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?

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?

I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the organ donation analogy. It only serves to address the question: should a person be compelled to forfeit their right to bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another?

Allow someone to use your kidney - save a life.
Allow someone to use your uterus - save a life.

That's it. It's a thought experiment, designed to help us understand how the basic choice between bodily autonomy and preservation of life might be applied. As far as I can see, you haven't addressed this very first premise.

Any discussion about why there may be different rules between the two scenarios is of course interesting. But you're jumping past the very first question that I've been asking.

When someone donates externally (a kidney), it ceases to be part of their body, and therefore not under the remit of their right to bodily autonomy. When someone donates internally (a uterus), the organ is part of their body and expected to be so after the donation. My suggestion that location is irrelevant was in your favour, but if you really want to claim that location is relevant, then the argument for the right to bodily autonomy is strengthened.

But back to the first question (4th time of asking): should a person be compelled to compromise their bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another?

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

Not so much clarified as backed yourself into a corner. You're using the idea that by getting pregnant the woman agreed to carry the foetus to justify a loss of autonomy. Yet when I suggested you therefore must be ok about rape victims aborting you denied it.

So doesn't that leave your position 'Woman don't have autonomy because they agreed to it, but even if they didn't they still don't have autonomy'?

In the eyes of the law, it is not. And all the evidence points to the law not changing on that.

In a wonderful world all men and women would have access to free/cheap reliable contraception, they would be fully educated on sexual and reproductive health, they would be empowered to know they can say yes or no to anything a partner asks of them and what a respectful loving relationship looks like, they would be able to make smart financial and emotional choices and have the resources and support to take care of children if they wish. No one would live in poverty. All children would be wanted, loved and cared for. Hardly any one would ever need or want an abortion, but it would be available (free of judgement) for those that did.

The really galling part about that is that the very people who argue so loudly and so arrogantly that abortion is murder, and that it should be banned, are most often the very people who do not want a society like that. They do not want women to be empowered, supported and educated. They do not want men and women to have a full understanding of sexual health and reproduction, they do not want them to be able to access cheap reliable contraception. They do not actually give a shiny shit about women, or their already living children. They are using abortion as another stick to beat women with. Another thing to judge and shame and control women with. Because their end goal is not a society where abortion is never needed, it's one where women just do what they are told.

Maid, I haven't misunderstood anything.You can't have it both ways. You have said that the woman's uterus being inside the woman makes it different to normal organ donation (that she should still have autonomy over it) yet you still want to treat it as if it is the same as other organ donations. So which do you want it to be?

I've answered your question in my post at 8.25 Maid (see final paragraph).Asking it over and over isn't going to change my answer.

Back "You're using the idea that by getting pregnant the woman agreed to carry the foetus .." I haven't said that anywhere. I said that by being pregnant she has already 'donated her uterus'. I have explained why it has been expressed that way as well. (several times now)

HopAlong,

"The really galling part about that is that the very people who argue so loudly and so arrogantly that abortion is murder, and that it should be banned, are most often the very people who do not want a society like that. They do not want women to be empowered, supported and educated. They do not want men and women to have a full understanding of sexual health and reproduction, they do not want them to be able to access cheap reliable contraception. They do not actually give a shiny shit about women, or their already living children. They are using abortion as another stick to beat women with. Another thing to judge and shame and control women with. Because their end goal is not a society where abortion is never needed, it's one where women just do what they are told."

Oh dear, more sweeping generalisations. I can see that there's not much point in even attempting to have a conversation with you if that is what you think.

So bumbley, to clarify: you think a woman sacrifices her right to bodily autonomy because the right to life of another depends on that sacrifice?

i.e. the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy.

Why are you focussing on the fact that he disagrees with abortion rather than the fact that he doesn't allow her to use contraception?

READ IT REALLY SLOWLY...

HIS RELIGION FORBIDS BOTH.

I have said that already. [gives up] It's like trying to untangle silly string.

just as no one can force to you get pregnant

Oh dear ...

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.

Talk of a woman having already donating her uterus, means that she WANTED a baby to donate it to.

What if she didn't willing donate her uterus? Had an unwanted pregnancy, is she allowed to take it back then?

(I think she should be able to take it back in both cases, btw)

Either way, to me, it is like sex. A woman has a right to say NO at any point.

When she is pregnant her 'donated organ' is already being used by someone else

The foetus isn't a 'someone' it's a 'something' at best. It doesn't mean that the woman has to go on donating herself for it's preservation.

