Can we agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy?

[msrisotto]

We are allowed to impose boundaries on who we have sex with, who we get naked in front of, who we spend time with with no justification required. No one is entitled to anything from me. Women's rights are human rights.

Unfortunately there's loads of people who don't agree with it, even on here.

Like the threads where we have posters 'glaring', 'tutting', at smokers who are pregnant and telling 'women not to eat that/denying them certain foods and drinks in restaurants' - again when they're pregnant.

So I think even basic bodily autonomy is questioned on here. Which is basically shit in my opinion.

Totally agree, Mrs - bodily autonomy and the right to free association.

Unfortunately, Laurie is also right, there's a tragically high number of women who don't think other women should have these things. Never mind men.

No I don't agree, not if affects someone else body.

Who else's body did you have in mind, AndNow?

A woman's baby.

While it is a foetus, rather than a baby, inside the woman's body, the woman's bodily autonomy comes first, in my opinion. Yours obviously differs. I think you are wrong, because forced pregnancy and birth are one of the worst things that can be done to a woman.

Foetuses. Not 'baby'. A time where even some other women think women are just vessels and that it's ok to comment to random strangers about what they eat/drink/smoke.

If only people actually advocated as strongly for babies that actually exist instead of infantilising or patronising women.

Then you wish women fewer rights than a corpse AndNowItIsSeven

A woman's baby

Well since it is not the womans baby until after it is born, and isn't a person until then, you have no issue and you agree then, yes?

I do get conflicted.

I think a woman has a right to choose not to proceed with a pregnancy but if she chooses to then she has a responsibility to do her best to ensure the baby will be healthy without avoidable life long health issues e.g. Asthma from smoking.

I struggle with this.

Let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.

The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous.

How do you struggle with it? You don't really. You may think that people should freely make the choice not to smoke while pregnant, but you don't actually think that they should be locked up without access to cigarettes to prevent them doing so, do you?

This is a subject quite close to my heart today, after a disastrous date where I had to make several firm declarations in support of my own bodily autonomy. The sense of entitlement was palpable. The excuses given sadly predictable. A long time ago a boyfriend grabbed me in a sexual way without my permission. When I angrily exclaimed I'd break his arm if he did that again, I got called a violent and abusive person. If it happened now I would be able to recognise he had been a perpetrator of actual violence.

No I don't lady.

I think where a free choice is made to continue a pregnancy there is a responsibility that goes alongsusecthat though.

Do I think women should be forced into pregnancy? No.

Do I think women who choose to be pregnant should be protected from disapproval for making choices that are known to be harmful?

Hmm. It's a bit like the obesity debate in a way. Should we pretend things aren't happening due to bodily autonomy or do we have a societal duty to point out where hazards lie and if so where do we find the boundaries of our duty? (As a collective)

There's no dichotomy there though. Educating about better choices doesn't impact on bodily autonomy. Social shaming doesn't either. We can do all kinds of things to try and push people into the right choices, but we can't force people to do as we would like.
And as long as yuo don't think we should, there isn't anything to struggle with.

But can a person who smokes (or drinks, or takes drugs) be said to have bodily autonomy anyway? Surely there's an argument that this has been surrendered to the tobacco industry ( or drinks industry or drug supplier) at the point where the person became addicted.

So this theoretical pregnant smoking woman is not displaying bodily autonomy - we're making a massive assumption she is making a free choice to smoke.

Otherwise yes I'd roughly agree with the stated premise - certainly with regard to sex/pregnancy. But I'm not convinced that full bodily autonomy is something that any human being enjoys.

Nope. It's always a choice. It may not be an entirely free choice, but then most choices aren't.
They still have bodily autonomy.

Hmm. I was really responding to Lauries comment about tutting at pregnant women smoking lady. She was definitely disapproving of social shaming.

That's a very interesting point chicken. How much autonomy do any of us really have when we make choices?

It is a bit like the obesity debate actually.

Seeing someone obese eat cake might make you hoik up your judgey pants a little, but that's not usually regarded as you (the judger) posing a threat to bodily autonomy. Of course the obese person can decide to eat cake, it's still a terrible idea.

So of course a pregnant woman can decide to smoke but you can still be judgey pants about it without thinking she has no right to bodily autonomy.

I agree a woman should be able to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.

However if she decides to do so, I think that she should take some reasonable steps to ensure she does not cause harm to the 'future person'. For instance, I think it would be wrong for a woman to drink to excess while pregnant if she was intending to continue with the pregnancy. We can owe duties to future persons, for instance we should make efforts to minimise climate change for the sake of our descendants.

That being said, I do not think this is an area where it is appropriate for the law to intervene. So, I certainly do not think a woman should be locked up without access to cigarettes to prevent her smoking. There are plenty of things which we regard as morally wrong but where we do not think the law should intervene - adultery, for instance.

I remember reading a harrowing account from a woman who was an alcoholic and raped by her husband (Ireland circa late 80s). She had no choice but to keep the pregnancy. Her drinking increased daily until one day she collapsed in a street in Dublin whilst out shopping with her three young children - she was drunk and about 7 months at that time. She was being abused physically and sexually throughout the pregnancy and was very fortunate to have met a non judgemental consultant - she was avid to point out that this is what saved her.

That person turned her life around. She was given all the help she needed and fortunately the baby was born healthy with no lasting after effects. She separated from her husband and her family took care of her - they had no idea that this middle class woman was being so terribly treated by her 'adoring' husband.

Being judgemental doesn't help the person who needs it.

I do agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy.

The "world famous violinist" argument is a ridiculous point and is in no way comparable to disapproving of a woman smoking when pregnant.

We are allowed to impose boundaries on who we have sex with, who we get naked in front of, who we spend time with with no justification required

Of course. Not a problem.

Like the threads where we have posters 'glaring', 'tutting', at smokers who are pregnant

Oh I promise I won't glare or tutt in public but you are not going to police my thoughts that the woman doing this is incredibly selfish and it is an incredibly stupid, selfish and immoral thing to do.

I think it is crucial to distinguish between passing moral judgement on and legislating against an act.

By all means tut all you want at pregnant women who smoke. (I am an avid non-smoker, incidentally, but think you are wrong to do so. My DSis smoked till it killed her - it's a shitty addiction - and tutting does not help the person doing the smoking, however much it might be a satisfying experience to the "tuttee".)

But do not legislate, because that way lies authoritarian madness of the sort being enacted in some American states where women can now be imprisoned for endangering their foetus. The moment the law takes the rights of the foetus more seriously than the rights of the women then you have created a society where the rights of born, adult women mean fuck-all.

The "world famous violinist" argument is a ridiculous point and is in no way comparable to disapproving of a woman smoking when pregnant

It's not meant to be it's about abortion rights.

Bodily autonomy is a basic human right.