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!

Buffy yes I know that was my own thoughts until I actually stopped to think about the actual realities of the situation and the importance of my own bodily autonomy.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=uTfyU76ACIKx0QX4o4CIBQ&url=www.lifenews.com/2014/03/03/remembering-grayson-anencephalic-baby-facebook-banned-whose-life-impacted-so-many/&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFgvmocpGNeuX2VssKpN-n5z23oEw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=uTfyU76ACIKx0QX4o4CIBQ&url=www.lifenews.com/2014/03/03/remembering-grayson-anencephalic-baby-facebook-banned-whose-life-impacted-so-many/&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFgvmocpGNeuX2VssKpN-n5z23oEw. Baby Grason born with ancepholy, he lived for eight hours I think. And according to drs he didn't suffer and his parents and family got to spend time with him. For them it was an important part of the grieving process.

warning some may find the pictures distressing.

Yes my knee jerk reaction is that I couldn't have an abortion. My mum wanted me to abort ds1 as I git preg at 19 whilst at uni and it wasn't an option.

In cases of foetal abnormalities I would have a hard choice to make, weighing up what I thought was best for myself and my family including the madthings. My family is complete now but I would keep an accidental pregnancy. However when I had post natal psychosis after ds4 and thought I may be preg, then I would have possibly terminated, for my own mental health.

But I can't let what I would do dictate to others and I will never judge a woman for making the choice to terminate.

The laws in the US are scary but they were originally written to prosecute people who hamred pregnant women to the point that the fetus died. So that if, for instance, a man beat his wife until she miscarried, he could be charged with murder.

It's now being twisted to harm the women. :( As far as I know, it hasn't held up. Rennie Gibbs' case was thrown out. Bei Bei Schaui pled guilty and got time served. I can't find any recent information on Amanda Kimborough, though she was rearrested for dealing drugs so I'm not sure if she's in jail for that or not.

Arrested and found guilty are different things.

I believe that is how they were sold to legislators and the public, not why they were originally written.

Also the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is on the case, and they ate tough.

No, I think they've been around for awhile. I remember drunk drivers who hit pregnant women, resulting in fetal death, being charged with manslaughter.

Also Lacey Peterson's husband was convicted of killing her and their son as she was 8 months pregnant when she was murdered. That was awhile ago too.

I thought I could never have an abortion myself until I had an unwanted surprise pregnancy. Would have also said I was pro it - but for other people.

Having felt that desparate, all encompassing emotion I had in reaction to that situation I have quite a different point of view. The chewing your arm off to escape analogy is the nearest you can get to describe it. It does feel like an issue of survival. And then the hormones, yee gods the hormones.

No man can ever imagine that and I don't think any woman who hasn't been there can imagine it. No panel of men or women can decide that for someone else.

No woman would ignore that feeling for eight months either. I am so so confident that abortion past 24 weeks just protects women like babyfaced. A story larry has chosen to ignore.

It is salutary to listen to posters who felt they couldn't have abortions themselves or whose experiences of childbirth were frightening and life and health threatening who are able to stand back from their own emotional experiences and in spite of (or probably because of) that have the wisdom to understand why the would-be mother is the best person to decide what is right for them.

So much more insightful and ethical than the abstract insistence of posters like Larry, who, while never having to face such dire circumstances himself feel able to state with such certainty and apparent authority what is "ethical" in such a distressing situation.

Pomme,

I have ignored individual stories as they are not good arguments. I could dig out stories of bodged failed late abortions where babies were killed painfully but I don't think anecdote makes good debate or law.

Buffy, you're such a bully!

The only women, that I can envisage taking advantage of post 24 week abortion would either be very young, very vulnerable or very naive. The very young women I've come across who have hidden their pregnancies from everyone and who are suddenly exposed after 24 weeks, a lot of them under 16, who are then made to give birth to babies, causing physical trauma to them and mental trauma when they are almost inevitably taken from them. Very vulnerable women, such as those with addictions, asylum seekers, and again the young, who have had no contact with medical services until it is too late, naive women who, while they consented to PIV sex, didn't really understand that it could lead to pregnancy. I have also met a woman who's partner impregnated her and then chained her up inside the house until she was 24 weeks because she said that she wanted to abort. Women who's partners have become hideously violent and abusive to them while they have been pregnant, who are then forced to give birth to their abuser's child, even when they have had the strength to leave them.

There are all sorts of reasons why a woman might need a later abortion, and none of them are about women being selfish baby killers, no matter how much a person who will never be in that position wants it to be so.

Great posts buffy and capt.

