Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Can we agree that women are entitled to bodily autonomy?

195 replies

msrisotto · 20/08/2017 12:13

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 posts:
Missymoo100 · 21/08/2017 11:00

I was providing a reply to a previous post about equality, my main point being, is true autonomy and in control of our body inclusive of abortion if that choice is influenced by partners, parents, work pressures,
I sadly don't think abortion is always a free choice because of other people/factors
This could be another thread tho, I don't want to go completely off topic on an tangent.

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 11:25

Please explain to me what happens during birth that suddenly makes this being a person that deserves to have some rights?

You actually have to ask? They are BORN. They become a separate being. They take their very first breath.
Is this all not stunningly obvious? My 4 year old can understand this.

larrygrylls · 21/08/2017 12:58

Mary,

Yes, adults develop deeper and more nuanced arguments. You logic suits a reception aged kit perfectly, totally black and white.

Seachangeshell · 21/08/2017 13:08

mary the tone of your posts is very condescending to anyone who has a different viewpoint from you.
The people you disagree with are not stupid. They are intelligent women (and the occasional man).
You may have a very firmly held belief about this, but this isn't an easy issue.
There is a view in terms of the law, but it's also a very difficult moral, ethical issue.
Please stop belittling people because they disagree with you.

arousingcheer · 21/08/2017 13:15

As a society/culture do not agree on women's entitlement to bodily autonomy, which is why (1) rape remains so poorly reported and prosecuted, (2) there are still abortion protesters outside medical facilities which provide abortions and (3) men don't see themselves as part of these discussions except the ones who want to shut them down.

arousingcheer · 21/08/2017 13:16

We as a society etc...

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 13:19

Yes, adults develop deeper and more nuanced arguments

You haven't understood the basics that the kids have yet, so you're not nearly ready for the adult nuanced ones.

There is no nuance to the law. You are not a person until you are born. There is no nuance, no grey area, and no opinion on that FACT.
Once you've got that, then you can talk with the adults.

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 13:20

mary the tone of your posts is very condescending to anyone who has a different viewpoint from you

No, they are condescending to those that think I am arguing my own viewpoint, when what I am stating is an objective fact.

Seachangeshell · 21/08/2017 13:29

It is an objective fact in terms of the law. Not in terms of morality and ethics.

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 13:34

Your morality and ethics are individual to you and have no bearing on when personhood is obtained.

BrandNewHouse · 21/08/2017 13:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BasketOfDeplorables · 21/08/2017 13:48

Personhood is not an objective fact, the law around this changes. Legally in the UK, yes, personhood begins at birth.

But there is nothing stupid about asking why that is. It's a complex philosophical question.

Seachangeshell · 21/08/2017 14:54

brand I wonder if anyone on here is anti-abortion though?
I'm pro-choice. I think the law in England as it stands seems right to me. Up to 24 weeks. Or longer if the mother's life is in danger or the baby would have a very severe disability and very poor quality of life.
I would be opposed to a change in the law allowing abortion up to the time of birth in other cases.
Having said that there would still be individual cases that would be difficult, e.g. if the pregnant woman didn't realise she was pregnant in time.

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 15:01

Personhood is not an objective fact, the law around this changes. Legally in the UK, yes, personhood begins at birth

It changes? Please do tell us all when personhood began at some other time than birth, in the UK, showing the relevant laws at the time.

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 15:02

But there is nothing stupid about asking why that is. It's a complex philosophical question

Nobody asked why it is, they sneerily kept insisting that it was merely my opinion.

BasketOfDeplorables · 21/08/2017 15:26

Please do tell us all when personhood began at some other time than birth, in the UK, showing the relevant laws at the time.

Why would it have to be in the UK? Personhood isn't related to being British, although that would explain many actions of the British Empire.

Slavery throughout history has treated humans not as persons, but as property. There are cases around non-human persons such as apes in captivity. The possibility of AI evolving into another form of non human person is much discussed.