BM, there is an analogy between the process of donating an organ and pregnancy. There is not an analogy between having donated an organ and pregnancy. That is why in medical ethics and philosophical discussions about abortion, the former is used not the latter. The fact that you keep trying to compare pregnancy to a completed donation, which is a poor analogy, because you'd rather not discuss bodily autonomy doesn't undermine the analogy of pregnancy being like an Uncompleted donation.

The uterus is not at any point donated to the foetus in pregnancy. It is similar to bone marrow donation. In both a. the donor is alive throughout, and b. future use of a product created by the body part is dependent on the donor staying alive and retaining the body part for it to be of continued use to anyone. And in both, bodily autonomy is the point of discussion. A person should be allowed to halt the use of their bone marrow removing tools or removal of an umbilical cord attached to their body taking their blood and nutrients from them at any moment. If you want to discuss other moral principles like the right to life, there are other philosophical analogies that have been developed to explore and support that argument.

In your analogy, the thing that has been donated by the woman would more accurately be the placenta and umbilical cord. They are things the woman has created from her own body which she is not expecting to retain once the pregnancy is over. If you analogy was correct, and the uterus was donated to the foetus, then you should have no problem agreeing to a pregnant woman agreeing to a hysterectomy mid pregnancy and walking away from the whole thing.

But your analogy isn't correct, what a woman is doing is similar to the process of donation of a renewable bodily resource - in this case her bodily nutrients, blood etc. she has to be kept alive and go through various acts of discomfort to keep that process of donation going.

I have some sympathy with elements of the pro life argument. I think it is a complex moral argument, where people are weighing up how to balance different moral principles that are in conflict with each other and trying to reach a sensitive conclusion that will allow society to make judgements that guarantee women some degree of bodily autonomy throughout pregnancy while also making very difficult, complex decisions about premature babies and the suffering of both groups.

I don't think deliberately skewing the meaning of words and terms, ignoring key moral principles and trivialising the state of being pregnant actually furthers a pro life argument. I don't think you are in fact making a pro life argument; I just think you have an extreme and frankly bizarre attitude to the bodies of other women and are using this thread as a vehicle for broadcasting your attitudes. The his thread has effectively become all about you.

different, take your own advice and read what I wrote very slowly - I understand that his religion forbids both. I am asking you why you are focussing on the abortion aspect rather than the contraception aspect when you talk about choices not being available.

Ah, I see you are just working your way through posts. I'll let you catch up because I have already addressed the points that you are making.

almond, "The uterus is not at any point donated to the foetus in pregnancy."

So why are you trying to compare 'donating your uterus' to 'donating your kidney'. That is what the entire analogy is about - "I'm not forced to donate my kidney so why should I be forced to 'donate' my uterus?"

Some of you are really tying yourself in knots to try to make this work. The uterus isn't 'donated' (but I'm going to compare it to an organ donation). It is the same as an organ donation (except it is different because it's still inside me therefore it should be treated differently) etc etc. Why don't you just accept that it's a bad analogy and move on to something else?

" your analogy, the thing that has been donated by the woman would more accurately be the placenta and umbilical cord. They are things the woman has created from her own body which she is not expecting to retain once the pregnancy is over."

What about the egg? The foetus wouldn't be there at all without that.

"that guarantee women some degree of bodily autonomy throughout pregnancy" but they don't have bodily autonomy throughout pregnancy.

"I just think you have an extreme and frankly bizarre attitude to the bodies of other women and are using this thread as a vehicle for broadcasting your attitudes."

"trivialising the state of being pregnant "

Is this yet another reference to the use of the word 'donate' which was not my idea to begin with?

" I just think you have an extreme and frankly bizarre attitude to the bodies of other women.."

Oh dear, another assumption. I don't happen to share your views or opinions so therefore my attitude is extreme and bizarre (and no doubt misogynistic in some people's eyes). Sigh...

I think anti abortion views have to be classed as misogynistic don't they though? You are by denying women abortion, denying them the same reproductive freedoms that men have.

"You are by denying women abortion, denying them the same reproductive freedoms that men have."

You know that men can't get pregnant right?

So does that mean that women who are only 'pro-choice' up to 24 weeks are misogynistic too?

Yes.

No.

After 24 weeks the fetus stands a decent chance of living independent of the mother, hence the law. I don't think I would go as far as saying it was misogynistic not to support abortion to term, but in principle I think the right to abortion to term does go along with a society that values women as much as men and respects their capacity to make informed, sensible choices.

