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.

Op, so if a fetus did have legal rights you would still believe your right to not have them grow in your body, is more important than the right of your unborn child to not be killed.

I saw that BBC link Quencher. I don't know what the circumstances were where it was applied.

But only 16 people have been found guilty of child destruction in 11 years in England and Wales

I hate seeing pregnant women smoking. And can't think why anyone would be so selfish. But I wouldn't dream of voicing my disapproval. And smoking is bad for everyone. Bad for the mother, bad for the baby and bad for people around breathing in smoke.

Op, so if a fetus did have legal rights you would still believe your right to not have them grow in your body, is more important than the right of your unborn child to not be killed.

I'm not the OP, but yes, I do. Pregnancy is bloody dangerous, we don't make people risk themselves for others in any other situation, so why this one?

@LassWiTheDelicateAir the premise is that any pregnant woman killed, the foetus is looked at like may other body part. For the person to be persecuted for the death of the foetus, it has to be proven it was intentional the way a woman would decide to buy poison/drug over the Internet and kill it. It would not surprise me if the people mentioned where mostly women who bought drugs over the Internet at a later stage of pregnancy. The word used was people. It can easily include pregnant women too.

This law for me seems to protect men and demonise women who might want late termination in pregnancy beyond the accepted date.

Bodily autonomy is so critical to human rights. Can you imagine if we were one of those third world countries (and Ireland) where we were forced to bear our rapists baby? Or forced to birth babies who have already died? Babies without brains? Thankfully we are not because foetuses don't have rights and for now, women still do. If we can't convince our fellow women of that though, what hope do we have of convincing men.

Op, so if a fetus did have legal rights you would still believe your right to not have them grow in your body, is more important than the right of your unborn child to not be killed.

Giving a foetus legal rights would be like giving a liver legal rights, so don't be bloody silly. And yes, the born human should always have the right not to be forced to carry a foetus to term just to satisfy the desires of foetus fetishists.

Are you suggesting these rights should exist?

Yes, I do. Insofar as it is possible.

The right to refuse treatment isn't really a right, as any choice where the other option is: "or you could just die" isn't a true choice. Also, the right to refuse treatment is routinely ignored - if you are unconscious, they will assume you want treatment.

And a pregnant woman's right to refuse treatment will be trampled over anyway, at least in those countries where pregnant women are treated as subhuman and secondary to the fetus.

Apart from the fact that some women are just not comfortable with random males we don't know seeing us naked and touching our naked bodies, there's also the fact that there's a large Muslim immigrant community, where this is part of the culture. I would not be surprised in the least if a study found that Muslim women don't seek treatment for things that would require surgery.

This may not kill many people, as an inflamed appendix, for example, might cause such severe pain that you cease to care about other things.

But it probably results in women putting up with a lot of discomfort.

I agree with your premise but the example you gave at 12:40 is not in anyway shape or form relatable to unborn foetuses. 1-both you and the violinist have rights. Whether one has more rights to the other person is another thing. 2-the foetus has no rights. It's rights only begin from the moment it's born and becomes a baby human being

Er, hello? NI and Ireland? Could you stop being so British-centric and realise there are women in your own country and in countries close by that do not have the rights you do?

Msrisotto id suggest you do some research into the state of the law wrt abortion in the uk as a whole.

That's quite an obnoxious statement.

No it's not. Women in Northern Ireland and woman on the Isle of Man, for example, aren't in a third world country, nor are they in Ireland (which is not a third world country either)
Your inference that it's only third world countries that don't have abortion rights and the implication that the uk is somehow superior is erroneous.

Not all of the constituent parts of the uk allow abortion.

*women

I know Ireland isn't a third world country. If you read something different that's your issue. Never said anything about superiority either. Only abortion laws.

Giving a foetus legal rights would be like giving a liver legal rights, so don't be bloody silly

Foetuses have legal rights in Ireland, didn't you know that?

@quencher, how on earth can you say a law protects men when you've no idea what the demigrapics are for prosecution or why the legislation was introduced in the first place.

This is one of those ethical dillemas I suffer cognitive dissonance on. I empathize with and understand both camps. The problem is there is no objective standard of morals and ethics and unless you have a religion to act as a final arbiter (of which there is no objective case to inflict on non-believers anyway!), it's an issue we are destined to be at perpetual loggerheads on.

That said my own personal sense of ethics values human life, and much like the philosophical question how many (as in a precise numerical value) grains of sand do you have to add before you have a pile of sand? In short I haven't the foggiest when precisely you have a human. Conception seems a stretch and the moment of birth is convienient but arbitrary.

