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?

If we legislate for foetal care, this would inevitably follow fashion. For example, when I was having DD we were all supposed to eat a lot of liver and oily fish. However now the guidance has shifted so we are supposed to avoid liver and be selective about which oily fish are suitable. Previously women were encouraged to smoke so their babies were a little smaller and delivered more easily, whereas now we would think this is unspeakably bad practice.

Ultimately we need to leave individuals to make their best guess about what it appropriate at any given time, and not seek to impose our collective will simply because we feel we can.

Ffs no personally I don't think it's ok to kill a born baby! Because that's murder and a born baby is a swore are human being.

A foetus in the womb, or baby if you prefer is not born it is part of the mothers body and as an adult human I think a woman has to have complete autonomy over her body until the baby is born.

All of points are obviously valid, for you, but don't push your morality into me.

I am quite comfortable with my opinion that abortion should be allowed to term.

Anything less would be a control over another human beings body.

I don't see a baby as a sentient human being before birth.

All you other points have been mulled over in the thread.

Incidentally foetuses would seem to me to have these rights:

To antenatal care
To their mothers being fed, sheltered and treated sympathetically
To pre-natal medical treatment if this is in their best interests, for example pre-natal surgery for correction of serious birth defects.

Let's get this right globally and then worry about the outliers.

Babies and children have the rights to autonomy already! They are protected by the law.

The baby does not have a 'right to bodily autonomy' until the cord is cut.

The body, I'm not pushing my morality on to anyone! You started this debate... Perhaps to hear other arguments or perhaps not.

You haven't actually argued any of your points other than saying that it what you feel, sense etc. the fact you say ffs about killing a newborn and then the meaningless statement that that is because they are now human makes it seem as if you are not really able to think about this beyond your own gut reactions.

boffinmum exactly.

In English subject to current cases going through the baby does not have those rights until birth and that is very good thing for society and women. After birth it is different. English law allows women in pregnancy to sail boats, smoke, drink, take drugs, eat whatever they like, give birth without anyone there, refuse a C section, travel where they like and abort up to the point of birth if the child has disabilities. The only restrictions are in the UK she may not have an abortion beyond the time limit if there are no disabilities (I am not sure if she can travel abroad to have it done later where there are no disabilities but that's a minor issue and there are few late abortions in the UK anyway). Al those things are good and I hope women will fight to preserve the current legal position.

I also feel a lot of understanding for the mother who has recently killed her three children who are suffering and going to die but that is a separate issue for another thread as that is after birth and very different in law.

But then what about the baby's right to bodily autonomy?

Bodily autonomy: the right to refuse consent for your body to be used against your wishes.

The baby's right to bodily autonomy is not challenged in a way I can see. I think you might be blurring the lines between bodily autonomy and right to life.

• Incidentally foetuses would seem to me to have these rights:

To antenatal care
To their mothers being fed, sheltered and treated sympathetically
To pre-natal medical treatment if this is in their best interests, for example pre-natal surgery for correction of serious birth defects.*

See...I don't think they do have these rights, and I don't think they should have these rights - the woman should always, always come before the baby. Otherwise women would not be allowed to take drugs/drink/smoke etc. If foetuses had the right to food, then pregnant women should receive 'care-packages' of food deemed ok to eat. If they had the right to antenatal care, then women could be persecuted for not going to scans and checkups throughout pregnancy.

Surely controlling what a woman eats while she is pregnant, or what appointments she attends is taking away her bodily autonomy?

There are lots of ways to define fines. Before birth the unborn do not have the rights under English law which are some suggesting they do. Whether they have a moral right which should (but does not under current law) have priority over the mother's rights is a matter for Parliament.

"A foetus in the womb, or baby if you prefer is not born it is part of the mothers body"

A foetus is not, scientifically, a part of the woman's body. If you believe that based on the fact that it is attached to the woman then why is your cut off point when the baby is born rather than when the umbilical cord is cut, like Visualiseahorse?

"Bodily autonomy: the right to refuse consent for your body to be used against your wishes."

That means a baby does not have bodily autonomy either. Do we have the right to with them what we want?

Oh ffs. Nobody is talking about killing off a newborn. Why take it to that extreme. As I've said before, we all know that if a woman decides that she doesn't want a child, all of a sudden at 36 weeks, then various services will be involved and nobody is going to kill the child.
HOWEVER, a woman's right to autonomy means granting that should she choose, she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. Termination of pregnancy after a period of time will result in a live birth, nobody is going to kill the baby, as adults we all know that. We are also aware that it is extremely unlikely that the figures will go up significantly if we allow woman such autonomy, so why not just allow it? Oh, because all the forced birthers have panic attacks about killing the little babies.

Do we have the right to with them what we want?

Like give consent for babies to receive medical treatment?

I find the quoting of law and legal rights strange. If we just accept law is always right then there is no point in debate.

Thinking that it is complex, or acknowledging that what happens in the womb can impact on the child's development, seems to be hard to be thought about without assuming this has to mean state coercion or legislation. This is remarkablly unimaginative.

Are you suggesting I am what youi delightfully call a 'forced birther'?
If so this just adds to you seeming rather black and white and unable to see anything more complex.

It is taken to that extreme to try to tease out the fact that this is not easy and clear cut. There is no date that it can clearly be decided that a baby has, 'personhood'. If it was this would be easy.

twisted you have every right to disagree and every right to never abort a baby of yours.

However surely you can understand that others do not share your views?

That many many women feel it's important to be treated as capable rational human beings and are quite able to make decisions about their pregnancies without reference to anyone else.

If you really cannot see( and the law can) the difference between a born baby and a baby in a uterus then there's no point debating.

By the way what was your point regarding the moral duty of a pregnant woman to her baby could she ski etc?

Could she be charged after a miscarriage?

Please share.

Any reason for being quite so rude Twisted?

"Termination of pregnancy after a period of time will result in a live birth"

So you think the option should be late term induction (as an earlier poster suggested) rather than the mother having the right to terminate the foetus in utero to term?

Maid, yes, but do we also have the right to harm them/perform unnecessary medical procedures? If your position is that the woman should have the right to abort to term because the foetus does not have bodily autonomy then why not apply the same logic when the baby is born? Should the woman have the right to end the life of the baby because it does not have bodily autonomy?

Interesting article from the Journal of Medical Ethics about whether or not a new born is entitled to life

Interesting, she spends half of the last thread ignoring me, reporting me and being rude, and then tries to re-engage.
You're actually a bit late to this thread Bumbley

Visualise, my terminology was not sufficiently precise, I see that now. This is what I meant.

They have the rights for their mothers to be offered these things.

New Scientist

Well I thought you were calling me a 'forced birther' and something about having pain attacks over killing babies- I was responding to this to say that made you seem rather black and white and unimaginative.

And Again there is the assumption from the body that because I see this as complex I am looking to make decisions or legislation for other women and their babies.

Oh, so you're just rude anyway - I think that's the case because you have continued to be so.
However, as I am being forced to be a little intellectually slow today - it's not a complex issue. It's an issue as to whether a woman should have full autonomy over her own body, just as men do.
The answer is yes she should.