Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want autonomy over my body.

999 replies

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 16:12

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?

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 16:51

Yes, and at 37+ weeks*, induction is a possibility that would allow the woman to exercise her right to bodily autonomy without having to terminate the foetus. What is the reason for allowing her to terminate then?

*(or even earlier because induction can be carried out before then for other reasons but let's not muddy the waters)

5madthings · 26/04/2014 16:54

Induction can be carried out earlier but it is not am easy process and very likely to lead to a c c section.

If they are not trying to deliver a live baby they are more options for pain relief and for the amount of drugs used to induce etc and less chance of a c section.

At what point bumbley would you insist on induction resulting in a live birth over a termination?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 26/04/2014 16:55

And the point remains: if the cervix isn't ready, induction at "foetal safe" levels even at term often fails. So really a lot of "inductions" under your "why not induce instead" would be c-sections, harming the mother, or would involve drugs at a level likely to harm the foetus.

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 16:57

Why Garlic, what does my opinion of one specific poster's circumstances have to do with a thread about using the bodily autonomy argument to justify an abortion to term for non-medical reasons?

I think you're just trying to stir up another argument so you can distract from the fact that you can't actually come up with a reason why it has to be abortion rather than termination. Noted.

5madthings · 26/04/2014 16:59

Even induction in an 'overdue' preg is not easy even when the cervix is ready, I was induced with all five and my cervix was 3-4cm dilated and soft etc and they were able to break my waters but with number five I still ended up on the drip and had to be monitored carefully.

Induction has much higher risks.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 26/04/2014 17:05

Thanks 5mad - I wasn't sure I was making myself clear!

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 17:05

5mad, I already said in my last post to you that I haven't thought through the logistics yet. I'm just trying to understand people's arguments for term abortions when induction is a possibility. If we take 37+ weeks (full term pregnancy) and people are saying that they support abortion right up to term then what is the justification for abortion rather than induction at that stage?

No Doctrine, at 37+ weeks induction is perfectly possible using safe levels of drugs of drugs for the foetus.

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 17:06

Induction has higher risks than what? Natural birth or full term abortion?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 26/04/2014 17:07

What if it fails? Do you increase the level of drugs to unsafe levels for the foetus, or do you perform unwanted surgery on the mother?

GarlicAprilShowers · 26/04/2014 17:07

Why Garlic? - dear me, you do sound desperate!

It has everything to do with your energetic anti-choice campaign across at least three threads. On the last one, you made it clear that you oppose abortion under all circumstances. Newer visitors should be as informed about your opinion as they are about mine.

I've argued my reasoning clearly across two of these threads, I believe. The fact that you pick & choose which of my posts to acknowledge is your problem, not mine.

AnyaKnowIt · 26/04/2014 17:08

she doesn't need to terminate in order

I don't care about need, it about the want.

GarlicAprilShowers · 26/04/2014 17:10

Induction has higher risks than both natural birth and full term abortion.

If you don't know that, you're supremely under-qualified to argue for legislation controlling the bodies of pregnant women.

GarlicAprilShowers · 26/04/2014 17:14

Here you go, educate yourself :)

Risks of induction

Cascade of intervention

But, yes, the core issue is that pregnant women should be able to decide for themselves.

5madthings · 26/04/2014 17:14

Induction has much higher risks of intervention resulting in a c section.

The rate of c sections in pre Terry inductions is very high, if they didn't have to stick to guidelines 're levels of drugs and pain relief etc they would have more options. Therefore not having to resort to c section. Why should a woman have to incur these higher risks in order to keep an unwanted baby alive?

MexicanSpringtime · 26/04/2014 17:17

The disablist argument is not well thought out, IMHO. One thing is to support people with disabilities, another thing is to force a woman to have a disabled child. And I am not talking against disabled children, but how would, for example, a poor single mother without a support network and in the face of a disappearing welfare system look after a severely disabled child and be able to give said child the quality of life that every responsable person would want to give their child?

5madthings · 26/04/2014 17:19

Induction has higher risks than termination and than natural birth yes.

Believe me I tried everything to avoid induction. I went to three weeks overdue with ds3 to try and avoid it. I was very lucky that for no 2, 3 And 4 I didn't need the drip. With number one I almost ended up with a c section as they discovered I was allergic to the prostin gel used to induce. With no 5 dd was badly positioned so I needed the drip, thankfully that worked well at a low dose, it often does not leading to c section.

The problems with induction are well known, at least when there are no concerns re well being of the fetus they can simply concentrate on making the process as painfree as possible for the mother.

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 17:29

TheDoctrine(and 5mad), failure of induction would introduce a new argument in relation to bodily autonomy but initially why not support the idea of induction rather than termination? Some of you have admitted that you don't feel comfortable with the idea, so what not support the alternative if it is possible?

Garlic, I'm pretty sure most of the posters on this thread know that I am pro-life and don't need a reminder. They've been on the same threads as you. This thread is to do with using bodily autonomy to justify abortion to term for any reason. Even pro-choicers on the thread have said that they disagree with the concept. You haven't been able to justify your position at all so now you're trying to deflect the attention to me again. Why are you trying to derail the thread?

Anya, but wanting something does't justify it. You are using the autonomy argument to justify the idea of abortion to term but if there is a way to exercise autonomy without termination then what is the justification for the termination?

Garlic, I know a bit about induction, thanks. Do you have any link to show that it carries a great risk that full term abortion?

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 17:33

5mad, why are you talking about pre-term again? I said 37+ weeks which is considered full term.

Mexican, it's because it puts more value on the life of a healthy foetus than one with a disability.

5madthings · 26/04/2014 17:33

Are you suggesting they try induction and if it doesn't work then terminate? Seriously and at what point do they decide enough has been tried) the woman has been through enough and allow her to terminate rather than continue to a c section. You do realise this process would also distress the fetus as well?

5madthings · 26/04/2014 17:33

I was talking about post term not pre term. Both are risky for induction.

AnyaKnowIt · 26/04/2014 17:39

Anya, but wanting something does't justify it. You are using the autonomy argument to justify the idea of abortion to term but if there is a way to exercise autonomy without termination then what is the justification for the termination?

Who says she needs to justify? If she decides that she wants to abort then that reason alone should be good enough.

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 17:40

5amd, I said it would raise the autonomy argument again - in relation to justification for termination rather than induction. We know this is an entirely theoretical discussion anyway because the law isn't going to change but I'm just trying to figure out how people can personally justify abortion to term if there is an alternative. Or perhaps it is the fact that it is theoretical that allows people to support it at all.

bumbleymummy · 26/04/2014 17:42

Anya, so you're not using the bodily autonomy argument to justify abortion to term then?

5madthings · 26/04/2014 17:44

Because a woman already has a choice to refuse interventions in Labour such as forceps or a c section even if it results in the death of the fetus. I could have simply refused induction completely. So why if a woman wants to terminate should she suddenly be obliged to try induction to deliver a live baby if she doesn't want to and again how would you decide when it had Bern tried enough?

At what stage gestation are you thinking this would be suitable for? Just 37 wks + even once overdue induction carries much higher risks than normal Labour. Why should a woman be forced to consent to this?

AnyaKnowIt · 26/04/2014 17:45

Does it matter?