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, are you using the bodily autonomy argument here or not?

And I have asked you, why does it matter?

Because you seem to flit from 'the woman has the right to do what she wants with the foetus because it is inside her' (bodily autonomy) to 'the woman can do whatever she wants regardless of whether or not it is to exercise her autonomy' (not true for anything else). So either you are arguing for bodily autonomy or you are arguing for something that there is no precedent for in any other area.

So either you are arguing for bodily autonomy or you are arguing for something that there is no precedent for in any other area

And thats a problem because?

honestly, would no-one bat an eyelid if a heavily pregnant woman told you she was having an abortion just because she wanted to go on holiday?

Surely the reason you support abortion to term is not that it's 'ok' but that it's better than the alternative?

There won't be any stats about the risks to a mother of a 37 week abortion via induction vs a 37 week pregnancy that is induced because no country carries out significant numbers of the former.

I can tell you that if a medical professional is concerned with preserving the life and health of two bodies throughout a procedure rather than focussing on one, there is more likely to be more impact on the mother in the former scenario. You've been given examples of this by way of volume of pain relief, strength of induction drugs, general anaesthetic use. I will adduce other practices which are used in some countries in induction abortions, for example injecting the foetal sac with saline. I am not a medic and don't know the purpose of this step (perhaps it causes the uterus to react and contract) but I assume it has been introduced as part of the procedure after testing of different methods.

It's logical to say that a procedure with various options to take it to conclusion is better for the recipient than one with only one option - foetal safe level of drugs.

Vampyre that's exactly it for me - because the alternative is unthinkable.

Your position and mine, bumbley, are completely relevant to this thread because we represent the two extremes of the debate. People with middling views usually find it helpful to hear both sides. Your obfuscation of your own anti-choice position is manipulative - and you have been obfuscating it on this thread, as shown by several posters saying they don't know your beliefs.

I will bite again at this: trying to figure out how people justify that position to themselves.

1. The only justification I actually need is that every woman should be free to decide what to do with her own body and anything in it.

But ... I understand that you want me to abandon [1] in favour of "what about the poor foetus" considerations, so I shall attempt it.

1. Life isn't always fair.
2. No foetus is autonomous until it's outside its mother's body, the cord is cut and it has functional air sacs/lungs.
3. Babies may have autonomous existence as above, but not be properly autonomous as they need intense medical intervention to breathe, eat, and survive.
4. Because life isn't fair, I may be looking at an adult woman - fully autonomous in every way - whose autonomy will be compromised if she is forced to birth a child.
5. Because life isn't fair, I may be asking whether I'd choose her autonomy over that of a dependent infant, who may or may not become fully autonomous at some time in the future.
6. Because life isn't fair, I choose the mother. She already has a fully-developed life. She may have other children. I can't guarantee the child will turn out healthy, happy and productive.
7. Interventions can cause lifelong disabilities for mother and child. I choose not to risk increasing the burdens on a vulnerable woman.
8. It's wrong to subject a fully conscious, aware and autonomous person to unwanted medical procedures.

10. You may summarise this as "Grown adults have more bodily autonomy than unborn or recently born babies."

Hope that helps?

it is countess, for both the woman and the baby. I would think though, that there are very, very few women who would actually terminate at such a late stage for something like that, god knows an early abortion is enough of a struggle, at least it was for me.

(Or what Doctrine just said more clearly!)

Anya, because why stop there? Why not argue for a woman's right to kill her baby if she decides that she doesn't want to be a mother?

TheDoctrine, so how can you say that it is safer then? The mother's life will be saved before the foetus' if there are complications anyway. Yes, I addressed the points about GA etc earlier. As I said, this is all hypothetical anyway so if we can say that, hypothetically, it would be possible to induce the woman at 37 weeks which would result in the uncomplicated delivery of a live baby then what is the argument for allowing her to terminate instead?

Countess, but didn't you say you support the law as it is rather than the proposal to allow abortion to term for any reason?

