Foetus' right to life vs women's bodily autonomy

[AmberTheCat]

I've just been reading a paper written by a friend of a friend, arguing that a foetus should be seen as having the same right to life as a postpartum human, because there are no lines that can be drawn between a foetus and someone post-birth that couldn't also be drawn between two postpartum humans. He added a note to say that clearly there is a question of how this right to life relates to women's autonomy, but that this wasn't something he was addressing in this paper.

Given that this is surely THE question, can you help me refine my arguments for the primacy of bodily autonomy? My instinctive view is that I can't see any way of denying that a foetus is a human being, or at least has the potential to become a human being, depending on how developed it is, but that the decision of whether or not to allow that (potential) human to grow inside her must still always remain the woman's. I'm quite out of touch with the thinking around this, though, so would welcome pointers.

Thanks!

[CoteDAzur]

"Thank goodness we have ethics committees to decide these matters on an individual basis. You simply cannot have blanket rules that apply to all cases here. "

Whyever not?

What seems to be so special about one fetus as opposed to another, from where you are sitting?

[pommedeterre]

Thank goodness for having someone else to make our decisions for us you mean unreal? That's good really given that we are only women and incapable of independent thought around our own bodies and fertility. Poor little women.

For fucks sake.

I still can't get over people with actual vaginas thinking these things.

[Anniegetyourgun]

What made the Irish case so particularly ludicrous was that there was no moral ambiguity, because the foetus was doomed either way. It was dying, there was no way of keeping it alive in utero or ex, but because it wasn't actually quite dead yet no-one would take it out to save its mother's life (and her potential to have other, viable babies in future). A young woman dead, her husband widowed, their families devastated, all for a principle that the theoretical right to life of an unborn baby, which actually stood no chance of being born as a living person at all, must be protected. Protected from what, you may ask? From a decision its mother might have made if a whole bunch of circumstances had been entirely different, I suppose. Call the legislation a misguided blunt instrument with its heart in the right place if you must - I wouldn't.

[microferret]

Basically, even if the foetus has full personhood rights, its right to life STILL shouldn't trump the right of the mother to her bodily autonomy. With actual, born, living, breathing humans, bodily autonomy of an individual (dead or alive) whose blood or organs they may need for survival ALWAYS COMES FIRST. That is the way it should be. If another person needs a part of my physical form to survive, I have the right to refuse consent for my body to be used, even if I am dead. Why should it be any different for an expectant woman, particularly considering that a foetus, unlike a person on a waiting list for a heart, kidney or lung transplant, is not even conscious of its own existence in any meaningful way?

I'll tell you why. Because of patriarchal misogyny and the desire to control women by punishing them for having sex, that's why.

[CaptChaos]

Sometimes the woman's bodily autonomy trumps the baby's life, sometimes it doesn't.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Except of course that the potential person's life never trumps, or should never trump the born person's life.

It's really simple. Either you trust women or you don't. If you trust women, the only logical thing to do is to allow them to make decisions about their bodily autonomy at all points during pregnancy. If you don't then, then you legislate to put limits on women's bodily autonomy, which is the situation we have now. It is a basic distrust of women's decision making capabilities during pregnancy, and not out of any real concern for the unborn.

Ethics committees worked so well for the woman in Ireland, didn't they? Does anyone know how she or the child she was forced to carry are doing?

[unrealhousewife]

Thank goodness we have ethics committees to decide these matters on an individual basis. You simply cannot have blanket rules that apply to all cases here. Sometimes the woman's bodily autonomy trumps the baby's life, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on a lot of factors, there are always grey areas in life but infuriatingly, religion does not see grey.

[Bifauxnen]

sigh on this thread.

[Bifauxnen]

I agree, some brilliant posts. But ye gods and little fishes! I've seen some shit spouted by Larry but his posts not his threads... I've no words.

[OutsSelf]

Well, catching up with that thread took fucking ages.

Some brilliant posts here, Capt, Petula, SGB, Buffy, and loads of others

If you can't see the difference between a 30 week foetus in utero and a 30 week post partum foetus then you've pretty much revealed yourself blind to the living human body, the woman, enveloping the former. Which pretty much sums up the position of forced birthers.

