Can we agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy?

In general I agree with the op but in regards to smoking in pregnancy that does effect another person. I have dyspraxia and that has been linked to maternal smoking while pregnant. My mum continued to smoke heavily while pregnant with me and all through my childhood. I wish she hadn't done that. It was my body too, if she wanted to have me which she did she should have given up the fags. All mums to be should.

Women really are getting a backlash aren't they.

No catsarenice, women's bodily autonomy does not mean that an established partner in a relationship cannot initiate any form of physical contact. Don't be so disingenuous. It means that women should have the ultimate say in how much contact they permit from who.

Removal of bodily autonomy means that rape would be perfectly permissible. Is that what you want? Many men do.

Abortion is a grey area. It's a straightforward clash between those who would uphold the rights of a non-thinking person against those who would uphold the rights of a fully functioning person. Unfortunately law cannot cope with grey areas. Morality would always leave it to the individual bearing the child to decide.

Have read most of the thread but not all so apologies if I've missed the gist! Does this mean that you believe people should always ask permission before touching a woman? So a partner can't spontaneously hug a woman? Or give her a kiss? Or snuggle up in bed without asking first?

Sui generis and 40 week old foetus for the pedants who will pick up on the autocorrect errors in my post.

It really is not that simple. Men don't have the 'right' to bear children, as they are biologically different. The law has to think about rights and responsibilities around pregnancy as Sui generous.

In the same way a conjoined twin does not have the autonomy to demand to be separated if it implies the death of the other twin.

Although, in law, as people have said, personhood starts at birth, most people's opinions have moved on since that law was created as we understand more about how much the unborn foetus can feel and do. In fact, in surveys, women tend to want a lower abortion limit than men.

No one has absolute bodily autonomy where it affects others. Which leaves the (IMO) weak argument of a 40 year old foetus being a non person or merely a parasite. That is clearly subjective but it is not the view of the vast majority of society, especially women.

"We don't have total autonomy in law anyway because the law doesn't allow for abortion beyond 24 week in all but exceptional cases. I feel this is right."

And i feel it's wrong. I think women should have the same autonomy in law, that men have. It's a fundamental part of equal human-hood.

God I hate this discussion, although it is an important one. Only other thing I can think of is with regards to the non-aggression principle. I think the whole personhood discussion cannot (currently) be answered conclusively one way or the other.

Most people are familiar with the non-aggression principle which is you cannot initiate force against another person. One can argue that an unwanted foetus albeit without intent is still aggressing against the woman who is carrying it. Under the non-aggression principle it is permissible to act self-defensively as any mother is actively at risk of permanent injury and even death, so a pregnancy can only proceed with consent of the mother.

It is regrettable that the foetus/baby has to die, but it is the only recourse and is therefore proportional to protect the mother. The more I think about it the less I think an abortion is an aggression in and of itself and simply self defence. If I defend myself or others from a knife wielding maniac and have to regrettably kill them my objective isn't to actively end a life it's to protect my own (or others), thus nobody would label me a murderer, and rightly so. I think I have never been comfortable with pro-lifers labelling abortion as murder for this reason.

The only rebuttal I can think of to this position is that as parents we are responsible for the actions of our children, and thus are responsible for and carry the responsibility for this "aggression". However this can resolve one of two ways either a) parenthood and its attendant responsibilities can only accrue post birth and/or b) as an unborn child cannot by definition act as a moral agent the aggression cannot be the fault of the parents. In addition the father under this approach is 50% responsible for the aggression against the mother irrespective of intent to harm or not.

The absolutely only circumstance I can see of a pregnant woman being guilty of any moral/ethical violation is if she gets pregnant with the sole intention of aborting, but honestly how likely is that to happen? In all other instances it is a self defensive measure, where death isn't the objective, but a regrettable necessity.

For the pro-life lot the job becomes decreasing abortions by campaigning for effective and comprehensive sex ed, and providing resources to reduce the abortions that come about from fears of being able to financially raise a child. So if you must hang around abortion clinics, bring a cheque and offers of support not moral judgements. I'm in favour of abortions not happening wherever possible, but the choice has to remain with the person pregnant. I hope this helps.

In law an omission to act resulting in death, unless the person had a legal obligation or duty to the other person, is not an offence.
An omission is very different to a wilful act of taking life.
We don't have total autonomy in law anyway because the law doesn't allow for abortion beyond 24 week in all but exceptional cases. I feel this is right.
Autonomy isn't an absolute given when it directly affects another human life by a wilful act, and not merely an omission

"Is the right to life less important than bodily autonomy in all cases?"

Yes.

Unless you are going to advocate that the state has the right to force people to give blood in order to save the life of someone else. Which is not an impossible argument to make, morally. But at the moment, the state cannot force a man or woman to even donate blood to save someone else's life.

If women are the only people who can ever be in a position where we lose bodily autonomy in order to save someone else's life, then we are in an inferior legal position vis a vis our humanity, compared to men.

In general, I think both men and women ought to have bodily autonomy and even if a man is standing there healthily and someone else will die if he doesn't give his blood to keep them alive, the state should not have the right to dictate, that he must donate his blood.

I'd think he was a complete shit if he didn't, obviously, but I don't think the state should have the right to force citizens to give up their bodily autonomy, even temporarily, for 2 minutes, for the sake of someone else's life. Because individual rights against the power of the state, are an important principle to uphold. For everyone, in every circumstance.

Good night.

No you haven't. You've made the usual poor argument why a foetus should have rights while it's still inside a woman's body. You've not made any case for the those supposed rights overriding a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

You haven't explained why a women's autonomy exceeds the right of a foetus in all cases, if it's considered a person?
If you don't consider it a person, then why not? If you think birth is the answer then other than its the legal definition, why?
Should a woman be able to have an abortion at 40weeks because autonomy is an absolute right?
Is the right to life less important than bodily autonomy in all cases?

