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!

Yes, I suppose I mean, what is a 'right to life'. I don't really get what it means if it doesn't really mean a right to have the means to continue to live/gestate. What do people mean on a philosophical level when they say a 'right to life'.

To be honest, the older I have got, the more inclined I am to think that both sexes, not just women, need to accept that the result of every sexual encounter involving PIV might be a baby.

If you go back to the early 20th century, when women were campaigning for better birth control and abortion rights, because they were dealing with pregnancy after pregnancy and having a baby was more dangerous in mortality terms than going down the mines, the point here is that women were seeking to resolve the results of being seen as male sexual property. Read Letter from Working Women, 1915, a good husband is seen as one who takes care and does not put his wife through pregnancy after pregnancy.

(One could of course argue that many men went elsewhere, hence the incidence of VD, but that was by no means a foregone conclusion. Some men did respect that their wives could not cope with many pregnancies).

I guess my point is that abortion is also a solution to unwanted pregnancy where women bear the cost, and the burden of addressing the issue falls to women. It also allows men to put pressure on a woman to 'get rid of it' because that is seen as a socially acceptable option, it means that some who keep babies at social cost can be stigmatised. In other words, in a society where women are sexually objectified, abortion seems to provide a solution to the problems caused by seeing women as sexual objects.

That is not to say men and women should not have or enjoy sex, but yes, every PIV sexual encounter could lead to a child, that seems obvious to me. Who benefits from anyone believing that not to be the case?

The only sensible, justifiable, logical position on abortion is that personhood is conferred at birth. Up until birth, the wishes of the pregnant woman take priority.
Therefore abortion should be available on request up until the moment of birth. Also, the final decision about whether or not to give medical treatment to a foetus in utero should be made by the pregnant woman after she has consulted medical professionals.

If you are now screaming and shitting yourself about the awful possibility of billions of viable foetuses being aborted at 30+ weeks just because it's allowed then you are a woman-hating fuckwit.

I absolutely agree with Romeyroo

'I don't know what proportion of women would agree with injecting a toxin into a healthy 8 month foetus then dismembering it in utero. Not many, I suspect.'

Well, I 'agree' with it in that I think it should be legal and safe to do this as a medical procedure where there is a good reason. I agree that it would have to be a very good reason. I trust women, as adults, to decide on those reasons. I can well believe that medical teams carrying out these procedures find them extremely difficult to do.

It's truly shocking to me though, how many people seem to think that it is hard, cruel and unwomanly to insist that you are a human being.

If you are now screaming and shitting yourself about the awful possibility of billions of viable foetuses being aborted at 30+ weeks just because it's allowed then you are a woman-hating fuckwit.

You are, furthermore, ready and willing to take on the role of raising a good many unwanted babies.

It's truly shocking to me though, how many people seem to think that it is hard, cruel and unwomanly to insist that you are a human being

That who is a human being?

The longer I spend thinking about it, the more I agree with SGB.

That doesn't mean I relish the thought of women terminating pregnancies at 35 weeks on a whim. But realistically, women don't turn around at 35 weeks and just decide not to go ahead. The vast majority of terminations take place before 12 weeks. The vast majority of late abortions take place in women with awful personal or medical circumstances.

That I am a human being. According to some posts on this thread it's hard, cruel and unwomanly to consider that I as a woman am a person and have legal rights even though I am also a MOTHER.

I think you have to accept it might end in pregnancy. I'm not sure that means you have to accept every pregnancy. Given that no contraceptive is 100%, that basically means that all couples have to give up on PIV if they aren't prepared to raise another child.

I think it's barbaric to consider termination at 30+ weeks

Lets hope you're never in that situation then freya.

Surely at 30+ weeks you could just have the baby and give it to someone who wants to look after it

So how do you decide where the cut off should be if you accept it should be legal up to a point?

And if there is a cut off, say the current 24 weeks, should women be able to demand a section to deliver a baby they no longer want to be pregnant with (leaving aside for a moment the other issues with that option)?

I hate how these things always turn into a debate about late term abortion, but they do always seem to.

joan - sorry, I totally didn't get that but of course I agree with you on that point.

I think you have to accept it might end in pregnancy. I'm not sure that means you have to accept every pregnancy. Given that no contraceptive is 100%, that basically means that all couples have to give up on PIV if they aren't prepared to raise another child

I remember reading a statement like this 12 months ago and thinking "No PIV?! Fucking nutbar. Out of the question." Now? Not so much.

Just take a moment to consider why someone might need a termination at 30+ weeks. I'll give you a hint - it's not because they've thought shit, I've booked a holiday in May this baby is going to get right in the way.

Sorry, cross post, so you do think you should be able to demand to deliver the baby? What about at 24 weeks, where there is a serious risk that the baby won't survive and/or will have long term health complications?

What hollie said.

'Add message | Report | Message poster birdman Fri 15-Aug-14 21:15:59
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.'

Oh PLEASE! I have had an abortion, a miscarriage. And a baby in NICU and I still support abortion up to term.

That doesn't mean I relish the thought of women terminating pregnancies at 35 weeks on a whim. But realistically, women don't turn around at 35 weeks and just decide not to go ahead. The vast majority of terminations take place before 12 weeks. The vast majority of late abortions take place in women with awful personal or medical circumstances.

You'd have to be a complete nutjob to believe that women would suddenly think... 'Fuck! I've been invited out on the lash, but this fucking 35 week foetus is going to cramp my style, so I'll just go and have an abortion'... or you'd have to really honestly believe that women are more than capable of doing that, regularly and so their thoughts and their bodies must be regulated to stop them.

I was going to have a baby, but 8.5 months in to pregnancy someone has just told me that they don't sleep at night? Must get rid.

But why would you abort rather than have a c section and give that child a chance? 35 weeks???

how it can be argued that a woman should be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term is beyond me- the capacity to empathise with and extend humanity to a foetus mysteriously fails when it comes to doing the same to for women

Wait, what? I won't immediately weigh 8 stone? And it'll require attention? Fuck that for a game of soldiers, I'm out.

freya: there are number of genetic abnormalities which mean that a foetus so affected is born to die, and painfully.

have you so little imagination, or compassion?

do you think so little of women that you think that after carrying a baby for 35 weeks, they will terminate their pregnancy on a whim, for trivial reasons?