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?

Quoting laws does not do either of these things.

The research done in 2010 states otherwise twisted. I am, as a lecturer aware of Imperial. Sorry, but the latest research states that a foetus doesn't feel pain. It would appear that the amniotic fluid has analgesic properties and that 'wakefulness' does not occur until the umbilical cord is cut.
However, to me, this is not part of the argument. As I've said before, it's about whether women should have autonomy and the answer is yes.

That report that you linked to done by the royal college of obstetrics was flawed and did not quote any new research. It cited research from sheep and did not include any human fetus's. Research into older human fetus's indictaes that they do show response to external stimuli.
The foetal brain is different to the adult brain and has a region called the subplate zone below the cortex and connections start to be formed from about 20 weeks. By 26 all of the connections are in place.

I meant that at 26 weeks they are linked to the cortex where consciousness happens.

uselessidiot I remember your other threads. To be honest I'm very thankful to live in a country which allows doctors to prioritise a living mother over a dead/dying fetus because a country that famously doesn't is only just across the water.

the full report
Not flawed.

I found your link fascinating, Twisted. There have been discussions in earlier times of whether animals, black people, women, the lower classes, then infants, could feel pain. Those discussions have predictably descended into semantic (and philosophical) explorations of what we mean by 'feel' and 'pain'. I'm sure it's a natural part of the discussion. But I completely fail to understand why it's not taken for granted that the subject might suffer, and that all measures should be taken to reduce such possible suffering. I can't quite understand why it isn't a priority, or why gazillions of arguments about what constitutes awareness have to happen first.

My brother was born with chicken pox, and had to have frequent eye surgery in his first few months. It's almost unbearable that he probably had those without anaesthesia.

useless your point truly highlights how shocking that would be. I am so sorry for your loss.

Look twisted obviously your views are sincere my held and I respect that.

However I cannot see any point at all in forcing any woman at any time to continue with a pregnancy she does not want.

I can't see that's right on a moral, practical or emotional level.

Even supposing a foetus can feel pain then it's not beyond an obstraticians expertise to take this into account and minimise this during a termination.

When we start to put limits on what is ok for a pregnant woman we immediately discriminate against her. We take away her choices about her body and that is fundamentally wrong.

Once you go down the slippy slope of upping the rights of the foetus above the woman carrying it you slip further into the cruel and ridiculous cases highlighted on the thread.

Sbortion to term for frivolous reasons would be negligible and must never outweigh the needs/rights of the many.

It's just wrong.

I am interested in seeing the evidence for a lack of anaesthesia in young children. It is something I haven't come across. My brother was born partially deaf and partially sighted, quite some time ago. He had anaesthesia. As did my uncle during the post war polio outbreak.

Pain is not relevant. If we thought there were pain that was not worth suffering in the unborn child we could anaesthetise it before death. It's a side issue.

There is no way the abortion law is likely to be changed radically in the UK. There is a risk that case law might require mothers to take more care of unborn babies and that is a backwards step in my view.

Let's hope not as that's a terrifying prospect.

Well said Maria - if we were worried about pain, we would just anaesthetise it before the procedure.

This is going a little off topic, but I was reading about a Brazilian woman forced to have a c-section today, and somehow, I found this quote relevant to what we are discussing..
“Would a Brazilian court order a man to undergo an invasive kidney transplant to save his dying child? No. Only women’s bodies are treated as public objects subject to the whims of the medical profession backed by the coercive power of the state.”

And this bit too..

"As Yara Tropea, a journalist at the Sao Paolo protests put it: “Here, pregnant woman cannot decide how they want to give birth. On the other hand, if you are dead, they need family permission to donate an organ. The bottom line is: in Brazil a dead body has more rights than a pregnant woman.”

Is it not the same for this country too?

Maid, interesting points.

I think the first point has already been covered by comparing it to the father's rights.

Re Genetic information. I don't think that would hold because any of your children would have some of your genetic information so it would be 'out there' if you already had children/had other children in the future. If you are trying to extend your rights of bodily autonomy over anything that contains your genetic information that would mean that you would have rights over their bodies even after they were born. To take it further, could you have control over your parents/siblings because you share genetic information with them too?

The foetus is not actually part of the woman's body. It has its own genetically unique DNA and it actually has to be kept 'hidden' from the woman's immune system during pregnancy because otherwise it would be attacked as 'foreign tissue'.

Garlic, technically the umbilical cord belongs to the foetus. It is not part of the mother.

IceBring, I know what you are saying and I haven't yet found an answer on the thread. If a woman can exercise her right to bodily autonomy by inducing early without actually harming the foetus (talking about late term here) then what is the argument for actually allowing her to terminate the foetus in utero. It seems unnecessary in relation to the 'exercising her right to bodily autonomy' argument.

Countess, but a full term foetus in utero doesn't necessarily need to rely on the mother. It just happens to still be in there so it doesn't have an alternative.

useless, I'm very sorry for what you went through. I certainly wouldn't consider that abortion and tbh I don't know anyone who identified as pro-life that would.

My ancient iPad is playing up but google the history of lack of pain relief in surgery for babies- you'll find it.

Sorry that was to dawn

A full term fetus certainly does rely on its mother. If she dies, he has about ten minutes to be born, if that!

logical fallacies again Bumbly
Slippery slope, there Bumbly You're equivocating and extending and drawing weak analogies. This of course is nothing new.

The thing is Twisted I have. I find no evidence of it at all. My father was a GP. He knows of no evidence at all.

I think you should also be able to find some of the criticisms of that royal college of obs report quite easily.

Mainly as I said, it was not new research and there is no evidence to support the idea that human babies are not 'wakeful' and loads of research done with human fetuses rather than sheep to show the opposite- that they are very responsive to what goes on around them.

You cannot prove that anyone who can't tell you what they are experiencing, feels pain, but I agree with you garlic, it's extraordinary even without the evidence- raise in cortisol, flinching, facial grimacing etc to not just act with caution anyway.

I react to things, my blood pressure goes up, doesn't mean I feel anything.
But again, this isn't the point. The point is should women have autonomy over their own bodies.
Yes.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-08-babies-pain_x.htm

Quick google- not scientific source but tells the story

2005

visualise absolutely terrifying. Not in the least surprising in a catholic country though. The Catholic Church hate women.

the point is should women have autonomous over their own body. Yes

That's the crux dawn isn't it.

She'd of all the other crap clouding the argument.

That's the crux. yes they bloody should

I remember having a lecture about how they didn't use pain relief with newborns when I was training to be a nurse.