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!

[WhitegoldWielder]

Sometimes it just comes across that some men are resentful that biology means women bear children. And the unfairness of it all that women should have a full range of options around pregnancy.

It just seems like a question of control. It doesn't matter if that control is limiting abortion, forcing pregnancy or forcing abortion. Anything to remind women who really matters here - and let's face it, it's not really the unborn child. It's a good emotive focus though.

[larrygrylls]

Buffy,

Agreed re polls. However I would posit that the majority view on this subject is not really open to question, is it? I have not heard any mainstream groups pushing for increasing the abortion limit. If anything, it is the reverse.

And if the vast majority of women were found to back the existing limit, or lower, would that change anyone on this thread's view?

(By the way, are you Dr Buffy yet? Saw your thread but thought you would not appreciate my encouragement, so did not post. Congrats if you got your Phd)

[Dervel]

No Buffy there was nothing in yours or anyone else's post that was offensive. I just wanted to challenge the idea that all a man has to worry about is a financial hit. I have always attempted to consider as many dimensions in issues like these. I simply have to come down on the side of the bodily autonomy position because I truly cannot see any other sane way, but in my case it feels like a lesser of two evils. However don't take that to mean I feel women being captains of their own destiny is an evil, it's merely that to me at least at some stage there is a life being lost and that does feel tragic.

Scallop I'm sure you're right, doubtless the pro life stance attracts mysogynists like flies on shit, but I refuse to believe that everyone who holds that position is. For example women who are pro life, and not every man who holds it does either. I think some people are in it because they care about what they define as valuable life, not because they don't care about women. If I see a woman and a child on a train track but I only have time to reach and save one, it doesn't mean I in any way hate the other. That is not a perfect analogy by any means, but I only raise it to highlight that narrow aspect of hate/mysogyny not necessarily being involved, and that holds equally true wether one saves the woman or the child.

Larry I get that your passionate, and I empathise with your position. However I think we know nobodies mind is going to be changed at this stage. We all know where we are coming from, now what can we do given what we have to make things better today? Not in a perfect realm of pure ethics and rationality, but in the nitty gritty muddy but real world we have. If women were really going to go out and have late term abortions there would be a thriving criminal element catering to it. Do you not also think that if every woman were encouraged to feel valued and consequential in society we'd actually have less abortions overall and not more?

What we need is to deconstruct is the stigma of teenage mothers, single mothers, working mothers stay at home mothers in fact it doesn't seem to matter which way you turn whatever kind of mother one is there is a stigma about it from somewhere.

[scallopsrgreat]

Dervel - I don't think it makes any difference if women are anti-choice. They can still have anti-women views. There is remarkable cognitive dissonance going on with some. Ultimately anti-choice is a conservative, right-wing view. Conservative right-wing people are not known for caring about women. And they clearly don't care about women. Because they don't care about their mental state or making them go through something as major as pregnancy and giving birth when they don't want to. They are putting the rights of a foetus above the rights of a woman, a full person. In your analogy there are no rights and there are two full people. Again you are equating terminating a pregnancy with killing (or not saving) a person. They are not the same.

[vezzie]

Very late here - haven't read the second part of the thread, have just skimmed it to see if anyone has called this out, but I don't think they have - I think this is a really good example of clunking, erroneous bodging disguised as logic by a mansplaining tone:

" (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)."

Please can we just look at that for one second.

Larry is conflating doing something to something being illegal with the thing you are doing it to having rights.

This is such a crashing error in logic that I want to bring it out so we can all gape at it.


It is illegal to park on a double yellow line = double yellow line (or road?) having rights

you could carry on making up silly examples like this for ever, but it would be boring, because pulling crazy counter examples and silly analogies out of thin air is just a waste of - oh, wait.

