...to be upset about her termination?

[princesspineapple]

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?

I sincerely hope it won't.

Cross post. I meant I hope the abortion limit won't be decreased. Would be a huge backwards step. The 12 week limit in other countries needs to be increased. Not our limit decreasing.

I do think that the limit needs to be lowered, also that the law needs to change wrt termination of disabled babies to term.

I don't think the limit needs to be lowered, especially as a large number of people who have TMFR only find out about any problems at the 20 week anomaly scan.

Yougov survey from 2012 showed the 37% thought the limit should be decreased (although not all to 12 weeks) while 34% thought it should stay the same. With more babies surviving before 24 weeks I think people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with a 24 week limit.

Sorry, link - it links through to poll.

Hmmm. Even if some babies born at 20-24 weeks survive, that's with medical support. So arguably they are still not independently viable living beings. Of course if a baby is wanted and born early then we should do everything we can to enable it to live. But if it's not wanted and it's still in the womb I don't think exactly the same rules should apply. It is a grey area, I understand why people are uncomfortable with abortion at that stage, but in reality it is very rare and I guess it is usually in cases where there is a severe disability (discovered at 20 weeks) or where the pregnancy itself is discovered very late.

But even if anomalies are picked up at the 20 weeks scan that still gives twenty weeks to terminate the pregnancy if wanted. The fact that a disabled baby can be terminated to term automatically places that pregnancy at a lesser value than one which does not have a disability.

If people started campaigning for all terminations to be made legal to term I don't think that that would get anywhere near the support that the current law does, yet people support this if a baby has a disability?

Let's face it - if you were carrying a baby with a disability and went into labour and gave birth in the back of the car on your way to the hospital to terminate at say, 30 weeks nobody would think it ok to kill the baby because you were on your way to a termination, and that baby would be viable at that stage. So even if we make allowance for the fact that some anomalies would be picked up at twenty weeks there is still no justification to make that pregnancy eligible for termination up to term.

Emma, some babies born at term need medical support. Would you argue that they are not 'independently viable living beings'? I'm not really sure what position you're coming from with that comment. Do you think that makes them less 'worthy' of life in some way?

so others should feel that they don't have to be pleased for them when they have managed to terminate that pregnancy.

Ok, earlier you said about abortion being celebrated and now you are saying about others having to feel pleased that someone terminated a pregnancy. Where are you seeing this expectation of celebration or that others be pleased someone terminated a pregnancy? Or have you personally been asked to be pleased or to celebrate? I havent seen or experienced this at all.

But even if anomalies are picked up at the 20 weeks scan that still gives twenty weeks to terminate the pregnancy if wanted. The fact that a disabled baby can be terminated to term automatically places that pregnancy at a lesser value than one which does not have a disability.

But when does this actually happen? What are the stats? Most TMFRs are carried out as soon as a problem is known about.

Why would you lower the limit?! Why??
The thing is IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY. The woman going into labour at 24 weeks who desperately wants the baby is of NO RELEVANCE to the woman needing an abortion at 23+6 for reasons that are no one else's business! Baby is premature and wanted, great, use all the medical care you can get your hands on. But that is irrelevant to the foetus that isn't wanted.
The people actually saying women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term, etc are abhorrent. I don't understand how someone can be anti-choice and still call themselves a feminist.

The fact she's having a termination of course is nobodies business but hers. However it's insensitive to the max to tell someone whilst pregnant whom has had several miscarriages. If you were not pregnant I would say YABU but as you are and she knows your history YANBU.

It does irk me when someone uses termination as a contraceptive though. I refuse to believe there is no form of contraception they can use. Of course if she'd prefer that method then great for her but I hope she knows repeat terminations aren't without risk.

Those of you saying about lack of contraceptive use,

Do you mean just things like the pill or implant or injection so actual prescribed contraception?

I've had a correctly done depo failure ive also had an implant failure but I have never had a natural family planning failure as a result that's what I now use

Emma, some babies born at term need medical support. Would you argue that they are not 'independently viable living beings'? I'm not really sure what position you're coming from with that comment. Do you think that makes them less 'worthy' of life in some way?

A baby born at term that needs medical assistance in order to not die is not an independently viable living being, no. The reason assistance is provided is, weirdly enough, usually because the baby is wanted at that point, and/or because the baby is likely to survive without that assistance, just with an avoidable disability.

Smilas, "The reason assistance is provided is, weirdly enough, usually because the baby is wanted at that point..."

so if the baby wasn't wanted at term then assistance shouldn't/wouldn't be provided? I don't think so.

Why should a life's value be based on whether someone wants it or not?

I was also asking Emma why she made that comment - if assistance is required to survive does that mean the life is worth less?

Good God, are we moving on to eugenics, now, then?

"Kid, but from your earlier point, you think people are free to do as they wish 'as long as they aren't impacting another living thing'.

If you saw another living thing being impacted would you really be happy to just say 'oh well, I won't do that but it's ok if they do'?"

Stop transparently trying to paint me into a corner. It won't work. My point is very simple.

The only person who gets to decide whether an abortion is the mother. The person who has to carry the potential child, give birth to it and raise it. Unless you plan to help out in some way you have no say in the matter whatsoever, unless you want that to be "go and have an illegal, dangerous abortion rather than a safe one" because you are still ignoring the point that banning abortion does not, and will not still abortions taking place. To think otherwise is just naive in the extreme, and so is to think or wish for the limit to be lowered. It is where it is for actual reasons, and no amount of hair twisting primary school head in the sand anti-choice bullshit will change that.

I'm not trying to 'paint you into a corner' just showing you where people who have a different opinion to you are coming from and why saying 'if you don't like it, don't have one' doesn't cut it.

I believe that as long as you aren't negatively impacting any other living thing, you should be as free as possible to do as you wish.

But in this case, the OP's friend IS negatively impacting the OP. You don't sit in front of a woman who has had a miscarriage and start talking about abortion unless she indicates she is comfortable with it. Just like you don't sit in front of someone who is desperately trying to work out how to pay the rent this week and start talking about your new holiday home. It's about discussing topics in an appropriate time and place and considering how our words may affect others.

And that is a completely different topic to the pro-choice/pro-life debate. You can respect a woman's right to make choices for herself, whilst at the same time being allowed to make different choices for yourself.

Funny how in the pregnancy threads, unborn babies are referred to in human terms; "your baby is 15 weeks old", "your baby is now doing this/your baby is now doing that" etc. yet for the unborn babies on death row, they're dehumanised to "fetus", "blob of cells", "it".

Funny how in the pregnancy threads, unborn babies are referred to in human terms; "your baby is 15 weeks old", "your baby is now doing this/your baby is now doing that" etc. yet for the unborn babies on death row, they're dehumanised to "fetus", "blob of cells", "it".

In what way is it funny?

Quite IrishDad.

But that's ridiculous, because it's not a baby. Biologically, legally, whatever-ly, it is a fetus until the moment it leaves its mother's body. The pregnancy threads, etc call it a baby because it sounds less cold/clinical, but it is not, in fact, a baby. It is a morula, then a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, and until it is an independent being, it is not a baby and it has no rights.