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?

Yes. The body. That's the whole damned point.

I so want this newborn/anaesthesia thing not to be true, but it is a side issue to the moral/legal/etc debate on abortion.

Surprised to see you here so late, bumbley. You said:

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

So what? It uses this cord to gain life support from the mother's body. It made its cord out of the mother's body tissue. It does not eat, it does not breathe, it merely feeds off the mother. Cut the cord, and its gestation ends. It won't learn to breathe until it's been delivered into air (assuming it's already developed air sacs, without which it can't absorb oxygen from air.) You know even less about obstetrics than I do! Are you sure you're a woman?

Oh, I'm so cross with myself for answering you, Bumbley! You are a thief of my time. Please ignore my post above, as you've ignored so many others. TIA.

Oh god I have such conflicting views on this. On the one hand I think women absolutely have the right to decide what to do with their own body but on the other hand I look at my ten yr old born at 28 weeks who is now completely healthy and think no way should a baby more developed than him be aborted.

It's so hard I do feel conflicted.

I am pro choice but there should be a cut off point tbh.

Same as Gideon these ddebates on mnet made me think about my position on abortion and clarify my thoughts, I realised the current legislation we have is intact disabilist in allowing abortion to term fir disability but not of a healthy ffetus. This is wrong. And ultimately womem are entitled to bodily autonomy, anything else is the start of a very slippery slope. The cases in America horrify me. As does the situation in Ireland.

OP YANBU. Like many others ^^ I am totally pro choice. It is up to each one of us to make that choice ourselves.

5madThings exactly.

If the 'whole damn point' is for women to have autonomy over their own body then can someone explain what the argument is, in the case of later term abortion, for terminating the foetus in utero if they can exercise their right to bodily autonomy by inducing early?

It doesn't actually seem if anyone has an answer to that. MaidofStars has made some interesting points but none of the rest of you seem to be able to answer that at all.

Also, twisted is right about anesthesia for infants.[[http://www.pedsanesthesia.org/meetings/2011annual/syllabus/submissions/The%20Present-Opioids_MYaster.pdf , until the mid 1980s, most newborns
undergoing major surgery were “anesthetized” with nothing more than oxygen, a muscle
relaxant, and just a “whiff” (and clearly a sub minimum alveolar concentration’s (MAC)) of a
potent vapor anesthetic ]] Quite shocking. 1986 was the year that the Academy of Paediatric Surgeons changed their policy. 1986. Less than 30 years ago.

Garlic, it matters if you're using the argument that the woman can do what she likes with her own body, because neither the umbilical cord nor the foetus itself are actually part of her body.

No. The question was not explain your reasons for wanting an abortion. It was not explain what happens if. It was Aibu to want autonomy regarding my own body. Well no, nobody is being unreasonable to want that. So actually bumbley, go look it up yourself.

Oh and as the baby is an organism at one with the mother, mother rules. So again umbilical cord argument irrelevant.

Bumbley that's completely disingenuous and you are not going to negate the pro choice argument with some three card trick of the foetus and umbilical cord not being part of the woman's body. They are in her body. She can opt to have them removed because them being there impinges her bodily integrity. But you understand that I am sure.
However I agree that I don't understand why in late term terminations the foetus has to be killed before the pregnancy is terminated. Whether the foetus is delivered alive or dead makes no difference to the bodily integrity of the woman. I believe Donna did say that everyone knows the baby would be delivered alive at such a late stage so maybe the assumption that the foetus would be killed is an erroneous one? I don't know.

Yes, Laymedown, I believe she did mention that earlier. Perhaps the people on the thread are arguing for induction for late term pregnancies rather than abortion. I'm surprised none of them has said that though when they have been asked.

Re. The umbilical cord argument. I'm just trying to keep the scientific facts straight.

Yeah, stupidly I got involved in the forced birthers debate. Looking at what is happening in the states, brazil and closer to home there is no argument to be had, total autonomy regarding my body, do what you like wih yours bumbley et al, but keep your mucky mitts and morals off mine.

