RIP The right of a woman to choose

Danny Kruger - MP for Devizes does not agree that women have an absolute right of bodily autonomy.

I hope the women of Devizes will remember this when they next get to vote.

twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1541778555088011264

Woman’s Hour today had an interview with an American woman who was in Malta when at 15 weeks, the placenta detached, then amniotic fluid broke. Her daughter had a heart beat but the doctors confirmed the baby would die. Malta has anti abortion laws which meant this mother could not have her pregnancy terminated despite the medics knowing the pregnancy was no longer viable and the mother’s life at risk
She travelled to Spain where her pregnancy was ended and she was treated in hospital. She’d been in hospital four days when Emma Barnett interviewed her by phone. The poor woman was emotionally and physically exhausted and grieving her lost daughter

SueDonim

I’ve been feeling really…not depressed exactly…but low and fearful for women’s future. It scares me to think of what is up ahead.

I was discussing it all with Dh earlier today, pointing out that under these laws, young girls could be forced to give birth, girls the same age as our oldest GD, who is 9yo. He was horrified at that, it brought it home to him just how repressive this is.

I have that "hanging over me" feeling too, SueDonim.

I was listening to a young couple on holiday; I think it was in Malta. She was four months pregnant. Problems started while she was there and she went to the hospital. The issues, she was told, meant the baby would not live. As they took that in, they were also told that the problems also endangered the mother's life. However, at this point, the baby still had a heartbeat. They were told they could not operate as it would be aborting the baby. So the mother's life was at risk for the sake of a baby they knew would die anyway. Luckily, they were flown out and able to get to a hospital and save the mother's life.

In what religion/politics does that make any sense?

I appreciate ‘ rights’.
Every single person I’ve asked has shied away from answering this question:
What rights do an unborn child have?
Could you help me to understand?

That’s exactly what happened to Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, except the poor woman actually lost her life for the want of a TOP.

Before I had children, the wife is one of my husband’s colleagues was expecting their second baby. She realised something was wrong at a late stage and tragically, the baby had died at about 34 weeks of pregnancy. The hospital refused to induce her as they said it was better (for whom??) if she had the baby naturally. She carried that dead child inside her for six weeks, going to full term before delivering, with people asking when the baby was due and looking after her little boy.

If you dare Google what giving birth to a deceased baby after several weeks is like, it’s not pretty. I was horrified at the time, I thought it was barbaric and it almost put me off having children myself. Although that’s different to an unwanted pregnancy situation, it’s exactly the same in terms of attitudes to women, almost as though they are being punished for having had sex. ‘You sinned so you’ll suffer.’

Bluefox

I appreciate ‘ rights’.
Every single person I’ve asked has shied away from answering this question:
What rights do an unborn child have?
Could you help me to understand?

... perhaps it's the wrong question?

Until the eighth week of development the "unborn child" is an embryo after which is is a foetus until it is born as a baby.

When we talk about "rights", we do not usually expect one human being to give up their rights to another human being - especially the right to life. But that is exactly what your question is 'prompting'... that at either the moment of conception or after the 8th week, the mother must lose all her rights - and in some cases, the right to life - and give those rights to the embryo / foetus. She loses her humanness and becomes merely a vector - or a an incubator for another, potential, human being - but one without consciousness or awareness.

So the question is - at what point do we decide the woman has no further right other than to be the incubator? And where, in any society, do we ask that one person subsumes their rights to another? And, just as important - who gets to make that decision?

I am arguing on the basis that the majority of women who decide to terminate a pregnancy, do so for a good reason - because I refuse to believe that the majority casually decide to abort as a 'lifestyle' choice. And if some do - then that's a separate discussion. I'm talking about pregnancies which are dangerous to a woman's health, either physical or mental, or carrying a foetus that is severely disabled, perhaps to the point where they will not survive long after birth. Then of course, there is rape and incest.

So I answer your question with another question. Does an unborn foetus (which is what the "unborn child" is, have more rights than the woman carrying it?

