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!

What does legislating against theft have anything to do with terminating an unwanted pregnancy?

What people are saying here is that the society doesn't have the right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term and give birth to it against her wishes. Because she is not a slave and she is not an incubator.

End of story. It doesn't matter what heart-wrenching, pain-feeling arguments you can come up with, you will always come against the insurmountable wall of Women Are Not Slaves Or Incubators.

By all means, if a pregnancy is to be terminated at 8 or 9 months, take the baby and keep it alive, then put him up for adoption if necessary. What you can't do is force the woman to keep it in her body against her will because She Is Not A Slave Or An Incubator.

Thumb - Agree to disagree. Bye.

True Buffy. Essentially any team of officials which will likely contain a proportion of MALES can make the decision in larry's world. Just not the woman who is carrying the baby!

I wonder if the legislation would get through better if it was only for babies the men didn't want? You know, the ones that those evil women make them have when they were just having a bit of fun? They don't have the feelz about them now, do they? It might be a starting place.

Buffy,

'And (apologies for multiple postings) Larry you seem to be casting about for somebody, anybody (legislators, doctors, society) to take on the burden of the decision. Anybody except the person who lives in the body and mind that will carry the consequences.'

Again, Buffy, if you believe that an 8.5 month old foetus is not alive, I cannot argue with the above. If you believe it is alive, it has some rights, which need to be balanced against the person carrying it. As the law stands (and I am all for it), the woman is the sole person who has the right to make that decision up to a cut off point. Beyond that cut off point society (women and men) have decided that the foetus has some rights (technically the foetus has no rights but abortion is illegal except in certain circumstances, but to me, it is pure semantics to say this is not, de facto, a right to life).

I would be very happy to say that beyond a certain point, the woman can choose to give birth and then society is responsible for the baby. What I am not happy with is the position that the mother has the unilateral right to kill her foetus at any stage up until the end of pregnancy, regardless of handicap or viability, merely because she chooses so to do.

Cote,

As I think you pointed out above, there are two issues here.

1/ Is a foetus human at any point before birth?

2/ If it is, can the woman unilaterally decide to kill it?

If you believe the answer to 1/ is no, then there is no debate. However, most philosophical papers would answer yes to 1/ at some point in pregnancy. At what point that occurs, is highly debatable.

Pomme,

I would be very happy to have an entirely female panel make the decision. I don't think it would be any different.

Buffy,

That is because it is a very strange proposition and you need a HUGE stretch to make it anything like analogous to abortion rights. It just isn't. You also need to assume that women have an absolute right to recreational PIV sex without the risk of pregnancy.

'And why do you think that?'

Because I think that most women believe the foetus becomes human at some point in the pregnancy and should thus be accorded some rights. It is nothing to do with 'the patriarchy'.

Larry - re " 1/ Is a foetus human at any point before birth?"

Your mistakes in terminology are confusing you, imho.

Of course a fetus is human. So is an embryo that is made up of only a few cells. They have human DNA. They are human, just like your fingernail and stomach are human.

To answer the question you are trying to SK, no, a fetus is not a person, as defined by law. As such it does not have human rights such as right to life. You know this, not only because you presumably live in the UK and should be familiar with its laws, but also because you have been told so several times on this very thread.

"2/ If it is, can the woman unilaterally decide to kill it?"

It is not a person and therefore killing it is not a crime. You know this, because abortion is legal.

As I said quite a few times before, the vast majority of late-term (8-9 months) terminations happen because the baby is discovered to be incompatible with life. In the extremely rare case where baby is fine but pregnancy needs to be terminated, I do not know if a single case where baby was just killed. I don't know where to live, larry, but here in Europe it is extremely difficult to have a termination at 8-9 months and I dare say even if you find a doctor to perform one, you can't make him kill the baby upon birth even if that is what you want.

Cote D'azur,

Abortion is ILLEGAL in the UK post 24 weeks (except in certain circumstances). Using your rather weird device of using the law to justify a philosophical and moral position (rather than the norm of vice versa), I could make a very simple argument that a post 24 week old foetus IS a person.

Buffy,

You are highly intelligent and always write coherently but that does not allow you to take your opinions as axioms. You think it is analogous. I think it isn't, for all sorts of reasons. The main one is that a freedom to live without interference is not the same as a freedom to demand interference from an external agency.

larry - so why not just the one woman instead of a panel? The one carrying the foetus for example?

Sorry, seen your other posts. Why are you not happy with each individual woman deciding that? What is it that you think would happen (other than people like babyfaced being spared immense suffering)?

Pomme,

Because the panel of women would be empowered by those we voted for democratically and chosen for their abilities to weigh up two competing rights. They would clearly take the rights of the woman carrying the foetus into account primarily, but also the rights of the foetus.

Why do we legislate to curtail any individual citizens rights in any area?

What did I say? It is extremely difficult to get a termination at 8-9 months and even then, the resulting baby will not be killed if viable.

Why are you troubled about fetuses killed in later abortions, if you understand that they are killed because they will not survive even if left to go to term?

Cote,

I am not.

Why do you keep insisting the foetus will not be killed if viable? Do you know something I don't. As I have explained before, I believe its heart is injected with potassium chloride to kill it and then labour is induced. If you believe this is not the case, can you provide evidence please?

I do not think that there would be many, if any cases, where viable foetus's were terminated at a woman's whim. I think the USA Dr case above presents a good argument for a woman's freedom to decide legally.

If we take your argument back to its logical conclusion we should have panels of people deciding our contraceptive methods and if we can ttc or not. Which, apart from anything, is highly impractical and expensive.

Larry - You are again missing the point about "person" - if fetus were a person at any point of gestation, it would not be legal to kill it under any circumstance.

So you are ok with termination under 24 weeks, and you know it is bey difficult to get a termination after that point. So what is your burning desire that you are here debating for days on end? Do you want to see women forced to carry non-viable fetuses and/or pregnancies they are unable or unwilling to continue to term?

pomme this is already happening in the USA, a company was declared a person with the rights of a person, and then declared that it wouldn't provide it's employees with certain types of, what it viewed, as abortifacient forms of contraception. It would continue to provide viagra though.

There is a recent case where the foetus was born by C-Section when the mother wanted an abortion. She did have to be force fed and bullied into allowing it, and kept pregnant until the foetus became viable, but, hey, she's only a fucking woman after all, so what does she matter?

Cote,

Read my posts. I am not anti abortion, never have been, never will be.

Can you answer my question about late abortions and why you think they don't kill viable foetuses, please?

Larry - You are the one claiming that a perfectly viable later-term fetus is killed if it's not wanted by the woman carrying it, so the onus of proof is on you, in afraid.

I'm not sure how you believe this while knowing that termination after 24 weeks is granted only in cases of extreme necessity, but you seem to

Anyway, I am glad that you have now understood the difference between the terms 'human' and 'person', which is something.