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?

Yes, why shouldn't it. If a woman doesn't want to become a mother.

Yes, why shouldn't it. If a woman doesn't want to become a mother

And what's your basis for arguing that? In the case of a born child, if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she is not allowed to seek the death of her child in order to make this happen. However, I can see that knowing you have a child can impinge on your psychological well being. Does bodily autonomy cover psychological health?

Someone was talking about wakefulness of the baby - my 22 week old unborn feels pretty darn awake to me! And apparently doesn't appreciate the position I'm sitting in right now .

In all seriousness though I'm one who believes a baby in utero is just as much a baby as a newborn. In fact an Australian bio-ethicist has proposed a very rational grounded discussion arguing for post-birth abortion - and sounds disturbingly familiar to most of the abortion-to-term arguments I've heard, including 'wakefulness'. So if I change my mind about dc3 can I shove him in a rubbish bin after labour and be done with it? I mean, he's not as developed as my other kids, he's not really awake yet ... Why not?

I get there's a lot of grey areas, and obviously there are complexities to this whole issue, including rights of women to not carry a pregnancy.

However ... YABU to argue for autonomy over your body when in actual fact the body you are destroying is not your own. The heart that is stopped is not your own. The DNA code is not your own. The life that doesn't continue is not your own. The baby I carry now is linked to me, but is NOT me - and I don't consider that I have any right to say he should not live.

Oh and to-term abortion is as disgusting to me as someone throwing a newborn in the trash. One deservedly gets charged with murder, the other should never be allowed.

I don't understand why some would have an argument they obviously don't understand. Odd.

YABU to argue for autonomy over your body when in actual fact the body you are destroying is not your own

The two things are not linked. I have the right to exert my bodily autonomy, regardless of the detriment to someone else's body. I can beat a rapist round the head, even kill the rapist, while exerting my right to bodily autonomy. I have the right to demand not to be tortured, even if it means thousands of people will die an excruciating death because of me demanding bodily autonomy.

Zeebaneighba

You are if course entitled to do whatever you wish with your pregnancy. When your baby is born and if you threw it in the trash of course that would be murder and you would be culpable.

However not everyone thinks like you.

I don't believe a foetus has rights over and above the mothers wishes. To me it is not a sentient human being until it is born.

Therefore I support a woman's right to full autonomy over her body at all times pregnant or not.

You have a valid view but you should not be allowed to control other women's choices who disagree with you.

Rather than an abortion, why don't we just have induced births i.e. once a woman decides that she no longer wishes to be pregnant, she gives birth to the baby straight away and hands it over to the state? This was, she's not forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Also, the state gets lots of pre-term babies (because, realistically, late abortions happen very rarely and usually for good reason) dying outside of the womb or surviving with multiple health issues for whom an already limited pool of people willing to adopt decreases further leading to a vast increase in taxes and certain deprivation of funding for other matters and ...

You get the picture. See, the thing is, if it were just about preventing the supposed murder of unborn babies, then the anti-choice lobby should technically have no probles with the scenario presented above.

*problems

Maid I am sorry,and it's probably just me,but I really cannot for the life of me understand your recent posts.

No I have re read your posts maid and good God woman you are a clever begger but I follow you now. just....

Sorry I'm back as found maids last post interesting - my counter argument to maid would be as I've tried to say that sometimes making a decision for yourself has responsibilities wider then yourself - I get that if you think in absolutes - a woman should have complete autonomy over herself full stop no ifs or buts including termination of a pregnancy at term on pure demand alone - then you have to take the rough with the smooth eg (sorry Josie) aborting to go on a TV show and that baby sitting on the side struggling for breath until they die - but can anyone hand on heart wish to countenance wilfully hurting someone else on the principle that we have a right to self autonomy no questions asked?

Re the examples maid cites of course a woman has the right to not be raped and to defend herself therein but I'm not sure her killing her assailant solves the matter if it did that wouldn't we be like those countries which allows victims or victim' relatives to kill or repeat back on the criminal whatever they did?

