Concerns of Consent and Bodily Autonomy

I dare say I've blogged about abortion before but I can't be arsed to look back through everything. Bodily autonomy and consent have been very much in the news lately, particularly with American states trying to pass laws that take women's control of their own bodies back to the dark ages.
For the most part my previous social media posts make my point well enough so I have just copied them up here - my comments in bold blue, other people's quotes in bold dark red. However, if you care to scroll down there are a few other examples of consent being 

A thread I posted on Twitter on 15th May 2019:
I was pro-choice before my parents forced me into an abortion at 8.5 weeks when I was 16 - they had kicked me out, the father walked away and I probably had HG. I am still pro-choice, because no one's choice should be taken from them. #YouKnowMe
As for the idea of 'if you don't want an abortion, don't get one'... No one wants to be pregnant and homeless / broke / frightened / sick / abandoned / abused. No one wants their unborn child to be incompatible with life.
And I'm fairly sure no one particularly wants to be pregnant by rape or incest... Actually, I doubt anyone has ever really 'wanted' an abortion. It's on no-one's bucket list. It's a procedure to take you out of a situation you can't bear to be in.
Something I posted on Facebook 17th May 2019:
Just cos something has a heartbeat doesn't make it alive. Until it is capable of living separately from the mother it is nothing but a parasite. Let's give all the men who think this is a great idea intestinal worms and ban them from getting treatment! ... and ostracise them (like society often does to unmarried mothers) cos they're dirty and gross.
Something I posted on Facebook 18th May 2019:
People who think all pregnancies are blessings... 
(a) have probably never been pregnant, have almost certainly never had complications. Trust me, 9 months of puking is no blessing.
(b) have probably not met many children, have almost certainly never spent an extended amount of time in their company.
(c) have probably never experienced social isolation or poverty, certainly can't imagine being pregnant without a supportive partner and / or family. Or homeless, or broke. Or all of the above.
(d) have very little idea of how unprepared some people are for the lifetime of responsibility. There's a lot more to having a child than giving birth.
(e) have zero perception that some people are pregnant with people they wouldn't want to be anywhere near them or a child - a manipulator, an abuser, a paedophile, a rapist...a relative.
(f) have zero understanding that some people don't actually like or want kids. Quit assuming everyone else wants the same things as you. Live your own bloody life and leave others to live theirs!A thread I posted on Twitter on 22nd May 2019:Men shouldn't have a say on abortion... but neither should 'women'! The ONLY person who should get a say is the individual who is pregnant. [Link to BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48262238]I don't see why there needs to be a law about what people do with their own bodies. Law can stay out of my choice to have or not have an abortion / a tattoo / a piercing / plastic surgery. Remember when suicide was a crime punishable by death?!I suppose the idea is that some people need to be protected from themselves... like that woman who got a boob job. You know who I mean, third boob woman. [although, thankfully, that turned out to be a hoax https://metro.co.uk/2015/01/27/that-woman-with-three-boobs-has-been-arrested-for-drink-driving-5038779/ sadly many other extremes are true] Mental competency tests before surgeries?!


