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?

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

Perhaps I'm not being clear but the bodily autonomy argument does not involve terminating the life of another as its primary effect. The primary effect is for the woman to withdraw her uterus for use. Everything else is secondary, even the death of the fetus.

I should clarify that I'm trying to tease out the logical arguments here, separate from the emotional. That might mean I sound heartless in places.

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

Years ago, my cousin needed a bone marrow transplant. He was a lucky boy because there was only one match available, a lady somewhere in Canada. His transplant was successful.

Should that lady be compelled to donate again, if he needs it? Can she first give then withdraw her consent?

It wasn't a donation in the first place, I donated my uterus because I was TTC.

The foetus is more like a squatter

Not sure how you get that from anything I've said Back.

"the bodily autonomy argument does not involve terminating the life of another"

In abortion it does.

"withdraw her uterus for use"

Comparable to deciding to take a donated organ back.

Re the bone marrow transplant - it would not be equivalent to her deciding not to donate a second time. It would equivalent to her deciding to take her first donation back by killing your cousin.

Had - 'donation' is in inverted commas because we're comparing it to organ donation.

*"the bodily autonomy argument does not involve terminating the life of another"

In abortion it does*

Well cherry picked. My statement finished with 'as its primary effect'.

Do you disagree? Do you think the bodily autonomy argument promotes the death of the fetus as its primary effect?

bumbleymummy Oh I doubt you'd be ok with it in any circumstances. It was just that you seemed to be arguing that it was the woman agreeing to carry the foetus that was the sticking point.

I would argue that there's a difference between 'terminating the life of another' and 'terminating the potential life of another.'

Maid, when a person donates an organ to someone else do they still have control over that organ? Can they just decide, "actually, I've changed my mind, I want my kidney back" ?

" It was just that you seemed to be arguing that it was the woman agreeing to carry the foetus that was the sticking point."

Where did I say that?

Two, that's because you have a different idea about when life begins.

But bumbley organ donors are fully aware of what they are doing. They chose to donate.

Abortion usually happens (excluding medical reasons here) exactly because the pregnant woman did not want to get pregnant.

Not quite the same thing in terms of consent.

These two things are not equivalent, BM. Once bone marrow has been donated, it's existence outside my body has nothing to do with my bodily autonomy. I cannot demand an organ back because it is no longer part of my body and it's existence elsewhere is no longer connected to me.

Pregnancy is equivalent to the state of donating. At any time while their body is involved, a donor can say they want the process to stop. It is their right to stop the process, refuse to carry on with a procedure etc.

Pregnancy is not equivalent to the state of having completed a donation.

OP, I haven't read the whole thread, but while I accept that the protesters have a right to protest - you also have freedom of speech. You asked if you would BU to say something to them: the answer is no, YWouldNBU to do so.

Maid, when a person donates an organ to someone else do they still have control over that organ? Can they just decide, "actually, I've changed my mind, I want my kidney back"?
No, for the reasons outlined by almondcake.

Once your organ is not part of you, your right to bodily autonomy does not include it.

Any chance of you answering my question re: bodily autonomy and its primary effect?

"Pregnancy is not equivalent to the state of having completed a donation"

If you are pregnant then your 'donated organ' is already in use. You can't be pregnant unless your organ is in use ie. having completed a donation. You think that it is the organ being outside your body that is what stops you having control over it. Other people think it is the fact that the organ is in use and keeping someone else alive that stops you having control.

Maid, see my above post to almond.

bumbleymummy, here you go. Always glad to help.

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.

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.

What other people think doesn't come into it if they are simply twisting words to mean something entirely different to those used in medical ethics.

A person in a state of donating has not donated an organ. If I am donating marrow, my bones themselves are not being donated, but they are in a state of donating something as part of my body. I have not donated the bone itself. It is not a donated organ. It remains part of my body and has not itself been donated. It remains an ethical matter of my bodily autonomy if I want to cease the donation or any related act carried out on my body.

The same applies to the uterus. A donated uterus in medicine and medical ethics is one that has been removed from the donor. If somebody uses it for something without removing it from the body, it is not a donated organ. It is part of my body and under my bodily autonomy.

In order to be pregnant she has already 'donated her uterus'

I think this, in a nutshell, probably tells us all we need to know about your views, bumbleymummy.

I notice you're doing that weird 3rd person thing again...'Other people think...'.

Ugh.

Nobody in this thread have said you have to have an abortion, you have the right to get pregnant and continue with the pregnancy even if it's your 30th child.

Why can't you respect that other people don't share that view.

Other people think it is the fact that the organ is in use and keeping someone else alive that stops you having control

You do realise you have just removed the right for rape victims to have abortions, yes?

Those "other people" need to come up with a far more convincing reason (or even just a reason) for why anyone is obliged to continue to allow an organ to be used against their will in direct violation of their right to bodily integrity/autonomy, even if the withdrawal of consent to use said organ results in the death of the user. We don't apply this rule to any other scenario - why this one?

