Do you believe men and women should have equal rights - or not?

[HairyLittleCarrot]

Bear with me.

I think most people would answer "of course, how ridiculous" when faced with the question. However, on mumsnet recently I'm increasingly reading justifications for not just covert discrimination, but support for the LAW restricting the human rights of women compared to men. I've been hanging out on the FWR boards recently and it always comes as a shock when someone offers support to an infringement of women's rights.

Lots of people rarely seem to get het up about the milder inequalities - such as a man can walk topless down a street without fear of prosecution, but a woman may be considered legally indecent, or the injustice of VAT on sanitary products etc.

But the more frightening inequalities in law that exist, such as a man can possess absolute bodily autonomy but a woman may be prosecuted by virtue of the fact that she is capable of being pregnant and thus has less rights to do what she chooses with her own body. Less rights than a man.

I can understand people struggling with an ethical dilemma on complicated issues, but I can not comprehend how anyone can actually extrapolate that to defend the law upholding different rights for men and women. For me, it's like a litmus test - whatever my personal opinions on any subject, I ultimately believe that women and men should have equal rights under the law.

Not "equal, except if a woman is/does/says ..."

I'm interested to hear people defend why women should have less legal rights than men in any circumstance.

This thread illustrates a little how we seem to end up debating ethics and complications and dilemmas and nuances whilst avoiding the concrete examples where the law already removes civil liberties from women, and seeks to remove yet more, particularly in the USA, as far as I can tell.

I suppose I want to know where people stand on the erosion of women's rights in law that is actually happening. Does anyone who considers themselves 'pro-life' actually welcome the prosecution of women in cases like the Mississippi one?

I've probably asked this in the wrong topic, but I didn't fancy a deluge of depressing "she brought it on herself" comments had I posted it in chat. And it seems there are still posters in FWR who believe women should have their rights to bodily autonomy curtailed in pregnancy, so I was hoping to better understand whether they truly welcome laws curtailing womens rights in the UK too. I suppose I'm hoping that most people, even if they are uncomfortable with other people's choices, would stop short of curtailing their rights and freedoms in law. Draw the line between theory and practice. I hope.

Yes, I agree hairy.

I (no surprise here) find it really scary and depressing.

to answer your question, santanalopez, I am in support of a woman's right to end her pregnancy if she wishes, and against any law that would seek to criminalise her for doing so.

and yes, if a man can bungee jump, sky dive, take recreational drugs, ignore doctor's advice, perform body modifications, hell, chop off an ear or whatever the hell he wishes without fear of prosecution for harm to another person under the banner of his human or civil rights, then I believe a woman should have exactly the same human rights.

Do you believe a woman should have less human rights than a man? If so, exactly which ones do you believe should be taken away?

28 week foetus would gain rights purely from existing in 2013 rather than 1960?

I don't understand why you brought this up really, arguably a woman has more rights in 2013 than 1960.

If the woman declines steroids to mature the baby's lungs, it has less of an identity than if she doesn't?

Good point. In that example, I would say, no, because AFAIK steroids aren't strong enough to create lung function where there wouldn't be any naturally, they can only enhance?

Hairy I really do think there are much better arguments to support termination at any point in a pregnancy than those you have picked out. It's really quite farfetched.

Apologies, I'll endeavour to do better then, santana, and I hope you'll return the courtesy by answering my question to you earlier?

I believe all women should be entitled to do whatever they wish with their own bodies, as men currently are. I believe this regardless of whether a woman is pregnant or not. I believe this whether it entails risk or harm to themselves or not. I believe this is a human right, shared by men and women equally. I do not believe a women should ever have those rights removed in law as to do so is to confer a second class, sub-human status upon women.

I hope that's clearer.

All of my previous examples still stand, poor though they may be, as they are a natural progression of potentially risky activities which could be punishable behaviour if a pregnant woman is found to be legally guilty for manslaughter following miscarriages or stillbirths. Women are already prosecuted for drinking in pregnancy, are they not?

santana - I was talking about the foetus, not the woman.

I brought it up to see whether you think this is right?

And with steroids ... so, you're saying any measure that would only enhance chance of survival is out? So, for example, a woman can't be prosecuted for procuring abortion of a baby up to, I dunno, 30-odd weeks as it's not definitive that maintaining the pregnancy would result in viability?

But then, what would?

Viability isn't a binary state. There are a lot of factors. If you define viability as the thing that gives a foetus legal rights, you are always going to end up having to take those factors into account, which is the slippery slope to telling women what they can and can't do right down to eating healthily or considering themselves 'pre-pregnant'.

*for 'definitive' read 'definite'.

Please don't flame me here, i'm just exporing an idea - i'm thinking about how often our laws attempt to determine 'intent' and prosecute dependent on the perception of an 'intent' within an action.

I would think that if is is possible to use 'intent' as a factor in prosecuting somebody who has killed another person for example, then it would be possible to apply this to a pregnant woman.... so a woman who has a stillbirth due to not complying with current medical advice, or by having an accident climbing or biking or skiing in late pregnancy or an alcoholic who drinks heavily throughout pregnancy is not doing so with the specific intent of killing the foetus.