Over and over I'm seeing posts of no-uterus no-opinion (like having a womb makes you a woman😠) and that men shouldn't have any say in what happens with women's bodies... but women shouldn't be passing laws on what other women can do with their bodies either; there are pro life women - presumably lacking in empathy or even a basic awareness of the dangers of pregnancy & childbirth. It's not a gender issue, it's a personal issue. Personal choice, personal control of your own body - there is nothing more important. 
And for those who cry "but what of the child's body?" - the child has no life beyond its mother, it has no autonomy and no rights. Personhood begins at birth. I did some philosophy for my degree - ever looked at The Violinist thought experiment? Here it is considered a direct parallel to rape: 
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-ethics-of-abortion-and-violinist.html but in reality sex can be consensual but that doesn't equate to consensual pregnancy. The Cabin thought experiment in that article says the stranger needs 9 months of care - reality is being told, at the end of 9 months, that you now have to care for that stranger for LIFE. More on that in a moment.
There's also a logical fallacy in assuming the child would WANT to be born. My mother chose to have me... but she quickly realised her mistake. I failed to bring her closer to my father, I upset her neat and tidy world, I was entirely more problematic than she had bargained for. My dad did not choose to have me. I grew up feeling unwanted and it was not nice. Unfortunately I then went on to do this to my own kids as I was in no fit state (as a teenager on welfare, suffering depression etc) to look after myself let alone children (I don't even like kids, I have no maternal feeling) and I begged to place my kids for adoption... no one would listen to me. 
If all pregnancies were forced to go to term what does society do with all the unwanted babies? America in particular has very little support for born children making their predominant pro-life stance very hypocritical. Almost every time the responsibility for that child falls to the mother, and that responsibility is 18+ years rather than 9 months; fathers often pay zero child support. All these unwanted children need to be clothed and fed and housed and educated... and state care or impoverished parents (even those currently able to amply provide would struggle if they were unable to control how many children they have). And then there's the child's mental wellbeing to consider - hard enough to be an unwanted child, a burden - but add to that being the product of rape or incest? That's a lot to assume a kid would want to bear.

Tweet from @AuthorKimberley 7th May 2019:
A man raped an 11-year-old and Ohio’s “heartbeat law” requires her to have his baby yet no law provides for the child's welfare once it’s born.
My response tweets, 9th May 2019:
Lots of offers in the comments to help get the girl to a state where abortion is more freely available... but no one seems to be querying what the girl wants.
Of course it's unlikely a girl wants to have a rapist's baby, it's unlikely an 11 year old wants to carry a child to term, some might argue she is too young to make such a choice but taking the choice from her is a violation too.
It's so easy to assume what someone wants but it's a dangerous way to look at things. Lets face it, anti abortion legislation exists because men fear their 'children' being aborted. They don't want abortion so no one can have it.
Women who support anti abortion legislation invariably seem to comment about their struggles to conceive. Their own desire for a baby blinding them to the desires of others. Or maybe they always lacked empathy. Who knows.
If you order pizza in a restaurant does that mean the family at the next table want pizza too?! Of course not. But over and over you see people arguing that abortion is wrong because they would never choose one. Illogical.
The inability to contemplate sexual violence *might* be from a deep rooted aversion to the topic but more likely it's just ignored by people with fixed ideas and no empathy for others.
Empathy. Freedom to make your own choices. Bodily autonomy. Pro choice must always mean pro CHOICE and not assuming what anyone wants, regardless of what we would do in their circumstances.
I hope this girl gets all the support she needs. I hope she is able to make the right choice for herself and not forced into ANYTHING by anyone, least of anyone the lawmakers of her state.

There are precious few scenarios where anyone should be making decisions about someone else's body, in any sense - in my opinion that power should only apply to non verbal children*, people in comas or the catastrophically disabled. When my parents did their Enduring Power of Attorney documents to put me in charge of things if they became incapacitated (as my mum has) they did not fill out the medical part so I have no control beyond regular next-of-kin rights to say what medical treatments they can or can't endure. In some ways that bothers me as I don't trust the medical profession to make those judgement calls.
What age, or what degree of competence does someone need? To my mind a child of 10 (or even younger) may be entirely able to understand the risks and benefits and be capable of making a decision so why should that choice be denied? Declaring someone incompetent because they have made a decision that doesn't sit well with their doctors or family is pretty darn gross too. 

Parents naturally enough make decisions on behalf of their child - vaccinations, dental treatments etc - but where do you draw the line? For example I personally dislike cochlear implants. A permanent intrusion into a child's skull is apparently better than deafness. Okay, so I'm not deaf but is it REALLY so awful?! My parents consented to squint correction surgery on me when I was 3 years old, something I would not have consented to if it had been held off until I was old enough to have a say. I don't hugely resent that it was done to me but I would rather it had not been. Apparently, much as cleft lip repair is done for functional reasons as much as cosmetic, so too is squint correction - I could have lost my sight in my left eye...but if anyone had asked me they would have known my brain was already rejecting the signals from that eye. Years of deeply unpleasant patching followed surgery but didn't fix it. So basically, in my humble opinion, it was completely pointless other than for cosmetic reasons...and as I am a hideous potato-person that's pointless squared!