In short, YOU are going to have to justify exactly why the fetal right to life is more important than the female's right to bodily integrity/autonomy.

However, I have a feeling you will continue to ignore my questions....because....

Maid, see my above post to almond

You know, that really doesn't answer my question. In fact, it doesn't even attempt to address it.

Here it is again: do you think that the death of the fetus is the primary goal for a woman exerting her right to bodily integrity/autonomy?

In order to be pregnant she has already 'donated her uterus'

I think this, in a nutshell, probably tells us all we need to know about your views, bumbleymummy

I agree with you ravenAK. There's a feint whiff of "she deserves it" with perhaps a smattering of "she got herself into this mess" around the first statement.

Back, I've clarified both the use of 'donation' (inverted commas) and 'being forced'. See subsequent posts.

"If I am donating marrow, my bones themselves are not being donated, but they are in a state of donating something as part of my body. I have not donated the bone itself. It is not a donated organ."

Your bones aren't being used by someone else - so no, they haven't been donated.

This is the difficulty with using an organ donation anology in relation to the uterus( It wasn't me who brought it up!) The 'donation' occurs while it is still inside your body. This doesn't happen in typical organ donation.

raven - note the use of inverted commas and understand the context in which we are using the word 'donated' here.

Actually, I see maid has commented on this as well. Can everyone note the use of inverted commas and the explanations as to why they are being used here. I did not bring up the 'donated organ analogy'. If you have issues talking about 'donations' in relation to the uterus then maybe you shouldn't have tried comparing it to another organ donation. I am using inverted commas for a reason.

HadABadDay, you know that what we decide to do ourselves/ how we decide to live our lives isn't what we base laws on don't you? It is recognised that at a certain point, the foetus has a right to life. People just disagree on when that point is.

Maid, as someone pointed out earlier on the thread, the circumstances under which a person gets pregnant do not make the foetus any less of a foetus or alter its right to life. I have already talked about the 'right to life' being a right not to be killed rather than a right not to die in the context of this organ donation analogy. I have also explained the difficulties in this 'organ donation analogy' in relation to the uterus because it is 'donated' while it is still inside a person - unlike any other donation.

Maid, I've answered that question by trying to explain to you why the woman does not have bodily autonomy over her uterus in the donation scenario. ie. she has already 'donated' it. I thought you would have recognised that. I think you agree that her bodily autonomy does not stretch to allowing her to take back the kidney/bone marrow that she has donated. As I explained above, if you are talking about 'uterus donation' it takes place while it is still inside the woman.

This is the difficulty with using an organ donation anology in relation to the uterus( It wasn't me who brought it up!) The 'donation' occurs while it is still inside your body. This doesn't happen in typical organ donation

Your continual reference to the logistical and practical differences between donating a kidney and donating a uterus is a non sequitur. I don't see the relevance of the location of the donated organ. If anything, the location of the donated organ within the body of the woman strengthens her right to exert bodily autonomy.

The question is quite simply - should a person be compelled to compromise their bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another?

If you answer 'yes' (because you think the fetal right to life is more important that the female's right to bodily autonomy), can I have your kidney please? If you answer 'no' (which is in alignment with how we as a civilised country recognise and organise the hierarchy of fundamental rights), why is abortion an exception?

I don't believe you can answer any of those questions. You have now backtracked to talking about fetal rights to life and when that happens.

"I don't see the relevance of the location of the donated organ."

Then why are you trying to treat them differently? If you don't think it is relevant then why shouldn't the woman be able to demand her kidney back?

"why is abortion an exception"

For the very reason you keep trying to scoot around. It is a 'donation' that occurs inside the woman. When she is pregnant her 'donated organ' is already being used by someone else.

I've answered your questions. You just don't like my answers.

bumbley the organ isn't being used by 'someone else'. The fetus is not a person, it doesn't have legal personhood, it's rights to life do not trump the woman's rights to bodily autonomy. In my opinion they should never do so, but I respect that the law has drawn the line approximately where the fetus would (with medical help) be able to live independent of the mother), and I know why they have drawn it there.

With the donation argument, to me it's more like this; 'donating' your uterus to an unwanted fetus is a bit like going in to have your appendix out and waking up on the table to find them discussing removing your kidney to give to someone else. You recognise that sometimes complications occur during surgery, but you'd be within your rights to ask for them not to remove your kidney. Even if it meant the patient in the next room would die.

You can use 'something else' if you prefer. My point is that it is sustaining another life. In your opinion it is not a life. In other people's it is.

wrt your kidney analogy (I'm not really sure where you are going with 'complications during surgery resulting in the donation of your kidney to someone else unless you ask them not to' thing but putting that aside...) As I mentioned further upthread in relation to another kidney donation analogy, 'right to life' is not 'right not to die' it's 'right not to be killed'.