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!

larrygrylls - no it doesn't. Don't be pathetic and lazy. It is an example which proves how far a foetus is from having full citizen rights and how dangerous carrying a foetus can be for a women.

And yes I am pro both abortion and assisted dying.

The concept if waking up to find something growing in your stomach is a ridiculous one.

Not really, it happens.

More realistically, I am pro abortion on demand, up to a point, and up to term based on existing uk law.

You are either pro abortion on demand or not, you are not

So, firstly I would have Ian Brady removed before he was sentient and, later, I suspect, if psychopathy were scannable, I could still have him aborted on the basis of handicap.

And your reason for removal would be? Your convenience?

so up to x number of weeks a woman can be trusted to make the decision, but after that she can't be

Petula,

That is correct. Up to a certain point, the woman's right is the only meaningful right. Beyond that point her rights have to be balanced against the foetus's.

As I asked above, would you be happy to give birth to a live baby at this point rather than have an abortion? Either way, the woman's autonomy is preserved.

Some women would prefer to continue an unwanted pregnancy and have the baby adopted. That is their right if they choose to do so. Some women might choose to continue a pregnancy even if the foetus has something wrong with it and will not survive the birth, or will only live for a very short time after being born - again, it';s up to them to choose. I did once read a very sad story of a woman pregnant with a foetus that had some fault with its internal organs (picked up at the 20-week scan) which meant it could only survive for a few minutes after being born: she chose to continue the pregnancy because she wanted to have those few minutes - and also she wanted her child to be born alive so its birth would be registered. Again, I would entirely support such a choice.
And I support assisted dying, as well. However, unlike a lot of anti-choice rightwing arseholes, I oppose capital punishment.

Incidentally if a woman's right to bodily autonomy is not legally protected there are implications for practices other than abortion. Women can be held criminally responsible for choices made during pregnancy which may harm the foetus like drinking alcohol or taking drugs and they can be forced to submit to diagnostic tests and treatments for the foetus's benefit.

But what happens to that live baby larrygrylls if a woman who wanted an abortion is forced to give birth? Who looks after it? The woman that didn't want it?

Didn't you know pomme they will go to all those thousands of people queuing up to adopt children!

They are all adopted by, and cared for carefully no expense spared, by pro life activists, didn't you know?

Lol

The two posts above strike me as not wanting bodily autonomy but wanting the authority to destroy a human capable of independent life. I don't think killing babies is really up for debate, regardless of who looks after them.

Yes that's right, chaos and I want to kill babies.

Don't be such a silly billy Larry!

If an adult human attempts to kill another one, or does kill, then they are punished. If an adult assaults another they are punished

This is it in a nutshell for me.

If you want the foetus to be granted personhood, fine: it can be a person. If any person tries to use my body against my will I have the right to appeal to the state to make them stop and the state has a duty to help me.

If you want the foetus to be a person, it can be a person: a person who does not have my permission to use any part of my body, and who the state therefore has a duty to either remove for me or to permit me to remove myself in whatever way I see fit.

Seven and I want to kill babies then do we?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

And what vicmackie said. Although I don't think logic works on people who are incapable of rational thought.

I don't think killing babies is really up for debate, regardless of who looks after them.

Do make your mind up, dear. You said earlier that you support abortion on demand up until some magic date where the foetus becomes more foetusy. Have you now changed your stance? Are you now a full time forced birther?

"would you be happy to give birth to a live baby at this point rather than have an abortion? Either way, the woman's autonomy is preserved."

I don't know. I'm not in that position so I can't possibly say. But I trust another woman to make her own decision based on her own circumstances and needs.

I think that Larry has a magic arbitrary cut off point in his head after which time foetuses become babies even if they are still inside someone.

I assume he is therefore lobbying for a change in the current uk law which allows abortion to term in some situations.

Capt,

You need to develop your comprehension skills. If a baby is incapable of independent life (even with medical support) I am pro abortion on demand. If it is capable of independent life outside the womb, I am against killing it. Simples'

No dear, it's not me that needs to develop anything, thanks.

It's you who needs to sit and actually think about the tripe you type before you type it.

Are foetuses not babies before 24 weeks? If not, what are they? Do magic pixies come and turn them into babies at that date?

Also, as you so eruditely mansplained earlier, even full term babies are not capable of independent life outside the womb. 24 week ones certainly aren't, ever, so again.... think about your words before you type them.

So how are you going to ascertain the exact moment at which any individual baby is capable of independent life outside the womb, without intervention and with no lasting damage. What level of help are you describing as "medical support" - many babies when they are born require help even at term or post term. Interestingly, some babies may be fine if born from weeks 38-41, say, but after that they will require assistance. Do they have a 3 week period where you would not allow abortion but after week 41 it is OK again?

Or have you got a random arbitrary cut-off point in mind. Are you actually suggesting that babies be removed at that point rather than, if they are definitely going to be born, give them more time to develop.

Expansion on your ideas would be interesting. (Although will not change my stance which is "I agree with SGB" (we need a badge ))

Actually I'm not sure what your post means at all larry.

"If a baby is incapable of independent life (even with medical support) "

So if a baby will definitely die, you think OK to abort. If not, then not.

In which case I assume you are lobbying to changes to the UK law.

Also, how long does the baby have to live. In some countries the chance that a baby might live for a few minutes is seen as reason to deny a woman an abortion.

Seven.... we're really going to have to stop meeting like this

proposition has more holes than a swiss cheese quite frankly.

The proposition "women are full human beings with a full set of human rights and must be allowed full bodily autonomy" is fairly straightforward isn't it.

Fundamentally larry, you have absolutely no say in this whatsoever.