In an ideal world, every birth would be a welcomed event, every birth would be safe for both mother and baby. But it's not an ideal world, far from it, and so this is the dilemma.

Further, men have been controlling women's sexuality since time immemorial - either via religious edicts, or through plain and simple misogyny. And many women buy into it. But the battle is being lost, so up jump these men to decree that a woman must carry to term - regardless. It's the last desperate attempt of men trying to control women to maintain their power in a patriarchal society.

On a personal level, I think every abortion is a sad event, and I wish it didn't happen, but as a realist, I believe that it is sometimes necessary, and that choice has got to be the woman's choice.

Doctors are already modifying medication regimens on women based on the chances they may cause a miscarriage

What's going to be next - ban contraception?

Hithere

Doctors are already modifying medication regimens on women based on the chances they may cause a miscarriage

What's going to be next - ban contraception?

You may be right Hithere.

I’m finding it impossible not to be concerned about the way woman’s rights are under attack

Some women contemplating a termination will have children already. How about their rights to a healthy (mental and physical) mother? Or will a new baby - possibly with profound handicaps, or living just a short time, be a better addition to their life, or , heaven forbid, be a good replacement for their mum?

Yes, contraception is very much on the radar of some right wing politicians in US. Now “victory” has been gained over controlling one area of women’s lives, this has been voiced as next under attack.
Women’s health care is already very unequal in the US, with poorer women with no medical insurance having to pay for their own contraception, which in some States is not easy to obtain. As usual it is the poor who suffer most.
Very divided society.

What a fantastic post Dickens.

And let's always remember that regardless of the law women have always had abortions. The law simply made sure those abortions were done safely under medical supervision. Driving women into back street abortions will leave some infertile and kill some. I think the film Vera Drake should be shown to everyone and especially those who claim to be pro-life.

Dickens how/who can judge a question to be right or wrong Bluefox asked a question to open up, not close down the discussion. I have these same thoughts, Which as I see it is fundamental to the differing opinions promoted, if and when does a baby acquire or is assigned rights, or are there intrinsic rights which naturally belong to all alive humans . To be clear I’m not anti abortion however scientific advancements has enabled the viability of life outside the womb in very premature babies and this raises moral and ethical deliberation which many wrestle with.

Indeed, Glorianny I was a student nurse and started training just before the 1967 Abortion Act. I can still remember young women seriously ill with septicaemia (sepsis) and two dying on the gynae wards after back street abortions.

Hithere

Doctors are already modifying medication regimens on women based on the chances they may cause a miscarriage

What's going to be next - ban contraception?

Most of the nations in the top ten list of countries that have an unfavorable view of contraception with regard to morality are from the African continent. Nigeria, Ghana, Tunisia, Uganda, Kenya, and Senegal are listed among the nations with the highest moral opposition to contraception. In Nigeria and Ghana, more than half of each population regarded the use of contraception as morally unacceptable. (Source: "World Atlas")

An interesting comment from...

MSI UK Advocacy and Public Affairs Advisor Louise McCudden on the subject of Contraception...

Is it simply because women are more likely to face longer-term consequences, like pregnancy? Certainly, that may be part of it. But this dynamic isn’t exclusive to contraception; it mirrors a labour divide we see repeat itself between men and women in other areas of work. It also speaks to a wider problem. Women are constantly expected to take responsibility for men’s sexuality, in all sorts of contexts. Why would contraception be any different?

We still live in a world where women are not only judged for how much sex we have, but a world where women can be redefined as a different category of person if we have the wrong amount. We have special, dehumanising words for women who have sex too much or too soon. We don’t have those words for men, because men are not expected to be the ones responsible for resisting temptation or upholding conventional ideals. (Of course, we also have special dehumanising words for women who don’t have enough sex, because misogyny is a confusing mess). Men are not held responsible for the consequences of sex in the ways that women are. It makes sense, then, if women end up more likely to take on this ‘fertility work.’

As she concludes, Contraception is a Feminist issue.