Anyway I know the conversation has moved on, I just think this is a good example of the utter spurious hollowness of what are being patronisingly bludgeoned with as "rationality"


*I loathe and detest the word "semantics" being used, wrongly, in this way, as a dismissive synonym for "hair-splitting" - but it is useful as it is usually indicates a high-handed willingness on the part of the speaker to sweep anything they don't like or don't understand under the carpet, by aggression if necessary

[Dervel]

Scallops cognitive dissonance I can buy I feel a lot of that myself whenever this topic comes up. That being the case is it not possible for someone to be pro life, yet still campaign against the sex trade, equal pay etc? In short is it not possible to care about women, but when this topic comes up care about the life of an unborn baby more? Caring for one does not stop one from still caring about the other. As I said this goes both ways one can care primarily about bodily autonomy, but still feel the loss is regrettable and of consequence when it occurs. Note: not that in any way that loss should be used as a stick to beat the poor soul who had to go through the ordeal in the first place with.

[vezzie]

This is interesting, from Buffy:

"Don't forget those 'vast majority' you speak about are the same women who would be making the decisions about their own bodies, should they find themselves in the unfortunate situation of considering a termination, late or otherwise.

So, in a sense, you seem to trust them to make the decision for other women, but not for themselves."

This is really interesting in the context of Larry's ultra-privileging of what he is positioning as logic, or rationality.

As my earlier post demonstrates, the actual logic in his thinking / writing is very shonky indeed. It is merely a style, a series of verbal tics and poses.
And Buffy's point above is really interesting in two ways, in calling this out, because

-firstly, the obvious - it shows the lack of consistency in Larry's position - to be simultaneously appealing as if sacrosanct to [what he believes] "most women" think and want, and declaring that individual women can't actually be trusted on this;

and

• secondly, it crystallises that for Larry things only count when they do not apply to oneself in the individual case at hand. It is pretty clear that he is rubbishing all the views on here of women precisely because this matters to us in a very real and visceral way. It is barking mad, and very clear, that that is what he thinks a correct point of view is - one that is uninvolved, one that has no skin in the game, one that could just as easily be doing a chess problem. So - the very same person - a hypothetical woman - is trusted to be right when she is casually polled, not emotionally or intellectually or personally invested in the question at that point in time; and cannot be trusted to be right when she has to make a personal decision about a pregnancy that may destroy her physically and mentally.
  

Larry, go away and think about some of the meta stuff here about how and why are you are arguing in the way that you do. Don't bother talking to me about it. I mean actually go away and think about it.

[PetulaGordino]

Well said vezzie

Accusation of literal hysteria, arguably

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Brilliant post, vezzie.

buffy - YY, and (sorry to bring down the intellectual level, but it's true) I also think it is very telling that the same men who go on about 'logic' and 'reason' and think women are emotional, are apt to throw very emotional temper tantrums when things don't go their way.

It's not that we're unusually 'emotional' - it's that constantly being told you're wrong and stupid about things that concern you does make people react emotionally. This is where I would have a shred of sympathy for F4J types if they weren't such wankers, because for some of them, they really are seeing for the first time how shit it feels to care about something, and yet to be told you're wrong.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

So if larry (and those like him) get their way, and we stop abortion except in cases where the woman's life is in danger, what happens? Say I have cancer, and I'm pregnant. Drs decide on the basis of probability whether they need to abort in order to treat me? What if I would much rather not take the risk to my life, and want to start treatment asap? Do I get to decide? Because you've basically already decided I'm incapable of making choices about my body.

And if the drs get it wrong? If I have to carry on with a pregnancy and then don't respond to treatment? And I die?

I would suggest larry, that you will never, ever, get it. You will never understand this argument fully because you are totally incapable of putting yourself in the position of being pregnant, and needing an abortion. You have absolutely no concept of what that feels like, and it seems like you lack the imagination to try. You keep talking about fetuses and babies as if you are in a better position to know or decide what happens then the woman hosting them. The arrogance would be staggering if it wasn't so predictable.

[grimbletart]

But missing the point that the early termination is ok, late is not, is really a position based entirely upon emotion. The closer the foetus comes to resemble a baby, the harder it is to stop that knee jerk 'this isn't OK' reaction.

Well put Buffy.

In addition to what's been said, Larry believes on a point of principle that late abortion is wrong for the reasons he gave. Principles are easy to hold when you are never going to have them tested.