I think in some cases the foetus rights should override the woman's right to autonomy based on foetal development. This is already catered for in law and the reason why the cut off for abortion is 24 weeks.
Again I'm not anti abortion but my answer to op is I don't believe autonomy is an absolute right for which we should be entitled to in all cases.

Missymoo without RTFT my reason is, that the unborn person is in the woman's body and bodily autonomy means women should be able to remove that unborn person as a means of control over their own bodies.

Pencils in space
I have given my reason- I believe the unborn baby is at some stage a person, it doesn't change in anyway before birth to after.
Please give me your reason as to why a woman should have an absolute right over what happens to an unborn person right upto the stage of birth?

Of course the person giving birth is a person, but so is the baby- by that stage it's a fully formed person.
I wasn't trying to get too caught up on the abortion debate but trying to give an opinion on the question. My point was that at some stage and I'm not professing to know the answer) we should recognise that an unborn baby is a person and that it's rights should be considered, therefore I don't feel a woman's autonomy is an absolute right... it's not that clear cut and all aspects should be considered

The topic was should a woman have total autonomy and I've said no and given my reasons.

No you haven't. You've made the usual poor argument why a foetus should have rights while it's still inside a woman's body. You've not made any case for the those supposed rights overriding a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Birth is just the passage of a human being that already existed inside the womb to the outside of the womb and has nothing to do with being human.

You have forgotten to mention the person with human rights who is giving birth.

Surely people must think that the baby has rights beyond the legal threshold of personhood.

No, what rights could there be except human rights which only apply to people?

Pencils in space-
It is a hypothetical question but one based on the truth of the law. I was trying to make a valid point about being human is more than being "born". Birth is just the passage of a human being that already existed inside the womb to the outside of the womb and has nothing to do with being human.

"Giving a foetus legal rights would be like giving a liver legal rights, so don't be bloody silly."

A fetus ( past a certain gestational stage), once born is capable of independent life . A liver is not. Your comparison is silly ridiculous

Yes and once it's not inside a woman's body, a baby acquires personhood.

It sounds like you think a foetus should have personhood from the time it becomes 'viable'. This is not precise or workable because viability is heavily dependent not just on the ever changing frontiers of obstetric and neonatal science, but also on the particular circumstances the pregnant woman finds herself in. Should women in developing countries have a higher time limit for termination because they don't have access to facilities that would keep a premature baby alive?

Also you need to go back and read OP's post about the violinist. Even if you do ascribe personhood to a non-independent foetus, how does that make it OK for a woman to be required to use her own body for the benefit of another person without her consent?

However despite being pro life, the fact remains that when abortion is illegal you get a greater net loss of life as obviously more women die in botched black market procedures and if you are being utilitarian about it (which is the only way to get me little bear brain around it) you have to be pro choice if you are pro life. However that's just my subjective opinion and there is no reason anyone should share it

I think I would say I am pro-choice for the same utilitarian reasons. Abortion is the least worse option.

Pencils in space- it's not absurd that is the law. That a person has to be fully detached from the mother to count as a person, look it up. I took an exam based on law and this was a hypothetical question on the paper! Surely people must think that the baby has rights beyond the legal threshold of personhood.
As for ask the judges- the law gets stuff wrong- i.e. the law allowed for the convictions for being gay not so long ago- was this right at the time because the law says so and is an absolute authority? no! I want to get across the point to previous posters who have said that a baby should have no rights because it's not a person or human, simply because the law says so. people seem to be clutching onto the argument of the "law says so". The topic was should a woman have total autonomy and I've said no and given my reasons.

And a pregnant woman's right to refuse treatment will be trampled over anyway, at least in those countries where pregnant women are treated as subhuman and secondary to the fetus

You didn't mention the right to refuse treatment. You were talking about the right to have a female surgeon or midwife.

I've been interested to read a lot of the comments on this thread. Thanks to you all.

It's a bit late for me and I'm tired - been working on something else since early morning.

But ... of course the violinist argument is relevant. However, it wasn't Radcliffe Richards (not really her style, although she did some good stuff in her own way). No, it was Judith Jarvis Thomson ( Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1971, 'A Defense of Abortion').

[Did anyone say this already? I didn't see it, if so.]

Here's a link
Thomson's violinist

Thing is (apart from 'credit where it's due' and so on), the argument is perhaps more nuanced than it's sometimes given credit for. Ethics/morality is sometimes a complicated matter. But, anyway, I thought some of you might like to read the whole thing (those who haven't already).

Me, I think it's an important and justly celebrated bit of applied philosophy; makes good points; in general, on balance, all usual qualifications, probably gets much of it right. Yes (for JJT''s and other reasons), we can agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy in relevant regards. Yes. Just yes.

(I'm not really clear about why there's still any argument about this. Aren't women people? Aren't people paradigmatically entitled to bodily (and emotional, psychological, sexual, cognitive, creative ...) autonomy? If not, what is ethics even about?)

1971 (date of JJT's article) was, in some ways, a long time ago. Have we progressed or regressed in our (societal, communal, interpersonal, what you will) understanding of ethical/moral issues since then? Sometimes I wonder.

Pencils in space
a baby is only dependant as far as it's inside the mother, but it could be removed and would be capable of living independently from somewhere shortly after mid term.

Please explain to me when your ludicrous hyperbolic made-up scenario has ever happened. Please explain to me what other areas of law you think should cater to such absurd hypothetical situations.

Laws need to be precise but they also need to be workable. When do you think a foetus should gain rights? What threshold you you think is more definable and workable than the moment of birth for the acquisition of personhood?