Can we agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy?

Can you imagine if we were one of those third world countries (and Ireland)

If you want to quibble, I think both clear that she wasn't including Ireland as a Third world country (hence the 'and') and that as she had explicitly mentioned 'Ireland' rather than 'The Republic of Ireland' or 'Eire' that she was referring to the whole island, not one of the two countries on that island.

Also, that would surely be British-centric - or do Wales and Scotland not count when you're accusing people of things based on a different interpretation of their words?

In the uk, yes women are entitled to bodily autonomy. I think that in the case of pregnant women this is not morally straightforward. I am pro choice but think those that refuse to accept that this is complex are in denial. Foetus's after a certain number of weeks can feel pain, can taste, can learn, develop memory, respond to mother's voice etc. What happens in the womb can impact on the child/ adult's development for life. Infants born addicted suffer absolutely hugely, emotionally, developmentally and physically.
That is not to say I want to shame anyone (male or female). But it is not to me simple. Probably the law is right as it is, as it's hard to se a law that in my mind would be better- but I don't think its okay for women to abuse their unborn babies. Although those who do I'm sure need help rather than attack. (But I think that for anyone who harms anyone else whatever the situation)
Women (and men) do not always have bodily autonomy- when people are sectioned for example they can be forced medication and restrained. When people are arrested they can also be physically restrained, even tasered etc.
I find the idea that foetal experience doesnt count until after birth extraordinary. But I also think it is in part a remnant of not thinking that babies feel anything. They were paralysed during open heart surgery until I think 1987, rather than given pain relief as it was thought they did not feel pain. Abortion used to be done similarly without pain relief for the foetus, this has now also changed. Our understanding of what foetuses experience is changing as scientific research develops more understanding.
Like I said, I'm pro choice.

Bodily autonomy is so critical to human rights. Can you imagine if we were one of those third world countries (and Ireland) where we were forced to bear our rapists baby? Or forced to birth babies who have already died? Babies without brains? Thankfully we are not because foetuses don't have rights and for now, women still do. If we can't convince our fellow women of that though, what hope do we have of convincing men.

Women in Northern Ireland - which is part of the uk - are forced to birth babies without brains.

So your statement is wrong. The uk is, in part, one of "those third world countries" and it is staggeringly insensitive and English-centric not to recognise that.

This is one of those ethical dillemas I suffer cognitive dissonance on. I empathize with and understand both camps. The problem is there is no objective standard of morals and ethics and unless you have a religion to act as a final arbiter (of which there is no objective case to inflict on non-believers anyway!), it's an issue we are destined to be at perpetual loggerheads on.

That said my own personal sense of ethics values human life, and much like the philosophical question how many (as in a precise numerical value) grains of sand do you have to add before you have a pile of sand? In short I haven't the foggiest when precisely you have a human. Conception seems a stretch and the moment of birth is convienient but arbitrary.

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 am saddened by pro-lifers, as given the stance it would make more logical sense to fundraise to provide resources and support to allow more women to make the choice to keep their babies where financial hardship is forcing them to consider abortions. I think that's the only truly supportable pro-life position. I am horrified by the protests outside abortion clinics, as I'm skeptical of any group utterly devoid of any compassion.

@quencher, how on earth can you say a law protects men when you've no idea what the demigrapics are for prosecution or why the legislation was introduced in the first place.

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

Foetuses have legal rights in Ireland, didn't you know that?

*women

No it's not. Women in Northern Ireland and woman on the Isle of Man, for example, aren't in a third world country, nor are they in Ireland (which is not a third world country either)
Your inference that it's only third world countries that don't have abortion rights and the implication that the uk is somehow superior is erroneous.

Not all of the constituent parts of the uk allow abortion.

Msrisotto id suggest you do some research into the state of the law wrt abortion in the uk as a whole.

I agree with your premise but the example you gave at 12:40 is not in anyway shape or form relatable to unborn foetuses. 1-both you and the violinist have rights. Whether one has more rights to the other person is another thing. 2-the foetus has no rights. It's rights only begin from the moment it's born and becomes a baby human being

Er, hello? NI and Ireland? Could you stop being so British-centric and realise there are women in your own country and in countries close by that do not have the rights you do?

Are you suggesting these rights should exist?

Yes, I do. Insofar as it is possible.

The right to refuse treatment isn't really a right, as any choice where the other option is: "or you could just die" isn't a true choice. Also, the right to refuse treatment is routinely ignored - if you are unconscious, they will assume you want treatment.

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.

Apart from the fact that some women are just not comfortable with random males we don't know seeing us naked and touching our naked bodies, there's also the fact that there's a large Muslim immigrant community, where this is part of the culture. I would not be surprised in the least if a study found that Muslim women don't seek treatment for things that would require surgery.

This may not kill many people, as an inflamed appendix, for example, might cause such severe pain that you cease to care about other things.

But it probably results in women putting up with a lot of discomfort.

Op, so if a fetus did have legal rights you would still believe your right to not have them grow in your body, is more important than the right of your unborn child to not be killed.

Giving a foetus legal rights would be like giving a liver legal rights, so don't be bloody silly. And yes, the born human should always have the right not to be forced to carry a foetus to term just to satisfy the desires of foetus fetishists.

@LassWiTheDelicateAir the premise is that any pregnant woman killed, the foetus is looked at like may other body part. For the person to be persecuted for the death of the foetus, it has to be proven it was intentional the way a woman would decide to buy poison/drug over the Internet and kill it. It would not surprise me if the people mentioned where mostly women who bought drugs over the Internet at a later stage of pregnancy. The word used was people. It can easily include pregnant women too.