[larrygrylls]

I just thought I would briefly come back to this.

Buffy, yes, I understand a lot of your post about logic versus 'lived experience'. It is back to Schon's reflection on and in action. A logical solution pre supposes that there is a clear logical question to ask and how the question is framed will impact on the answer. Applying it to this debate, it is about whether one asks whether a woman has a right to total bodily autonomy or whether an 8.5 month old foetus has a right to life. Clearly, depending on the question asked and one's personal perspective, they will lead to different answers.

What logic is good for, though, I would suggest, is self consistency. I find the position very hard that a 30 week old foetus out of the womb is a person with full rights, within it, it has absolutely no rights.

It is also hard to talk about lived experience but dismiss knee jerk reactions, My knee jerk reaction to late abortion is based on my experience of having two children, watching the pregnancies unfold, and seeing them being born. Yes, it was not first person experience (for them it obviously was!) but it was experience nonetheless. A lot of people here are also talking from knee jerk reactions and not lived experience. Most will not have had or considered late abortions, nor will you ever be in that position (especially the post menopausal ones). So, it ends up being one person's visceral reaction versus another's.

[larrygrylls]

'But given that these theories originated in and are still mainly used in the study of classroom teaching, I'm not sure what help they offer us here.'

I think a lot of them started in medicine, although they are very much applied to teaching too. The idea is to help professionals make the best decisions taking into account all factors including ethics.

'I would put forward the idea that what you regard as logical self-consistency is primarily founded in social conditioning and emotion. We are all conditioned (and maybe evolutionary arguments have merit too) to value babies. The closer a foetus comes to being a baby, the harder it is to imagine it being 'killed' (if you choose to frame it in such a way).'

I am not sure here. To make the ideas logically consistent, you would have to believe that some meaningful change occurred in the foetus as it went down the birth canal, in order for it to suddenly become a person. I cannot personally imagine what that would be.

'I would argue that we are not conditioned to value women in the same way, especially when compared to babies. I think evidence for this abounds, from the way rape victims are treated, woeful maternity services, to the Church's historic belief the child should always be saved, if a choice needed to be made. Which means that when you talk about something that's nearly a baby versus the piffling matter of a woman's bodily autonomy (after all, it's not like she risks anything by being pregnant or giving birth, is it? Death, disability, psychosis, ).'

Well babies are 50% female and are also valued over old men, rightly or wrongly. I have never claimed bodily autonomy is a small issue. You are putting words into my mouth which I have never stated. I think both bodily autonomy and (late term) foetal rights are both HUGELY important, which is why I think this debate is difficult.

'I think also by privileging terms that sound meaningful like "lived experience" over "knee-jerk reactions" which don't sound so intellectual, you're making an epistemological error. What is lived experience, how is it different and superior to a knee-jerk? In my experience, the knee-jerk is what you've got (I love my kids, I didn't want them to die in utero, therefore all late term abortion is morally problematic) versus the lived experience of the women on here who've shared their stories with you. My lived experience is both similar and different to yours: I also love my children and didn't want them to die. One of them nearly did, along with me.'

Umm, I am not. I am arguing precisely the opposite if you read my post carefully.

'So in conclusion to this essay, I'd suggest to you that your reaction is the visceral knee-jerk (which you are telling yourself is internally consistent logic) and those that have argued against you have based their opinions on quite a bit of careful reflection, inevitably informed by their life experiences and emotions. I argue this because it is the philosophically more complex (and against social conditioning) position to hold that women's right to bodily autonomy is important enough to trust that a vast majority of them will make good decisions for the right reasons about their own bodies. And I think the way you're totally unprepared to concede any of our points is evidence that you're not willing to put in the emotional and intellectual spadework we have.'

Well, I cannot but disagree here. An inability to agree with another's perspective is not indicative of a lack of intellectual spadework, as you well know. You are displaying intellectual arrogance and inconsistency here. You are saying that for you to disagree with the general opinion (what you term social conditioning) is a sign of your willingness to engage intellectually and emotionally with the issue but my disagreement with the general opinion on this thread (I.E current mainstream feminist thought) is a sign of intellectual laxness.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

I wouldn't call it intellectual laxness, I would call it supreme arrogance. Ultimately, you think you have the right to make this choice for women (by taking away their right to make their own choices) and that you think you know better than the women facing these decisions. That you are somehow in a better position to decide if a late term abortion is the best option for that woman and that pregnancy?

