Should pregnant women be allowed total control over their bodies? Where do the unborn child's rights come into it?

[Bumperliouzzzzzz]

Just wondering. I've never read anything theoretical on the matter and am not completely sure where I stand. However I was talking to a colleague today (am 18 weeks pg) and was mentioning wine (I've actually only had 2 glasses so far this pg) and she said 'Oh I thought you weren't allowed to drink when pg?' and I started on a rant (well actually we had a discussion) about woman's rights during pregnancy. I was saying that it is my body and I can do what I like with it, though obviously I don't.

What say should/does a father have in the matter? If I do drink when pg DH gets a bit twitchy, and he won't let me dig in our allotment. Now I am happy to have the excuse not to really but I resent being told what to do. I take heed of my DH because I care about him and believe that he should have some say and he is just worried, but I don't want to be nagged about what I should/shouldn't be doing.

Should the unborn child's rights come first or is it a case of my body, my choice? I think I am mostly resentful of the fact that it is a bunch of men (usually) politicians, DP's who tell us what to do when they have no idea of the effects of being pregnant.

What are your thoughts?

Exactly what I was thinking. it's the taliban.
I can see my home country adopting those laws really really quickly....
Forget that they are about 100 years behind on all the equality ones....

My God am I reading that right?

A 17-year-old girl, legally still a child herself, paid someone to beat her up in the hope of ending her pregnancy?

Sometimes I really know why I'm a member of Abortion Rights. (Sometimes, I have to say, I'm not sure at all why I am).

"I'll probably get hammered for being too extreme here, but this thinking amongst men (and it is men leading on this) comes from the fact that those men think of foetuses as male and they don't want women having control over a male at any stage of his life, even during gestation. "

I don't think anti-choice/pro-life argument really extends to the foetus at all, it's about controlling women's bodies.

Missus84, despite being in Abortion Rights, I disagree with that. I have certainly heard abortion being described as a profoundly male approach to life, and I disagree with that too. Plenty of pro-life people, who include a lot of women, IMO are genuinely and passionately committed to the rights of the individual. I'd hate to misrepresent their arguments just because I disagree.

I thought that profiles of anti-choice proponents showed that they generally support capital punishment? Ironically.

The Guardian article is flabbergasting.

I had no idea that these things were going on in "the land of the free".

Bumperlicious I'm really enjoying this thread and learning a lot, I'm glad you started it.

In the UK you do have that control. You can even refuse intervention in childbirth. In one case during labour they applied for a court order to force something on the woman and she won. I remember 11 years ago being very comforted by that legal position when I gave birth to twins at 40 weeks.

The only change I would make to the law in due course is that if it became technically possible to extract a foetus from a pregnant woman and implant it in another woman or grow it outside then I would give the father the right to effect that as long as the mother were allowed if she chose to disclaim all obligation to support the child and the father undertook not to use state funds to support it.

Xenia, I think oooh whatshername, Firestone (? Shulamith? My computer won't let me google, long story), talks about women not being free till the technology exists for foetuses to be incubated successfully outside the body.

There are a few cases in the US at the moment, and it's really interesting (where interesting = terrifying) to watch the insidious way in which reproductive rights are being whittled away. A woman who refused to consent to doctor-ordered bedrest (because she was a single mother to two or three young children, and needed to keep working to feed them) was prosecuted and ordered to bedrest, and then refused the option of seeking a second medical opinion. Another woman was prosecuted for refusing a caesarian. Women have been incarcerated for taking Class A drugs while pregnant, despite the fact that neither the taking of the drugs nor being pregnant are crimes punishable by imprisonment.

Bumperlicious, I agree with you that there's a moral imperative to consider the needs of the foetus, and I think there's a moral imperative to at least honour some of the father's concerns (although that's a slippery slope too - men are more likely to be abusive when their partners are pregnant. In fact, being pregnant is the primary risk factor for being killed by your partner).

But I agree with the majority, you have to trust women entirely, even if you don't agree with each one, or treat them as incubators. I trust women.

Totally agree with you Threelittlepebbles. It is related, it all ties in with the idea that our bodies do not fully belong to us.

