Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want autonomy over my body.

999 replies

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 16:12

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?

OP posts:
TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 15:58

Garlic, I find it shocking too. I don't know if it's still the case but certainly fairly recently they used to not even give the foetus pain relief. As i said before, it is similar to how newborn and young babies used to be treated. Operated on with sedatives so they couldn't move but with no pain relief- only about 30 years ago.

GarlicAprilShowers · 25/04/2014 16:00

Yh, but not all babies born to addicts are damaged. And not all addicts are aware of their addiction (eg alcohol), while some are so addled in the head that they can't think big issues through clearly.

It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world ... !

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 16:06

Countess, yes that is clear the case but your second point about consciousness and the arbitrary decision of when life counts as meaningful is much less straightforward than the legal definition and it is this that makes it complicated ethically.

Original poster
thebodydoestricks · 25/04/2014 16:08

You confuse me twisted you say

no one on this thread can think about mother and baby

I would imagine like me most of us in this thread, and perhaps you too, have been pregnant and are mothers.

Why would you think we could not empathise?

You then say i don't feel entitled to say what should happen to others

Up thread you were advocating all females of childbearing age who had irregular periods, like my 13 year old dd, to pee on sticks in case they were pregnant?

OP posts:
TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 16:10

I certainly was not!

Dawndonnaagain · 25/04/2014 16:13

Garlic, I find it shocking too. I don't know if it's still the case but certainly fairly recently they used to not even give the foetus pain relief.
It doesn't feel pain. Read the links provided.

MaidOfStars · 25/04/2014 16:17

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
I don't think it's attempting to cover the position from anything other than the mother's side. Why does it need to cover both sides?

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.
It's not the correct framework in which to determine the rights of the baby, because the rights of the baby are not part of the bodily autonomy argument. The right not be killed/right to life is a separate right, and the debate is focussed on how to balance these competing rights and determine which must take precedent (if one must).

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
Agreed.

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
That because most people here would consider the right to bodily autonomy as superceding the right to life (as it does so in any other aspect of medical/social/criminal debate).

If you found out that the inside baby felt and experienced just as much as the outside baby, would this be irrelevant to you?
In formal debate, yes. For me, yes. Emotionally by the less Spock-like of the population, perhaps it's not irrelevant, I don't know. But I don't think the debate on these issues should be led by emotion (on either side, from the weeping "prolifers" to the mocking "prochoicers").

Original poster
thebodydoestricks · 25/04/2014 16:18

twisted

my sincere apologies wrap me up in stupid paper and send me to twat land. You most certainly were not the pee on the stick poster.

Very sorry.

OP posts:
ILoveCoreyHaim · 25/04/2014 16:21

Im still waiting for the pee on a stick posters advice about what to do with my now fertile 12 year old. What contraception do they suggest i use to prevent her getting pregnant and how do i get her to wee on the stick evey month to ensure if she is pregnant i catch her early. I forgot who it was now

YoniMatopoeia · 25/04/2014 16:22

OR, another suggestion, when a woman is forced to carry an unwanted baby to birth, a lottery is held, and a random man has to care for that baby for 9 months (as long as he has been sexually active in the last few months, obviously) .

He is not allowed to pass any element of care over to anyone else, not even for an hour. He must not drink, smoke or take drugs. He will be judged on how good a job he does.

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 16:25

There is plenty of evidence about pain. This is from a good scientist (pro choice btw) who is always cautious about interpreting results.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x/full

It's fine the body.

Maid- It is unlike any other case because the baby has not chosen to be there and cannot avoid being there.

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 16:26

Oh and not really sure why it's relevant but yes I have been pregnant.

MaidOfStars · 25/04/2014 16:27

Maid- It is unlike any other case because the baby has not chosen to be there and cannot avoid being there
How does that fact take away from the woman's right to bodily autonomy?

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 16:45

Well ok, perhaps using your terms the argument should be, 'does the bodily autonomy of the mother trump the right to life of her unborn baby?'
Even put this way it is not simple and there is still a question of does the mothers wish to treat her body as she likes mean that a baby should have no (moral) right for protection of any kind for theirs just because they are dependent.

MaidOfStars · 25/04/2014 16:51

Well ok, perhaps using your terms the argument should be, 'does the bodily autonomy of the mother trump the right to life of her unborn baby?

Without being a dick, that's kind of what I thought the whole debate was Smile

CountessOfRule · 25/04/2014 17:10

Yes, that's exactly the question.

Legally, in the UK at least, there isn't precedent for denying the body autonomy of a legally competent person. It would be very dangerous to do so.

I don't think anybody thinks abortions are a good thing per se, just the least worst option in many cases. So denying legal personhood to someone who is completely dependent on a particular other person is the less acceptable option - which doesn't make it ok, just better than the alternative.

uselessidiot · 25/04/2014 17:29

Funny how nobody has answered my questions from this morning.

CountessOfRule · 25/04/2014 17:35

There's nearly 700 posts most of which don't display on the app. Care to ask again for the evening crowd?

Dawndonnaagain · 25/04/2014 17:38

Twisted
The study I have shown supercedes the study you have posted.

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 17:44

Again, I think this debate would be more helpful away from the legal angle. The danger with rephrasing the question in the way above is that it seems that then it is hard for people to consider the complexity of the baby also having a body themselves and felt experience. And what is then being taken away from them if the rights the mother has over her body are seen without consideration that abortion does also violate and obviously destroy a baby's body. It depends on what we consider important about 'life' too. Again I am not talking legally.

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 17:51

Dawn what do you mean by supercedes?
Yours is not a link to an actual paper. Look up the work done at imperial college London about this- it is one of the most respected universities in the world. That is an old paper but their research is very much ongoing and continually peer reviewed etc.

uselessidiot · 25/04/2014 17:51

I spoke about how when I had my 3rd miscarriage they thought they were going to have to carry out a procedure to remove the retained products of conception to avoid infertility or death for me. I had read that some pro-life campaigners are against this also. I asked how this preserved a life as it risked killing the mum. Also how do you save the life of this baby by doing this when it's already dead.

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 17:53

I don't know useless but that sounds very upsetting and i am sorry you had that experience. If you are asking for answers from pro life campaigners I am not a person to ask.

MaidOfStars · 25/04/2014 17:54

Again, I think this debate would be more helpful away from the legal angle
I would respectfully disagree. I feel this is a tactic for those seeking to oppose abortion to appeal to emotion.

TwistedReach · 25/04/2014 17:55

Absolutely not! It is about being able to think about what matters and why.