Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

Are organs not currently donated without consent, unless the person opts out?

I am not in favour of this as it happens. I'd prefer an opt in type of scenario.

Organs are not taken from the dead. They only remove the organs of the kept living for donation.

The family has the last say as far as i am aware, not the person, so they dont have greater bodily autonomy.

The argument about absolute bodily autonomy does not address the issue of coercion. Neither does it address the possibility of dead babies being passed off as aborted when in fact murdered.

PP has said that after 24 weeks, a hypothetical 14-year-old girl raped by her father should be forced to gestate and give birth to his child for the good of society, because it's not always about the individual

I understand that's not a situation that would arise often, but that it could (and would) happen even once is one too many times.

No person should be forced to give over the use of their body in order to sustain another human being's life, and no person ever is....except for pregnant women and girls. No one can be forced to donate blood, marrow, or spare organs, even if a person will die without their donation.

Dead bodies who are suitable for organ donation have more rights to bodily autonomy than pregnant women and girls, even though they're already dead and could save multiple existing lives! Instead they're allowed to keep their autonomy and just rot away uselessly.

Why? Because it's clearly not about life being precious.

What about marrow? What if everyone had their blood type and location registered, so if someone needed blood or marrow and they were the closest available option, they could be forced to donate? To save a person's life, doing something that only takes a few hours time?

How can you be against that, but in favour of taking away women's automony in a much more invasive way in order to save an unborn child they don't want?

Everyone on this thread who has made the argument that late term abortions kill a baby and therefore shouldn't be allowed, is against mandatory blood or marrow donation that saves real people's lives with much less intrusion. That's so hypocritical it's sickening.

They're also nearly all in favour of allowing late term abortion for rape – which makes it clear it's about making sure women suffer, unless they 'don't deserve it'. How exactly does a few extra weeks of distress equate to being able to kill a healthy foetus? Why is 'murder' suddenly okay and state sanctioned if a woman was raped?

It doesn't make sense, and it's clear that it's not really about saving human life. It's about punishing a woman, and making sure that one way or another, she suffers.

It doesn't benefit society to criminalise women for late term abortions, or force them to have unwanted babies (that according to a previous poster, a study agrees with my suspicion that they will keep rather than relinquish.) It should be approached with a healthcare, 'how do we help make sure this doesn't happen again' attitude.

Bodily autonomy doesn't mean doing anything we like just because we live from our bodies, and there's no regard for others, no such things as crimes or consequences.

It means we have self determination about what happens to our physical bodies and our bodies are not resources for others, for society, for 'the greater good', without our consent. It's one of the 4 pillars of medical ethics in the UK and incredibly important in a free society.

I don't intepret abandoning an infant child out of a desire to do something more fun and interesting as supported by the principle of bodily autonomy.

This is a bad faith argument. A mother can safely abandon a baby with another person or organisation. It is not inside her body.

We don't allow people to kill babies because they're emotionally distressed, though.

That doesn't make sense.

Being able to breathe is necessary for life but not sufficient. A baby is dependent for a considerable time after birth.
In what sense does anyone have an obligation to this developing human if the mother just walks away. She is the one with a genetic connection.
If you take bodily autonomy as an absolute, taking responsibility for a child is merely a matter of choice.

I don't think the ability to breath independently is a very good arbtrator of life and has all kinds of obvious implications. Also, recent studies that show changes in women's brains after birth suggest that a parasitic relationship continues post partum. This has considerable implications for a woman's bodily autonomy and would certainly support the case for infanticide.

I disagree. Birth is a very hard line in human development terms, a much harder line than 'viability' through medical assistance with variable health outcomes depending on level of prematurity. Foetal development in utero is gradual, day by day, making a cutoff for viability somewhat artificial in a way that birth is not. It's true an infant is highly dependent on its mother, but in the case of death of the mother, the infant will survive as long as it is fed and cared for by another, and this used to happen in the past when lots of women died in childbirth. An infant has no parasitical-type relationship with its mother, unlike a foetus which affects its mother's immune system to prevent her from rejecting the foreign DNA, and which is dependent on getting nutrients from her blood via the placenta, which was also made by her body from the food she ate. As I said, if a pregnant woman dies, her foetus will within minutes start to suffer from a lack of oxygenated blood which will result in its imminent death too. That's why a baby's first cry as soon as it's born is so signifcant - it signifies being able to breathe and take in oxygen from the atmosphere which is essential for life. A foetus' status of dependency and relationship with its mother's body are completely different to that of a newborn child.

