To want autonomy over my body.

[thebodydoestricks]

Aibu here. I am 50 but apparently still fertile.

I have 4 children already and do not want any more.

According to some posters if I fell pregnant but hadn't used at least 2 methods of contraception I should be denied the abortion I would most definatly want.

I would have to go before a panel of judges in a court to plead my case. They would judge whether I should have an abortion or not.

Of course if there was a back log of cases then I would have to wait and if it reached 24 weeks it would be too late anyway.

I would be forced to give birth.

Aibu to be absolutely stunned at this posters view in Britain 2014?

It does, if you look at what the producers would want out of having the 'woman who got a free boob job' in the house. Let's face it a woman who, even if she isn't about to give birth, is in the late stages of a pregnancy, doesn't make for good, salacious TV, does she? Who wants to see a heavily pregnant woman needing a pee every 30 minutes when they could be baying for her blood because she's shagged some sleb?

The idea that rape victims should be allowed to abort while women who are pregnant as a result of consensual sex should not is a fundamental judgement on women according to their sexual behaviour.

Someone who is genuinely "pro-life" would ban abortion outright in both cases as the idea is it is about the baby not the woman.

Picking and choosing who may or may not have an abortion based on what kind of sex produced the pregnancy is an illogical and judgemental position.

Judging a woman for having an abortion after consentual sex = slut shaming

How do you prove the circumstances of the conception? Not all rape victims report the crime, those that are report not all go to court, of those that do go to court not all of them are proven.

So what criteria do you set down before allowing an abortion for a rape victim, is her word good enough? it can't be as women don't know what they are saying or doing and are incapable of though beyond what colour of nail varnish they should use that day.

Thanks for this Capt. I am off out now and will read it when I get back. I am in Ireland and discussion on abortion is still very narrow and emotive so this has been an illuminating thread.

Dawn - i do understand that but my point was about women and men ( in the case of vasectomy as that is their decision) doing what they can in the first place and within their power to be in as much control as they can - if you do that and a pregnancy still ensues I can only sympathise and wish them the best in whatever decision they decide to make.

I'm not sure if posters talking about courts are referring to me but if so again a mis reading of my post. In offering abortions I do not think one reason is more acceptable then another - each woman needs to decide for herself and I assume for her the reasons are valid so I would not support some kind of kangaroo court system whereby only 'deserving reasons' allow a woman access to a termination.

But it's unreasonable to think people don't judge the reasons personally - we all judge each other all the time from the clothes people choose to wear to their views on Syria so it's hardly surprising someone might judge someone who aborts for a TV show ( using this example for emphasis - am sure more to the Josie story then the daily mail would have us believe) versus someone who aborts because they had a contraception failure and are only 18 and do not feel they can have a child yet.

In either case though they should and do have the same choice.

anya as I said upthread I know someone who had been sterilised. She was told she could not get pregnant.
She got pregnant. Her life was threatened by pregnancy and she had an abortion. Then a hysterectomy.
Should all women who don't want children have a hysterectomy?
Before her abortion she was pro life. She now says that until it happens to you , you cannot judge.

Last time as getting bored with wilfully being mis interpreted - do some posters even try to see what other peoples view might look like or only interested in their own in which case why bother to debate?

A woman wants an abortion - ok with me
Does the reason matter? - not when determining if that woman gets an abortion the reason is not a factor only the desire to have a termination is
Does it matter how the woman got pregnant? No
Is it relevant how much sex she has or with whom? No
Does a woman having a termination make her a slut? No - and utterly silly to make that connection

Will people judge her? Maybe but that's their problem. I have my opinion on a woman's reasons but that doesn't mean she doesn't choose for herself or she has to hear about my opinion

Clear enough?

LayMeDown I have tried to work my way through your line of thought on other threads...

I think there is a lack of clarity over the definition of "bodily autonomy". If it is deemed to only apply to the physicality of the mother, then it would cover the right to end the pregnancy but not the right to end the fetus' life. If a woman makes the choice to end the pregnancy early, then the fetus dies but that is not the sought outcome (which is to end the state of being pregnant). If a woman chooses to end a late stage pregnancy (long past "viability", as much as I hate that threshold) then I'm not sure why, at that time, fetal death should somehow become a sought outcome. It seems to somewhat negate the purity of the bodily autonomy argument, in my opinion.

However, I also think that the bodily autonomy argument applied to the physicality of a woman should protect her from the risk of injury during the birth of a live child. I don't know if it less risky to deliver a dead fetus than a live child. It seems clear that birthing will happen either way, but plausible that steps are taken to ease the passage of a dead fetus and thus minimise damage to the woman's body? Trigger Would the head be collapsed? Limbs removed? I don't know. Perhaps delivering a fetus that isn't squirming/wriggling is enough of a risk reduction to support this aspect of the bodily argument?

