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?

Garlic, I'm not sure why someone would agree with the termination of a healthy foetus under the premise of the bodily autonomy argument when it is possible for the mother to exercise her right to bodily autonomy and allow the foetus to be born live. Or are you suggesting induction instead of abortion? (you mentioned an increase in babies going into care)

Is there another reason, aside from bodily autonomy, which you think should entitle the mother to terminate in utero rather than induce? (not including physical/mental injury to the mother - which is already covered under the current law anyway)

box, we were talking about abortion to term and whether a woman could exercise her right to bodily autonomy at the late stages of pregnancy by inducing rather than terminating in utero. Your third point doesn't really apply in that situation because the baby should be perfectly capable of surviving outside the mother at that stage.

re your other points, Late term abortions are usually performed under general anaesthetic (marie stopes) so if the woman was going to consent to that for her abortion then it would be the same if she was induced under GA - she would not feel pain and she would not see the baby being born.

Countess, is induction not a compromise for these situations that we're discussing?

There are very few late abortions so it's rather a theoretical issue. if you think life begins at conception then it is as wrong to abort at 3 weeks than at 40 weeks. English law allows abortion up to the point of birth if the child is disabled.

Maria, yes, it is theoretical, we are talking about the idea of abortion to term on demand for any reason which is the position that some women on this thread, including the OP, support.

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.
You think you've got one over on me. I did say the liklihood of a live birth. So, it's a possibility. It's equally a possibility that it's not a live birth.
I've made my position clear and I am not going to be bullied by you on yet another thread, stop trying to jump on me, I'm bored with it.

Dawn,

Of course you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Your post earlier about live births suggests that it is actually induction rather than abortion that you believe in at this late stage. If that is the case then,as I said in my above post, you may not have an answer for the question being asked anyway.

Twisted re your question about why the rights of the mother should trump the rights of the baby. It is my opinion that the baby does not have any rights until it is born. Ethically, I am totally comfortable with this.

HaHa.
As I said, now who's being a bully.

Bumbley you are really not in a position to accuse others of not having answers for questions...

Fantastic recent posts there for garlic and betterthanabox

Baby, well if someone doesn't support a particular position, I don't expect them to be able to answer a question about it .

Feel free to report any of my posts that you think are making personal attacks on you, Dawn.

That's alright, Bumbley. I'm a grown up.
I'm also an extremely clever grown up, articulate, funny and principled. The only thing I really don't comprehend is why you think I don't get your posts?

Dawn, this was the post I was referring to. Friday at 10:56,

"Termination of pregnancy after a period of time will result in a live birth, nobody is going to kill the baby, as adults we all know that."

I'm not sure why you think this is about 'getting one over' on somebody or point scoring. I was under the impression that people were simply discussing an interesting ethical situation.

I'm just pondering something at the moment. As many of you know, I am currently 30 weeks pregnant. Physically I am having a really hard time and am constantly in a lot of pain. As perception of pain can vary based on emotional and psychological state, these women who are forced to continue their pregnancy against their wishes could potentially be suffering severely. Due to my circumstances, my doctors have not hesitated to prescribe me strong pain relief and sleep aids, and without those I would struggle to get through the day. I have 7 more weeks of this to go through and I can imagine the physical impact of pregnancy will only get worse. Women carrying a pregnancy against their wishes will already be suffering significantly psychologically and adding the physical suffering on top of that is just inhumane. There is no question that a woman will have emotional and psychological scars.

I'm just musing. The discussion recently has been about when the foetus gains rights but that fact that the mother currently has rights, and is a sentient being during the entire pregnancy, has not been talked about as much.

Anyone any thoughts?

I know exactly what you were referring to. I'm not going away Bumbley . I have made my position clear. Very clear. Now, I will do as you do, if you don't stop I will go to the powers that be. There is a little too much evidence now, so I would tread carefully. I am, yet again, trying to be nice here, although heaven only knows why. I suspect it's because I think you need this outlet and even though I find your views and your attitude abhorrent, I do stand my your right to express them, although as I said on the other thread, perhaps with a little more empathy.

Induction only represents a compromise if the baby survives it. Likely at 39+, less likely at 29+.

I've been induced. I didn't like it. I would not consider it a nothing.

Dawn, I wasn't sure if you were because you just said

"You think you've got one over on me. I did say the liklihood of a live birth."

In the post LayMeDown and I were referring to last night and this morning, you did not say 'the likelihood of a live birth.' I quoted that post for you just upthread and it does genuinely suggest that you support the idea of induction rather than abortion.

I'm just trying to keep things clear for the purposes of making sure we understand each other. I have been nothing but civil to you on this thread (despite some of your snide remarks) and I am not asking/telling you to 'go away' or stop posting so I am not sure what 'evidence' you are referring to.