And as I conclude... Contraception and Abortion give women more power over their own lives than some men can tolerate, because each bit of power we wrest from them reduces the control they have over us. I would speculate that men who cannot cope with women's autonomy are, basically, suffering from 'inadequacy' - they cannot integrate with women as equal human beings - but they often cleverly cloak this inadequacy with the moral indignation of the Religious Right. It's not them, you see - it's 'ordained', God's will, they are upholding. And if you go against it - you, feminists, are immoral. And in that context, they feel justified in calling out women who use contraception or undergo terminations as "feminazis" and "baby murderers" (etc).

If such men (and some women) REALLY cared about babies' lives, we wouldn't have the levels of child poverty that we do - especially now increasingly in the West.

That's my take on the issue. Others will, naturally, disagree.

I agree Dickens
I’m fearful and angry that women’s hard fought for gains are being eroded in many areas of life.

I agree with you Dickens if only. If only we all; all of us REALLY REALLY cared about babies lives. Then the world we live in would be utterly different.

Stormystar

Dickens how/who can judge a question to be right or wrong Bluefox asked a question to open up, not close down the discussion. I have these same thoughts, Which as I see it is fundamental to the differing opinions promoted, if and when does a baby acquire or is assigned rights, or are there intrinsic rights which naturally belong to all alive humans . To be clear I’m not anti abortion however scientific advancements has enabled the viability of life outside the womb in very premature babies and this raises moral and ethical deliberation which many wrestle with.

I could've worded my comment better.

I didn't mean that Bluefox should not have the right to ask the question, I was speculating on whether it was the 'right' question to ak

Also I agree with what you say about scientific advancement and the viability of life outside the womb.

My argument is with those who have an agenda to limit women's rights and autonomy and use abortion as a weapon. Among them those "pro-lifers" who are adamant that an 18 year old (clearly troubled) youth has the right to own a semi-automatic rifle. I can understand a family living 'off-grid' owning a hand-gun for protection... but there is nothing 'pro-life' about owning a SA rifle which is meant to - and does, kill innocent people, many of them children. And I will not accept their skewed moralising or 'ethical deliberation' on the subject of abortion.

My observations are / were not aimed at Bluefox personally, I was simply 'advancing' the issue she raised, on another level.

Today, Raab made it clear the government will refuse to include the right to choose in the forthcoming Bill of Rights. His argument is that there is already a statutory law permitting abortion. But laws can be changed.

We in the UK cannot afford to be complacent.

Dickens

Bluefox

I appreciate ‘ rights’.
Every single person I’ve asked has shied away from answering this question:
What rights do an unborn child have?
Could you help me to understand?

... perhaps it's the wrong question?

Until the eighth week of development the "unborn child" is an embryo after which is is a foetus until it is born as a baby.

When we talk about "rights", we do not usually expect one human being to give up their rights to another human being - especially the right to life. But that is exactly what your question is 'prompting'... that at either the moment of conception or after the 8th week, the mother must lose all her rights - and in some cases, the right to life - and give those rights to the embryo / foetus. She loses her humanness and becomes merely a vector - or a an incubator for another, potential, human being - but one without consciousness or awareness.

So the question is - at what point do we decide the woman has no further right other than to be the incubator? And where, in any society, do we ask that one person subsumes their rights to another? And, just as important - who gets to make that decision?

I am arguing on the basis that the majority of women who decide to terminate a pregnancy, do so for a good reason - because I refuse to believe that the majority casually decide to abort as a 'lifestyle' choice. And if some do - then that's a separate discussion. I'm talking about pregnancies which are dangerous to a woman's health, either physical or mental, or carrying a foetus that is severely disabled, perhaps to the point where they will not survive long after birth. Then of course, there is rape and incest.

So I answer your question with another question. Does an unborn foetus (which is what the "unborn child" is, have more rights than the woman carrying it?

In an ideal world, every birth would be a welcomed event, every birth would be safe for both mother and baby. But it's not an ideal world, far from it, and so this is the dilemma.