Then we might wonder whether the bodily autonomy argument can be extended beyond the physical into the psychological. Does the right not to be a mother (under any circumstances) fall under the right to bodily autonomy? What about the right to not have your genetic info/cells out there (for which there is a strong precedent in medical ethics)?

I have real trouble following either argument to its extreme.

If the death of the fetus is not a 'sought outcome', MaidofStars, there would be an argument for not ensuring the death of the fetus before delivery in later abortions. Thus a woman could decide not to 'abort' but to 'deliver' at 25 weeks and let the fetus take its chance.

And that might be logical but would be appallingly cruel in most cases, as the prognosis for a 25-weeker is not good.

hi spanish no I am using contraception if course but as we all know that can fail.

My thread was really following on from comments yesterday about women's valid reasons for terminating and suggestions that a court should decide on whether a woman should be allowed one or not.

I found that frightening.

I don't think it's at all acceptable to think that a pregnant woman looses her autonomy over her body just because she's pregnant. For me that's a very slippery slope.

Yes this debate is polarised and yes it means discussing difficult moral and practical issues.

If abortion was banned the increase in back street sbortions and the killing of new born infants would again soar as it did in the past and they why safe legal abortion was introduced.

Abortion to term, yes logically if a woman has full autonomy over her body then theoretically that should be allowed but I would argue that very very few women would snort healthy foetus at 36 weeks! Does anyone?

The debate does get nasty and personal, yes it deserves to when people like baby are forced to carry a child that will not live after birth. It's cruel and inhuman and I am sorry but that makes me hate people who inflict pain and suffering on a person like her.

I detest people who are full of smug self satisfied theories and comfortable notions that they dont support abortion at all or only to a certain time or just for rape or any other ridiculous judgy woman hating nonsense. Don't have one if you don't want to. No one is forced to abort.

Equally noone should be forced to give birth.

If the death of the fetus is not a 'sought outcome', MaidofStars, there would be an argument for not ensuring the death of the fetus before delivery in later abortions. Thus a woman could decide not to 'abort' but to 'deliver' at 25 weeks and let the fetus take its chance

Indeed, I think I was clear that this was the basis of my post but apologies if not. Fetal death is secondary and should not be sought, otherwise the argument may move from the right to exert bodily autonomy to the right to kill the fetus. For me, it muddies the waters. Of course, there may be arguments for the latter but I think it detracts from what I believe (for me anyway) is a key and unimpeachable principle - I have the right at any point to decline to remain pregnant.

And that might be logical but would be appallingly cruel in most cases, as the prognosis for a 25-weeker is not good

Removing any emotion from it (something I support in such discussions), so what? If the people who take over the care of the removed fetus decide to support life or withdraw treatment, it's nothing to do with me. It is not my cruelty.

Hey everyone, not wanting to derail the thread or make it 'all about me' but I truly am so overwhelmed and thankful for your support. My appointment went as well as can be expected this morning; baby's heart is still beating, fluid levels are normal and she is still swallowing. Have another appointment in 2 weeks time to continually monitor the situation.
Got some fab 3d pics too of her face, she looks so serene and happy. I am usually able to 'keep it together' during these appointments but today I teared up. I am feeling her move often now and it breaks my heart to know that whilst she is in my womb she is perfectly safe, yet the second she is delivered that will be when her pain starts. I'm told a mother's instinct is to keep her child safe and it feels intrinsically wrong knowing that she will have to suffer when she is delivered and struggles to breathe. I really don't know how I will be able to watch that happen.

Northern I didn't get to ask my consultant about what we had discussed, to be honest it went out of my head. I am going to try and get in touch with the foetal medicine unit in the royal to see if they can give me anything, if I do I will happily email it to you. All the best with your pregnancy!

Hi baby, glad all is well as can be. It must be such a difficult and emotional time for you x

Yes, I wasn't sure if that was what you meant or not, Maid. It wasn't solely the survival chances that I was thinking of, but the high chances of pain and disability for any surviving baby.

I can't make a logical position stand up here. If terminating for medical reasons such as severe disability, then fetal death presumably is 'sought' and should be ensured before birth. But if one decides to let a 'socially aborted' fetus take its chance at 25 weeks, it too will almost certainly be severely disabled as a result of that action.