[microferret]

My favourite explanation of bodily autonomy vs foetal right to life goes thus:

Say you are dying of blood loss and need an urgent blood transfusion, and I am the only available match in the immediate vicinity. I could give you a transfusion, but I choose not to. I know this will result in your death, but I am legally and morally allowed to make this choice - that to decide what happens to my own body, even if the life of another depends on my decision. This is a legitimate exercise of my bodily autonomy.

Say I am in a car crash during which I sustain head injuries which render me braindead. All my other organs - heart, liver, kidneys etc - are unharmed and could be used for transplants that would save the lives of others - but I have opted out of the organ donation programme. Again, although my decision will result in letting others die, it is my decision to make. Nobody can contest it. I get to decide what happens to my body and organs even after I am dead. This is another legitimate exercise of bodily autonomy.

When anti-choicers try to insist that a foetus' right to life is greater than that of a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, they are trying to give a foetus more rights than that of an ordinary living person, who would not be able to demand the use of another person's body - and they are essentially giving a pregnant woman less rights than a corpse.

If someone has already posted a similar line of reasoning then I apologise - I couldn't be arsed to read through 23 pages of comments first. I'd also like to state that I take no credit for this argument, it isn't mine, I found it on a wonderful blog somewhere here on the interwebz and have used it in many debates on this issue since.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

That is absolutely not what I meant, and you know it. And the suffering of women across the world who are living with being unable to access safe legal abortions or decent maternity care is real. That you consider it all hypothetical speaks volumes.

But please, do fuck off.

[PetulaGordino]

"abortion should always be available if there is a serious health risk to the woman"

there is always a serious health risk to the woman with every pregnancy

[larrygrylls]

This is my last post on this thread as there is nothing really to add.

Buffy,

'Yes, but there's no frickin' balance with women's bodily autonomy, is there? And you don't risk death, disability or psychosis through these restrictions.'

'Your unwillingness (or inability) to engage with this question is quite illustrative of the problem we're having here.'

I have fully engaged with this and said abortion should always be available if there is a serious health risk to the woman.

IfYourHoppy,

'As sensitively as I can, I would like to point out that your mother was going to die. She was unable to speed up that process (I'm assuming unable to do it herself). But she still died.'

Yes, but you are also going to die so what does it matter if your lifetime choices are reduced? We all die in the end but that does not mean that we should have to suffer in the interim. It is funny that a (real, not hypothetical) woman's suffering seems so easy for you to write off as 'oh well, she was going to die and she died'. By the way, it is surprisingly hard to procure one's own death in a painless yet certain way.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

As sensitively as I can, I would like to point out that your mother was going to die. She was unable to speed up that process (I'm assuming unable to do it herself). But she still died. Having a baby that you do not want, being forced to continue with a pregnancy that you do not want, is not the same. You have to live with that afterwards.

Except you do not. Because this will never happen to you.

[larrygrylls]

'What about if a panel of experts decided whether a man was allowed freedom of movement within society, because a proportion of men maim and kill?'

Well again, there is a balance here. I have freedom of movement but I am not allowed to carry certain kinds of knives, even if my intention is entirely honourable. My rights are restricted because some people may abuse them.

[larrygrylls]

'Really Larry, when was the last time someone voted over your right to make decisions over your own health (as a mental sound adult), that might affect your long term physical and mental health?'

As my mother passed away recently and did not get the choice of euthanasia that she wanted badly, I will pick that as the example. And there are no competing rights in this instance. I believe that the house of lords had a vote on this recently.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

*mentally sound, even.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

Really Larry, when was the last time someone voted over your right to make decisions over your own health (as a mental sound adult), that might affect your long term physical and mental health?

[larrygrylls]

'So you trust that women will vote in the way you think, but don't trust that they wouldn't choose to have an abortion at 39 weeks, just for funsies?

We should not be voting on women's rights over their own bodies. Full stop.'

If you don't like living in this democracy, leave it, or campaign to change the voting system. Rights and responsibilities for all areas, including all of our bodies, are decided this way. To date, every other way of making laws has proved an awful lot worse.

[vezzie]

"slid down a loo roll"

Hiding thread.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

So you trust that women will vote in the way you think, but don't trust that they wouldn't choose to have an abortion at 39 weeks, just for funsies?

We should not be voting on women's rights over their own bodies. Full stop.

[larrygrylls]

Or, with regard to your paperclip/staple example, could I put paperclips that I have just slid down a loo roll into the same box as the other paperclips, or should I now regard them as essentially separate entities?