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?

How earth is a man's bodily autonomy violated by becoming a father? (as proved by the ones that just walk away)

How earth is a man's bodily autonomy violated by becoming a father? (as proved by the ones that just walk away)

I'm not sure it is. But then it should be assumed that a woman's right to bodily autonomy is not violated by the act of becoming a mother (if she just walks away i.e. hands baby over to the State)? And if that is the case, then this argument can't really be used to demand fetal death at term by invoking bodily autonomy.

It was just one of the ideas thrown out that may support the right to seek fetal death at term, rather than only the right to not be pregnant anymore.

It's a very very nasty and dangerous slippy slope.

Those women have got too much power now both in the home and work place.

We can't defeat them there as the law protects them so the only place left to strike a blow is at the very essence of their core. Their ability to carry a baby.

Make no mistake this is not about the poor tragic babies being killed in the womb, forced birthers dont give a rats ass about them, this is about putting womem firmly back in their place.

Twofingers, thanks for your post about changing your mind. Yes, me too, every word you wrote.

How on earth can a foetus have 'bodily autonomy' when it's totally dependent on its host? If the nuchal cord could be cut in utero, as poor Jennifer Darlene Johnson was accused, the foetus would die and be born dead (or severely compromised, if it were expelled fast enough & developed enough to have its breathing stimulated.) This shows that it's not in any way autonomous until it's been born and the cord cut outside its mother's body, doesn't it? I'm not an expert on obstetrics, somebody enlighten me.

It shoud be possible to discuss this without just having to use legal terms including 'bodily autonony'- it is not at all clear to me that this term covers the arguments on either side.

If it doesn't cover the idea that an unborn or born baby has (or morally could have) a right not to be hurt or killed then it clearly isn't the right term. Nonetheless the argument about whether an unborn baby has the right not to have their body hurt or killed is still there regardless of term.

It seems hard to argue this though when any attempt to consider rights (or possible rights) of the baby is viewed immediately as wanting to violate mothers etc

And women are pregnant, not men. But the issue of when the baby should be counted and thought about would be there whether they grew in a woman, man or test tube.

Deciding when this point is (which is absolutely not clear) does not mean that their rights would take president over their mothers, but may form part of the debate.

this is about putting womem firmly back in their place - Agreed, thebody :( and

I am interested in this debate from the point of view of post 22-24 weeks abortion. Pre-24 weeks I feel the case is clear cut in favour of abortion on demand.

Post 24 weeks I feel the woman has the right to end the pregnancy and have the baby removed either normally or c-section etc. But does not have the right to directly kill the baby. If birth leads to death then so be it. If not then why kill the baby?

I am open minded and would like to hear from anyone defending the right of the woman not only to end the pregnancy but to actively kill the baby too.

Is there a lot of difference to someone who will clearly give up the baby immediately on birth that the baby be dead rather than alive? Under what circumstances is that likely to be an issue? and how frequently?

Truth be told I actually feel more strongly about someone deliberately poisoning their baby (with drugs, alcohol etc.) while intending to keep it than I do about abortion even at full term. It feels like gbh to me that you would deliberately inflict disability on a child rather than terminate...but obviously there are even worse issues with bodily autonomy if you go down that route.

garlic yes the case of Jennifer is baffling and shocking in equal measure.

How on earth could she be accused of physically doing this? It's surely physically impossible.?

No Twisted it's perfectly clear to people who support termination to term.

The baby has equal rights when the baby is born. In the uterus the mother has the rights.

What do people think on the topic of bodily autonomy if I chose to take thalidomide while pregnant with the specific intention of producing birth anomalies in my child?

But forget legal rights and take the mother out of it just hypothetically. If you found out that the inside baby felt and experienced just as much as the outside baby, would this be irrelevant to you?

Nonetheless the argument about whether an unborn baby has the right not to have their body hurt or killed is still there regardless of term.

This might come out a bit garbled, Twisted. I hope you'll be able to bear with me.

While pregnant, a woman is creating a new person. It's not yet a person, it's in gestation - pardon the corny similies, but as a tin full of batter in the oven isn't yet a cake, and a seedling on the windowsill isn't yet a tree. It's a potential person with a potentially independent life. But it's not a person yet, it's a foetus. Without gestation, it has no potential. It is, therefore, the woman's choice whether to provide that gestation, how carefully, and for how long. She's not obliged to provide it, but she will be obliged (with some exceptions) to look after it once it's 'done'. She has to think carefully, then, about whether to gestate it to completion or change her mind about giving her foetus its potential.

Told you it'd be garbled

IceBeing, it seems that most people on the thread cannot think about mother and baby.

If you found out that the inside baby felt and experienced just as much as the outside baby, would this be irrelevant to you?

No. The foetus certainly has feelings and such, though it only knows the world of floating in a nice warm bath and not even having to bother about eating & breathing.

I'm also convinced by the evidence that plants have 'feelings'. This doesn't stop me digging them up, cutting them down, cooking and eating them. I feel a bit sad about it. I feel a great deal more sad about foetuses experiencing bad feelings. But my sadness doesn't entitle me to prevent another woman doing what she believes best in her own life.

It's not garbled Garlic. I just don't see that the fact the baby needs this particular kind of care means that it is not a person. This is why I think it is not simple. A baby after birth also cannot survive by itself. It is a baby not an adult. I don't see that dependence equals no rights. And a baby isn't 'done' when born.

sorry I am really not trying to play devils advocate or be irritating I am just trying to work out what I really think and what the implications are for women.

By default I come down on women should have the right to do what they like with the life of the baby but should not have the right to intentionally hurt the baby then deliver it alive. But that sounds completely bonkers now I write it down.

The baby is usually fully 'done' at least 3 weeks before birth...thats where I get confused.

It would still die if the cord were cut.

They can recognise their mothers voice, and other noises, they are effected by stress- their own and their mothers. Plants don't even have a nervous system!

I'm not deciding what should happen to anybody. I do not feel 'entitled' to. And I would not want to.

One more thing about feelings ... For a long time I was under the impression that women having late abortions were given hefty sedatives, meaning the foetus would also be sedated. I am horrified to learn this isn't automatically the case.

I'm not deciding what should happen to anybody. I do not feel 'entitled' to. And I would not want to. - Summarises my position, too!

The baby achieves legal personhood on birth because from that moment on he/she needs the support of a reasonably competent person to keep it alive (and typically that person will be the mother). Up until that moment that person has to be and can only be the gestating mother - she can't sign over her responsibilities until birth.

Why is that not self-evident?

Admittedly it's fairly arbitrary in a discussion about consciousness and the human experience and What Is Life? and so on, but it is irrefutable that a fetus absolutely has to rely on its mother, and a born baby doesn't.

I really wish that is what I felt...but I can't cope with the drugs thing. To deliberately disable your baby seems just to horrible a thing to allow to happen.

Nobody chooses to be an addict, Ice.

countess that is an interesting point...but for a 30 week gestation, the 'products of conception' must be delivered anyway and can still be looked after by others from the moment of birth...so why should the woman have the right to kill the baby before birth?

garlic no but they can choose not to carry to term.