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?

I'd like to ask a question, sorry if it's already been answered, I must have missed it.

When I had my 3rd miscarriage the products of conception didn't pass initially. Doctors advised that we give it a couple of weeks (barring any warning signs) to see of they'd pass naturally. If not they said they'd need to carry out a procedure to remove them other wise I'd be at high risk or even death. Some extreme pro lifers would also have this outlawed. Could someone please explain how this would save a life? How risking my death could have achieved anything worthwhile? How you can save the life of an already dead baby?

I just want to make it clear that I didn't do anything to cause my baby to die, she was very much wanted. I also lay awake every night for months worrying that I may have done something inadvertently wrong, I hadn't.

While we're at it how can you justify putting traumatised women on trial and charging them for having a miscarriage? Something that happens spontaneously to a significant proportion of pregnancies.

useless it's absolutely bloody ridiculous isn't it.

So sorry for your loss and of course none of that was your fault. How are you now? Have you had help/support.

Pregnancy tests are not accurate, i done 2 at the doctors and showed negative, a few weeks later a £1 test from savers showed a positive, i know quite a few people who have had wrong readings

But there already women who abort between 24-40 weeks, there were 149 of them in 2011. Were they committing infanticide, or were they doing what was best for their babies, who most likely had a life limiting medical condition?

You would be a cold, heartless person to tell those women they had committed murder when they had likely been through weeks or months of turmoil, making one of the hardest decisions they will ever make.

The issue is that it is not just the woman's body she is deciding for. If it were there would be no debate. Posters sound, understandably perhaps, very cut off. It is easier to be very black and white (just a bunch of cells until the miraculous development of 'personhood' once born) than to be able to see the grey area. Im not saying abortion shouldn't be allowed but think this kind of black and white thinking just indicates an inability to really think about what abortion actually means.

It is also absurd to say that babies surviving early is not relevant because it's just science improving and then to quote current laws as if they instead prove anything about the morality of this.

Babies can not survive by themselves inside or outside the womb. They are dependent beings for a long time and need looking after and protecting due to their vulnerability and inability to care for themselves. I'm not sure that this means that they are just cells (aren't we all?) and count for nothing.

Talking about the real distress and pain of the mother doesn't take away from this and being able to see that this is a very difficult subject does not mean one doesn't care about the mother. Its just that it is reductive to talk as if there is only one body involved in this.

Twisted with great respect I have assisted as a theatre student nurse at an abortion and have also worked in special care baby units.

I have 4 children myself. I would have an abortion in a heartbeat if I fell pregnant now.

Please realise that just because you hold a view it is not necessarily shared by others.

To me a person should have full autonomy over their body at all times be that a man or a pregnant woman.

I have no conflict.

So I do know what abortion actually means as I am sure the vast majority of women on this thread and in the world do.

Just curious again here, what the view of the pro-baybee side makes of this...
I am on methotrexate for an autoimmune disease. I have a coil fitted. Methotrexate causes severe birth defects and can also be used as an abortive drug. If I became pregnant and didnt know, (no periods with my coil and no, i dont test once a month ) there is a chance that my medication could cause an abortion before I knew about it. Would that make me an evil baby killer? Or is it the intent that does that?

It's your opinion that "it's not just her body she is deciding for ". My opinion is that she should have full control over what happens to her body, and for me, that includes the fetus. It is stil part of her body, and until the moment the cord is cut, it will remain as a part of her body.

The difference with our opinions is that a pro life stance is imposing rules on another persons body, whereas a pro choice stance is not imposing any such restrictions. What give pro lifers the right to say what happens to her body?

By 'what it means' I am not just talking about the technical procedure. I am talking about being able to engage with the fact that this can not be a clear cut debate with clear answers. This is because there is not a particular day when you can clearly say, ah this is the day this baby/ infant/ foetus gets 'personhood' (I find that term annoying by the way!).
Not that long ago people used to perform major surgery without pain relief on little babies as it was also argued that they don't feel anything.
You may want to argue that the mothers body is always more important than that of her child's. Ok but to pretend that this is simple morally is a sign of not being able to engage with the complexity.
As for smoking, drinking, drug taking- there is increasing evidence that what happens in the womb effects psychological as well as physical development for the unborn child which can effect the child development long term. Are we really saying that pregnant mothers morally have no responsibility to look after the child they are carrying?

beyond I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread but on previous threads posters stated that as long as you didn't 'mean' to cause an abortion, it was alright to take medication/induce early even though this would result in the demise of the foetus...

twisted no one is saying that. All posters are saying is that the woman can choose to do/consume whatever she wants. Her body, her choice. It is up to her to deal with the consequences of her actions. I also disagree with your statement about a particular day a foetus gets personhood. For me, this day is when the baby is born. Personally, I find this makes the most logical sense.

the fact that she is carrying another body inside her is not just a matter of opinion.
I can understand your argument about forcing Labour but it seems very hard for many of the posters here including you it seems to be able to actually engage with the other side. (you say I'm pro life- you don't actually know what my stance is other than I think it is not straightforward) Why does a baby inside count less than a baby outside when they are the same age? Do you think it's ok to kill a baby that is born at 38 weeks and needs no medical intervention? If not why not? If they count for nothing anyway then it doesn't really matter if they are killed or not regardless of any conflict about the mothers body. Or do you think that it is not ok to kill babies once born. Because if you think it is not ok then it is clear that the whole debate cannot be straightforward.