Further, men have been controlling women's sexuality since time immemorial - either via religious edicts, or through plain and simple misogyny. And many women buy into it. But the battle is being lost, so up jump these men to decree that a woman must carry to term - regardless. It's the last desperate attempt of men trying to control women to maintain their power in a patriarchal society.

On a personal level, I think every abortion is a sad event, and I wish it didn't happen, but as a realist, I believe that it is sometimes necessary, and that choice has got to be the woman's choice.

I agree with all of this, but I too have a question. Why is it that the anti abortion campaigners are only interested in the foetus in the womb ? They seem to have a mindset of ‘abortion stopped, job done’ with no thought at all to the circumstances into which the actual child is born. At the point of birth, mother and child are left to get on with it. If the interest is truly in the human being, why is that ?

* Men have go to be stopped from making these decisions and controlling women's lives.*

I agree, I think more women need to involve themselves in politics. Hopefully this will galvanise women in the US to do just that, and also to turn out to campaign and vote at individual state levels

Dickens an inference that a question is the wrong question is an attempt to nullify, invalidated the question. There can be no judgment as to whether a question is the right question ! A question is just that a question an inquiry., an opening for further discussion

A woman is not a life support system.

We would never consider it sound ethical practice to plug an adult into another adult in order to sustain life. Especially if that caused loss of mental and physical health, permanent body changes and economical issues for the support person. Especially when that could also negatively impact the sustained life....

That is why women should have the right to choose.

VioletSky

A woman is not a life support system.

We would never consider it sound ethical practice to plug an adult into another adult in order to sustain life. Especially if that caused loss of mental and physical health, permanent body changes and economical issues for the support person. Especially when that could also negatively impact the sustained life....

That is why women should have the right to choose.

Well put.

Pammie1

I agree with all of this, but I too have a question. Why is it that the anti abortion campaigners are only interested in the foetus in the womb ? They seem to have a mindset of ‘abortion stopped, job done’ with no thought at all to the circumstances into which the actual child is born. At the point of birth, mother and child are left to get on with it. If the interest is truly in the human being, why is that ?

To be strictly fair, there are anti-abortionists who do care and I believe I've read about organisations set up to help women in certain situations.

Many years ago I lived in a road in Twickenham (Greater London) where there was a clinic carrying out abortions. There were regular demonstrations outside it on certain days - quiet, peaceful, and populated mostly by middle-aged and elderly women, with the odd man taking part here and there. Taxis and cars would arrive with patients going into the clinic, and they were met with these protestors and their placards. They were (the protestors) exercising their right to peaceful demonstration. There were not many of them.

Unfortunately, they were ultimately joined by a louder and more aggressive bunch and they began to block the pavements. The end result was that there were certain legal restrictions placed on their activities because they were causing a public nuisance.

What the anti-abortionists didn't appear to acknowledge was the fact that the charity also ran a fertility clinic, dealt with STIs, and gave advice and support to men with erectile dysfunction. The assumption was made that women arriving with men were having an abortion - when it was quite possible the women were accompanying the men - or both were going in for fertility treatment. But they all got the waving placards aimed at them.

I looked frequently at the faces of the original mostly female protestors, for the most part, they looked like nice, gentle people, and I'm assuming they had no agenda other than to protect the life of the foetus - the writing on their placards also indicated that. And even as a pro-abortion individual, I respect their right to peaceful 'protest'.

So it's a mixed bag. I didn't agree with their message - but understood their feelings up to a point. My argument is really with the misogynists and patriarchal men in positions of power who want to impose restrictions on women for no other reason than that of controlling them and removing their autonomy, because they are threatened by the rising tide of feminism which is making its way into the mainstream of political life and reducing their status. That's why they don't give a tinker's cuss about the women or the babies after the birth. I would imagine that the 'genteel ladies' at the end of my road, quietly demonstrating, were quite the opposite.

Contraception will be the next target. Being able to choose whether or not to get pregnant still gives women too much choice and independence. Gilead, watered down... but we're getting there...