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

[Yonadav]

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.

And if it's not written down in a law, it's not real, eh?

From the Cornell Law School site:

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court emphasized the impact that Roe v. Wade (1973)  had on the importance of personal autonomy, especially with regard to reproductive rights. The Casey Court wrote, "[I]f Roe is seen as stating a rule of personal autonomy . . . [then the Supreme Court's] post-Roe decisions accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims . . . "[N]o erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."

Now you are trying to put the cart before the horse. There is nothing there that says that 'bodily autonomy' is the basis for legal abortion. It just says that matters of personal autonomy can be taken into account without weakening Roe. For example, a woman can get an abortion without her husband's consent because she has personal autonomy (the matter is between her and her doctor, and not between her, her doctor, and her husband).