Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

...to be upset about her termination?

527 replies

princesspineapple · 09/11/2015 19:47

I'm 21 weeks pregnant, and one of my best friends has just had a termination.
I'm all for pro-choice and it's her body etc etc... But she has basically used this as contraception (they've not used any protection for a year) and I don't really agree with that.
Putting aside my (and everyone's) feelings about her pregnancy choices... AIBU to be upset that she turned to me first in her "time of need"?
I've had MCs in the past, and am over the moon to be pregnant... So am finding it really hard to support her when she says things like "well it's only pea sized" when my little pea is now wriggling away in my belly!
Am I being a bit of an over-emotional pregnant lady and need to buck up and be a better friend, or is she actually being a cow?

OP posts:
ConsciousPilot · 10/11/2015 12:33

It's not the different babies in these scenarios that have different 'worth' attached to them, I just don't think in the circumstance of a woman having been raped that she should go through the torture of having to birth her rapist's offspring. In this case I would agree that the mother's rights trump those of the baby.

NameChange30 · 10/11/2015 12:39

...but in every other case the rights of the "baby" (no, foetus) trump those of the mother. That's what you're saying.

MySordidCakeSecret · 10/11/2015 12:40

i think past a certain stage of development, neither's rights "trump" the others but it would be unethical to destroy one life on the will of the other.

NameChange30 · 10/11/2015 12:41

So it's better to force a woman to be an incubator for a baby she doesn't want, and a baby to be born to a mother who doesn't want it Hmm

Thurlow · 10/11/2015 12:44

unless they were raped then they were complicit in bringing a life into the world

A huge percentage of terminations will be undertaken for these sorts of reasons:

  • contraceptive failure of one form or another
  • younger girls who have not perhaps fully understood how contraceptives really work and thus have accidentally/mistakenly had unprotected or risky sex

So unless a woman simply never has sex again, there is always a slight risk of pregnancy every time they have sex.

That, for me, is what I cannot reconcile with anti-abortion or pro-life believers and the opinion that a woman is somehow complicit in becoming pregnant and as such should go through with an unplanned and perhaps unwanted pregnancy.

I understand (but don't personally agree) with the argument that a foetus is a life from the moment of conception. I just don't understand why a woman, with 15, 20, 30, 40 years of lived life behind her, then becomes less of a person from the moment some sperm meets an egg.

CurrerBellend · 10/11/2015 12:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PiperChapstick · 10/11/2015 12:57

that is abominable and i don't know how anyone could do it.

Because the thought of doing that is easier than having to live with a child you don't want/can't cope with etc? Not everyone shares your view about what something below 24 weeks is.

Thinking out loud, if they did lower it to say 12 weeks, that would mean a 13 week pregnancy was considered viable? Which we of course know is impossible. It would mean that the NHS would be obliged to try and save babies born as early as 13 weeks which would result in a lot of confusion, difficulties and heartbreak. Even if they did stick with the 24 weeks is viable rule, and lowered abortion limit to say 12 weeks - what would the grey area in between be counted as should the mother give birth early?

PiperChapstick · 10/11/2015 13:01

Conscious how would you imagine the rape-only rule was policed? Do you know think women in their droves would come forward to a doctor claiming to be raped in order to get an abortion? Imagine the repercussions. Allowing a woman control over her body only if she's led a certain lifestyle is so backwards I don't know where to begin

MySordidCakeSecret · 10/11/2015 13:06

So unless a woman simply never has sex again, there is always a slight risk of pregnancy every time they have sex.

No I said earlier that I'm not anti abortion i just think the limit should be 12 weeks or even less.

That does mean you think one's right trumps the other in those scenarios, then.

No unless the mother will die if she carries the baby any longer then it's not taking away her life is it?

So it's better to force a woman to be an incubator for a baby she doesn't want, and a baby to be born to a mother who doesn't want it

Say a woman is 24 weeks pregnant and decides she wants an abortion. if it was how i think it should be and that was illegal, then i guess the doctors would have to negotiate with her to carry the baby as long as she was happy to after explaining she has a life inside her, and then deliver by cs and sustain in a neonatal ward. And the baby would have to be adopted. Would you rather be adopted or killed? Hmm

whether a baby is considered viable is down to medical professionals and advancements in technology. This is where it is my opinion that the limit of abortion should be lowered not the baby's viability outside of the womb.

Thurlow · 10/11/2015 13:09

then deliver by cs and sustain in a neonatal ward. And the baby would have to be adopted

Ah yes. Because the woman doesn't stand any remote chance of being traumatised by continuing to carry a baby she doesn't want (or is in a situation where, emotionally or perhaps domestically, she may be at risk continuing the pregnancy), and then have major surgery.

And because no premature babies ever suffer any long-term health implications.