It's more then just rights, it's individual people with their complicated personality make up, life experiences etc, it's dealing with killing someone assailant or not.

Yes I can.

There are and will be very few Josie's( and I suspect that this will all turn out to be a publicity stunt anyway and will never happen)

The alternative is a creeping slippery slope loss of autonomy as in the USA and the dreadful Ireland situation that seeks to further control and curtail women's rights over their bodies at all times.

It's not perfect, what is in life. It's full of horrible dilemmas and challenges.

By the way Spanish as per my previous post you were not the poster I was referring to re courts in my thread title.

Understood re courts - thank you

And agree with you - the problem for me is that to defend a woman's right to choose and not allow any chipping away of it ( eg getting to a point where only offered in set circumstances) I have to defend the 'Josies' of the world. I don't actually like it but I'll do it.

As I've said, josie situation shouldn't be happening because it is against the law to discriminate against a pregnant woman.

Yes agree of course this woman sounds somewhat daft but then I would think that of anyone on BB really.

Anya yes good point.

I don't think she is daft, its either a case of lose income (she has got other children to support) or have an abortion. Now she is public enemy number 1. All because channel 5 think its ok to shit on her because she is pregnant

So yes I think the josies of the world need defending

sometimes making a decision for yourself has responsibilities wider then yourself

Understood. I would encourage everyone to make their way through lives with as much consideration and responsibility as they possibly can.

can anyone hand on heart wish to countenance wilfully hurting someone else on the principle that we have a right to self autonomy no questions asked

Yes, I can, because the alternative is to compel people to sacrifice their bodily autonomy under circumstances that someone else judges to be appropriate. You ask them to sacrifice bodily autonomy, you can beg them to sacrifice bodily autonomy, you can even incentivise them to sacrifice bodily autonomy, but I don't believe anyone should be legally compelled to sacrifice bodily autonomy in any circumstance whatsoever.

Logically re Josie I see the argument and support.

On a personal level I think find another way to support yourself the BB house isn't the only option - on a different note who is still watching it?!!!

Why should she seek another way?

I completely support Josie. She's having a legal medical procedure done for perfectly legally valid reasons - C5 are breaking the law here.

I made a big pro-choice comment to this extent on an anti-choice friend's fb status about the case and rather nervous to hear the response! But the anti-choice brigade growing stronger is so scary to me, and keeping abortion free, safe and legal is so so so important.

However, I can see that knowing you have a child can impinge on your psychological well being. Does bodily autonomy cover psychological health?
Maid you've done a much better job of describing the thoughts I was struggling with. However on this question above, I would say no, as surely this leaves the whole option open to fathers to claim that their bodily integrity is being compromised as their psychological health is effected by knowing they have a child.....
Extending bodily integrity away from the physical pregnancy would be dangerous I think.

But there are very legitimate psychological reasons for needing an abortion, eg trauma from rape, MH issues etc. Psychological issues are part of bodily autonomy, your mind is part of your body too.

But there are very legitimate psychological reasons for needing an abortion, eg trauma from rape, MH issues etc.

I think that's missing the point a little. In the standard "bodily autonomy" argument, abortion under these circumstances would be covered by the right to not remain pregnant (if one so chooses).

And, of course, while the trauma of rape may inform ones decision to not remain pregnant, I can't see that it offers anything extra at the point where one is exerting ones bodily autonomy to demand that one must never be a parent. On this point, the circumstances of the pregnancy are irrelevant.

The question is: Does the right not be a parent fall under the remit of the right to bodily autonomy? If so, in what sense? I suspect that one could claim long lasting psychological trauma from the simple fact of knowing that you are a parent but how real an issue do we think that might be. As LayMeDown says, does that mean a man who has fathered a child he didn't want can claim that the mother has violated his bodily autonomy?