To really want to say something to these abortion protestors?

[Crocodileclip]

Firstly, I know I will probably never say anything as I appreciate that the protestors have the right to protest but it really pisses me off.

A small group of people have been protesting outside the Marie Stoppes clinic in Belfast since it opened in 2012. They stand outside the door on the days it is open holding anti abortion posters and trying to gather signatures for a petition. I pass them on my way to get to the station at home time and every time it annoys me. I can't imagine how offputting they would be if you were young and scared and just wanting some advice. Lots of pics of aborted foetuses etc. I find it intimidating enough myself and I am just walking past. I actually put my head down and walk quicker so that nobody asks me to sign the petition.

I'm currently pregnant with my second and am lucky never to have been in a position where abortion was an option but am of the opinion that there are situations in which it may be the best option available.

The clinic itself operates within NI law so only offers abortions up to 9 weeks and as far as I know is the only such clinic in Northern Ireland. I think I would be ok with the protestors doing their stuff elsewhere in the city centre it is the fact that it is just outside the only entrance to the clinc that makes me irrationally angry. Does this happen at other Marie Stoppes clinics elsewhere in the UK?

MaidofStars, in those cases, it is your body that you are making the decision for

Note: This may be rather a sensitive topic to discuss so I apologise if anyone finds my example/language difficult or distasteful

It is not only my body that I am making decisions for when I choose to keep hold of both of my kidneys and let my child die. I have made an active and fully-informed decision to preserve my bodily integrity and autonomy to the detriment of the life of my child. However you might feel about the morality of that decision, the fact is that the right to make that decision is enshrined in law.

I can refuse to donate kidneys and allow someone to die. I can refuse to jump into a lake to save a child and allow that child to die. I can beat someone over the head with a spanner and cause them to die in order to preserve my bodily integrity.

I'd be very interested to see examples or even thought experiments of when the right to personal bodily integrity is deemed secondary to the right of someone else to live. There may be a really obvious example that I'm overlooking but it seems to me that abortion/the right of the child to live is the only exception to this rule.

Why is that? Why is abortion a special case?

Amazingly similar cross post with Magical!

The organ is not another life - it is not another body.

The organ is not another life - it is not another body

I don't follow your point. Can you clarify?

I donate my kidney and save my child. I donate my uterus and save my child. Why am I allowed to refuse to do the first but not the second?

Your uterus is also not another life, and it's the use of your uterus, that's being considered here, not that of the organism depending on it.

The argument is that you are not obligated to afford another individual access to any part of your body even if it means their certain demise in any other context. Examples of this were given above by various posters.

twofingers - post at 10.03

Maid of Stars - It was in response to Magical's "it's the woman's body in the case of either organ donation or pregnancy."

BackOnlyBriefly - I gave one difference upthread. I couldn't find it, but as far as I can see they are just protesting that people are allowed to have different opinions by trying to make those people feel unhappy.

Anyway, I'm more interested now in MaidOfStars point about blood transfusions and organ transplants. It seems we do allow people to withhold use of their own body without question in those cases.

Running out of time here so quick post! There was an interesting discussion/debate about the whole kidney vs uterus thing in the US not too long ago - might be worth a read for those who are interested.

There was an interesting discussion/debate about the whole kidney vs uterus thing in the US not too long ago - might be worth a read for those who are interested

I'd much rather hear what YOU have to say about it...Do you recognise the inconsistency?

I'm assuming you are referring to Stephanie Gray's argument: it essentially states that a kidney is different from a uterus in that the latter's primary purpose is to serve as a temporary host for another organism, whereas a kidney performs a vital function for the organism of which it is a part.

In the context of bodily autonomy this is completely irrelevant, however: the right to bodily autonomy is not contingent on whether or not it is exercised in accordance with a body part's primary biological function. If that were the case, having a uterus would essentially oblige you to have children, whether you like it or not. And having ovaries/testicles would mean you have to engage in unprotected sex regularly (their primary function is, after all, to produce eggs/sperm for reproduction). And so on ... it's just not how this works.

bumbley - I can't see anything in your post at 10.03 that sets out your position in terms of a woman's autonomy. Sorry, but I really can't.

HadABadDay, well people do get advised against those things don't they? They are advised against it because it can put the life/health of the foetus at risk.

But that is only advice, not law.

It's not like children protection team will be called because the mother to be ate a rare steak.

bumbley "or anyone on this thread who strongly supports the right of women to have access to abortion but overlooks the fact that many women don't have access to contraception?"

Part of my dissertation is about the need to ensure that everyone has access and information about abortion and contraception.

Japanese, no he's not. What makes you think that the pope's views have anything to do with me? It's not only Catholics who object to abortion.

No, but you are, and your argument suddenly lacks a whole lot of credibility when you argue vociferously for one part of Catholic dogma, and then offer up a suggestion (and you did suggest it) that completely goes against that dogma.