Then there are other procedures parents have done to their children; take a sadly routine operation often performed on baby boys for religious reasons or for dubious medical reasons (usually false claims of it being more hygienic or concerns about retraction later on): circumcision.
Here's a story of a young man who, having had a botched operation as an adult, took his own life: BBC 17 April 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47292307
And here's a follow up story of other men suffering: BBC 12 May 2019 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48057183
If adult men can suffer such terrible complications from an operation they chose to have should the procedure be banned entirely? Of course not! There is a world of difference between a person or their parent consenting to a 'necessary' operation and something that is done to a healthy child for archaic or invalid reasons. It is insane for parents to consent to such a procedure other than in the most pressing of medical necessities. If a man of age chooses freely to be circumcised (for aesthetic, or religious reason) then that is his freedom... but even so, how do you ensure that? A man may be under pressure to conform, to do so against his will - just as I was pushed into an abortion. That is no choice either.

Comment found on a YouTube video about birth control (due to concerns about menstrual discomfort) for a severely disabled child 20th May 2019 "I was born with a disability and at age 9 I had [a hysterectomy] done I am now 38 and still not in menopause" Assuming that statement is true... what kind of parents, what kind of DOCTORS do a hysterectomy on a 9 year old unless the kid is catastrophically disabled? A girl who is immobile & non verbal with no chance of improvement (such as the subject of the video) is one thing - she cannot communicate pain, consent to sex or raise the alarm about abuse - but to do that to someone who is capable of commenting on YouTube videos... that's got to be wrong. Even if her disability precluded motherhood, drastic surgery at such a young age is really extreme - who knows what medical advances might be made?
EDIT: Just saw this article which includes discussion of Nazi era forced sterilisation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48273570 and felt it ought to be included here. Such 'treatments' need to only ever be used when it is in the best interests of the individual - either medically or if they irrevocably unable to consent to sexual activity.

Which brings me to my last example for today of consent and children:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-48311660 
"About 1% of children have genes which put them at high risk, meaning they have a greater than 10% chance of developing type 1 diabetes." So with a 'greater than 10% chance' of developing an illness a five month old baby is going to be used as a guinea pig. What the actual hell?! I'm sure type 1 diabetes is no fun thing but using a (currently) healthy child's body in this way seems to me all kinds of unethical - what if their 'treatment' TRIGGERS the onset of the illness?! 'Greater than 10%' isn't even all that much, if it was greater than 80% or something there'd be a much better argument in favour of this being in that child's best interests.

Consent is the person concerned's right. If and only if they cannot consent should that right be put into the hands of another - a parent, a carer or a court appointed guardian - and THEN consent should be only for that person's best interests - religious circumcision and medical experiments definitely don't come under that heading.
The problem is that we all have very different ideas of what is best. The best person to decide what is best for X is X and if X can't decide, due to incapacitation or extreme youth, whoever acts for X has an incredible responsibility. How you protect X from the poor judgement of Y I have no idea but 'protecting' X from their own (supposedly) poor judgement is to invade their rights. We all have the right to make our own mistakes - we just have to accept responsibility for our actions and not blame others when we suffer regret.

Game of Thrones - Baby Names

Saw a trending tweet from the author of this NBC News article: 'Name of Thrones: parents are naming their kids after favorite 'GoT' characters' https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/lil-joffrey-game-thrones-baby-names-n1004541

Only a pass is given for Arya as being a name used internationally. Now I'm no names expert but...