[larrygrylls]

Buffy,

I agree with nearly all that you have stated above except:

'I think women are moral and ethical and intelligent beings'

Does this apply to all women? If I replaced the word women with men, would you agree with it?

I would agree if you replaced 'women' with 'most women' or even 'the great majority of women'. However, within any population, there are going to be exceptions. There might be vanishingly few but it is for these few that the law applies.

Ifyourhoppy,


'I wouldn't call it intellectual laxness, I would call it supreme arrogance. Ultimately, you think you have the right to make this choice for women (by taking away their right to make their own choices) and that you think you know better than the women facing these decisions.'

If I felt that I was in a position to make the decision, I would be supremely arrogant. However, I don't. I think I have the right to my 1/30millionth (or however many voters there are) of the decision, just as you do, just as every other adult has. And, yes, I also have the right to an opinion on it. As I also said above, I would be more than happy to take men out of the equation in this issue, as it only applies to women. I trust women (as a whole) to get the balance right, as I have a HIGH opinion of women.

[vezzie]

"What logic is good for, though, I would suggest, is self consistency. I find the position very hard that a 30 week old foetus out of the womb is a person with full rights, within it, it has absolutely no rights. "

No, Larry, you are confused by a very simplistic sense of logic, what it is, and what it is for. You are allowing a very basic, syntactical, syllogistic, bastardised sort of propositional calculus to carry more semantic* freight than it can.

Let me explain.

There is a difference between two entities as expressed by the differing terminologies we apply to them.

some examples

baby =/= foetus
unborn entity =/= born entity
live entity =/= dead entity
animate entity =/= inanimate entity
human =/= non-human
paperclip =/= staple
shovel =/= spade
paperclips =/= dogs


Some of these differences really matter in terms of how we think about and treat these entities, some of them really don't. LOGICAL SYNTAX DOESN'T TELL US WHICH.

If you want to throw all your staples in the same box as your paperclips, I really don't mind, (although I wouldn't do that!) and if you were to say "well the paperclips go there, so why not the staples?" I wouldn't argue with you, because it fundamentally does not matter to me, not because I have missed the crashing false equivalence you have smuggled under the radar by using a syntax that implies logic.

Actually it is an invalid syllogism. You have said / implied

paperclips go in this box
paperclips are equal to staples
therefore staples go in this box

It's invalid (in the strict sense) because your second proposition is false.

HOWEVER I don't care, because you haven't done anyone any harm.

It would be more clearly nonsense if you said "paperclips go in here, so why not dogs?" but the actual logical form is no worse.

You are attempting to use an "if then" piece of logic to prove something just as nonsensical, but much more important.

"If you can do it to x, then why not y?" is something you need to give a lot more thought to.

Believe it or not this post is about a third of the length it was before I deleted chunks of it. What I am trying to say is STOP TRYING TO BLUDGEON PEOPLE WITH LOGIC, WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT, LET ALONE ANYTHING ELSE



*in its true sense!

[larrygrylls]

Vezzie,

Excellent explanation of semantic logic but not what I have tried to do. I am discussing the equality of two things under a certain rule and I have also questioned my own supposition.

30 week foetus unborn/same term foetus born.

Are they the same WITH REGARD to 'personness' (for want of a better description). If not, then you have to believe some essential change occurs when they are born. If you believe that, I would ask what you believe that change consists of?

[larrygrylls]

Or, with regard to your paperclip/staple example, could I put paperclips that I have just slid down a loo roll into the same box as the other paperclips, or should I now regard them as essentially separate entities?

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

So you trust that women will vote in the way you think, but don't trust that they wouldn't choose to have an abortion at 39 weeks, just for funsies?

We should not be voting on women's rights over their own bodies. Full stop.