Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

DSD abortion thread part II

946 replies

GivesHeadlessHorseman · 26/10/2010 21:05

carry on ladies....

OP posts:
BitOfFunderthepatio · 27/10/2010 11:11

Ok, the written communication thing has quite rightly been moved to another thread, if we can stay on topic here please?

I really hope Tess has seen the suggestion to ask the sonographer to keep the screen turned away. I hope that is normal practice in situations like this Sad

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/10/2010 11:13

I don't know if it will BOF. I think the screen turned away is normal practice in termination scans, however this is a dating scan isn't it? So they will probably all look at it. And, frankly, once the radiographer says 'and there is your baby's heartbeat' all bets are off Sad

CardyMow · 27/10/2010 11:15

BOF - no, it's not normal practice, and at a dating scan, it's incredibly unlikely they would do that. They certainly didn't with me, despite my mum asking them to, and it only compounded my determination to keep my DD.

Oblomov · 27/10/2010 11:18

Echt and Jonesy, please leave Alt alone. your picking on her in totally inappropriate. On OP's thread, as such a difficult time.
Totally inappropriate.
Lets get back to the subject in hand, please ladies. and leave the bitching and nastiness for another day.

AddictedIsFeelingHappy · 27/10/2010 11:19

getorf i agree that adoption may not be the best option, but if abortion is now out of the question it is an option. And there are ways dsd can keep in contact with the child, there is also councelling avaliable and the abandonment issues can be addressed in time.

Like i said it may not be the best option but it is an option if dsd dosent want an abortion

sungirltan · 27/10/2010 11:20

i can understand altinkum fine. she is trying to explain the way men typically react to emotional events which is not the way women do and how woemn often feel let down by the man's reaction because it does not match their expectations.

i think also that because the dh is a man (yes, yes i know its not the 50's but we are not perfect genderless androids quite yet), he is looking to the op as a woman as the default go to person for emotional/practical/child related issues but that this is a bit skewed because the op is not dsd's mother and because they made life plans beyond the dc etc.

when you look at family crisis like this professionally one needs to try and understand what triggers behaviour. we can't write in our reports 'well the husband is an idiot' etc. holistic assessment is exactly that so one family member can't be forever demonsied for some imperfect behaviour.

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 27/10/2010 11:24

excelent post sgt. Anyway, the issue is only how he reacts from now. If he agrees with the OP and promises to back her up on the decisions she makes and keeps those promises then that I assume would be good enough. If he carries on acting like a teenager himself then the OP needs to decide what she wants to do about that.

GiddyPickle · 27/10/2010 11:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JenaiMwahHaHaHaaaaah · 27/10/2010 11:27

I think we all agree that Tess's DH is being an arse, but in all honesty I'm not sure I'd have reacted much better if my 14yo dd (not that I have one) announced that she was pregnant.

I'm not making excuses, just expressing my belief that men don't have the monopoly on panicking in a crisis nor on turning into a nervous, possibly drunken, wreck when life throws them a googly. I have demonstrated this myself on more than one occassion.

Thinking of you this morning, Tess.

abr1de · 27/10/2010 11:33

He is in shock. Men in shock often do revert to Stamford Wives male prejudices and think that Mummy will sort everything out.

You just have to shake them out of it. Gently but very firmly.

There are three, possibly four, children's lives to consider here. Plus the essential issue of Tess's well-being. Any reasonable man will see that everything needs to be discussed carefully and frankly.

I still put forward the nanny idea. Even if it's just for a day or two a week. Frankly, this might be a situation where a maternity nurse might be worth thinking about, money and accommodation obviously being factors to consider. Then it definitely wouldn't be Tess getting up at night in the first month. On the other hand, perhaps that's making things too easy for DSD...

And it's expensive. :(

GivesHeadlessHorseman · 27/10/2010 11:35

Tortoise* Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear.Confused Look, I could spend hours setting out my manifesto on this, but I don't want to hijack the thread making political points and going off on tangents - as I said, it's for another thread, another day.

However, just to clarify, I didn't mean they shouldn't be able to stay in state education up to eighteen, for free, as is their right. What I meant was, I don't agree that the tax payer should fund childcare for their babies in order for them to do that.

OP posts:
TorturesInAHalfHell · 27/10/2010 11:43

Right, yes, that's what I understood you to be saying, and I disagree. It seems an illogical position given that those few years of paid childcare will make the difference between a woman who will become self-supporting and a woman who will never attain formal qualifications and possibly be dependent on the state for the rest of her life - probably going on to have several more children because why not? She's already lost her future.

