opinion (yours or even possibly legal opinion). I would like it if this was more clear. Is this a fact? Is this your opinion? Is this a law? Can I deny someone the pleasure of squeezing my butt? Does that not come that their expense? How about hitting them if they do? There is obviously nuance here as well.

If that is the way human rights worked then we might as well grant female suicidal terrorists to blow themselves up in public places because after all, it is their body isn't it?

I think this is a strong analogy, because your are comparing just one aspect that you have stated: bodily autonomy at the expense of others. In that way, and only in that way, that would be a reasonable extension of the rule "bodily autonomy even at the expense of others."

At the very least, you have demonstrated that there is a limit to bodily autonomy. Now a reasonable discussion could be had about where an abortion falls on that continuum. And of course, at what point does a collection of cells constitute an "other" (the heart of the debate).

If I'm understanding that quote correctly, it's positing that the right to bodily autonomy only extends so far as it doesn't come at the expense of others, and that extending it beyond that would be equivalent to granting female suicide bombers the right to blow themselves up in public spaces.

First off, people have the right to deny others the use of their body even if their life depends on it, as with organ transplants or having to have someone's consent in order to donate their organs after their death. In the context of abortion, this means that even if treating embryos as living people, women shouldn't be obligated to carry them to term. Basically, no one has a right to use someone's body for their own gain without their consent even if their life depends on it.

Preserving bodily autonomy even at the expense of others is already in effect to protect people from being coerced into donating blood/organs without their consent the same way women can be coerced into having children they don't want when they can be charged with murder for having an abortion. The use of "does not" and "if human rights worked that way" suggests it's being presented as fact, which due to how organ transplants are handled is factually incorrect.

Second, the context of your analogy is that you're attempting to prove your point by claiming that the alternative would be equivalent to legally sanctioning terrorist attacks that would likely hurt or kill a lot of people. That's an Appeal to Extremes and probably also a Strawman Fallacy since you're preemptively discrediting counterarguments with an exaggerated analogy to make it seem less credible.

If your premise is that allowing bodily autonomy to come at the expense of others could cause problems, you should cite specific problems instead of making an exaggerated comparison to terrorist attacks. As it is, you failed to support your claim in any meaningful way.

"The right to do what one wants with one's own body does not extend to be able to do what one wants to do with their body at the expense of others"

You have that the wrong way around, other people do not have the right to use your body without your consent. If access to your body's resources are taken away that is not analogous with blowing yourself up and taking other people with you. That is a weak analogy. 

If I need a liver transplant and decide that I want half of yours do you accept that your failure to hand it over would be causing harm to me, therefore you must do it?