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?

In fact from a legal obligation to the safety of the foetus-god, could a child who gets pregnant be prosecuted simply because being pregnant at a young age is risky?

In fact from a legal obligation to the safety of the foetus-god, could a child who gets pregnant be prosecuted simply because being pregnant at a young age is risky?

Could the Mum of the pregnant child be prosecuted for failing to protect the bodily autonomy of her child?

Yep, good plan. Not the dad of either though, obviously

Never the dad.

Ah think I get it now

If you got pregnant over 35, you could be prosecuted too? Seeing as a baby is more likely to have an abnormality over a certain age? So the 'older' mother could be prosecuted, and maybe her baby could grow up and sue her for being old when she got pregnant?

Question - are you allowed to abort your own pregnancy (as in, with no medical peoples involved at all, no advice or help given?)

Could the Mum of the pregnant child be prosecuted for failing to protect the bodily autonomy of her child?

That's why i am asking, what birth control should i use at 12 and how do i ensure she is not pregnant if i am unable to get her to piss on the stick

Chastity belt. Or maybe a cage?

"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)."

If a foetus does have bodily autonomy, I'm fairly certain that termination would fall into the 'violation' category.

You actually made some interesting points earlier in relation to whether or not late term abortion should more be a case of early induction - so the woman can exercise her right to not be pregnant but not the right to terminate the foetus in utero because it could, technically survive without her. I think that makes sense from this argument's point of view:

" 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"

Because clearly, you could exert your right to end your pregnancy through early induction without terminating the foetus in utero.

It's a good point. What is the argument for being entitled to terminate a foetus in utero if you can exert your right to bodily autonomy without doing so?

But...couldn't an early induction harm the baby?

I hope the following makes sense...

A hypothetical situation

My 12 year old son has liver failure. The only match for a donor is me. If I don't consent to have part of my liver removed and transplanted to him then he will die, of course I will be left with less of a liver. He is a fully functioning person, he has siblings who love him and a girlfriend, friends, family. Should I be compelled to give part of my body to save him? His survival is dependent on my body. Or am I in charge of what happens to my own body?

Oh, and in the above, my son has complete autonomy over his body.

Its not that long since women were prevented from doing all sorts of things, because it might harm their reproductive organs. e.g. women were only "allowed" to run the marathon in the 1970s and the longest Olympic events for women until then were only up to 800m. Women weren't allowed to box until recently. Some women doing those sports now might be pregnant, and therefore harming the unborn foetus.

So all women are to be on permanent contraception or forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies, give birth and then foster out unwanted children? Or are they miraculously all to have a maternalistic epiphany?

Just an observation: a few people further upthread (and on threads about the same subject) have said that because of the sensitivity of the topic and people's strong - often polarised - opinions, nobody ever changes their minds on these issues. ie. everyone is entrenched in their views. Actually, until a year or so again I would have been in the 'I support abortion but not to term' camp. It is through reading threads like these that I began to realise that if I'm pro-choice I have to support termination up to term in principle, because either one supports autonomy for women or one doesn't. Links like the ones Dawndonna provided, which shows what's happening in some US states where the fetus is deemed to have 'rights' are truly shocking, particularly as it seems that not only do they have 'rights' but the women carrying them are deemed to have few or none.

Reading posts by people like Bumbley and Sassysally have actually strengthened my beliefs; in fact, I should thank them for being a major part of me rethinking my position from being pro-choice up to a point to becoming totally pro-choice. So thanks, Bumbley, Sassysally and my local nutjobs anti-abortionists who strut about outside clinics with their placards, you have really helped me to consolidate my thinking.

My own friends' experiences and people like Baby sharing hers here have absolutely convinced me that there's no excuse whatsoever for not allowing women full autonomy at all times.

Dawn very very frightening development, that poor kid.

yoni I think this is only for pregnant womem to suffer because in your senario it could be a man who matches.

Imagine that a man without bodily autonomy?

I also wonder how many of these prosecutions across the states are agains married wealthy womem or are they just reserved for the poor single moms.

Mmmmmm.

Visualise, it may, depending on the age of the foetus. If you're talking about induction at around 37 weeks then it probably won't cause too much harm. The point was, if you can exercise your right to bodily autonomy without terminating the foetus then what is the argument for being allowed to terminate?

Birth control has risks. The pill gave me blood clots in both lungs that put me in hospital for three weeks.

So by insisting on birth control for all women, not only are you affecting their bodily autonomy but you are also putting them at risk.

Yoni

You will have people arguing that the situations between organ donation and pregnancy are incomparable because the point at which the "donation" has happened during pregnancy is difficult to pin down - it is arguably an ongoing process of donation.

On a recent thread, I proposed the following refinements (which I have worked into your hypothetical), that don't present the same problems:

A hypothetical situation

My 12 year old son has a medical problem that requires a blood transfusion to ensure survival. The only match for the blood transfusion is me. If I don't consent to have my blood given to him then he will die, of course I will be left with less of a volume of blood. He is a fully functioning person, he has siblings who love him and a girlfriend, friends, family. Should I be compelled to give my blood to save him? His survival is dependent on my blood. Or am I in charge of what happens to my own body? During transfusion, where I have already consented to give blood and it is currently flowing into him, restoring life before our very eyes, am I able to withdraw treatment, to rip the connection between us and stop giving him blood even though that means he will die?

Giving blood doesn't exactly have the same trauma to your body as childbirth though

What is the argument for being entitled to terminate a foetus in utero if you can exert your right to bodily autonomy without doing so?

I have suggested a few ideas upthread and on others, which are still up for discussion:

1. Perhaps becoming a parent violates your right to bodily autonomy, because you have the right to remove consent to your mind/brain/status in society being used for a purpose you do not desire?
2. Perhaps the right to bodily autonomy extends to include the right to not have your biological material "out there"?

Most convincingly though, I suspect the argument must centre on:

1. The fetus is one and the same with your body - it is part of your body - and therefore destroying it is exercising your right to destroy any part of your body as you see fit (assuming you have capacity to make those decisions). I haven't seen anyone be so explicit in this explanation so I'd be interested to hear if this is what people mean when they say "It is my body".

Giving blood doesn't exactly have the same trauma to your body as childbirth though

But giving blood is more analogous to pregnancy in terms of an ongoing donation.

I don't regard the views of those who think life begins at conception or 24 weeks or whatever are bad views. I simply don't agree with them and even it did I would allow the mother's right to trump the child's.

There is a very dangerous case going through which presumably is mentioned somewhere up the thread, at the moment in the courts about the extent to which a mother is responsible for damage done to the baby before birth. It could be the thin end of the wedge and I hope is thrown out.

(If we get to be able mot move a baby from the uterous of one woman to another I would only support a right of the father to do that where the mother wants to abort the baby if the most is allowed to disclaim any obligations to the unborn child thereafter, a right fathers are not given if they are subjected to fatherhood without their consent - tricky and different issues)

1. Perhaps becoming a parent violates your right to bodily autonomy, because you have the right to remove consent to your mind/brain/status in society being used for a purpose you do not desire?

Would this not only apply to women?

Would this not only apply to women?

There was an exchange upthread that perhaps this was not a reasonable premise, as it would allow men who did not want to become fathers to claim that their right to bodily autonomy was being violated.