And this is why I am so thankful that my country (I'm not the UK, but I'm thankful on their behalf as well) is not ruled by an entity that even its own followers pick and choose which parts to agree with and adhere to, depending on their own circumstances. Very thankful.

I should say -

...and this is why I am so thankful that my country is not ruled by an entity that even its own followers pick and choose which parts to agree with and adhere to - and then randomly enshrine only some of them in law - depending on their own circumstances.

Sorry, this probably has to be another quick post and run but I'll try to get back again later...

Magical, no, I haven't heard of Stephanie Gray's argument before. I think that organ donation e.g. kidney and abortion are different because firstly, there is a difference between 'letting someone die" and 'killing them". So in the kidney example, witholding your kidney may result in their death but you are not actively ending their life e.g. by giving them a lethal injection or something. In the case of abortion you are actively ending the life. If you consider a 'right to life' argument that is the right not to be killed rather than the right not to die. They are different things.

Also, the kidney example isn't an accurate representation of abortion. If someone else having your kidney is equated to being pregnant (in the analogy) then the donation of your kidney is equated to actually getting pregnant. No one can force you to donate your kidney just as no one can force to you get pregnant.

Had,

Eating a raw steak is unlikely to result in the death of the foetus (although it increases the risk). Abortion always ends in the death of the foetus.

Japanese,

"when you argue vociferously for one part of Catholic dogma"

Do you think only Catholics object to abortion? You're very wrong there.

no one can force you to get pregnant

Er. Yes. They can.

The simple fact of it is, without the woman's consent to her body being used to host and sustain the foetus, the foetus will not survive. So, we can argue semantics as much we like, but if I do not give that foetus the right to use my body it can't use it and my right as a person supersedes its right as an foetus.

As for your point about contraception, the reason people aren't talking about it as much on this particular thread is because this thread is about abortion not contraception. I can't speak for anyone else, but I absolutely do support everyone's right to access effective, reliable contraceptives.

just as no one can force to you get pregnant.

Really? Oh dear, bumbley

One thing I do agree with bumbley on: it isn't only Catholics who object to abortion. The unpleasant twats who demonstrate locally to me are all members of the same evangelical protestant church.

Nobody, I mean that the government/doctors/whoever can not demand that you get pregnant.

In the same way as they can't demand that you donate an organ.

Two fingers, it's not just religious people either.

I'm aware of that, bumbley, but I know for a fact that our local mob all come from the same church and then we have the Westboro Baptist people and then we have the Catholic church in Ireland, etc, ad nauseum. I do realise being anti-abortion does not require you to be religious as a pre-requisite, but many of the organised groups are attached to churches.

Still interested to hear what your personal stance is on women's bodily autonomy during pregnancy...

I think that organ donation e.g. kidney and abortion are different because firstly, there is a difference between 'letting someone die" and 'killing them". So in the kidney example, witholding your kidney may result in their death but you are not actively ending their life e.g. by giving them a lethal injection or something. In the case of abortion you are actively ending the life. If you consider a 'right to life' argument that is the right not to be killed rather than the right not to die. They are different things

I believe the "bodily autonomy" argument stands apart and needs no juxtaposition with the fetal right to life.

A woman who exerts her right to bodily autonomy, her right to not donate her uterus for use against her wishes, is doing that and only that. In the bluntest terms, what happens to the fetus is inconsequential to her exerting this right. We don't judge the validity of the right to bodily autonomy based on outcome in any other scenario so why do so in the case of abortion?

To extend this line of thinking, I don't think the woman's right to bodily autonomy extends beyond herself. She does not choose to kill a fetus - that would be infringing on the right to bodily autonomy of the fetus. Rather she chooses not to donate her uterus, to not be pregnant, to not be a mother. Of course, in early stage pregnancies, when the woman exerts this right, the fetus will die. It's a really indelicate phrase to use but the most appropriate term for this might be "collateral damage".

Everyone should have the right to bodily autonomy and the right to life, but it's my opinion that the former supercedes the latter. I don't see how a right to life can exist in the absence of bodily autonomy. A right to life without autonomy is no life at all. Nobody has the right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of anyone else, not even when their very survival depends on it. That includes the fetus.

Also, the kidney example isn't an accurate representation of abortion. If someone else having your kidney is equated to being pregnant (in the analogy) then the donation of your kidney is equated to actually getting pregnant. No one can force you to donate your kidney just as no one can force to you get pregnant

Donate your kidney - save a life.
Donate your uterus - save a life.

They are equivalent things in the analogy.

"We don't judge the validity of the right to bodily autonomy based on outcome in any other scenario so why do so in the case of abortion?"

Because in no other scenario does the right to bodily autonomy result in actively terminating the life of another.

"she chooses not to donate her uterus, to not be pregnant, to not be a mother."

In order to be pregnant she has already 'donated her uterus'. It is already being used by the foetus. She is trying to 'take that donation back' so to speak.

So in the case of rape you would be 100% ok with abortion then at any point in the pregnancy?