But I'm happy to take it elsewhere. Is there an elsewhere?

sungirltan · 27/10/2010 11:51

thanks shreeeeiiiik

giveshead - i disagree. maintaining education is one of the only ways to strive toward getting them off benefits in the long term as adults. which costs even more

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 27/10/2010 11:51

a GENERAL thread about children having babies, not to comment on this situation.

Not having a go at you tortoise, just wanted to make it clear that this thread was sparked by things people have said on this thread but is not about the OP!

CardyMow · 27/10/2010 11:52

Giddypickle - I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person trying to make that clear. My own DD has a heart condition (two leaky heart valves) that will require open heart surgery when she is 16yo. She has partial deafness. She is mildly ASD. She has epilepsy. She has global development delay.

My life is one constant round of hosital appointments, and it has been this way since DD was 6 months old. I have had to deal with so much guilt that she proabaly wouldn't have had half of these problems had I been a few years older when she was born.

I had my second dc when I was 20 (I fell pregnant at 19yo with him). He is perfectly healthy. It's a lot of guilt to bear, and a heck of a lot of additional responsibility. When I was only 27, I was hunting out what secondary school would offer my DD the best help with her SN's. That's NOT a normal thing for a 27yo to be worrying about! At my DD's first parents evening at primary school, I actually looked round to see who the teacher was calling. Blush. I was only just 20yo!

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 27/10/2010 11:52

that still looks snotty, sorry :o

echt · 27/10/2010 11:56

oblomov I was trying to engage with alt's argument, but the understandable sympathy with the immediacy of the OP's dilemma seems to have morphed into soggy empathy with poorly-expressed arguments by a poster on what is, after all AIBU.

The usual confusion of message and messenger.

To clarify, I believe alt was talking shite, but wanted to be quite clear about what h/she was being shite about.

For Tess - my greatest sympathy in your most trying situation.

poobumfartbollocks · 27/10/2010 11:59

Tess - I have been lurking on the thread and I don't have much to add to what has already been said except that I think you're amazing and I don't think I could cope so well if it was me in 4 years with DD1 (who is mine biologically not that it makes a difference)

Longtalljosie · 27/10/2010 11:59

The thing is, I'm not sure continuing to debate on the desirability of the DSD having an abortion would do any good. I see no sign at all there is any chance of that happening. And I agree with other posters she's probably further along than she's prepared to admit.

I also feel very uneasy about the lack of any obvious boyfriend. We discussed the possibility of rape further up the thread - have we discounted this now? Did I miss something?

ThickFucker · 27/10/2010 12:00

echt, give it a rest, you've made your (dubious) point

you are out of order

piss-taking says more about the piss-taker than it does about the recipient

GivesHeadlessHorseman · 27/10/2010 12:00

tortoise

Outside? Grin

I know what you are driving at, and I can see that at first glance there are conradictions in my thinking, but for me it's about laying down some strong disincentives, (that all senior school age children could be made aware of as part of PSHE or whatever) rather than the current system which is all about enabling them to think that having a baby under-age is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

They need to know that a baby is much more than a temporary glitch. And in spite of the money thrown at trying to keep teen mums in education, the outcome for most is still very poor indeed. It's a well-meant gesture, but ultimately a waste of public money.

And it gives the girls a great cop-out when people say 'you can't do this - what about your education/your future?' They'll just say 'I'll go back to it later'.

Knowing they are entitled to go back to it, with paid childcare and maintenence grants and the like, is an incentive to go ahead with the baby. The harsh reality is that very few do actually go back - and stick at it, and come out the other side with the same level of qualifications as their peers. They just tell themselves they will. And we are accessories to that lie.

Far better to spend the money on schemes to keep them away from motherhood until they are over 18.

OP posts:
GivesHeadlessHorseman · 27/10/2010 12:02

Oops sorry - just seen new thread. No more hijacks.

OP posts:
Litchick · 27/10/2010 12:02

echt - you are sounding like a twat.

Is that clear enough for you?

sungirltan · 27/10/2010 12:09

its not a waste of public money. we can't just abandon young mothers. however i do agree that prevention is much, much more important and something which we are terrible at in this country. i think the rates of teen pregnancy are much more complicated than naivity about contraception/reproduction etc etc. personally i think the issue is that we are unable to teach a certain deomgraphic of young women to aspire to becoming anything beyond a mother which equals an independent life of sorts.

Tootlesmummy · 27/10/2010 12:09

Echt, get off the thread. You're being nasty and vindictive. GROW UP.

Swipe left for the next trending thread