are any of you honest enough to simply answer the question asked?

[Yonadav]

I'm not so sure that a physician wouldn't sign off on an abortion when a healthy live birth without physical danger to the mother is practical. It just takes one ideologically motivated doctor who believes that bodily autonomy gives a woman a right to an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason.

Since there are only a handful of doctors in the entire country who perform late-term abortions at all, it is certainly possible to get each one's individual opinion. If they want to keep their license, their decisions on such matters must constitute 'sound clinical judgment'.

 
And even you should notice something amiss about your examples of bodily autonomy. My organs and my blood can't be taken from me without my permission because I own them, and they are my property. That doesn't give me the right to do whatever I want with them. They simply can't be taken from me without my permission. At best, bodily autonomy in regard to abortion can only be used as an argument against forcing a woman to get an abortion, and it doesn't give her the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

Who owns the mother's body, her or the fetus? I can't have your heart even if it would save my life and you're dead if you didn't give permission to donate it. What property rights to your body does a fetus have? And didn't you claim feminists invented the concept of bodily autonomy to justify abortion? Are you sticking with that?

Yeah, I'm going to stick to that. Adapting a concept to a situation in which it doesn't apply is inventive. If you go back over my many posts on this issue, I have said that bodily autonomy as a legal concept is not part of the legal reasoning that permits doctors to do abortions. That's a fact. You can keep inserting legal concepts that aren't there all that you want, but that won't make them true.

Bodily autonomy is not the legal basis that permits abortions. That's just a fact.