Thank you for your eloquence, it helps make sense of what I feel but cannot always articulate about the patriarchy.

I only truly believed (or saw?) sexism post dd1s birth.

I have been thinking about this thread. So, I get the argument about bodily autonomy but I don't see what is wrong with saying that socially and as couples, it would be preferable to rethink attitudes to sex (and indeed, the place of motherhood and parenting in society) rather than have abortion as the 'resort to' solution when all else fails.

But not wishing to reprise that point, if the argument is that the woman can make the decision to terminate regardless; why can a man not similarly make a decision not to support a child if a woman does not terminate? Now I get that plenty of men make that choice anyway (and maybe that reality forces some women to seek abortion); but legally, if a man has a child, he has parental responsibility and in law, also financial responsibility.

Why can a woman say, having this baby will be detrimental to my wellbeing, and terminate, but a man cannot say, supporting this child will be detrimental to my well-being and walk away (in law)? If a woman continues with a pregnancy and a man does not wish her to, he is called every name under the sun and chased by the law for an 18 year commitment, possibly longer.

By the way, I am a single parent of two dc I support myself, so hardly a MRA. I am just interested to know how these are compatible positions.

But a man can do that, romey.

It's just he has to do it at the earlier stage.

It has to do with exactly what you're saying - attitudes to sex. If a man definitely doesn't want to support a baby, he needs to be making sure he's not impregnating anyone.

Abortion after 24 weeks is legal in certain circumstances including, but not limited to, foetal abnormalities. As far as I know it does always involve killing the foetus because if it results in a live birth it's an induced labour or C section - not an abortion.

Ages ago someone on here linked to a study which detailed the reasons women had for needing a late (sometimes very late) abortion. Not all were for foetal abnormalities. Every single story was heart-rending. I can't find the link now, does anybody else remember it?

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

for anybody who has had to make this difficult decision at whatever stage of pregnancy.

for anybody who will never ever have to make this difficult decision themselves but who still thinks they should have a say in what goes on inside another woman's body.

I remember the link plenty and actually some of the info is in the statistics 're abortion they can be performed after 24wks if the risk to the woman's mental or physical health is such that continuing the preg is too risky and it includes a section saying that they take into account a woman's existing children (if she has any) and the impact on them.

I agree the stories are heart breaking.

The wording re abortions after 24wks is such that it does allow quite a large amount of scope for individual circumstances.

Yes, but LRD, I said much earlier in the thread that if a man and women had PIV sex, then this was an action which had consequences, I was shouted down and told I was victim blaming.

So, a man needs to think about not having a child before he has sex, but a woman does not, because she, for reasons of bodily autonomy, can change her mind at any point in the pregnancy and terminate?

romey - I'm not sure I follow.

I don't think you're comparing like with like. Both men and women risk emotional and financial consequence of the conception of a child when they have PIV sex (though, sadly, men are more able than women to opt out of the latter).

Only women bear physical consequences, so only women have the option of abortion.

I would certainly say that a woman who has willing, unprotected PIV sex and is then surprised she ends up with a financial/emotional burden is being naive at best. Same for a man.

But this doesn't answer what we do about the physical side, and doesn't begin to touch on the situations discussed in the latter bit of this thread, where the issue isn't a healthy, wanted pregnancy.

The problem is Romey, that, as Buffy and LRD have said, you're not comparing like with like.

If, for example, one of those pesky women people engages in consensual PIV sex with a lovely man. The evil nasty woman isn't on the pill, but the lovely man hasn't worn a condom then one of 2 things might happen.

1. Nothing
2. Evil sperm stealer becomes pregnant.

If 1) happens, then all is well, the lovely man has hopefully not given the woman any STIs and has learned a valuable lesson in contraception. If 2) happens then the woman has the choice to remain pregnant or have an abortion. There are consequences to both choices.

If 2) happens, the lovely blameless man can choose

a) to be financially responsible for the child or
b) not.

If he chooses a) all is fine and dandy, should he choose b) then there's not much the nasty woman can do, even with court orders and agreements and everything.

If the woman then chooses to continue the pregnancy, she will do so in full knowledge that the man is an idiot, and that she will not only have to come up with her half of the child's financial support, but the father's as well. She will also have to put up with the many dangers, physical, mental and emotional of pregnancy and birth, while the man gets away scott free, having his back slapped by his friends for the lucky escape.

Women take on all the risks, women therefore get the choices. Hopefully those choices are made with the loving support of a partner, but when they aren't, then her body, her choice. Men who don't want to be financially involved with their offspring, however begotten, will always find a way of not paying.