The fact that the question can even be asked, shows how far feminism needs to go.

I've never used contraceptives actually. I don't want to invade my body or take pills. Why should I? I haven't read the Guardian article but I don't think women should take the pill if they don't have to and don't want to and mess around with their natural state and hormones.

Of course we own our bodies in the UK although not in many countries and there is no likelihood of stopping women's right to abort children but my simple gloss on that is that the foetus is half the father's and if there becomes a technical means to extract it and he have sole responsibility for it then I wouldn't be against that. I don't see why men can have a child forced on them but women can't - so if can remove it and have another woman bear it then that's fair

I don't think there is much point endlessly talking to women as though they may get preganant at some point while men act as though they will always have someone else to look after babies and it's nothing ot do with them.

Being preganant and teetotal is pretty pointless if your husband is beating 10 times of crap out of you.

It is also a human rights issue, they are saying that the state of pregnancy somehow makes you less than human and your body can be state controlled for the period of the pregnancy.

The US is a backward nation now. Pity we lost the war of independence. It was better when we ran it. It is one of the world leaders in capital punishment. It incarcerates people in G Bay without trial and Mr supposed God like Obama very recently sanctioned its policy to shoot to kill without trial people abroad. It is the land of not so very free these days, stuffed with fundmentalists who may indeed be worse than the supposed muslim thread. It has huge numbers who believe in creationism and backward views on abortion. they all like to strut around with guns too. I am glad the Special Relationship is shot to pieces. I certainly wouldnt' hold up the US as any kind of example. It i s clearly on these maters taking its lead from the Afghan whose new law I think said that women who are muslim are owned in effect.

We've had enough of the nanny state in the UK too which is why we need a change and to vote in a libertarian party like the Conservatives next month.

A Starbucks worker in New York refused to serve me my daily coffee at 8 months pregnant, insisting I'd have to have decaff instead.

I took my business elsewhere.

Okay, I have to go and lie down in shock, I agree with Xenia here...the US is a religious fundemental society in many areas. They have religious groups who have more in common iwth the Saudis than Western Europe in terms of women's rights.

It is interesting though as many of us (perhaps not Xenia ) feel that the state should have a duty of care towards the unborn child (protection in the workplace, ante-natal care etc).

cut myself off there, meant to continue by asking about how we can tie this in with the strong belief we all (myself included) have that state has no business telling me how i should act while pregnant.

is it that the duty of care is towards the mother?

The state has no business telling us how to act (unless illegal of course) when we're not pregnant too though, but still has a "duty of care" through workplace rights, H&S, the NHS. Plenty of people engage in risky behaviour but still turn to NHS care for example - why should that be different for pregnant women?

Women should be able to take their decisions. I cycled home in labour frmo the tube station when 40 weeks pregnant. I was happy to do that - only mild contractions and exercise is good for you. I climbed a high volcano against the suppposed safety advice. I let my twins wait until they naturally felt they wanted to be born at 40 weeks when NHS over cautious care routinely induces them at 38 weeks. I am always happy to take my own risks,. I have similarly subjected my children to more risks than most parents might in terms of giong out alone, riding, skiing and the like. I am glad I live in an England where I am not a communist automatom and can be part of a broad spectrum of different ways of being without state interference.

Yet most of us within the risk range we choose to adopt do tend to care for our unborn and born children.

However the important point is to be ever vigilant if we see any chipping away of parents' rights in these areas.

The law does limit us to some extent. We can have a lawful abortion in the UK up to 40 weeks and beyond for disabilities and up to whatever the other limit is virtually by choice. So if I had a non disabled baby and I tried to abort it myself in the UK at say 38 weeks then I would commit an offence I think and that's probably right, whereas if I just did something very risky but without the intention to kill it in utero at 38 weeks I might be okay.

Pretty much feel same as many others

Nobody should rell em what to do with my body but one would hope a pregnant woman would make the decisions that offer the ebst chances

Not black and white- a glass of wine here and there and a bit of decorating ain't gonna kill anyone

But you can't enforce anything. neitehr should you eb able to.