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!

Larry you have said a number of times on this thread how most women do not want abortion on demand until birth because they care about the foetuses

Many woman are appalled by late term terminations no one likes the idea of a woman having to go through this but ask a woman if she wants laws to decide what happens to her own body and that she has no choice in you will get a different answer

Not wanting to carry on with a pregnancy or feeling it is not right is as powerful feeling as wanting too and both should be treated with the same respect, it is not something you can decide on before you are in that situation as both are about what the woman feels is right for her own body

'Many woman are appalled by late term terminations no one likes the idea of a woman having to go through this but ask a woman if she wants laws to decide what happens to her own body and that she has no choice in you will get a different answer'

If you ask most women whether women should be allowed late term abortions merely because they want one (which, without pussyfooting around, is what most of you mean by bodily autonomy) and most women would say no.

I suspect if you posted this thread in AIBU or 'CHAT', which is far more representative of the general female community, you would get very different kinds of responses from female posters.

I think one cannot divorce rights from responsibilities.

The argument about full bodily autonomy is surely undermined by the fact that, by consenting to PIV sex as a woman, one compromises one's bodily autonomy by agreeing to a practice which might result in a conception. As soon as you have PIV sex, as a woman, you compromise your bodily autonomy by allowing a penis containing sperm capable of fertilising an egg into your body.

The point about rape is that this is forced, you have no choice in the fact that your bodily autonomy is compromised. You don't have a choice about whether a penis loaded with sperm is put in you. If you consent to sex, you do have that choice.

So, joined up thinking would suggest that arguments about bodily autonomy start much, much earlier - about the right and ability to say no; about a broader understanding of sexual fulfilment, rather than PIV; about understanding that every act of sex can lead to a baby and thinking about bodily autonomy prior to intercourse. Informed and enthusiastic consent should be not just about sex itself, but about the most logical consequence of that. That is an argument for men as well as women.

I am not trying to make a pro-life argument, but trying to articulate why I find the argument about full bodily autonomy as articulated here problematic. As a feminist and a pacifist, I find it hard to accept a position where preserving my bodily autonomy means having the right to terminate a pregnancy to term. Surely, preserving my bodily autonomy begins much, much earlier than that. If I cannot preserve my bodily autonomy without withdrawing the chance of life from another human being, the question is why not?

Romeyroo... is what you're saying basically that, if you agree to PIV sex, you're agreeing to becoming pregnant and that if you do become pregnant you then have no rights over your bodily autonomy, because you consented to PIV sex and thus surrendered any future rights to bodily autonomy with respect to that 'dose' of sperm?

Does that only become the case if you have used no contraception? Or is it also the case when you have used contraception which has failed?

Romeyroo after experiencing a hideous first trimester, I fully support any woman's right to terminate a pregnancy purely because of the physical impact of that pregnancy on her body, regardless of whether she consented to the pg in the first place. At no point was I close to dying, but I had a growth inside me that was hugely compromising my quality of life. Any other collection of cells, that it would be possible to remove without harming me, would have been a serious medical concern because of the presence of that group of cells compromising my ability to eat, drink, exercise, or otherwise function. The growth would have been removed with some urgency I imagine.
I'm not sure what point you are making about responsibilities - if a woman consents to an act which may make her pregnant, she therefore consents to any physical, emotional, or other affliction the pg might thrust on her? But how can you consent to something if you don't know what it is - the experience of each individual pg I mean? The consent has to be ongoing surely, not a 'one roll of the dice' situation and then you're tied to that for 9 months?

CaptChaos, no, I am not saying that you are agreeing to becoming pregnant, I am saying you are accepting the risk that you might become pregnant. The risk depends on whether you are using contraception or not.

No, I don't think this means you surrender all and any rights to bodily autonomy if you do become pregnant; but I do think, having accepted the risk, you do have some responsibility towards the pregnancy which may result.

As soon as you have PIV sex, as a woman, you compromise your bodily autonomy by allowing a penis containing sperm capable of fertilising an egg into your body

PIV is neither necessary nor sufficient for pregnancy. PIV can cause insemination which can result in fertilisation.

Pregnancy can only be caused by implantation.

That being said, I do think that PIV is problematic and the fact that we're socialised to believe that sex=PIV is massively problematic.

The risk depends on whether you are using contraception or not

Policing this would be impossible.

having accepted the risk, you do have some responsibility towards the pregnancy which may result

How long does the responsibility last - up to the point of delivery? Or until the child can live independently?

Pomeral, I understand what you are saying; I have been pregnant five times, three survived to term and the physical toll on my body has been immense; and the pregnancies were all different. I think the issue for me is that your group of cells is a potential child in my head.

Ok, that makes no sense to me at all.

As women carry all the risks when it comes to pregnancy, 'accepting the risk that you might become pregnant' seems to be a harsh punishment for women who were merely having sex.