I don't claim to know what would happen to any induced-because-unwanted late stage foetuses/babies, Bumbley. We have insufficient precedent. I don't think there would be many at all. But perhaps the state is terrified a flood of last-minute candidates would overstretch our already woeful care system? After all, there's already an oversupply of babies waiting for adoption. Maybe all their potential adoptive parents are "considering" adoption, as you said you were. It's a pity pregnant women can't delay birth while they consider their options.

Things being what they are, I maintain support for abortion at any stage up until a successful live birth, and I mean abortion. I'm emotionally uncomfortable about it, but it's the only position I deem ethical.

@Re. The umbilical cord argument. I'm just trying to keep the scientific facts straight.

But what does "belongs to" mean in this case?

Dawn, that doesn't answer the question though. If a woman can exercise her right to bodily autonomy at a late stage of her pregnancy by inducing labour then what is the argument for allowing her to terminate the foetus in utero? If you, personally, support the woman's right to induce rather than abort at term then maybe you don't have an answer for that - I'm not sure what your position is given your earlier post that LayMeDown mentioned.

Garlic, I would imagine that they would go the same way as other unwanted babies - into the care system. As you (and others) have pointed out, you do not expect there to be too many anyway. Unless you think there would be an influx but then surely that would mean that there could also be an influx of late term abortions which most people are saying would never happen.

I'm still struggling to understand the logic of the abortion to term rather than induction argument irt bodily autonomy. Why do you think a woman can't exercise her bodily autonomy by inducing early - why does she need to terminate the foetus in utero to exercise it?

TheDoctrine. Genetically and physiologically a part of.

I don't know why a woman might need to terminate a near fully developed foetus in utero, Bumbley, outside of intolerable consequences to either the child or the mother should it be born. It's currently legal to terminate under those conditions. Either all women who need to terminate at such a late stage are already getting abortions, or there are forms of 'intolerable' that haven't yet been recognised within the law. I want each pregnant woman to be able to decide the best course of action for herself - with informed advice, of course.

If this resulted in a significant change to the prevalence of late abortions, or the number of newborns taken into care, then it would show the law is currently inadequate. If it didn't, then no outcomes have been changed by improving women's autonomy. Sounds fine to me.

Bumbley.
If a woman is having an abortion she can take a lot more medication and pain relief than if she is giving birth to a live child. That is one reason it would make a difference to the mother.
Secondly it would be incredibly traumatic even if you don't want the child to have to see them alive and born. This may dissuade people from seeking help and simply perform at home abortion (as does rarely happen now)
Thirdly who benefits from forcing women to birth preterm babies that will be fighting to live and highly likely to either die or have short, painful lives? The babies don't. The mothers don't. It just makes outsiders feel better about the mothers actions

Good post, box.

Along with the pain relief point, as I understand it, it's by no means a sure thing to induce labour in a woman even at term, if the cervix isn't starting to get ready. Sometimes such attempts end in c-section.

I therefore assume (but don't know for sure) that in the case of an induced abortion, the drugs to induce it are stronger or used in a different way (eg into the uterus) and that these stronger drugs aren't used in term induction because of potential transfer to the foetus.

So I don't think that "just induce birth past 24 weeks" is that straightforward.

So why does the mothers right automatically trump the baby's? People keep quoting this bodily autonomy and forced birth but I have not heard anyone able to actually engage with this. And by that I mean to honestly take on board the unborn baby, maybe not so different to the born baby and explain why the mothers bodily autonomy is more important than the baby's right to have their body left alone and not killed.

And as I know everyone is going to assume I hate mothers etc, because that seems easier than to think I might be trying to really think hard about all angles, can we just remember I am not pushing morals anywhere, just asking questions.

I do however find the treatment of bumbley rather extraordinary on this thread. Is this thread only supposed to be for people who agree with op? That seems rather defensive and hypocritical of those saying dont push your morals on me etc.

I guess, Twisted, it's because there can be a point where the mother's interests and the baby's are in conflict and no compromise can be reached.

At that point someone has to "win". I cannot see how it's possible to argue against coming down on the side of the lucid, reasoning, life-experienced, (usually) adult person rather than the not-yet-conscious, not-yet-born baby.