However, if you feel in some way that I am attacking you in my posts then of course I am happy to cease engaging with you. Tbh I think it will probably serve to further the discussion better anyway and keep in on track.

Thebaby, I think that being forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy could certainly be horrifically traumatic for the mother, could result absolutely in long term trauma and in circumstances where for example she has been raped it is almost unbearable to think about.

But.

Thinking that, really taking on the horror that that would entail should not stop one being able to think in equally an unflinching way about the experience of the baby.

To say that life begins at birth seems as arbitrary as saying it begins at conception. Yes technically both could be argued but surely what matters is to do with consciousness and feeling not some arbitrary date.

The argument somebody made above, and was appreciated as it was in response to my question, thought that the mothers rights took priority as she is an articulate person with life experience (or similar). While this may be a good argument it does show the shades of grey when one thinks about whose lives count for more- a non verbal child with disability vs a nt adult for example.

One thing I am clear about is that it seems barbaric that late abortion is available only for disabled babies. This does not mean that I think that all late abortion should be allowed but it seems an appalling statement about the worth of people with disabilities.

I do find it ethically hard to see why in terms of the babies experience it is worse to kill a baby in the womb than born at 38 weeks. That doesn't mean I can't see why it might be worse or not for the mother.

Countess, why 39 rather than 37 weeks (Which is considered full term)?

because it's two weeks safer - given that I was comparing "about as safe as possible for baby" with "pretty risky for baby"...

You've no answer for the rest, I note.

Well that's interesting. Keeping it on track. I was criticised upthread for doing just that.

Thinking that, really taking on the horror that that would entail should not stop one being able to think in equally an unflinching way about the experience of the baby.
Under the circumstances, really?

The argument about a non verbal child versus an nt adult has absolutely nothing to do with the theory posited here, it's extending and false.

I am content with the currently - abortion for disabilities up to 40 weeks, abortion without disabilities up to 24 weeks.

If the law were changed from 24 - 40 weeks I would not have a moral objection to that. Either life begins at conception or it begins at birth. There are few late abortions so a change would not make much difference and also most of the lobbying is to move 24 weeks to earlier so a change in the opposite direction is not likely to happen.

I am allowed to jeopardise my baby at birth by birthing alone or going sky gliding at 40 weeks (indeed I did cycle in the early stages of labour back from the tube station after work where my bike was although I would argue that was good for things not bad but am glad I get the chance) so there is not a huge difference between that and actively aborting at 39 weeks.

"Induction only represents a compromise if the baby survives it. Likely at 39+, less likely at 29+."

A 37 week old foetus is likely to survive induction too. It is considered 'full term' after all. So you could have said 37+, 39 just seemed a bit arbitrary that's all.

I don't think anyone said it was 'a nothing' but abortion isn't exactly 'a nothing' either.

but abortion isn't exactly 'a nothing' either. In your opinion. That is the important part there. So, if you don't want one, don't have one and stop criticising the legal rights of other people. Equally, if you don't want autonomy over your body, that's up to you, but many of us do and we have the right to fight for it. Perhaps a bit of wider thinking would be good here. You may not want abortion or autonomy, but one day in the future, be it ten years or a hundred, a member of your family may want that option. If you don't want to actively fight for it, perhaps actively not fighting against it is a better option.

We were talking about compromise.

Induction as a compromise between the position of a woman who wants to end a pregnancy, and that of a baby who hasn't been born yet, is partly a problem of time. The earlier the better for the woman (less time being pregnant, reduced changes to her body, smaller baby to be removed); the later the better for the baby, peaking on the EDD, generally speaking.

But then you factor in on one side that induction before natural labour is hard work, usually requiring lots of drugs and a lengthy labour, and likely to result in assisted delivery anyway (instrumental or c-section) with all the concomitant injury risk on both sides. For me, an elective c-section, perhaps under GA if medically/psychologically indicated, would be preferable here, having a more predictable delivery and therefore recovery.

That's what I mean by "not nothing" - it would be a major undertaking.

If only, if only we could transplant out an unwanted baby. Before the bfp dries on the stick you're booked in for a transplant, which involves a quick procedure in stirrups for two women, one of whom proceeds happily unpregnant, the other of whom proceeds happily pregnant. Minimum disruption for mother, maximum chance for baby.

But until such time as that becomes possible, we have to decide whether the woman's right to body autonomy (a black-and-white issue, either she has it or she doesn't) trumps the baby's right to a chance at life. Not the right to life, the right to a chance.

You might infringe the woman's rights but you still wouldn't be able to guarantee the outcome for the baby. So even without looking at legal concepts of personhood it makes sense to prioritise what you can control over what you can't.