I wonder why you are trying to compare the 'reproductive freedoms' of women and men then.

That's a bit selective pomme. They are denying women abortion after 24 weeks.

"I think the right to abortion to term does go along with a society that values women as much as men and respects their capacity to make informed, sensible choices."

When does a man ever have to make an informed, sensible decision about his pregnancy?

When he shoots his sperm into a womens vagina without using contraception?

1. I don't believe anybody is so poor at reading comprehension that they can't understand that there is a difference between the process of doing something and the end result. I don't believe you can't see that pregnancy is a process involving ongoing donation of biological material (blood, nutrients), and as such is comparable to the process of bone marrow donation. It is basic reading comprehension, and anybody attempting to pass GCSE RE by looking at abortion would be expected to understand this, regardless of whether or not they were making a pro life or pro choice argument.

1. I didn't compare pregnancy to kidney donation. somebody else asked what the distinction between the two was, at which point you and I responded by suggesting different analogies. I believe yours is incorrect because it conflates a process with an end consequence. People who can't understand the difference between a process and an end consequence would not be able to carry out everyday tasks like cooking pasta or crossing a road, so your insistence that you can't see that distinction is a derailment and untruthful, IMO.

1. As for the egg, once it becomes a foetus, it no longer exists. What is the relevance of your question to anything?

1. I am not making any assumption that your attitudes are extreme and bizarre, although I am making a judgement about you based on them, which perhaps I shouldn't do. I'm not speculating about what other attitudes you might hold. I am going only on the attitudes you have stated on this thread, and I consider them to be extreme and bizarre compared to both a. Those commonly held in British society and b. those of the pro life family I am part of.

1. Transgender men make decisions about their pregnancies. Most men don't get pregnant.

"When he shoots his sperm into a womens vagina without using contraception?" That's the man's pregnancy is it? I thought you said you knew that men couldn't get pregnant? ( I think you mean woman's btw)

"pregnancy is a process involving ongoing donation of biological material (blood, nutrients)" Ok, so now you are saying that it's ok to stop a donation half way through? Change your mind halfway through a bone marrow transplant?

2. I think your is incorrect for the reasons outlined above.

3. Just wondering if you consider it part of the donation or not.

4. Everyone is different. I manage not to describe/judge anyone as extreme or bizarre in their attitudes despite them being very different to mine.

5. WE could start a whole other discussion about what actually makes a transgender man male if he still has female reproductive organs. Maybe another day!

2. I think yours*

Bumbleymummy - are you being deliberately obtuse?

A man is involved in a pregnancy via his sperm. He is half of the genes of the embryo produced via the sperm/egg combo what goes on.

Maybe you are the virgin Mary, but in general it doesn't happen like that.

Does a massive blob of cancer have a right to life if it exists inside a woman's uterus? It is a lump of living cells after all...

1. Yes, I am saying it is okay, both in principle and reality, to stop a donation during the process. Some people may find that they do not want to continue with a donation when they start to experience the actual process.
2. I don't think you have outlined reasons why mine is incorrect, merely restated an incorrect alternate analogy. I am making that judgement not based on my own definition of words but on those used by doctors, the government etc. For a start, part of the definition of a blood or marrow donation is that it is voluntary throughout.
3. I don't consider the process of an egg or sperm turning into a foetus to be a donation.
4. I think it is important to acknowledge when somebody holds a view that is extreme or bizarre in the context of a discussion of human rights because a. recognising extremity is part of understanding how an Overton window is constructed which sways people's opinions and b. if they are representing a perspective but doing so based on a bizarre attitude then the perspective of people with a relevant and sensible argument (in your case, other pro lifers) is misrepresented.

It would be rather like if I believed in a reduction of meat in diet for environmental reasons but the person representing my meat reduction views in a discussion believed that Meat reduction was important because many people were too morally insignificant to be allowed meat. The person's views would be extreme and bizarre and would misrepresent a credible viewpoint, and that should be pointed out.

I do think judging you personally for your attitudes may be a step too far, but it is the case that you have made a very large proportion of this thread about your issues with the female body, and a lot of that has no direct relationship to abortion and abortion protestors which is the actual topic of the thread.

1. I agree with you that you stated 'their pregnancy' when talking about men and pregnancy, which does not include the act of act of impregnating somebody else.