Just catching up.

Bumbley - you are asking posters to make justification for their position because you are trying to understand. We are all still waiting on you to share this same information about your reasoning.

Anya, because why stop there? Why not argue for a woman's right to kill her baby if she decides that she doesn't want to be a mother?
Why do you keep arguing by extension? It's ridiculous.

Garlic I thought you put it really well, I'm with you.

No, actually Garlic, it still doesn't address the question that if the mother can exercise her right to bodily autonomy and chooses not to continue with a full term pregnancy and it is possible for her to exercise her right to bodily autonomy without terminating the foetus (And we can go down the hypothetical route here), then what is the justification for terminating the foetus. Aside from some of Maid's posts earlier irt genetics etc, none of you have really attempted to answer that.

"No foetus is autonomous until it's outside its mother's body, the cord is cut and it has functional air sacs/lungs."

Not all people share that view. Some people think that the baby gains its rights as soon as it is born.

I can make a logical deduction that it's safer.

There will never be the stats you request, for obvious reasons.

And it's not just about saving the mother's life - clearly, for example, the procedure of induction will be more painful for the mother if the type of pain relief is restricted; clearly it will be more distressing for the mother if low levels of induction drugs need to be used and several attempts made vs one with a higher level of drug. Clearly if one option currently used is injection into the foetal sac and that option isn't available, the doctors have fewer options.

You may, and probably do, consider these things "minor" or "a price worth paying" but please do not pretend that they don't exist so that you can continue to insist on false equivalence.

The newer research is starting to show that it looks like the case is not until the cord is cut. If that is the case, then what people choose to believe it irrelevant.

Thanks, Dawn.

Yes, Doctrine, that false equivalence keeps coming back!

It is relentless Garlic and Doctrine. We have been here many times before.

"I can make a logical deduction that it's safer."

Based on what? Both require the delivery of a full term foetus.

RE pain relief - as pointed out earlier, late term abortions are usually carried out under GA (Marie Stopes) and women can give birth under GA as well.

Anyway, we were talking hypothetically. So, hypothetically, if a woman could exercise her right to bodily autonomy without terminating the foetus, why should she be allowed to terminate the foetus?

Dawn, what research is that?

Extending an argument is not irrelevant, it helps to work out the perimeters of what is thought. And to help find inconsistencies and things that don't make rational sense. It also helps to work out what you really the is right and why.

baby, you know that I believe that life starts at implantation so I'm not going to agree with a right to abort to term argument. However, I can happily say that if it was hypothetically possible to remove an implanted foetus and implant it in another woman then I would support that idea. I'm failing to understand why people at the other end of the spectrum wouldn't accept a hypothetical alternative to terminating a pregnancy where the woman can still exercise her right to bodily autonomy. Why the need to terminate regardless?

Based on what I said in my posts, which I am not repeating simply for you to ignore again.

The RCOG link from yesterday.

Because bumbley that is an extended argument, again, we are not discussing removal and reimplanting. We are discussing a woman's right to bodily autonomy, you however keep dragging it back and asking the same questions time and again, not because you require an answer but I suspect in the hopes of tripping somebody up.

I think it's fairly unbelievable that people are all 'ffs' about killing a newborn but think termination to term is absolutely fine!

Garlic I think your 'what about the poor foetus' indicates you couldn't care less about the foetus which is surprising becauses further up the thread I thought you were open to really thinking about things like when does one become conscious/ feel pain etc

Your argument about life not being fair could be applied to the mother as much as the baby.

Number 7 of your points without the last sentence is the one I think actually makes the most sense and I imagine is the honest reason that most people support abortion. All of the legal justifications I imagine are usually really about this.

I still think it needs defending but I think it is far more honest actually than all the legal speak about bodily autonomy (not that I'm calling anyone a liar!)

Oh and yes if bumbley believes that life starts at conception I'm also happy to question that (and do) but on this thread it is not her coming accross as defensive, snide or manipulative.