baby's rights versus women's rights..

Former Member

\

Former Member

Having a C-section basically means that you'll never deliver a child vaginally again. Depending on why you had to have it. Which would obviously bother me. Personally, it's a horribly invasive way to try and give birth, but I'd have one if it were necessary.

From a sociological point of view, pregnant women almost are public property, because as a race it's the only way we survive. Not that it really matters.

Former Member

sophia wrote:

It's nothing but assault, grievous bodily harm. We believe that all humans are entitled to bodily integrity, and that no one should be able to harm you against your will...unless you're a pregnant woman, and then you're fair game as your body doesn't belong to you anymore, it belongs to the state. That, to me, is totally and utterly fucked up.

theres plenty of instances where a body doesnt belong to ourselves anymore. People get sectioned all the time, are medicated against their will if its in "their best interests" detained, sedated, especially if theyre a danger to themselves or other people, People do get forced to undergo certain surgeries and treatments without their consent. It isnt just pregnant women at all. I agree with you about the dehumanising aspect of it, but why in hell would someone refuse something lifesaving to their child? Theyve taken it to the point of birth, and then do something that will kill it. Maybe they do need to be sectioned?

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

Having a C-section basically means that you'll never deliver a child vaginally again.

not at all.

Former Member

Ok... I don't have a lot of experience with it, but a friend who had to have one following complications will have to have a c-section if she doesn't deliver by the due date.

make sense?

Former Member

A lot of people who have C sections will need to have the rest of their children by C section also, but it is possible for women with the right care to have a vaginal birth after caesarean(VBAC). Youre right though, it depends on the reason. If the reason for the original section was pelvis too small for delivery or something, its gonna be the same for all her babies. It probably also depends on the cut used, how it healed, etc. There are contraindications for VBAC though, and it is higher risk because the scar can rupture. You cant have a vbac if youre induced as syntocin which they use to induce labour, gives a very strong liklihood of scar rupturing, which is maybe why they dont recommend your friend has another section if she goes overdue.

Former Member

She was induced, and there were complications, but I didn't like to pry. So they can't induce her again.

Former Member

sophia wrote:

Yes, it really does seem to come down to this, at bottom. To me, the answer's so glaringly obvious that I can't believe not everyone agrees with me, but such is the nature of moral questions like this.

I do not consider the foetus as a fully fledged human being in possession of equal rights on a par with the rights the woman enjoys, because like kermit says it's not an independent life-form, it is entirely dependent on the woman's body and resources for its survival. Therefore, I think it's an extension of her body to do with as she chooses, regardless of what other people consider the correct course of action. A foetus lives parasitically off the mother, draining her resources and putting a great physical strain on her; I refuse to see why she should be held hostage to this and forced to continue with it against her will.

And I am extremely, extremely suspicious about people who think the rights of the foetus somehow trump the rights of the woman. As go_away says, "pro-life" is something of a misnomer as many women die in the course on botched abortions, and anyway; if we care about the quality of human life and people's rights, surely those with priority should be those who are already existing in the world, ie the women in question? Those people who put the rights of the foetus ahead of those of the mother are, it seems to me, misogynists who value the "innocent" unborn child over the somehow dirty, tainted woman, whose wishes no longer need taking into account as she is just a vessle for bringing the baby into the world.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It makes perfect sense, but I guess where I disagree is at the point of saying that if the foetus isn't an independent form of life then it doesn't hold the same rights as any other person. Sure, it depends on the mother to live, but it does live already... this is what makes me uncomfortable about abortions. Although to make my point clear, I think it is a case of two people's rights coming in conflict with one another where a choice must be made, rather than a case of immediately suspending the 'filthy woman's rights' as you put it. It's not that she ceases to have rights, but there has now emerged another being with the same rights who come into conflict with her own (again, if you consider the foetus as a holder of such rights)..

Former Member

theres all this mention of people belonging to the state al the time, for their own best interests etc

what exactly, as nobody has answered it here, is the rights of an unborn child, as most of the time the people who are anti abortion (and if they are pro violence), tend to show me that the supposed rights of an unborn child are tantamount to being the same as their right to free speech

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote:

I think that the story about the african couple you mentioned is also dodgy and weird that shes more worried about any subsequent children she may have, than the threee babies she was about to deliver.

I know a lot of US hospitals insist on caesarean delivery for multiple births simply because there's more than one baby, rather than because there's any medical reason why that particular woman couldn't have a perfectly safe vaginal delivery. It's because a reasonably large percentage of attempted vaginal births of multiples end up having to go to theatre because of complications, so the hospitals think it's easier to cut out the labour part and go straight to theatre as a standard procedure. In that kind of situation, I can quite see why the African couple would have preferred to try a vaginal birth and potentially avoid problems obtaining aftercare for the scar and birthing future children.

Former Member

MrG wrote:

theres all this mention of people belonging to the state al the time, for their own best interests etc

what exactly, as nobody has answered it here, is the rights of an unborn child, as most of the time the people who are anti abortion (and if they are pro violence), tend to show me that the supposed rights of an unborn child are tantamount to being the same as their right to free speech

I'm sorry MrG, forgive my limited understanding of the English language, but I don't understand your post. Would you mind explaining it in other words for me? Thanks

Former Member

sophia wrote:

I might not understand a woman who would refuse a C section, and I might think it an incomprehensible decision that she would not have the surgery required to save her child's life...but I would never, ever support the idea of the choice being taken away from her, for the state and the medical establishment to decide to cut into her body against her will to remove the unborn child, who belongs to her and is a part of her body.

It's nothing but assault, grievous bodily harm. We believe that all humans are entitled to bodily integrity, and that no one should be able to harm you against your will...unless you're a pregnant woman, and then you're fair game as your body doesn't belong to you anymore, it belongs to the state. That, to me, is totally and utterly fucked up.

Whilst in agreement with you here, those malevolent actions are not limited to a pregnant woman.