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?

Anya, Why should she be allowed to choose that if there is an alternative that does not involve terminating the foetus? Why should she have the right to terminate if the status of the foetus (alive or dead) is not actually what is encroaching on her autonomy - just its presence inside her.

Garlic, parasites are a different species to their host.

Half of the father's DNA is the foetus too. Does that mean it is part of his body as well?

"Its tissue is entirely constructed out of the mother's body."

Not sure what you mean by this. The foetus grows from nourishment obtained by the mother's body but it is not 'constructed' out of bits of her tissue.

obtained from*

Abortion to term for disability is already permitted - Not for TheBaby :(

The logical conclusion to anti-choice arguments is what Baby's going through.

When you equate abortion to killing born children, you can't then say it's okay to terminate genetically impaired pregnancies - unless you're also saying, by your own logic, that it's okay to kill babies born disabled.

None of us wants to kill born babies, so you must be saying you insist, as Baby's government insists, that women suffer painful & miserable pregnancies in order to birth suffering babies, condemning them to a difficult, agonised experience of life outside the womb.

Going back a step in this logical anti-choice conclusion: if you insist that foetuses in utero have feelings and can suffer, anti-choice also means you insist compromised foetuses must survive in pain for months before birth.

How cruel.

My point is that every single anti-choice argument about the 'humanity' of a foetus applies equally to the compromised pregnancy. If you're anti-choice but want to allow late termination for disabled foetuses, as the law does now, then by your own logic you find it okay to kill disabled babies. If, like Baby's government, you say no foetus may be killed, you say you'd knowingly inflict pain on both women and babies.

Why shouldn't she have the choice bumbley?

bumbleymummy, women in developed countries die all the time from. pregnancy related complications, usually connected to the labour. You're asking women to risk this for a baby they didn't even want? That's a tall order.

Essentially, what you're effectively doing is downplaying the importance of labour and childbirth, and women's importance in general.

I'm sure there are third parties might benefit from an opinion like yours, but other people believe that women's lives are important, that they count which is why abortion exists.

Abortion is not ideal, but punishing women is not on. I'd like to know why so many men are creating babies with women who don't want them, to be honest. You're talking as though the women are completely to blame for the unwanted foetus, when in reality men need to start taking some responsibility for all these unwanted pregnancies. They can choose not to come inside a woman who doesn't want their baby. That might not be a popular opinion (I suppose people like bumbleymummy are of the opinion that we must preserve men's right to come wherever they want, I guess...) but it's certainly a more humane and sensible option than forcing women to go through childbirth.

5 mad

I think has put the whole debate for me in a nutshell.

its not just about nor being pregnant it's about not wanting a child or to be a mother

Women should not be forced into giving birth, inductions, continuing a pregnancy, aborting, whatever!

Womem should be the keepers of their own bodies and sense of what is right for them

This creeping anti abortion anti women lobby in the states has jack shit to do with saving babies. If the USA cared at rats ass about its children they would address their health system and their gun laws.

This is about the power over and control of women, generally poor single mothers, very similar to the catholic model of Ireland but there they imprisoned the women, stole the babies for adoption and had them do their laundry.

It's despicable and evil and cannot be allowed to be exported here in Britain.

sakura yes great post.

I expect some of us who have given birth vaginally,like I have 4 times,can definatly say that I adore my children beyond reason but they have buggered up my pelvic floor.

I don't think I would feel it was worth it for babies I had no intention of rearing and did not want to birth.

I have five and I am a bit of a freak in that I actually enjoyed birth, it was hard and painful but I was lucky enough to have straightforward deliveries and the process left me with an enormous high, but they were planned and wanted children. Going through that when you don't want a child would be beyond horrific.

Yes they can give ga in Labour but in emergency situations, it compromises mother and fetus. Labour can last for days, esp an induced Labour (I know through experience) they will not give you ga for the whole thing. And it increases the risk of intervention massively!

I have had 5 vaginal deliveries and my pelvic floor is absolutely fine but that is not the issue for me. My view is that English law currently gets it right - abortion up to 24 weeks effectively on demand and up to birth if there are disabilities (and in practice even in the latter case most women abort much earlier than near the end anyway). For those who think life begins at conception it matters not whether it's at 2 weeks or 40 weeks though, as both are murder. I respect that view but it is not mine and I am glad that is not English law.

Who is the murderer if the woman goes through with the unwanted pregnancy and dies from complications? The murderer, in that instance, would be the state and medics who forced the woman to carry the foetus to term.

