...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?

The same applies with pets versus meat - one is Gertrude and the other is rump steak. Or friends versus enemies - both are human, but you only wish one well. How human beings view things depends on how much they want an emotional connection with them and how healthy that connection is. If you don't want a baby, it might feel like a monstrous parasite inside you. If you do want a baby, it might be the most miraculous stirring of life you had ever envisaged. Even if you do desperately want a baby, pregnancy can be an unpleasant and stressful experience and can be harmful to your health. Alternatively, pregnancy may surprise you and you may suddenly realise you desperately want the baby inside you. Pregnancy has a colossal effect, emotionally and physically, on the mother. It is therefore quite normal that one person's developing baby is another person's bundle of cells and no more hypocritical than many of the other ways human beings manage to behave the way they do every day of their lives.

[Yawn] not that old chestnut. It gets said on Every Single One of these threads and it's not funny at all. When I got pg after many, many years of failure, I was delighted to think of a five week blob as 'my baby'. One of the tasks of pregnancy is to start bonding with and loving the little ball of cells that will become your child. It's mental preparation, not an objective, scientifically valid description. When I lost that pregnancy, I mourned 'my baby' - meaning my dreams of motherhood. It was a terrible loss. But that grief was for my loss - I didn't feel sympathy for the baby that had lost its life. Although it was a truly dreadful experience, it was largely healed by getting pregnant again soon after (I'm not claiming this as universal, by the way, this is just my experience). So, for me, though I called it my baby it was clearly not equivalent to a born child - but it had massive symbolic value as the repository of all my hopes.

Similarly, though I was very wounded by the abortion I had when I was still at school, I didn't feel guilty and my grief was about having cut off a potential source of love at a time of my life when I felt very unloved.

Calling a foetus a baby is a term of endearment. It's not hypocritical and women are perfectly entitled to do so when they wish to.

Whether you call it a foetus or a baby, it makes no odds.

A rose by any other name...

OP I haven't read all of this thread but I would just like to say I don't think you should feel you are in any way affected by your hormones in this situation.
You have wanted something very badly and are now in a situation where it's on the horizon, good for you I say and congratulations, I hope everything turns out perfectly well.
Any friend should be aware of this and even if they only have a small amount of intelligence should tailor conversations based on who they are speaking to. I think your friend doesn't qualify for the title, she is a complete FWit (IMO), if she wants to talk to someone about her termination she should choose someone else. If what she is experiencing now happened in 3 years time you may well be able to help and support her but she is completely disregarding your current situation. What kind of friend would do that? A rather selfish one methinks!
I think it's a shame and a bit unnecessary that you were immediately picked up on the validity of whether you are pro choice or not. It's missing the main point and a bit nasty IMO

Fourforyouglencoco
"and until it is an independent being, it is not a baby and it has no rights."

But that's not quite true, is it? The baby, sorry "foetus", does have the right to life after 24 weeks does "it" not? Even though not an "independent being".

There's also the 'child destruction' law (although it is rarely used).

"It's not hypocritical and women are perfectly entitled to do so when they wish to."

Except if you're having an abortion debate on MN. Then anyone who uses 'baby' gets ridiculed.

Excellent point Bumbley, in the cuddly pregnancy threads it's ok to refer to "babies", but in abortion threads these babies are dehumanised.

I can't stand the way people like bumbley and irishdad use emotive language to conceal the fact that their bottom-line is "women should be forced to give birth when they don't want to". They employ the power of words in their rhetoric all the time, such as describing themselves as 'pro-life' rather than 'anti-abortion' or 'forced-birthers', which are more accurate terms.

The bottom line is that abortion is a necessary service and making it inaccessible doesn't make it disappear; it just hurts women. I make no apology for yet again including the following information on a thread that has been comprehensively hijacked by bumbley and her anti-choice rhetoric:

The World Health Organization (WHO) published an estimate that in 2003 approximately 42 million pregnancies were voluntarily terminated, of which 20 million were unsafe. According to WHO and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus). They also concluded abortion is safer in countries where it's legal, but dangerous in countries where it's outlawed and performed clandestinely. source

Some of the countries where unsafe abortion is rife don't have access to adequate contraception, and while it can be argued that this isn't the case in the UK, women find themselves with unwanted pregnancies for a multitude of reasons and must be allowed to exercise their right not to give birth against their will and need access to SAFE procedures.

Well said twofingers.

Two fingers, I have no objection to the term 'anti-abortion'. Pro-life is just more commonly used and I haven't used it to describe myself here at all. It's also fairly obvious that I haven't 'highjacked' this thread or used 'anti-choice rhetoric'. I'm actually wondering if you've even read my posts on this thread or if you just saw my name, wanted a rant and needed someone to target it at.

Round of applause twofingers. Although I prefer to describe them as 'anti-choice'.
The only explanation for their bullshit is that they hate women, which is bad enough when it's a man but especially sad (and ridiculous) when it's a woman spouting such crap.

It's anti-abortion, anti-choice and anti-women. I hate the bullshit "pro-life" label. (I did say it earlier in the thread but in less strong terms!)

Yes, it's never pro a woman's life is it?

Fourforyouglencoco, you never answered my question regarding your below statement:

"and until it is an independent being, it is not a baby and it has no rights."

But that's not quite true, is it? The baby, sorry "foetus", does have the right to life after 24 weeks does "it" not? Even though not an "independent being"?

Irish
I'm not sure if you are coming at this from a legal or philosophical standpoint or just being all out goady
But to answer your question
On some levels, it has rights from the start, in so far as a termination is only allowed under certain circumstances and with the approval of 2 doctors.
But the recent test case against the alcoholic mother who drank heavily and caused her baby to have FAS showed that it doesn't have legal rights until birth.

anti-choice/anti-women/women-hating/wanting to punish women is pro-choice emotive language isn't it?

AnotherEmma, you didn't answer my question up thread:

"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?"

Reading Emma's previous posts I'm pretty sure she was just saying they were not viable without that intervention.

So Sparechange, is Fourforyou factually incorrect when she says the foetus "has no rights"?

The bottom line here is that the friend didn't bother (nor her partner so he's just as irresponsible) to sort out contraception for A WHOLE YEAR before she fell pg by mistake. So I'm afraid while she has the right to have a termination because she doesn't want the baby/isn't in a position to have one/whatever the reason, the RIGHT to have a termination should also be balanced with being RESPONSIBLE enough to try and prevent the inevitable happening in the first place.

We are not talking about a one-off mistake here, or she thought the guy had used a condom when he didn't, or she forget to take a pill one day - they didn't bother to use contraception for twelve whole months.

Irishdad.

I guess it all depends on what you percieve rights to be. Are you talking about rights as most people see them like the ones live human beings potter about their daily lives taking for granted.

Or just the fairly minimal not really right as such because it's more about someone not being able to perform something on the woman's body? Is that even a right of the foetus or is it a right of the woman?

Irishdad is a fine example of how my home country shits all over women constantly.

Bumbley: I'm actually wondering if you've even read my posts on this thread or if you just saw my name, wanted a rant and needed someone to target it at.

So my single post is a 'rant' is it?
While yours are...?

You've proved my point nicely about how you (and your ilk) attempt to use language to shut other people down.

Two fingers, I'm not sure which of my posts you consider to be 'ranting' tbh. They're all fairly short and there aren't that many of them compared to others' posts either. I'm not trying to shut you down at all. What exactly were you trying to do with your comment about me 'hijacking' this thread?

IrishDad the law doesn't recognise the foetus as a person with agency and rights until after birth. The fact that abortion is not legal (in most circumstances) after 24 weeks does not mean that the foetus has 'rights'.