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 find the quoting of law and legal rights strange. If we just accept law is always right then there is no point in debate
Agree. Laws are a product of debate. Using the derived law to support your position in a debate is tautological.

maria yes good post and I agree with the last paragraph too. Seemingly very tragic case.

Ok so you think it's not complex. Then there is surely no debate to be had. Easy peasy and clear.

MariaJenny 's post was the most sensible one on here.

Laws are a product of debate. Well, no, laws in the UK are based on judicial precedent and legislation, and on very strict constitutional and procedural rules on following, distinguishing and overruling previously decided cases by certain courts. Sharia Law is probably more of a product of debate and interpretation of the Five Pillars of Islam and other texts and does not recognise a system of judicial precedent.

At the moment, in the UK, a person is not considered alive until he/she is born.

The OP gives the example of a 50 year old woman being forced to either give birth or continue a pregnancy indeterminably, which may be to the detriment of her health at that age. Likewise undergoing a sterilisation at that age would be detrimental and pointless. Such rules would inevitably stymie women's lives to such an extent that they would become unable to lead normal, free lives such as we take for granted today, for fear of becoming pregnant.

Laws are a product of debate
Well, no

OK, I used the phrase "debate" without due care. I meant that we create laws based a thinky process of some kind, and to use the derived law to support the thinky process is a tautology.

Maid, yes, but do we also have the right to harm them/perform unnecessary medical procedures?

If a person is violating your right to bodily autonomy is such a way that the only way to exert your right to bodily autonomy is to cause them harm, then yes, you do have the right to harm them (if you choose to do so).

Any other reason to cause harm must be considered as allowable/preventable based on other rights, not the right to bodily autonomy of the "perpetrator".

If your position is that the woman should have the right to abort to term because the foetus does not have bodily autonomy

That is not my position. The intellectual position is that a woman has the right to term to decline consent to be pregnant, because she has the right to bodily autonomy. It has nothing to do with whether the fetus has bodily autonomy or not (and if they do, I cannot see how it is being violated).

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?

I cannot see how a born child, by dint of being, is violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, in my opinion, she does not have the right to harm the baby.

I'm baffled by the idea that I, as a single woman who is currently not interested in a relationship, need to make sure I'm on birth control unnecessarily just in case I get raped and get pregnant, just to protect the feelings of anti-choice people? Er, no.

Boffinmum - Understood!

Actually Boffinmum - their mothers have the right to be offered those things...the baby doesn't have the right for their mother to be offered it.

Therefore, in my opinion, she does not have the right to harm the baby

I would like to extend and clarify this final sentence from my previous post.

Therefore, in my opinion, she does not have the right to harm the baby by invoking her right to bodily autonomy.

There has always been this huge divide between people on this issue. The law currently gives women bodily autonomy in the UK and I would like it to stay as it is - with no liability if you smoke, eat fish, breath car fumes or whatever else some busy body is going to say you should or should not do when pregnant.

If instead you think an unborn child has rights before birth morally or at a certainly point once it is a certain size then people will want to change the law.

I think we might reach a point with science where an unborn child can be removed if the mother wants an abortion and implanted elsewhere if the father does not want an abortion carried out. That would be an interesting one but science has not yet reached that point.

The main cut off point is after birth - then the child can rightly be protected eg from a parent who refuses it a blood transfusion on religious grounds etc. Up until birth I think it's absolutely vital we maintain women's rights over the rights of the unborn child.

"Therefore, in my opinion, she does not have the right to harm the baby by invoking her right to bodily autonomy."

No, no and no. A woman can only have rights over her own body as long as no one else is affected? Bollocks to that!

No, no and no. A woman can only have rights over her own body as long as no one else is affected? Bollocks to that!

May I politely suggest you go back and reread my comments in context?

Therefore, in my opinion, she does not have the right to harm the baby.

Do you mean once the baby is born?

twisted The decision to terminate a pregnancy can be complex or it can be very straightforward.

However it's the woman's decision to make.

Can I ask you a personal question? Have you been pregnant?

I agree MariaJenny. It's nearly never the case that a woman wants to kill a fetus; she wants to end a pregnancy. If/when science can attempt fetal transplant from womb to womb, all objection to abortion must cease. Unless in fact the particular objector is a woman-hater.

It was only nine posts ago, FFS

Bumbley : [regarding born children] Maid, yes, but do we also have the right to harm them/perform unnecessary medical procedures?

Me : If a person is violating your right to bodily autonomy is such a way that the only way to exert your right to bodily autonomy is to cause them harm, then yes, you do have the right to harm them (if you choose to do so).

Any other reason to cause harm must be considered as allowable/preventable based on other rights, not the right to bodily autonomy of the "perpetrator".

Bumbley : If your position is that the woman should have the right to abort to term because the foetus does not have bodily autonomy

Me : That is not my position. The intellectual position is that a woman has the right to term to decline consent to be pregnant, because she has the right to bodily autonomy. It has nothing to do with whether the fetus has bodily autonomy or not (and if they do, I cannot see how it is being violated).

Bumbley : 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?

Me : I cannot see how a born child, by dint of being, is violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, in my opinion, she does not have the right to harm the baby [later, for clarity] by invoking her right to bodily autonomy.

Forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy - seriously?

That's what it boils down to.

My DD is 12 and has started her periods 4 months ago, should i pregnancy test her monthly and how would i approach this with her?

My DD is 12 and has started her periods 4 months ago, should i pregnancy test her monthly and how would i approach this with her?

Given the lack of respect shown to the concept of bodily autonomy by some here, I would imagine it should be acceptable to pin her down, catheterize her and remove her urine against her wishes?

It's unbelievably isn't it! Would be funny if it wasn't quite so frightening.

Pee stick anyone?

She is not on birth control either so the people who are saying people of child bearing age should be pregnancy tested monthly and using contraception, i am interested in how they think i should do this. Should i have her on birth control now at 12 and test her monthly, what birth control do you suggest and how do i get her to do a pregnancy test if she doesn't want to? WWYD in my situation?

It's a puzzle isn't it!

If she refuses could she be compelled to by a court?

Now what about games, PE, going to the local playground?

These are all dangerous things for a potentially pregnant girl so would the school curriculum change.

If we are morally obliged to act in the best interests if our foetus or some such crap then could she be prosecuted for having a miscarriage or acting in a reckless manner while potentially pregnant?

If we are morally obliged to act in the best interests if our foetus or some such crap then could she be prosecuted for having a miscarriage or acting in a reckless manner while potentially pregnant?

If morally obliged, no. If legally obliged, yes.

How far is too far

ridiculous