You could certainly argue that there is an autonomy argument for infanticide...because a child after birth is still heavily/totally dependent on the mother for nurturing, care-taking and survival. What if that dependency and parasitism conflicts with the woman's right to do as she pleases with her life?

Have a think about it and see what you come up with.

An abortion is not the same as infanticide. There is no bodily autonomy argument for infanticide.

What do you think a very late-term abortion has in common with infanticide?

I understand that about second waves arguably overvaluing individualism (though autonomy is important) but it's important to remember feminism gas always had competing strands even if some are more prominent in media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_feminism

This strand was large also during the second wave. Overlapped a bit with hippie culture sometimes and could be a bit woo woo, and could arguably be too essentialist, but it was a different perspective.

Second wavers like Gloria Steinem and Carol Gilligan (esp in her book In A Different Voice) were not part of this but did emphasise interdependence and valuing traditionally female stuff. Steinem has historically been criticised a lot for not having kids, but she's actually often been a lot more positive about motherhood than , say , Betty Friedan, who actually was one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_feminism

What does infanticide have to do with abortion?

Exactly. There's no excuse, you can sympathise hugely with a horrible situation but that's not the same as condoning killing like that.

This is probably one of the most upsetting books I've read,,but it's worth a read for the information it gives on the history of infanticide for the reasons you said
.
https://www.amazon.com/Hardness-Heart-Life-Stain-Infanticide/dp/1575027682

It’s true I’m overstating it somewhat and apologize if it comes across as offensive.

I admit I don’t always have a great deal of tolerance for the pro-life movement, but the women who lead it do seem to have a logical and consistent worldview, however much I advocate against it, so I have a grudging respect for them.

And I understand many suffragettes were pro-life, though subsequent waves of feminism developed along different lines. A big ‘what if’ moment if the first wave had passed on this reverence for motherhood and family to the second wave rather than the extreme focus on individualism and personal autonomy

Bobblebottle said it well, regarding late term abortions that the mother wants: "On both autonomy and utilitarian arguments, it would actually be best to help her have a safe late term abortion

You could say the same thing about people exposing newborns on the hillside. It’s the exact same argument. And in many cultures it was completely acceptable until the 20th century, you can understand why, when those cultures were living at the margins in extreme scarcity

Pro life feminists are quite wide, not just 'rabid' Catholics. I'm not pro life, but I don't think we should totally write off Fannie Lou Hamer, Wangari Maathai, and a heavy amount of the suffragettes and suffragists just because they were.

'unless their father was a rapist, in which case they deserve to die for his crimes.'

• it's not about that. One, some pro lifers, or people who are pro life at late term would argue that it's a different kind of situation because the mother's choice was taken away. And moreover, it could fit under the category of causing dangerous stress to mental health of the mother.

'Decriminalisation of late term abortion is like the reverse argument though which is why I find it difficult to understand because it doesnt have the autonomy vs utilitarian dilemma above. On both autonomy and utilitarian arguments, it would actually be best to help her have a safe late term abortion.'

Because at late term the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, and imo and others is worthy of consideration as a being in its own right in a way , say , a 3 week old foetus would not be

People who need blood donation have various options for survival. A foetus has only one, the mother.

Yes, I think Otterly is also overlooking that this is partly why some will allow late term abortion in the case of rape : that is a case if it being inflicted on a woman an could potentially cause severe emotional distress.

No. Because I do not believe bodily autonomy as a philosophical belief is absolute and/or applicable equally in all scenarios. Current legislation agrees, which is why we allow late term abortions when the the mother's life is in danger.