Personally I support the right to early abortion, and I support the right of any woman to behave as she judges fit in pregnancy, but I cannot imagine supporting a woman's right to deliberately and with that specific intent kill a foetus at 40 weeks gestation or 37 weeks... to me those foetuses at that stage in pregnancy probably should have some rights (say the right to not be deliberately killed so long as that doesn't risk the woman's right to life) then in the middle there's a grey area where the law currently stands....

I don't know how it would work legally but I think that's a crucial point, isn't it?

Because one of the really scary things about all this is women who are obviously in a horrible state, and as you say, not intending to end the pregnancy per se, but who end up doing so.

I am squeamish about near-term pregnancies too. I think pretty much anyone is, aren't they?

Sorry, really difficult to say anything more eloquent than that, about that bit of it.

Would there be many cases where a woman intentionally wants to endanger the foetus at 30+ weeks when a termination would've been legally available up to that time?

It seems like every action is a slippery slope- either no option for termination at all or a termination whenever, which makes me squeamish too.

What question was that Hairy? Also- when has a woman been prosecuted for drinking in pregnancy? I've found a few American cases.

I can see theoretically where you're coming from, but in reality, women carry babies and men don't. So there has to be differences to reflect this.

there are plenty of instances where women find themselves to be quite progressed in a pregnancy when it is discovered. If this happened post 24 weeks, and the pregnancy was not wanted, what then? What choices should that woman have?

I doubt that many woman would intentionally kill a fotetus at 30+ weeks but I think that speaking in those terms is interesting when we think about comparing it to a man who kills another man or a woman "unintentionally" - for example somebody in my city was recently convicted of death by dangerous driving by knocking a woman off her bike from behind and his sentence was 300hrs community service and a 5yr driving ban!

Hairy - surely there has to be a point at which the woman has to just give birth? If she didn't know she was pregnant until labour then few people would support her right to kill the foetus/baby during labour and nobody would support her right to kill it after birth!
An abortion at very close to term is going to be as traumatic to the woman's body as giving birth to a live baby, and probably MORE mentally traumatising.

fanny - statistically, really, really, really no.

Even right now, a tiny proportion of women in the UK take advantage of the full limit for abortion, and those who do are often terminating for medical reasons, which I think (hope?) we can probably agree is a whole different ballgame.

But the choice is limited by nature anyway. After a certain point (is it 24 weeks?) you have to give birth, so your only choice would be, well, a live birth and adoption or termination.

Btw, probably stating the obvious, but abortion after 24 weeks isn't totally illegal, it's just the reasons for it differ. You can terminate if there is serious risk to the woman's health right up to the due date, and people sometimes have to.

Cross post.

Obviously, not stating the obvious!

After 24 weeks, I believe risk to the woman's life, grave risk to her mental and physical health, and serious problems with the foetus, are the reasons considered valid, but I will check.

Being urged to consider oneself pre pregnant is one of the scarirst notions I've come across. Can't remember the details exactly, wasn't it one of those daft Republican senators in the US that promoted this?

Yep: (if you'll excuse quotation from wiki) 'The Act made abortion legal in the UK up to 28 weeks gestation. In 1990, the law was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act so that abortion was no longer legal after 24 weeks except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the woman, there was evidence of extreme fetal abnormality, or there was a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman.'

The NHS adds: 'Most abortions (around 90%) are carried out before a pregnancy reaches 13 weeks, and virtually all abortions (around 98%) are performed before 20 weeks.' (from www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx)

I'm struggling to copy and paste on my device here, but my question was in my post of 21.01, Santanalopez.

I've just read an article about hundreds of cases in the US with prosecutions related to pregnancies, often drugs or alcohol related. I'll have to swap to my computer to link.

but I'm intrigued. yes, men and women are biologically different, yes, women have pregnancies, but why do you feel it follows they should have less human rights? I don't feel this follows logically. I don't think pregnancy should involve a sacrifice of bodily rights.

YY, hairy.

As a side note, I think that by focussing on reducing women's rights, society puts women who lose much-wanted babies in a really horrible position. I was reading that before the abortion act came in, women who miscarried sometimes did get bullied by family or even medics, because people thought they might have 'done something'. These days, maybe I am ignorant, but I've never noticed anyone acting as if a miscarriage is anything but a sad, horrible experience.

I suspect that these two things are very closely related.

If we didn't treat pregnant women as if they were untrustworthy vessels for the Rights Of The Baby, there would be none of these questions about feticide.

To coin a phrase, society has a real sense of entitlement when it comes to procreation. Its not looked on as a gift or something massive that you do, just an expectation. Spoilt

LRD you are spot on about miscarriages and how for some the way things are going seems to be about opening up opportunities to blame women for the loss of their pregnancies.

As soon as Virginia state Sen. Mark Obenshain (R) won the Republican nomination for attorney general this weekend, Think Progress dug up a bill he introduced in 2009 that would have required a woman to report her miscarriage to the police within 24 hours of it happening or risk jail time. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/mark-obenshain-miscarriage-bill_n_3307578.html

hope that link works.

drat.