This law for me seems to protect men and demonise women who might want late termination in pregnancy beyond the accepted date.

Op, so if a fetus did have legal rights you would still believe your right to not have them grow in your body, is more important than the right of your unborn child to not be killed.

I'm not the OP, but yes, I do. Pregnancy is bloody dangerous, we don't make people risk themselves for others in any other situation, so why this one?

I hate seeing pregnant women smoking. And can't think why anyone would be so selfish. But I wouldn't dream of voicing my disapproval. And smoking is bad for everyone. Bad for the mother, bad for the baby and bad for people around breathing in smoke.

I saw that BBC link Quencher. I don't know what the circumstances were where it was applied.

But only 16 people have been found guilty of child destruction in 11 years in England and Wales

Op, so if a fetus did have legal rights you would still believe your right to not have them grow in your body, is more important than the right of your unborn child to not be killed.

I think a baby has a right from conception, to a healthy environment and this is supersedes any woman's right so smoke etc.

So who's going to draw up the list then? At what point does the woman't right to do something loose out to the foetus's right to a healthy environment?

I'm obese (with 2 healthy kids) - should I have been forced to have a contraceptive implant so I couldn't conceive them since research shows they are more likely to have certain health problems? At what point does the increase in risk become me risking them?

What about car travel? Is it OK to risk the foetus, as long as I'm going to the shops to buy healthy food, but a trip to M&S for new pants should wait until it's born?

I can't see any way to legislate against body autonomy that isn't just a flat fiat with arbitrary rules. These rules in place because apparently women would be out aborting 38 week pregnancies if it was legal (clue, no, no they wouldn't). It just doesn't stand up to reason. There's no need to legislate against women smoking in pregnancy, because the vast, vast majority don't and those that do need support, not criminalising.

who we spend time with with no justification required

I don't fully agree with this, as I can think of multiple scenarios where associating with certain people is dangerous or ill-advised or disrespectful. But as a general principle, I think I know what you mean.

On smoking etc during pregnancy, it's worth noting that SS can and do become heavily involved with pregnant women who abuse drink and drugs to the degree that they are likely to be causing harm. Someone who is that dependent upon drink or drugs is unlikely to be able to care adequately for the baby once born, so SS involvement will usually continue until the mother stops the harmful behaviour or the child is removed. I don't believe that SS have powers to insist that a woman be forceably placed into a rehab centre or similar to prevent harm to the unborn child, though

It didn't even take me long to find one. The same law that applies to late abortion is what applies to men who intended to punch their girlfriends and wives and the foetus dies. You have to prove he wanted to kill the foetus and that can almost be impossible unless you have evidence of them saying it or some sort of evince. Only the woman matters in this case because the foetus has no rights. Case stated below.

The lawyer for a teenager who repeatedly punched his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach has told Newsbeat it's too hard to convict people of harming unborn children.
Dusan Bako, 18, from Oldham, has been sentenced to four years and eight months in a young offenders institute after admitting GBH. He assaulted her last August.
The 16-year-old was seven months pregnant.
She lost her baby but a charge of child destruction was dropped.
Bako, who wants to be rapper, had become angry because her phone was switched off.
His defence lawyer, Alison Mafham, can't talk specifically about her client's case but told Newsbeat she believes there is a loophole in the law.

"Whatever moral standpoint you take, in the eyes of the law an unborn child is not a person, so you can't be charged with murdering an unborn child and you can't be charged with assaulting an unborn child," Alison explains.
A law of child destruction applies to the deaths of some unborn babies, though, and carries a life sentence. Legal abortion is an exception.
But only 16 people have been found guilty of child destruction in 11 years in England and Wales, despite Alison claiming to see more and more attacks on pregnant women.
"The prosecution has to prove not only have you killed a child, capable of being born alive, but you intended to kill it - so you wanted that unborn child dead - and that's quite a hard thing to prove," she says.

If an attacker's intention was to harm an unborn baby rather than kill it, or if they wanted to hurt or kill its mother, the law doesn't recognise any offence against the unborn child.

www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32332040/too-hard-to-convict-people-of-harming-unborn-babies

We can owe duties to future persons, for instance we should make efforts to minimise climate change for the sake of our descendants. excellent point.

As far as I know, women never actually had the right to have only female doctors and midwives present during a birth no matter what. You can have a homebirth, but if you need a cesarean section, will you be guaranteed a female surgeon doing it? No, you won't.
Same with all other operations that require you to be naked. Is this a problem? What would matter to me is wether the surgeon was good at their job or not. I was born naked and prefer for people to not judge my nakedness. The naked body should not be shameful or used for sexual purpose u less I agree to it. When I was in labour all I cared about was the baby being out and safe. The sex of the purpose helping me did not matter. When I go to the gp and they need to look at my naked body, I just plonk myself on table. I have no fear as long as I trust that person as medical person to do what is needed. I would rather my issue was sorted out than wait.
I would also, assume I would be the same even if I had the choice of doctors. Female or male does not matter. It only matters when the sexes are being judged on job titles and wether females can do the job or not. Or how many female S they can hire.

If I have got it wrong and do jot understand the extent of this please explain.

@LassWiTheDelicateAir I don't think the uk does that. It is why I became aware of it, I read about it somewhere. I will find out to what extent but I don't think it's applied when that happens here.