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 was pondering this last night. I'm shit at abortion arguments, and so incredibly grateful for the articulate smart women who can say all the things I would want to, if I could get past the base visceral reaction to someone telling me what I can and cake do with my body. And treating me like a walking incubator who can't be trusted to know what is best for in my own life. It makes Mr want to scream and throw things.

Sorry for typing, bloody bastard phone.

"I could dig out stories of bodged failed late abortions where babies were killed painfully"

What on earth is wrong with you, as a man, to collect or even know where to find stories of "bodged" [sic] abortions with visible pain and suffering?

Serious question. If you haven't yet asked this to yourself, you really should, imho.

This debate could use some hard data. If anyone is interested, here are UK & Wales Abortion statistics for 2012. Includes reasons, number of terminations, and number killed ("feticide") after 22 weeks and not.

Interesting that a man equates him "digging out stories" with the actual lived experience of women posting directly on here.

Excellent question, Cote. I've often wondered the same thing myself, which is why I generally find it helpful to pretend someone who seems such an expert in the gruesome (where the gruesome is evidence that women shouldn't make their own decisions about their own organs) types in invisible ink/code/whatever.

At Romey Buffy & Capt I've lived through that very scenario you are describing as I think I have made reference to before. I can assure you there is very much more than just a financial commitment at stake for men. Undoubtedly there are many, perhaps even most who can (and do) just walk away, but that wasn't anywhere near close to describing what I experienced. I think writing off in generalisation that all a man has to suffer is financial inconvenience gets it very wrong indeed.

I'm afraid I cannot offer much else of use to the conversation, because despite a huge amount of soul searching when I was going through the situation at first, my thoughts on abortion didn't change. Which is to say I hate the very notion of abortion, but I hate the ramifications of removing the choice from women slightly more. This isn't an easy topic and the only thing I am sure of is that I don't believe the pro choice lobby are baby killing monsters any more that I believe all pro lifers are women hating mysoginistic bastards.

I also don't think the line of comparison between men and women here will ever stack up, it's like having a jigsaw puzzle of unequally sized pieces that no matter how you divide them up you will never end up with two piles of exactly the same size, any attempt to do so is doomed to failure. You just have to try to do your best with what you have.

What I fondly imagine although I'm sure it's batshit bluesky thinking on my part, is that the pro lifers and pro choice groups figure out that they are both motivated by compassion for people other than themselves either towards vulnerable women in desperate straights or unborn children. Form a unified charity that doesn't seek to bugger around with silly laws that just makes the whole business more tragic and focus on grass roots funding to increase sex education, support and counselling to those that need it (of a neutral non judgemental nature), and actually seek to dismantle this whole ethical debate as in reality it injects more fear into the equation than it takes away. The two sides on this are never going to agree, and do you know what perhaps that's alright as I read through here NO ONE is saying "yippee abortion yay!". So if we all agree that it is regrettable as a starting point and proceed from there, the question becomes how do we make it less likely? That is a question I think we actually have the potential to answer. Hint: it's probably not going to come from controlling women, it will probably come from liberating them.

dervel, I know you addressed buffy and capt, but we're all make similar points, and I just wanted to stress I didn point out there is an emotional component.

The point is, there isn't a physical one.

In the same way I doubt women are saying 'woo-hoo, an abortion!' I'm aware there aren't many men wandering about saying it either.

It is tough. I've been in that situation too, and I was encouraged by everyone - including my GP - to treat my then-partner's wishes as an extremely important factor, so when he vetoed adoption, it was out.

I do not think it was actually a great decision-maing process.

I just wanted to stress I didn point out should obviously read 'I did'. Too early.

dervel I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you had been in that position. I am fully aware that there will be for some men an emotional attachment, however, I was using as my example, the type of man Romey was talking about. The type who wants to either force the woman to abort or will refuse to have a financial connection. That man is obviously not you, so my example wasn't about you. Sorry if you felt it was.

I think the problem with getting pro woman and anti choice groups to work together is that they come at the problem from completely different sides. The only logical and rational way of looking at things is the pro choice way where a woman can choose whether to continue her pregnancy or not, if abortion isn't your bag, no harm, away you go, but don't impose that belief on others kind of thing. I do agree with you though, that sex education is obviously woefully lacking and that is dangerous for young people. It's a lot better than it was when I were a nipper, but requires improvement.

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.

Why?

Or are you going to ignore all my posts?

What benefit does society get from not allowing a termination? What possible benefit does the woman or anyone else get from not allowing her a medical procedure that is safe and should be legal?

What if a woman at 6 months finds out she has cancer and needs treatment to save her life but will kill the baby? Is she allowed that treatment or not?

When would a man be denied life saving treatment?

What if that life saving treatment IS a termination?

"This isn't an easy topic and the only thing I am sure of is that I don't believe the pro choice lobby are baby killing monsters any more that I believe all pro lifers are women hating mysoginistic bastards." Pro-choice aren't baby killing monsters because there isn't a baby to kill. Anti-choicers on the other hand frequently show other anti-women views as well. They tend to not want to just limit women's choices over abortion but over other areas such as contraception, birth choices and anything else that men shouldn't have a say in or where women's boundaries are at stake.

So that is a completely false equivalence and downright insulting.

scallops - besides which, the 'pro-life' lobby, both here and in the US, has remarkably little interest in the lives of actual babies.