Thought are so with you baby as I am sure are all the posters here.
Most of us are mothers and can only imagine the feelings and rollacoaster of emotions you must be feeling. Much love xxxxx

spanish when I mentioned courts in my op it was not referring to you.

I agree abortion should be on demand and no reason needed.

I disagree that people judge. I don't about abortion.

I certainly judge people who abuse and hurt the children they are supposed to protect and love but no I don't judge any woman having a termination.

I assume it's the best decision for her and her baby.

If terminating for medical reasons such as severe disability, then fetal death presumably is 'sought' and should be ensured before birth

Agree. But abortions performed on this basis do not invoke the bodily autonomy argument? Fetal death is the primary outcome and is therefore sought, because that is deemed to be the "kindest" outcome for the fetus and for the woman/her family.

But if one decides to let a 'socially aborted' fetus take its chance at 25 weeks, it too will almost certainly be severely disabled as a result of that action

I personally think there is room for examining policy on medical intervention for preterm fetuses. For me, it's another is/ought fallacy. Just because we can save 24 week preterm babies, doesn't always mean we should (just as this premise applies to those in other medically precarious situations).

Ah. So would a possible logical option for you (MoS) be to remove the pregnancy without question, thus meeting the requirement for bodily autonomy, but to do so in social cases without first causing the death of the fetus; and then, for those that survived the birth, assess the interests of the child depending on its stage of development?

That would assume, though, that there is no medical benefit to woman or child from ensuring a peaceful death before delivery.

So sorry to carry on the discussion across you, BabyFace. I know it must be coming across as crassly insensitive and I can't imagine what you're going through.

Posh me, read my post again

Lance no honestly, it is fine! I want to see all aspects of the debate, this is the reality we are living in.

So would a possible logical option for you (MoS) be to remove the pregnancy without question, thus meeting the requirement for bodily autonomy, but to do so in social cases without first causing the death of the fetus; and then, for those that survived the birth, assess the interests of the child depending on its stage of development?

If it could be argued that:

1. removing a live fetus is not more detrimental to the woman's physical health than removing a dead one, and
2. that the bodily autonomy argument cannot be extended to cover psychological health or protection/privacy of ones biological information,

then it's a "yes" from me. However, I'm not sure that such arguments would be very clear cut, nor have I seen much to address them.

That would assume, though, that there is no medical benefit to woman or child from ensuring a peaceful death before delivery

Understood. Are you asking whether I would sanction seeking fetal death as a measure to prevent likely severe disability, an action which is supported by the premise that severe disability itself is a reason to seek fetal death? Let me have a think; my gut says that's circular but perhaps not. Thoughts?

Hi the body thanks for your reply, I am not sure we are 100% feel the same - I will admit to judging (pretty much the rare extreme scenarios but still judging all the same) - but your measured and articulate comments are appreciated and fundamentally I support your call to safeguard access in this country to on demand termination.

My different thrust was around respecting the situation which I think most do which is very different from telling women how to emotionally feel or commenting on the how and why a woman decides it is what she feels she had to do. I further struggle therein with why anyone would repeatedly find themselves in this position which again is a rare and extreme example.

I think I get riled as well as it is another thing women deal with and are in cases like Ireland legislated against - I know men can be part of the decision and affected not saying they aren't - I just want women to be empowered and while enabling them to have access to abortion is one way so is them choosing to fall pregnant or not in the first place ( malfunctioning contraceptives/sterilisation aside).

I'll give an example: I know someone who got pregnant and decided she wanted an abortion - why is as per up thread neither here nor there she just did. Fine.

Literally a few months later she got pregnant again and came to me for a loan to pay for a termination which I gave her.

But yes I was cross - the first had had a physical and in her case emotional effect on her and here we were again. Apparently her partner didn't like using condoms - this is what I didn't like FFS it was her body so she should decide or make decisions around protecting herself not be passive with fingers crossed ( she wasn't on the pill/had coil etc)

I couldn't understand why - I can understand the termination but not why you wouldn't move heaven and earth to make sure as you could not to be placed in that situation again and no I didn't like his attitude that it wasn't a baby yet so no big deal so no drama etc etc to be it is a big deal if only because not many people I don't think intentionally set out to be in such scenarios because it CAN be so complicated and life generally is something to be valued.

Anyway I don't feel I am adding anything new so will withdraw from this thread. All the best to everyone remotely effected by this topic.

If a woman wanted to give birth to a live child, she wouldn't be having an abortion!

If a woman wanted to give birth to a live child, she wouldn't be having an abortion!

But the very basic right to bodily autonomy means you can only render yourself not pregnant? Do you think that bodily autonomy extends to include the right not to be a mother? What's your basis for that?