• Brienne is a variant of Brianna Celtic) or a place name (French)
• Ramsay is a surname
• Gregor is a perfectly ordinary name (of Dutch / Scots origin) as is Ghita (Greek) although it also resembles the Indian name Gita / Geeta.
• Sandor is a Hungarian variant of Alexander - no different to naming your kid Alex or Xander
• Shae, Myrcella, Catelyn, Myranda etc are simple spelling variants too. Most are based on real world names.

Joffrey, which doesn't make the list, is also the name of Meghan Duchess of Sussex's half uncle. Assuming names have been chosen DIRECTLY as a result of Game of Thrones (hereafter GoT) is a bit of a leap of logic. Naturally it is raising the profile of certain names but that means parents considering certain names like, Alexander or Miranda, might go for a less common variant 'inspired by' but not exactly 'because of' GoT.

Even names that seem to definitely belong to the GoT universe aren't always what they seem. Tyrion is listed as a variant of the Irish name Tyrone and while Cersei is considered a created name it's based on the Greek goddess Circe. 

With the recent excitement over #BabySussex's name the BBC ran an article on how to choose a name for your baby (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48185728) and I was rather taken by this contribution by Richard Jones, a university lecturer from Salford, who with his wife:

"We were really keen to have a name that was unusual, but not wacky.

We didn't want one that there was going to be a whole class full of them.

We also didn't want to go for a made-up one.

The couple ruled out anything in the top 100 most popular names list and,

because he is Scottish and his wife is Welsh,

wanted the name to originate from either of those places.

It needed to be easily shortened, both the short and long names had to work

with both the single and double-barrelled versions of their surname

and it couldn't start with the same initial as the mum or dad. 

But apart from that we didn't really think too much about it."

Excellent advice all round! I have never understood why parents pick super common names unless they have a really meaningful reason for it - like naming your kid after your brother Jack who died when Jack has been a VERY popular name for years. For this reason I can see why GoT names are appealing for being a bit different but kind of familiar.
It's also worthwhile thinking how the first and last names go together...as well as checking that the initials don't spell out something unfortunate or match a problematic acronym.
Naming your child is probably the most important decision you will ever make but you aren't the person who will have to live with the worst of the consequences if it's a bad choice. All the same, parents DO regret the names they pick for their kids, quite frequently. Choosing a name from a current pop-culture source can be regretted when you move on to the next trend but also uncomfortably obvious (so many boys named Jensen! Guess who mom has a crush on...), dated in a few years (which affects unusual names more because they stand out), embarrassing (fancy being named after Kylie Minogue and forever being associated with Kylie Jenner!) etc etc

There are also some pretty good motives for naming your child after a fictional character you admire - it's not much different than naming your child after anyone else. In some ways it's safer than naming them after a celebrity or other living person who may yet go on to do something you find abhorrent. HOWEVER, when naming your child after a fictional character it is a good idea to let their story come to completion before doing so. GoT is currently airing its final season but there are apparently books yet to come.

Like with any name it is worthwhile to do your homework and be sure what it means...and to consider what it will mean to the child. My elder daughter tells me there are significant differences between the books and TV show - the TV show is likely to be the one most present in people's minds when they consider your kid's name... the kid is also likely to want to see it themselves. Given the nature of GoT and the events that happen to various characters...is that REALLY a good idea?!

Fairly sure that any of the 14 kids named 'Theon' will be scarred for life as and when they find out what happens to their namesake... shortening the name to Theo for everyday use might help but in the US your legal name is harder to change and follows you around.

One thing I like about GoT characters is how they all have good and bad sides - Tyrion is bloody brilliant in many ways but he's also a womanising alcoholic capable of some really dubious stuff. As a parent you really ought to consider all the angles - will your child and their peers see Arya as a powerful heroine or will they see her as a cold-hearted assassin? 

My favourite GoT characters are probably Tyrion Lannister, Brienne of Tarth, Sandor Clegane, Olenna Tyrell and Samwell Tarly (whom I affectionately refer to as 'stupid fat Hobbit' due to the similarities of character and name to Samwise Gamgee of LOTR). Brienne and Sandor are fine as names, not so sure about the others...