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!

I just usually call them "those assholes with the signs" or occasionally "Jim, my father in law." Sighhhhh.

I generally just stick with anti-abortion. I refuse to call their stance pro life. Though sometimes use less neutral terms.

I think that in all this, people still forget that even an easy pregnancy (I've had 2) is bloody hard work and dangerous (hard births both times - not great for me or the babies).

Calling it body autonomy really misses that part - that most women come out of pregnancy changed, with the seriousness of those changes ranging from death, to bigger feet, or excess weight, or varicose veins, or any one of 1000 things in between (for some reason, I've started liking the colour green for instance.. but I also ache significantly more, especially in my hands, and I have some big scars).

That's what body autonomy is - the ability to say that I don't want to risk any more damage.

"hard to see the difference between a fetus who is 8 months old and an infant delivered prematurely at 8 months...just, one you are allowed to kill and one you aren't"

Even in the vanishingly small percentage of terminations (of pregnancy) at 8 months, nobody goes out of their way to kill the fetus, unless there is a serious problem that means it is incompatible with life - such as, an undeveloped brain in its skull that was discovered at that point because the pregnant woman refused all scans up until then (as happened to someone I know).

When the fetus is viable but pregnancy can't go on for whatever reason, it is born through induction or CS and given a chance at life in an incubator. I doubt if doctors go around killing such babies, but if so, maybe the anti-abortionists on this thread should concentrate their efforts on stopping that practice rather than removing choice from women.

larry - re:

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.
"I pity how you would treat the mentally disabled."

And I pity the intellectual shortcomings inherent in equating 'mentally disabled' with what I was talking about there.

Mentally disabled people have thoughts and the intent to verbalise them. A better example would be people who remain in a vegetative state after an accident, for example.

And the fates of those people are placed in the hands of their closest relative or next of kin, who decide if and when their life should end. Just like with a fetus.

Maybe it would help to separate two parts of the issue:

1. Embryo or later fetus is not viable outside the womb. Do you believe that the woman around it must be forced to carry it to term and give birth to it?

1. Embryo or later fetus is probably viable outside the womb, if given adequate care. Do you have a problem with it being birthed at the request of the woman, and cared for in an incubator?

Strike out "embryo and later" in part 2, obviously. Just "fetus" at that stage.

I think this link is pertinent tot he argument here.

An Irish woman asked for an abortion because the pregnancy was making her suicidal. This is a right granted 01/01/14 - but she was put in to psychiatric care, she responded by going on hunger strike, she was then force fed/about to be force fed and had a Cesarian at 25 weeks.

www.rte.ie/news/2014/0816/637562-abortion-refusal/

She was an asylum seeker who has little English. She had been raped. And she was made under duress to carry the child to 25 weeks so that she could undergo major surgery to finally have it removed. The child has been taken into care, but isn't guaranteed a right to stay in Ireland because of its mother's immigration status. But it's those of us who are pro woman who are barbaric. Of course.

Cote,

I am glad you have separated the two parts of the issue, which is what I have been trying to do, with no success.

In response to your questions:

1/ No.
2/ No.

What you have proposed is pretty much my position.

By the way, I am not sure a foetus is the equivalent of being in a vegetative state. We don't know what it can think or what emotions it experiences.

larry - So you have no problem with abortion before 24 weeks, and you have no problem with a woman demanding induction or CS to remove the fetus from her body. Is your only issue with the hypothetical killing of a 8-9 month old fetus that may otherwise live outside the womb?

I doubt if this is a done. Surely, if a pregnancy needs to be terminated at that stage, the doctor performing the CS doesn't then wring the baby's neck upon birth. If that is so, I agree, babies shouldn't be killed

I believe they inject the foetus's heart with potassium chloride to kill it and then induce labour.

Yes, my only issue is with killing a sentient and potentially viable baby. I am pro abortion on demand up to 24 weeks (though 22-24 weeks is a bit grey for me).

I doubt if this is a done. Surely, if a pregnancy needs to be terminated at that stage, the doctor performing the CS doesn't then wring the baby's neck upon birth.

Abortion is never (maybe rarely) done with a C Section.

Yes, my only issue is with killing a sentient and potentially viable baby

And if it is not viable?

What about the case of a woman who has been prevented from accessing abortion before 24 weeks? Is her need any less?

I pity how you would treat the mentally disabled. In civilised societies, the most vulnerable and least able to verbalise are advocated for.

Utter bollox. You are not advocating for me. I am not 'the' anything, no group of humans should be degraded to be 'the' anything. I am a person with disabilities, at least one of them is a mental disability, it's possible I actually have three.

When the fetus is viable but pregnancy can't go on for whatever reason, it is born through induction or CS and given a chance at life in an incubator.

Since when?

Cheerful - I don't know since when. Possibly since incubators were invented?

I know of one person whose mental health during the 8th month of her pregnancy necessitated termination of her pregnancy. Baby was born by CS and whisked off to an incubator.

Quite possibly the reason why we don't hear of many babies surviving a later termination of pregnancy is that the overwhelming reason for such later terminations is a grave problem with the fetus which means it will not survive in any case. Example: I know of another person whose pregnancy was ended during the 8th month because it was discovered that the fetus had serious problems and would not have survived outside the womb. I never asked but assume that fetus was killed before delivery.

Everyone I have ever heard of who had a late termination, the fetus was most definitely killed by a few different methods. That's why I asked.

That sentence seems wrong. What I meant was, I have never heard of a late term abortion that purposely ended with a live baby. Some by accident though.

Would that be because the reason why those late-term abortions were performed is that the baby was discovered to be incompatible with life outside the womb? (Missing lungs, undeveloped brain, etc)

Unsurprising that you would end up with a dead fetus at the end of those terminations.

Very very few terminations are done at 8 or 9 months when the baby is OK.

I have hear

Fucking phone!

Heard of them happening

Heard of them happening in cases where there was an abnormality but not one incompatible with life, like Down Syndrome. Or, in the cases of the babies Kermit Gosnell was found guilty or murdering, no abnormalities at all.

I'm not in any way comparing Kermit Gosnell (and I could weep for the women who found themselves in his "care", as well as the dead viable babies) to the average doctor who performs late term abortions. But those were babies and he did kill them.

I don't know what the statistics are, I'm just saying that in my country (and maybe it is different elsewhere) from everything I've ever heard, the fetuses are definitely killed, usually before they leave the womb, whether they have a condition incompatible with life or not. I've never heard of anyone who wanted an abortion in the third trimester just having labor induced and then having the child put in an incubator.

The only Kermit I know works in Muppet Show, and abortions due to DS happen shortly after they are discovered - by amino at 17-18 weeks or scan at 20 weeks. Nobody waits until 8-9 months to abort a fetus they don't want.

I do love Kermit the Frog!

This was huge news awhile back (maybe last year) but in the States, so you probably didn't hear of it. A physician in Pennsylvania was proven to have killed three infants born alive in his abortion clinic. They had no abnormalities, they just were not wanted. He most likely killed many more (staff testified that he did so) but it couldn't be proven, whereas there were bodies in the other cases.

He was also accused of forcibly performing an abortion on a teenage girl who changed her mind at the clinic, as well as killing a young woman with an overdose of narcotics. He was convicted of her manslaughter and murder in the case of the babies, I believe. He is serving life without the possibility of parole.