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?

I don't see why the right to bodily autonomy has to be any more black and white than the right to life. There could be an argument that everyone should have a right to bodily autonomy except when that right will directly cause death to another and to not exercise that right will not cause death to the subject for example. In just the same way, that it could be argued, everyone had the right to life except when exercising that right to life will impede on the right to bodily autonomy for another.
If we want to act in the most ethical way possible for each individual case I do not see why we cant think about different circumstances differently.

We can think about different circumstances differently, but we're not discussing different circumstances, are we? We are discussing bodily autonomy in the case of unwanted pregnancy. Ergo, bodily autonomy for the woman, yes.

Well the circumstance for the baby is different at 3 weeks and 38 weeks so I would argue there are different circumstances. You may think that it doesn't matter whatever the circumstances are for the baby but as there are two bodies involved in the decision I think it needs to at least be thought about. And to make a really informed decision about something like this one does need to be informed about the experience for both.

But the woman concerned can make the decision to be as informed as she chooses to be. I still want autonomy over my own body, that gives me the right to abort, or not to abort as I see fit. My body. The foetus is part of my body, organically linked to My body. My decision.
Please note; foetus, not baby. I really think that calling it a baby is a sly way of engendering emotion when used in these arguments.

Dawn, That comment was in response to Countess' induction experience so it was the physical aspect that was being discussed. Physically a late term abortion is not going to be 'nothing'. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Currently, a woman is not allowed abortion to term for non-medical reasons so I'm not criticising the legal rights of other people.

Yes, I am aware that the argument being used for abortion to term is bodily autonomy but why should that include termination of the foetus in utero when induction is a possible alternative?

Anyway, I thought you didn't want to engage with me.

The reason why I support abortion to term.

What's to stop a woman who wants to abort but what is there to stop other people putting pressure on her to wait a few weeks to give birth to a live baby

The woman still doesn't have full control of her own body.

Countess, well surely 37 weeks would fit that bill better than 39? Full term foetus and less time being pregnant compared to the 39+ weeks that you originally suggested?

My point was that abortion at that stage of pregnancy is going to be physically challenging as well. If the woman is prepared to consent to the procedures that would enable her to have an abortion at that stage that would also enable her to be induced then why the need for the extra step of terminating the foetus?

Well I would say that when pregnant the baby is inside my body, not that it is my body. I'm not being sly- I do think that it is emotional thinking about both sides. When you see preterm babies, I don't think they are any less babies than term ones, just more vulnerable and obviously younger and not ready to be out. I don't see them counting as less than term babies. You can call that emotive- I think it's an observation.

I also think that forcing mothers to have babies they don't want is cruel and traumatic.

My twins were born at 33 weeks.
I still want autonomy over my own body.

"There could be an argument that everyone should have a right to bodily autonomy except when that right will directly cause death to another"

This is a good point that I think someone touched on earlier (MaidOfStars perhaps?) I think she said if the only way for you to exert your right o bodily autonomy was to harm the other person then you have the right to do so. However, what if there was an alternative way to exert your bodily autonomy? Do you still have the right to harm the other person?

Dawn, the foetus is not part of your body. Scientific fact.

Anya, but 'putting pressure on someone to do something' isn't the same as saying 'you can't do that.

I know, that's why I said putting pressure

Dawn, the foetus is not part of your body. Scientific fact.
Still doesn't make your argument any more cogent.

It is reliant on My body. Fact.

What is the alternative way? Oh, I know, to be forced to give birth.

I think if you are unhappy, desperate or definatly don't want your pregnancy you may consider it a foetus.

when you want to continue your pregnancy And are happy and excited you consider it to be a baby.

The crux to this seems to me to be the feelings of the mother, the decision of the mother, the need/want/desire of the mother.

If she wants to terminate to term then that's her decision.

No one but no one should be forcing other women to give birth if they do not wish to.

It's just wrong.

bumbly of course the foetus is part of the mothers body in the fact that without the mother it could not survive.

But we have had this conversation before.

Anya, the point is that putting something in place that would allow induction but not abortion after a certain point may result in some people putting pressure on the woman to wait a few weeks but they couldn't say that she had to wait a few weeks so she would still have control. Even if was abortion that was available to term some people might try to put pressure on the woman to wait a few weeks and give birth to a live baby so abortion rather than induction doesn't actually solve that problem.

Dawn, just correcting your earlier statement.

The alternative is induction rather than abortion to term. Both are going to require 'giving birth' at that stage - one just results in a live birth.

The body, yes we have, and so you are aware that, scientifically, it is not part of the woman's body. You can say it is reliant on the woman, you can say that it is inside the woman but you can't say that it is a part of a woman. Well, technically I guess you can say it but it doesn't mean it is true.

But the woman should be the one who decides

Yes but induction of a dead baby will mean the mother can if she wishes have much more pain relief etc. You can't have a general anaesthetic fir a normal Labour, they don't like to give you a ga for a c section if they can avoid it.

Also what happens to baby once born if alive? It goes into care system.. And what if they get older they try to find their birth parent, also the psychological impact of the woman knowing she has a birth child out there somewhere. It's not just about nor being pregnant, it's about not wanting a child or to be a mother.

Ans how would you decide at what stage in pregnancy that it should be induction of a living fetus as opposed to a termination?

And you are still distinguishing between a healthy fetus and a disabled one which is wrong.

Anya, why, if there is alternative that allows her to exercise her right to bodily autonomy that does not involve terminating the foetus?

Because if she chooses to have an abortion then that's what she should have

If the foetus is not part of your body, then it's a parasite.

... although, using the foetus's different genetics as an excuse to say "it's not part of your body" is pathetic, really. DNA from the foetus remains permanently in the mother's body and, of course, half the mother's DNA remains permanently in the foetus/child.

Its tissue is entirely constructed out of the mother's body. It's as much a part of her body as anything else growing in or on her.

5mad, you can have a GA for normal labour. It isn't their usual course of action but it is possible. If you were prepared to consent for it for your abortion then you could consent to it for induction too.

Deciding that you don't want to be a mother would not give you the right to kill your born children so why should that feeling entitle you to terminate a pregnancy? That is a separate issue to bodily autonomy anyway. In any case, would you know that you didn't want to have a child/be a mother before you got to term?

I'm not sure how that stage would be decided. At this point I'm simply trying to understand the position of people using the bodily autonomy argument to support the idea of abortion to term when induction would also allow her to exercise that right without having to terminate the foetus.

I'm distinguishing between healthy and disabled because the law currently does. Abortion to term for disability is already permitted so it doesn't really come into this discussion which is addressing the idea of abortion to term for any reason to ensure that the woman has bodily autonomy.

Bugger: half the mother's DNA remains permanently in the foetus - backwards arithmetic. You know what I meant!