The 'pro life' lobby in the US are scary scary men. They are the same scary scary men who reject social healthcare as communism by the back door, slag off the poor mostly because they're poor, slag off poor people who have what they regard as too many children with no embarrassment about why that might be , don't 'approve' of home births, birthing with midwives or any other choices a woman might want to make about her own birth experience, don't 'approve' of women who BF for longer than 5 minutes. They also tend to live in gated communities and like getting over involved with things that just don't concern them.

There is an alarming trend of this kind of thing happening in the UK too.

How true, LRD. I am always puzzled as to why they don't offer more financial and practical support to mothers in difficult situations. They are all theory and no practice.

Amber, the counter argument to the paper would be that if something cannot live independently of another being, it has no autonomous right to life unless the host consents. Otherwise at the extreme philosophical end you would have to take a position where everything from an tapeworm to a virus ought to have a free rein over your body. Of course the pro-life response would be that human life is in some way privileged over other life forms in such an instance. To which it could be argued that if this is the case, again, why do they not take more steps to support miscarriage research, and genetic research, and so on. Then they would make an argument about God, or some such, and circle back to the human life point. That's where it always gets stuck in a kind of unimaginative thinking groove. Whereas if we moved on to a position where contraception was easy and free, child support forthcoming, women's domestic and employment rights generous, and medical care second to none, fewer and fewer people would be seeking terminations anyway, as the evidence clearly shows us. That fact seems to escape the pro-life lobby. They appear impatient to have their own way immediately.

boffin - well, it's because women like that are all sinful and should be ashamed, right? Of course, abortion is murder but merely being pregnant is also evidence you had sex at some point, so you're probably unmarried and poor or something.

Like the way most women who have late-term abortions do it because they're feckless teenagers.

It makes me so furious.

There is crap support for women who make either decision (at least in the UK). You're supposed to be 'counselled' if you have an abortion, but it can be an utter joke or non-existant. And there is very little social awareness of how to respond to someone who has a late term abortion. An awful lot of people simply don't seem to process that it might be both a much-wanted child, and an untenable situation.

sashh - society gets oppressed women with a reduced say in their fertility (and therefore physical well being) which for some people is a good thing. This has for to be the primary aim of ALL pro lifers (have seen them called forced birthers on here before which is more accurate). Their aim of protecting children via unwanted foetus' is very odd and I never understand why instead of protesting and shaming women at clinics they aren't volunteering at care homes or fostering.

'Or are you going to ignore all my posts?

What benefit does society get from not allowing a termination? What possible benefit does the woman or anyone else get from not allowing her a medical procedure that is safe and should be legal?

What if a woman at 6 months finds out she has cancer and needs treatment to save her life but will kill the baby? Is she allowed that treatment or not?

When would a man be denied life saving treatment?

What if that life saving treatment IS a termination?'

I get irritated by posts which deliberately skew my stance on abortion. If it is a clash of rights between the mother's right to live (or even potential risk to life or life changing health), then the mother's right is always prioritised. That is my stance. Every one of my posts has been consistent in this.

If the mother needs cancer treatment at 6 months and she needs an abortion to get it, then the first choice is to give birth to a live baby. If that is not an option, then she needs a termination. End of.

The benefit society gets from not allowing a termination at will of a viable foetus is the same benefit it gets from not allowing infanticide of a newborn. The right to life is the most fundamental right of all. The question is when, if ever, a foetus is a person until birth. Most people and most women (and you may not like the way I state this but it is a statement of fact, backed up by polls) DO believe a foetus becomes a person at some point in pregnancy.

The question is when, if ever, a foetus is a person until birth.

No the question is why should abortion be available or be restricted/not available. It is irrelevant whether there is a foetus or a baby. It is irrelevant whether the pregnancy is intended or not. The only thing that is relevant is that every human being should have rights over their own body.

And my other post that you chose to completely ignore?

Sash,

I do not scrutinise this 24/7! I don't deliberately ignore posts. If you point me to it, I shall respond.

If the question is that every human being should have rights over their own body and NOT whether it is a foetus or a baby, how do you deal with conjoined twins. Should one be able to demand separation if it means the inevitable death of the other?

Larry

Conjoined twins is an interesting one. When separated as babies small children that is what often happens. One twin is given the best chance of life so if there is a shared liver it will be cut but one twin will get most, if it is the digestive tract then one twin will get it all and the other, if lives, will be tube fed.

Adults who are still conjoined is another matter because there we are talking about 2 adults. Yes they have a right to be separated, no they don't have the right to kill the other.

Re post of the one you ignored

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.

Sash,

Fair enough re the C section (though was not me who mentioned it).

If it is not viable, I have no issue with a termination at any point.

Regarding this hypothetical woman (who we all agree is very rare), then IMO, the foetus has a right at a shot at life. If she does not want to carry it, then she should give birth to it live and allow it to take its chances.

RE the disabled comment, you are twisting what I am saying. I said that society (not me personally!) advocates for the most vulnerable I.E those without their own voice. You clearly have a loud and clear voice and can advocate for yourself.

'Adults who are still conjoined is another matter because there we are talking about 2 adults. Yes they have a right to be separated, no they don't have the right to kill the other'

Well clearly these rights are not consistent with one another and one must take precedence.

Larry

Why should a women give birth to a child? Is it to punish her?

As for me twisting things, pot, kettle black.