However despite being pro life, the fact remains that when abortion is illegal you get a greater net loss of life as obviously more women die in botched black market procedures and if you are being utilitarian about it (which is the only way to get me little bear brain around it) you have to be pro choice if you are pro life. However that's just my subjective opinion and there is no reason anyone should share it.

I am saddened by pro-lifers, as given the stance it would make more logical sense to fundraise to provide resources and support to allow more women to make the choice to keep their babies where financial hardship is forcing them to consider abortions. I think that's the only truly supportable pro-life position. I am horrified by the protests outside abortion clinics, as I'm skeptical of any group utterly devoid of any compassion.

Bodily autonomy is so critical to human rights. Can you imagine if we were one of those third world countries (and Ireland) where we were forced to bear our rapists baby? Or forced to birth babies who have already died? Babies without brains? Thankfully we are not because foetuses don't have rights and for now, women still do. If we can't convince our fellow women of that though, what hope do we have of convincing men.

Women in Northern Ireland - which is part of the uk - are forced to birth babies without brains.

So your statement is wrong. The uk is, in part, one of "those third world countries" and it is staggeringly insensitive and English-centric not to recognise that.

In the uk, yes women are entitled to bodily autonomy. I think that in the case of pregnant women this is not morally straightforward. I am pro choice but think those that refuse to accept that this is complex are in denial. Foetus's after a certain number of weeks can feel pain, can taste, can learn, develop memory, respond to mother's voice etc. What happens in the womb can impact on the child/ adult's development for life. Infants born addicted suffer absolutely hugely, emotionally, developmentally and physically.
That is not to say I want to shame anyone (male or female). But it is not to me simple. Probably the law is right as it is, as it's hard to se a law that in my mind would be better- but I don't think its okay for women to abuse their unborn babies. Although those who do I'm sure need help rather than attack. (But I think that for anyone who harms anyone else whatever the situation)
Women (and men) do not always have bodily autonomy- when people are sectioned for example they can be forced medication and restrained. When people are arrested they can also be physically restrained, even tasered etc.
I find the idea that foetal experience doesnt count until after birth extraordinary. But I also think it is in part a remnant of not thinking that babies feel anything. They were paralysed during open heart surgery until I think 1987, rather than given pain relief as it was thought they did not feel pain. Abortion used to be done similarly without pain relief for the foetus, this has now also changed. Our understanding of what foetuses experience is changing as scientific research develops more understanding.
Like I said, I'm pro choice.

Can you imagine if we were one of those third world countries (and Ireland)

If you want to quibble, I think both clear that she wasn't including Ireland as a Third world country (hence the 'and') and that as she had explicitly mentioned 'Ireland' rather than 'The Republic of Ireland' or 'Eire' that she was referring to the whole island, not one of the two countries on that island.

Also, that would surely be British-centric - or do Wales and Scotland not count when you're accusing people of things based on a different interpretation of their words?

Yes you are correct. Mainland Britain centric. I stand corrected and apologise

It is still incorrect to say that it doesn't happen in the uk. The uk is one of those countries. In part at least.

Are we not allowed to look at things and say they're not all black and white? I really don't think pregnancy is so straight forward as people want to think.
I believe a woman should have the right to an abortion for whatever reason she has. But if she's happy to be pregnant and wants to continue to be pregnant (i.e. She asked the music society to find her a violinist to hook her up to and went to bed each night hoping t wake up next to a violinist) I don't see why it's not acceptable to also think that that woman shouldn't be intentionally and with full knowledge harming the foetus by smoking.
Of course I wouldn't want it law because it would be crazy to legislate how many sips of wine or puffs of smoke a woman could have before it became illegal. Or whether intentionally coming into contact with second hand smoke is illegal. It doesn't mean I won't judge - in the privacy of my own head - a woman from potentially harming her unborn child when she chose to carry that unborn child and continues to make that choice (by not terminating) everyday.

sorry apologies from me too for being England- centric. You are right Slow.

I'd like to know how some of you don't think an unborn baby is a human until after birth, does the vagina have some magical power that confers personhood upon the "foetus" passing through? Do you think it is acceptable to end the life of a child fully formed and capable of life outside the womb? I find the idea barbaric.

In the context, given that the Republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland have different health care systems and laws and are actually two completely different countries, it's not really accurate to conflate the two.

Northern Ireland is a part of the UK where women do not currently have bodily autonomy.

Neither do they have that in the republic of Ireland but it is not part of the uk.