Surely a women should be able to decide whether she wanted a child LONG before it reaches term!?

if a pregnancy is planned and then has complications then there is a pretty good chance the mother would be happy to be induced/elcs if she felt ahe could no longer be pregnant...

if you as a person don't want a child then abort it but it shouldn't take you nearly 9 months to decide that!

I think current British law is plenty of time to decide.

obviously (like already in place) there would be extreme exceptional circumstances where a later abortion would be appropriate. But I myself have never met or heard ofanyone who was happy to be pregnant till lets say 7 months and then went oh actually I dodon't want this baby anymore... changing a law to accommodate a very small minority would be ridiculous.

Surely a women should be able to decide whether she wanted a child LONG before it reaches term!?

Depends on the woman doesn't it? A lot can happen in 9 months so why not let her decide?

changing a law to accommodate a very small minority would be ridiculous

We disagree fundamentally there! If - as we both expect - the changed law would lead to very little change in outcomes, why not change it? It's clearer all round that way.

My pelvic floor reference was a tad lighthearted but was meant to highlight the issue of damage/strain during childbirth.

Many women obviously suffer far more and some die.

Like sakura says who is the murderer here if the woman dies at the hands of forced birthers, would that be the state? Doctors?.

bloomin you are right there would probably be a minuscule number of women aborting late for frivolous reasons so all the more reason to change the law to enshrine a woman's autonomy over her body at all times as her absolute right.

A lot can happen in 9 months - YY.

I have CFS/ME. It was a long time developing, but the full onset happened over the space of about a year. I asked my occupational therapist how patients cope when they have this illness and small children. She told me their partners give up work to take on caring duties; if there's nobody to do this, some have to put their DC into care. Can you imagine the pain? Yet I can guess at people's reactions if a woman aborted a 7-month pregnancy because of 'tiredness'.

All sorts of changes can make it the wrong time to be pregnant, both positive and negative. You or your partner could become dreadfully ill, you might become homeless, you might have a breakdown; you might be offered a game-changing opportunity at a time when maternity leave would ruin your chances; you might get a diagnosis that meant you were going to die soon after the birth; you might be exposed to dangerous substances with unpredictable effects on your foetus; you might not even have known you were pregnant ... all sorts of things could happen. In your particular circumstances, you should be able to decide for yourself what to do.

Exactly Garlic spot on.

... when induction would also allow her to exercise that right without having to terminate the foetus.

^^ can you stop saying this without evidence, please? At, say, 30 weeks, the cervix is not typically receptive to induction drugs in normal ie "foetus safe" doses. If the foetal heart has been stopped, obviously this and pain relief are not an issue.

Garlic, I agree with others that the current abortion law is disabilist.

but this is about whether the woman's bodily autonomy argument can justify the right to terminate the foetus in utero when

Anya, because at that stage, she doesn't need to terminate in order to exercise her right to bodily autonomy. She could induce. It is not whether or not the foetus is alive that is affecting her right to autonomy so why should she have the right to terminate the foetus? What is the reason that justifies the actual termination of the foetus rather than just inducing?

Sakura, "pregnancy related complications, usually connected to the labour. You're asking women to risk this for a baby they didn't even want?"

For the abortion to term argument we are talking about late term abortions. They are going to have to deliver a full term foetus.

You're making a few assumptions about 'blame' etc but in the interest of sticking to the subject, I won't bother addressing them in great detail. Let's just say that, no I don't just 'blame' the woman or think that the man has a right to come wherever he chooses and leave it at that.

thebody, their own body.

Garlic, "If - as we both expect - the changed law would lead to very little change in outcomes, why not change it? "

Should we change the laws for infanticide as well then? I mean, not many people would kill a baby but the ones who do must have a good reason for doing so.

I still haven't figured out why people are saying abortion is required for a woman to exercise bodily autonomy. Why isn't induction good enough? Giving birth does not mean you have to be a mother.

Garlic, all those things could happen which would make it difficult if you already had children but it wouldn't justify you killing them.

Well said Garlic!

Sorry, not sure what happened to the first post to you...

Garlic, I agree with others that the current abortion law is disabilist.

But this is about whether the woman's bodily autonomy argument can justify the right to terminate the foetus in utero when there is an alternative possibility - induction.

The doctrine - why are you talking about 30 weeks? People are saying that they support the idea of abortion to term ie 37 weeks+.

Sure, but if abortion is legal to term then it's legal at any point between 24 and 37+ Weeks.

Bumbley, it might help readers of this thread if you were to clarify your position on TheBabyFacedAssassin's situation. She has posted that she's in great pain from her pregnancy, and will give birth to a suffering baby who won't live more than a day or two.
Do you agree with the laws of her country, which doesn't allow abortion?