Pretty sure I can rigorously prove that you accept moral principles, empirical facts and a logical system that determines that abortion is infact immoral, you simply never bothered to analyze it.

“Now stay out of other people’s lives”

Can you imagine what a horrible (dare I say immoral?) world you would have if immoral actions could not be restricted? Next time someone wrongs you remember that you are the real perpetrator for expecting them to follow your conception of morality.

Empirically false. How are you literally so stupid?

“Show why the law isn’t in the wrong, rather than the moral beliefs of the people in the thread”

What law? There is no law in discussion here, and an action being immoral does not necessarily entail that a law must exist to prohibit it. (I’ve already pointed this out, so the fact that you completely ignored it is just laziness)

“the moral beliefs…”

Because it results in a contradiction with their other beliefs. Essentially nobody will ever claim that a contradictory moral system is good, OR that denying a third party the ability to override bodily control in the interest of others (and often that very person, e.g most people think self-harm is wrong) is good. If neither of these are true then a sufficiently strong bodily autonomy cannot be true either.

“It’s a conversation that is still happening”

But there are no actual rebuttals. In fact all you did is go back and assert that bodily autonomy actually is relevant, without even addressing the initial refutation.

This is how every single debate about bodily autonomy goes (or really any bad argument). The person will either reject all criticism without any reasoning, or concede all the arguments and play a pseudo Motte-and-Bailey where they continuously switch between arguments they have already conceded were false. Both are simply instances of a person clinging to a belief that contradicts other beliefs they hold, simply because they think it justifies a result they like.

“Gonna need a citation on that”

Wikipedia says that Judith Thompson is credited with changing the view of abortion to a question of autonomy in the public space. What it does not say is that it changed the view of abortion in ethics. (It didn’t, it was basically a phase that was pretty quickly moved on from. I also edit Wikipedia so I would have put in it if it did)

Now this is not argument of Wikipedia’s infallibility, but it’s absence does show that we have no reason to believe that the public’s perception of abortion is the same as academic ethics.

So with just this absence of evidence, it is reasonable (but not proven) to say that bodily autonomy is abandoned when it comes to abortion. It is also reasonable to say the converse.

If you actually search academic literature, for as famous as the bodily autonomy argument is it has surprisingly few defences, even pro-choice/pro-abortion (yes they exist in philosophy) ethicists have criticised it. In fact Boonin is probably the most notable defender of it, but even he concedes that it’s not very good, discarding it in favor of a “cortical organisation” argument (which I in turn think is an arbitrary selection of a stage of human development that itself doesn’t grant personhood any more than being a human organism).

And again the absence of defences, and presence of criticisms makes it more reasonable to think that it is not well accepted.

As for an actual citation, meta-philosophy isn’t that popular of a field and you just have to be familiar with the topic to know what I’m referring to. As someone who does research, I can tell you a huge amount of information you want or need isn’t neatly collected and more often than not doesn’t exist. It could be that there is a vast swath of pro-choice ethicists who use bodily autonomy arguments, which are awfully silent and don’t write papers. But based on the evidence it seems like bodily autonomy is truly not a popular argument outside of motivated reasoning by lay persons.