Are you saying that only women who use contraception which has failed should, in your philosophy, be 'allowed' further bodily autonomy? Do women who, for whatever reason, indulge in the sex of their choice without contraception just have to suck it up and continue any pregnancy to term?

What responsibility do you think women should have toward a pregnancy that results from PIV sex?

What you've written seems to have more than a scent of removing women's agency, woman blaming and a lack of belief in women's agency.

I am certainly not suggesting policing who is using contraception lildupin; I rather meant that our own personal judgements about risk are predicated on whether we are using contraception/what time of the month it is etc. In so far as women tend to weigh these issues up as part of their thinking about consent.

Implantation and fertilisation rely on the presence of sperm. Sperm usually gets there by PIV sex.

I am certainly not suggesting policing who is using contraception

I don't understand why you mentioned contraception, then.

captchaos, I tend to think agency is a term which is used to suggest that women are empowered even though there are massive inequalities persisting. People use the term agency for those with less power meaning they are able to negotiate inequalities, it does not mean changing them. No-one ever talks routinely about male agency (they don't need to).

I think my point is not anti-abortion per se; but that abortion preserves the status quo - it gets rid of the pesky consequences of sex, rather than challenging the attitudes which suggest that women be available for sex and willing to have sex, that sex should be PIV etc. It means that equality is actually women becoming more like men, rather than society adapting to support women as distinct and different. The fact is that women do get pregnant through sex, intentionally or not. Why is it that the answer to this is getting rid of the fetus rather than only having PIV if you want a baby (leaving aside medical issues)?

lildupin, I mentioned contraception in response to a question from Captchaos which talked about contraception. My original comment did not mention it.

You don't compromise your bodily autonomy by consenting to PIV sex - you've consented, and you continue to exert your bodily autonomy by either continuing to consent or withdrawing your consent.

I agree with you though that PIV sex as the only end goal in terms of sexual experience is problematic

"I think the issue for me is that your group of cells is a potential child in my head."

If a group of cells inside your body is a potential child to you then I will treat that specific group of cells as a potential child, because if you are saying "I want to support this organism inside my body to full term and give birth to it" then you should be supported in that in every way. If you felt the reverse, then I would be fully supporting that too.

If a group of cells inside your body is a potential child to you then I will treat that specific group of cells as a potential child, because if you are saying "I want to support this organism inside my body to full term and give birth to it" then you should be supported in that in every way

I agree with this.

petula, I agree about consent being an on-going process. I think where I am stumbling is that the process of consent to PIV sex is between a man and a woman. The decision to continue a pregnancy (rightly) lies with the woman, but the fetus, who is ultimately the most affected if the pregnancy is terminated, has no voice at all. I would struggle with a feminism that did not give voice to the most vulnerable.

A woman can make some informed decision about becoming pregnant; a fetus by nature of being a fetus can't. The problem is that this informed decision is made in the context of a culture whereby PIV is seen as the norm, and women are expected to be sexually active or called frigid/prudes etc..

I just posted a link on my thread about this very thing, foetal rights vs bodily autonomy. The situation in Ireland is that a foetus does have rights and it has had tragic circumstances. Savita Halappanavar died because of it.

I would struggle with a feminism that did not give voice to the most vulnerable

I struggle with the idea that feminism is expected to act in the interests of every vulnerable entity.

Funny how many feminists feel that the consequence to a man of sex should be to accept the risk of taking responsibility for a child for 18 years but feel that risk should be 100% mitigated for women.

As far as I'm aware, feminism is concerned with the liberation of women from oppression. While we as feminists can have regard for and be concerned about other vulnerable groups, I have difficulty with putting those other vulnerable groups needs ahead of the needs of women.

I understand and broadly agree with the PIV arguments and how it is a fairly harmful (to women) sexual norm, but I also see a level of almost 'punishment' of women who follow this norm, should they become pregnant against their wishes if abortion isn't an option.

Apart from the first paragraph, I'm still thinking this through, but I see where you're coming from better now Romeyroo

"the fetus, who is ultimately the most affected if the pregnancy is terminated, has no voice at all"

Of course the fetus has no voice. To have a voice, you need a thought in your head and, at the very least, the intent to verbalise it.

go ahead larry post is there any situation where women should not have total control over their bodies you may get a few rabid pro lifers agree with you

Give no reason as to why you are asking the question as it impossible for most of us to be able put ourselves in that situation

I have know previous pro life women have a termination as the pregnancy felt so very wrong, women who have been through ivf who nearly went ahead with a termination as she felt so ill women women who felt they would never ever have a termination but once in a situation where they felt they could not carry on with the pregnancy this thankfully was a choice for them

It is not something that women plan to do but once in a situation where for them it is only option they do we are not happy to go through this but I for one am thankful I have that choice as it is my body