Why do you keep saying this?
Lots of men support a women's right to an abortion at any stage. How on earth is this "men do not support bodily autnomy rights"?
Furthermore, in poll results and as evidenced by the organization I linked earlier, many women do not support these bodily autonomy rights for other women.
Why are you trying to win rights from men?! Why aren't you trying to win rights from people who disagree?
You quoted my statement about rights, and then immediately stated that you are apparently totally comfortable completely violating someone else's rights, while criticizing me for wanting to legislate others' rights.
Let's get something clear here. If your rights are in conflict with someone else's rights, your rights don't trump theirs. By default, you're equals. Equals means you don't call all the shots.
For instance, if you have a conjoined twin, you don't get to murder them because it's inconvenient to be attached to them. Your rights are equal.
If one of the conjoined twins is male and the other female--no, we don't trust the male with "his own care" and allow him to murder his sister.
After a fetus becomes a person, we assume they have full rights. Before a fetus is a person, we assume they have none. In between is very frustrating to think about because it breaks the simplicity of equality.
Your position is equivalent to either
(1) I know, for certain, that until a baby is born, it is assuredly not a person. Therefore, the baby has no rights, and all decisions are mine alone.
If this is the case, you need to present some very compelling evidence that this is true, because it's sure not obvious to most people.
(2) I have all rights to decide on how to implement any rights that an unborn child may or may not have. I am the sole and total executor of their rights, including ending their existence should I deem it proper.
If this is the case, you need to present some very compelling evidence that the pregnant-woman-with-unborn-person case is seriously different from the just-postpartum-woman-with-newborn-person case. We give a lot of latitude to parents to implement the rights of their children, but death isn't one of them, and it's sure not obvious to many people how this is different.
(3) When I am pregnant, even if the unborn child is a person, my rights completely trump theirs. They are nothing. I am everything.
If this is the case...well...this is just a monstrously selfish position.
These are the only possible views compatible with your stance: No rights conflict because there is only one person at this point (you), you are the 100% full executor of the rights beyond what goes normally, or your rights completely trump another person's rights.
Which is it?