How is personhood straightforward?

littlemisssweetness · 21/08/2017 15:32

Woman can do whatever they like, however if they then have a baby born with lasting effects from their shitty choices while pregnant they have zero right to complain about how hard it is when they're the reason their child is suffering

9toenails · 21/08/2017 15:38

LadyMaryCrawley1922:

"Nobody asked why it [sc. why in UK law personhood begins at birth] is, they sneerily kept insisting that it was merely my opinion."

(If I may ...)
I wonder what your opinion is, Mary. Does the law get it right or not?

Btw, it seems not to follow from the fact that people have different opinions on morality that morality is just a matter of opinion. There's a bit more to it than that, maybe? Possibly not just a question of taste? Do you agree?

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 17:15

Why would it have to be in the UK? Personhood isn't related to being British, although that would explain many actions of the British Empire

Because th 2 posters above both referenced specifically the UK.

LadyMaryCrawley1922 · 21/08/2017 17:17

Slavery throughout history has treated humans not as persons, but as property

Generally they were treated as both people and property, actually. The US constitution counted slaves as 3 fifths of a person.

PencilsInSpace · 21/08/2017 18:50

Seachangeshell - I'm pro-choice. I think the law in England as it stands seems right to me. Up to 24 weeks. Or longer if the mother's life is in danger or the baby would have a very severe disability and very poor quality of life.
I would be opposed to a change in the law allowing abortion up to the time of birth in other cases.
Having said that there would still be individual cases that would be difficult, e.g. if the pregnant woman didn't realise she was pregnant in time.

A lot of people (including me) would say you are not pro choice with these views. One of the arguments for extending the time limit to full term is because it eliminates discrimination against foetuses that would be born with disabilities.

Another good argument is that pretty much every case of late abortion is a difficult individual case. Women who didn't realise they were pregnant until too late, women in deep denial following a rape, very young girls concealing pregnancies, long delays in the process of actually getting an abortion. There was a paper somewhere of all the (tiny number of) women seeking a post-20 week abortion for non-medical reasons in a year. They were all heartbreaking. I'll see if I can find it again.

Women are not simply sitting around, idly twiddling their thumbs and waiting until the last minute. Neither are they suddenly deciding to have late abortions for frivolous reasons.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

This reminds me, do people know about Lord Shinkwin's Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill that's being debated at the moment? The idea is to lower the time limit of abortion for medical reasons to 24 weeks, in line with the general limit. There's a good article here

BasketOfDeplorables · 21/08/2017 18:52

I do not think the legal position of the UK should change. Birth seems to be the most sensible distinction to make between foetus and person.

However, that does not mean I can't see that there is no material difference to what a foetus thinks and feels, and what the person it suddenly becomes just moments later. Many animals have understanding at least on a par with human children. Yet they are not legal persons. We may one day see this as barbaric in the same way we think of not seeing another human as a full person.

'What is a person?' is a very complex question. The legal definition may be the most workable currently, but laws change all the time, and should in recognition of what we learn.

PencilsInSpace · 21/08/2017 18:55

<a class="break-all" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EfB9iDYfNUAJ:www.bpas.org/media/1181/32-reasons-not-to-lower-the-abortion-time-limit-briefing.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Found it. It's requests above 22 weeks and it's an audit of all requests to BPAS within a 28 day period.

PencilsInSpace · 21/08/2017 19:15

Have you read any Peter Singer, BasketOfDeplorables? He goes down that route and concludes that chimps should have more rights than human beings with profound learning disabilities and brain injuries, as well as foetuses and new born babies.

I think philosophising as he does is all very interesting but when it gets so thoroughly divorced from what most of us would consider ethical I think it's extremely dangerous.

For me, a person has the following qualities:

  • they are a live human being
  • they are not living inside another human being

I know that in law a commercial company can be a 'person'. The law is sometimes very strange.

MrsSquiggler · 21/08/2017 19:27

Peter Singer turned me vegan - I found his logic undeniable!

Swipe left for the next trending thread