So simply. Just forget there's a baby inside you for the next few months!

PiperChapstick · 10/11/2015 13:12

No unless the mother will die if she carries the baby any longer then it's not taking away her life is it?

When (some) people say "her life" they don't mean her mortality - they mean her right to live a life she is happy, comfortable and able to live. In many situations having a child doesn't allow you to have any of those things

rageagainsttheBIL · 10/11/2015 13:12

Erm.... Well you can believe what you like Piper, this is what she (and her actions, and other sources) told me.

I've got no agenda here, but I can see what the OP is talking about when she says she has a friend who seemingly takes zero precautions.

sparechange · 10/11/2015 13:13

Say a woman is 24 weeks pregnant and decides she wants an abortion. if it was how i think it should be and that was illegal, then i guess the doctors would have to negotiate with her to carry the baby as long as she was happy to after explaining she has a life inside her, and then deliver by cs and sustain in a neonatal ward. And the baby would have to be adopted.

80% of babies born at 24 weeks will have a disability. Do you know how much longer disabled children take to find adoptive families?

And I love the idea that a doctor's new role is to negotiate with women. Genius suggestion.

MySordidCakeSecret · 10/11/2015 13:14

Thurlow we are talking about a 6month old fetus here - 6 months!

If the woman really waited 6 months to decide she couldn't deal with it anymore then i'm sorry the consequence of that is yes some surgery - there would be surgery anyway?!

and yes there may be health implications for the baby does that justify killing them all just in case of that?

I'm sorry but in the exception of extraordinary circumstance or health complications then i don't see why anyone could possibly take 6 months to realise they don't want a baby. 3 months is more than a reasonable time to figure that out.

MySordidCakeSecret · 10/11/2015 13:15

When (some) people say "her life" they don't mean her mortality - they mean her right to live a life she is happy, comfortable and able to live. In many situations having a child doesn't allow you to have any of those things

What situations? when does having a child stop you from "living" that sentence seems very vague. And I'm sorry but i don't think someone being comfortable and happy justifies killing an unborn baby.

MySordidCakeSecret · 10/11/2015 13:17

I love the idea that a doctor's new role is to negotiate with women. Genius suggestion.

There are times when doctors have to discuss treatment with patients and decide on what route to take based on the best medical interests and that of the patient - ie negotiation

AloraRyger · 10/11/2015 13:18

reasons not to lower the abortion limit.

No-one just decides they've had enough of being pregnant. You might want to read the above link and educate yourself a little.

AloraRyger · 10/11/2015 13:18

Ooops <a class="break-all" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EfB9iDYfNUAJ:www.bpas.org/media/1181/32-reasons-not-to-lower-the-abortion-time-limit-briefing.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">32 reasons

NameChange30 · 10/11/2015 13:19

MySordid
" i just think the limit should be 12 weeks or even less"
Why 12 weeks? This seems a bit arbitrary to me. I think the 24 week rule is there because that's when a foetus could be viable if it was born. After a quick Google it seems that depending on circumstances, a foetus could potentially be viable from 20 weeks, so I could understand setting the limit at 20 weeks, but not 12 weeks.
Some women don't realise they're pregnant straight away, especially if they're not TTC and the pregnancy is due to a contraception failure (so they assume it worked until they realise they're pregnant). Some women don't realise until very late in the pregnancy - I know that's rare but it is a consideration. I think 12 weeks is far too early a limit to set. What about women who discover they're pregnant at the 12-24 week stage? Do they just have to suck it up and be an incubator or get an illegal abortion?!

CurrerBellend · 10/11/2015 13:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MySordidCakeSecret · 10/11/2015 13:19

your link doesn't work.

AloraRyger · 10/11/2015 13:20

The second one will.

ElsaAintAsColdAsMe · 10/11/2015 13:20

Some of the views on here are just depressing.

I don't want to live in a world where I am not in control of my own body.

If we tell a woman that she must be forced to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want because of some time limit decided by a bunch of predominatly men in parliment then where does it stop? Do we force people to get sterilised? Do we force abortions? The minute we give up our hard won rights to our own bodies is the minute we are handing our decisions to the state, which is a dangerous thing to start.

I 100% believe in as early as possible and as late as nescessary. I really doubt this will bring a whole influx of women who decide they want to have an abortion at 35 weeks as the pro lifers seem to think.

PiperChapstick · 10/11/2015 13:21

Sorry rage but to clarify she told you she prefers having an abortion to using contraception?

ConsciousPilot · 10/11/2015 13:22

Yes, I'm also a little bored of this trotted-out scenario, dripping in 1940s pathos, where women's lives are degraded - RUINED - at the prospect of actually living with the consequences of their mistakes or life choices.

Swipe left for the next trending thread