The issue is that it is not just the woman's body she is deciding for
To be blunt, so what? Whatever the collateral effects on anyone else's body, the woman has the right to make decisions about her own body and not remain pregnant, just as is convention for any other application of bodily autonomy in medical/social/criminal ethics.

Im not saying abortion shouldn't be allowed but think this kind of black and white thinking just indicates an inability to really think about what abortion actually means

The black and white thinking (of which I am very much a fan) helps to cement the rational, intellectual, objective arguments behind particular positions. Much of the discussion here is 'thought experiment' and that's usually a helpful approach. Accounting for emotion does not take away from what and how rights are applied, but it may, of course, persuade people to make different choices etc.

It is also absurd to say that babies surviving early is not relevant because it's just science improving and then to quote current laws as if they instead prove anything about the morality of this

The first clause is almost certainly my line in this thread. I have never said anything approaching the second clause though. It seems a little, um, cynical of you to synthesise two separate assertions from separate posters as if 'we' think it's a coherent argument and then 'helpfully' point out the issues with the synthesis....

Its just that it is reductive to talk as if there is only one body involved in this
The two bodies involved have recourse to different sets of rights, so to discuss maternal action in terms of bodily autonomy and to discuss fetal being in terms of right to life is a perfectly acceptable simplification, in my opinion.

Pro-choice here. Always and forever. Yes I think it's a difficult business and the likes of that dreadful woman Josie Cunningham fill me with bile. As a mom of three. I am not saying I would if I were to get pregnant but I would like the option.

If we are saying pregnant women have a moral responsibility to look after their chikd then you start looking at legislation to curtail her rights to drink alcohol, smoke, ski, jog, etc etc.

Where do you stop and who will judge?

If a woman miscarries after a fall should she be sued for wearing heels?

It's a ridiculous argument.

Baby, I think if it were actually true that there was a significant change in the makeup of the baby from inside to outside on the same day then I might agree with you. It would be nice if that was true because then this would be easy but the fact is that there is no such clear change in the baby. So I'm not sure why that is the logical cut off- the easy one maybe but not logical.

I got shot down on another one of these threads for saying this but we have to assure women in our society have at least some of the same reproductive freedom that men have.

The other option would be to ban abortion but force all men to raise any kids from an unwanted pregnancy? Physically raise them and be 'graded' on their wellbeing.

Cant see any judge passing that one. Punish the women though? Pass away.

God it makes me mad!

I'm not talking about bringing in laws at all. I'm talking about just trying to acknowledge and think about the complexity.

Maid- your fist paragraph- this is not like, or should I say as simple as, any othe decision about ones own body absolutely because it concerns someone else's. Do you not undesirable that? The fact that in your last paragraph you talk about the possibility of the baby having a right to life suggests you might see that there is no other situation like this.

Why you separate rights in the way you do between mother- body autonomy and baby- right to life- I'm really not sure. It seems utterly arbitrary to say there can be an argument about the baby's right to life but not about what happens to their body.

I think if it were actually true that there was a significant change in the makeup of the baby from inside to outside on the same day then I might agree with you. It would be nice if that was true because then this would be easy but the fact is that there is no such clear change in the baby

At birth, a baby might not undergo massively overt 'structural' changes but they certainly undergo 'functional' changes.

But that is not a clear reason to think they euther do or don't suddenly now count more surely?

The fact that in your last paragraph you talk about the possibility of the baby having a right to life suggests you might see that there is no other situation like this

For the purposes of answering your question, I will take the position that baby has a right to life from conception (not my actual position):

I don't think anyone's right to life supercedes another's right to bodily autonomy. There is no precedent elsewhere in medical/social/criminal ethics and I've never seen a good argument for why pregnancy is a special exception (by 'good' argument, I mean a rigorous and objective discussion of the competing rights involved).

Why you separate rights in the way you do between mother- body autonomy and baby- right to life- I'm really not sure. It seems utterly arbitrary to say there can be an argument about the baby's right to life but not about what happens to their body

I separate them because they are two separate sets of rights applied to two different entities.

Twisted this is similar to the 'viability' argument. At what point is the cut off? For me, personally, the moment of birth is when the foetus gains rights. I can accept that as logical. I understand people will have different thoughts on this. At what stage do you think 'personhood' should be allocated?

But that is not a clear reason to think they euther do or don't suddenly now count more surely?

Why not? (that's not dismissive by the way, it's a genuine question). We flick switches on people who don't have brain function, we withdraw treatment from those who can no longer breathe unaided. Do those people 'count less'? What do you mean by 'count less'?

But then what about the baby's right to bodily autonomy? If you argue that they cannot request or argue for that right, then the same could be said for all babies and in fact many children and adults. It is not clear that they should not also have it.