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!

larry women don't need a right to demand a treatment in order to have an abortion, they only need for abortion to not be a criminal offense and for a doctor to be willing to perform it. If you imagine a country where abortion was legally permitted but no single doctor was willing to carry one out women would have no right to demand one any more than any other medical procedure.

Incidentally I was once approached for advice by senior consultant from a fetal medicine unit because her team had started to have concerns about late term abortions. By the nature of their unit they saw pregnancies with a lot of issues, a proportion of which qualified for very late term abortion. Now it turned out that this in itself had not been a problem for the team who agreed with late term abortions in cases of very serious fetal abnormalities. However, a number of similar units had closed down round the country so this unit was seeing a much higher number of patients than before and therefore had to perform a much higher number of late abortions than ever before. While morally the team still agreed with late term abortions, psychologically they were struggling to cope with having to perform them that often.

Reading this thread makes me sad I live in these times... i find it hard to imagine that women might discuss their legal position in the face of what is in fact a moral issue. Clearly a baby does not just march in and assume squatters rights in the womb. Any clear headed person who has a firm grip of reality will be aware that regardless of what the law states in this country to abort a fetus is to kill it. The process of it life begins when the cells start dividing. You can dress it up however you choose but what you are really talking about is putting your "autonomy" above a future human life. I appreciate that there are good reasons on occasion for so doing but morally the whole idea of abortion is questionable in the extreme. I am not arguing from a religious point of view merely a humanist one. Ironically the same people ranting about the right to murder their own progeny in this argument would probably be prepared to argue against fox hunting, deerstalking and fishing because it cruel to kill harmless little things that have no say in the matter... and on that note I rest my case...

You sound either shitfaced or very stupid, birdman.
I hope it's the former and you're having an otherwise good night - don't let women desperately scrabbling to keep the right to bodily integrity that men take for granted ruin it for you, mate.

Reading this thread makes me sad I live in these times...

Hate to ruin your life babe but women have always been baby-killin' bitches :'(

Well said birdman!

Spend a little time in a scbu unit when you feel reflective one day vmackie nothing like a little taste of real drama. I don't know where you got that chip on your shoulder from but its not an attractive quality. You can still be a feminist without tearing lumps out of men for having an opinion. Or you could just go and boil your head, either way I don't give a monkeys.

Spend a little time in a scbu unit when you feel reflective one day vmackie nothing like a little taste of real drama

What?

I don't know where you got that chip on your shoulder from but its not an attractive quality

Of course the thing I want most is to be attractive to you so this has busted my heart.

You can still be a feminist without tearing lumps out of men for having an opinion

I'll tear lumps out of anyone who thinks I'm subhuman: male or female, I'll have at 'em.

Or you could just go and boil your head, either way I don't give a monkeys

You care enough to post though, bb ;)

what you are really talking about is putting your "autonomy" above a future human life

That is exactly what I'm talking about. And I will defend my right and other women's rights to choose whether or not to do that.

Should you ever find yourself in the position where you are sustaining another life using only your own body, to the extent that it could cause numerous and lasting medical problems and even in extreme cases, your own death, then I will defend your right to choose whether you want to continue to sustain that life or not too.

"Clearly a baby does not just march in and assume squatters rights in the womb."

What an utterly simplistic and ridiculous thing to say. Contraception fails. Every type of contraception, no matter how careful, fails sometimes. And never mind the fact that men can be as 'careless' as they like and their body will not be taken over for 9 months (yes, possible financial and emotional implications, but women have those on top of everything else).

So the argument assumes that women, by virtue of the risk of pregnancy, have to be prepared to accept pregnancy every single time they have sex. Which basically places a massive physical and moral burden on all women.

Nice.

"Any clear headed person who has a firm grip of reality will be aware that regardless of what the law states in this country to abort a fetus is to kill it."

Emotive language is just that. Emotive language. Lots of things are 'alive'. Fucking yeast is 'alive' in some sense. So just because a fetus is 'alive' means nothing.

And even if you want to argue that a fetus is a human life. Well, ok, but I still maintain that whilst a woman is required to nourish it with her body 24 hours a day, can never leave it, suffers health complications from it, might die or suffer lasting health problems as a result of giving birth to it, she has the right to continue or not continue to support that possible future person.

what you are really talking about is putting your "autonomy" above a future human life

Well obviously birdman has had a lobe of each lung plus a lobe of his liver and one kidney harvested, and he donates a pint of blood a month and he regularly donates bone marrow. He wouldn't be espousing this position otherwise, would he? Would he?

Spend a little time in a scbu unit when you feel reflective one day vmackie nothing like a little taste of real drama

Have done, did you have a point?

And really, very ill babies, drama? And yet, it's women who're in the wrong here.

My word! Such a humanist! Or were you grasping for humanitarian? Either way... fail!

I'll tear lumps out of anyone who thinks I'm subhuman: male or female, I'll have at 'em.

Well said, vicmackie!

Gosh, didn't take long did it? I thought you were going to keep up the pretence of proper discussion a bit longer before you moved on to "you women are all a bit shit and emotional"

Vicmackie, you started by insulting me you have continued with an abusive tone. Clearly you are not interested in the debate... you just want to argue like a bloke down the pub. This is why women as a rule do badly in politics. You have forgotten the issue and just wish to emote like a mad thing. have yourself a cigar and a brandy and calm down a bit

PMSL!!!

Translation: I'm out of my depth here lads!!

You absolute gem!

And... women do politics badly because men come along, tell them what to think, get told where to get off and then talk to them like they're children?

Yup, that's exactly right.

Thanks for your input

Oh.... and welcome to Mumsnet

I don't think there was a proper discussion going on when birdman said that to be fair penguins

It's actually turning pretty funny...

*birdman" Absolutely sincerely, THANK YOU. You have made such a great point, so flawlessly. It wasn't the point you thought you were making, to be fair, but no one could have done it as well as you did.

Cheers mate!

We have seen 'Birdman' before haven't we? Or am I thinking of another of our little friends?

Incidentally, when you see PMQ's I love the idea that women don't succeed in politics because they shout at each other like blokes in a pub.

Ooh, a 'calm down, dear' moment!

Penguin... I thank you for your spirited remarks, it seems that I have badly misjudged the feminist mindset here. Now I have listened to your point of view I am convinced that infanticide is a really good idea.

Incidentally, when you see PMQ's I love the idea that women don't succeed in politics because they shout at each other like blokes in a pub

Hahaha! I KNOW RIGHT?!

So where had the discussion actually got to?

I am struggling with the idea that you can have a fetus with a 'right to life' at a philosophical level without also requiring the pregnant woman to support that life. Because what does a right to life mean in a situation where someone is utterly dependent on another to continue to live (gestate)?

Mind you, I was never very good at philosophical questions. One of the comments on my philosophy of law essays was always that I moved to the practical too quickly.

I am struggling with the idea that you can have a fetus with a 'right to life' at a philosophical level without also requiring the pregnant woman to support that life. Because what does a right to life mean in a situation where someone is utterly dependent on another to continue to live (gestate)?

As I understand it, every person has a right to life and every person has a right to bodily integrity. The right to life does not ever legally trump the right to bodily integrity (for example if a toddler was going to die unless they had a bone marrow transplant from their father, the father could not be legally compelled to donate the bone marrow even if it meant the toddler would surely die). So the right of a conceptus to live does not override the right of a gravida to withdraw consent for life support.

So when a method to remove the zygote/embryo/foetus from the gravida and keep it alive elsewhere is perfected, the whole abortion debate will be transformed. Bizarrely, no forced birth group is investing in R&D in that field, as far as I know.