Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Aibu for choosing mother rather than unborn baby?

375 replies

Bells3032 · 11/09/2021 19:35

I'm currently 20 weeks pregnant. Having one of those hypothetical conversations regarding what would your partner do if something happened and it was your life v unborn baby's life. I said 100% he should chose me. Friend was surprised and said she'd chose her unborn baby over her.

Said it makes more sense to choose the mother as she's less "replaceable" for lack of a better sense (not that a baby is replaceable but hopefully you know what I mean) and the only person who'd be more upset at losing the baby than me would be me.

Am I just a horribly in maternal person.

Which would you chose?

OP posts:
Capilala · 13/09/2021 01:09

With aggressive cancer the chances of the unborn child surviving were extremely unlikely to have been "near enough 100%".

What are you basing that on? I suppose there's a specific risk for advanced gynae cancers, and there have been rare reported cases of blood cancers passing to the baby, but generally cancer during pregnancy (as opposed to cancer treatment) does not harm the child.

And as others have said - a newborn child is not in any sense a "support network" to an already existing child.

Newborn babies grow up to be teen and adult siblings. The mother will still be dead during all those times.

Even with the scenario you suggest as is - cutting your own chance of survival by 2/3rds in order to ensure a newborn baby in the family is almost certainly not the choice your currently existing children would either prefer or be best served by.

That's the individual woman's choice to make. My point is that deriding her for making the best decision she can in such circumstances is monstrous.

Ineke · 13/09/2021 01:14

Depends on circumstances I think.

NumberTheory · 13/09/2021 02:05

That's the individual woman's choice to make. My point is that deriding her for making the best decision she can in such circumstances is monstrous.

It is absolutely the individual woman's choice to make. That doesn't make it a good choice. You tried to justify her choice and I criticised that justification. You can't have a debate about the ethics of a situation and protect a particular choice from criticism just because someone has made it, however awful the circumstances they were in. She deserves sympathy, but it doesn't make her choice a good one.

Merryweather80 · 13/09/2021 03:10

I've been in this situation twice. Both times I asked that the baby was priority. Twenty eight people assisted in the surgery the first time and both of us were in intensive care for a while post op.

Having said that - I have a life-limiting disability. My children mean the world to me and they know I do the very best I can. They know Mommy won't reach old age and that day to day my conditions vary in severity. Many many times the pain is so severe, and despite pain relief, I have begged to die.

Spyro1234 · 13/09/2021 03:31

I'd choose me over an unborn baby, I have an established life and the pain it would cause my family would be awful... 🤷

PrincessNutella · 13/09/2021 03:34

Bella--I don't know exactly why they asked me to give blood to give to my baby, but they did (he was extremely premature and was having problems). Perhaps my blood was a closer match than a stranger's? Oddly enough, it was the only time I have given blood. In the US, anyone who has lived in the UK during the time of the mad cow epidemic is barred from donating blood, and I lived there during that time. So I still call him my Mad Calf.

Mamanyt · 13/09/2021 05:43

@NiceGerbil

Animals certainly do make those choices, although not in the same way we do. A mother will fight for her young, but rarely to the point of sacrificing her own life for them. If she dies, they die, and instinct tells her that. It comes from the same place that causes an animal to push aside a baby born with defects not consistent with life...mother's attention must go to those who can live.

And "rudimentary" societies is not the right term, but post-stroke, I often lose words that I need. I apologize. I mean societies that are living at an extreme subsistence level. I am reminded of a woman who was in a (I think) Nat Geo article, who was faced with which child she must allow to starve, as she could NOT feed both children, and if she died, there was no one who could take them on at all. However, at that level of subsistence, there is rarely a choice of whether to save a pregnant mother or her child...whoever survives, survives, and if it is the child, it may not live more than a few days if there is no one to take it, as often happens. Because no one CAN. That article has haunted me for years.

And yes, women here have died because of religious views on termination. It was a choice. Again, it is more an "advanced civilization" issue...that there is even a choice. In other places, it would be a matter of chance, not choice.

FloconDeNeige · 13/09/2021 05:58

It is absolutely the individual woman's choice to make. That doesn't make it a good choice. You tried to justify her choice and I criticised that justification.

I agree with this. Like others I find it extreme and unnatural. Literally prioritising an embryo/foetus over existing living children. It’s taking moralistic choices to a grotesque level.

Although I guess people make terrible choices when they’re faced with terrible situations, so it’s not so surprising when we think of it like that.

EarringsandLipstick · 13/09/2021 07:03

@TeachesOfPeaches

In Northern Ireland they save the baby first
Don't be ridiculous.

They apply the same medical protocol as anywhere else.

Mollymoostoo · 13/09/2021 07:19

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]@Thefaceofboe would you tell your partner to save you over your newborn in a house fire?[/quote]
Not the same as at this point the baby is born. Tbh it isn't the husband or partner who gets to choose in this situation so it is a pointless discussion

Capilala · 13/09/2021 07:30

She deserves sympathy

Is describing her as selfish and ridiculous an appropriately sympathetic response?

lovelybitofsquirrell · 13/09/2021 07:43

Being brutally honest first time round I said save the baby. Second time I would choose myself so DC1 wouldn't grow up without a mum.

It's a fucking impossible situation for the father to be in.

thesugarbumfairy · 13/09/2021 08:07

I haven't read the thread I'm afraid so I'm just responding to the original post.

DH was unfortunately put in a similar ( but not definite) position when I was in labour at full term with DS1. DS1 was an undiagnosed breech and stuck in the birth canal. DH was told the choice was to continue to let DS1 arrive with the risk of losing him/ him having lifelong needs, or to give him a better chance by getting him back up the birth canal and delivering by c-section at much greater risk to me and my life. He chose the former. I was in no state to contribute to the decision.
DS1 was born not breathing and his organs were systematically failing. They couldn't give us a prognosis - he was ventilated and rushed to SCBU. That first few days we thought we'd lose him but his organs started to function normally and he came home after a week. We had no idea if his brain had been starved of oxygen and just had to monitor him for the first year to see if there were problems.
I'm pleased to say he is a strapping lad of 14 now with no learning difficulties.

sammylady37 · 13/09/2021 08:36

@NiceGerbil

There is little consideration of the man who has to choose.

(Although it doesn't happen here anyway).

It's too much for ordinary people to be expected to decide.

We don't have the death penalty here which is good. But bog standard bloke is expected to decide who lives and who dies from the partner he presumably loves or cares about massively and the baby they have conceived and she has carried all that time.

It's not a fair thing to ask. Most men would be psychologically impacted. And feel guilt over the choice they had to make and the one they chose to die.

No that's not right.

Just as well the husband won’t be asked to decide, then.
sammylady37 · 13/09/2021 08:37

@TeachesOfPeaches

In Northern Ireland they save the baby first
No they don’t.
Hardbackwriter · 13/09/2021 08:43

@lovelybitofsquirrell

Being brutally honest first time round I said save the baby. Second time I would choose myself so DC1 wouldn't grow up without a mum.

It's a fucking impossible situation for the father to be in.

Maybe that's one of the many reasons why they're not put in it?

All these posters frothing themselves up and wringing their hands over this hard choice and dilemma... that doesn't exist. I don't know whether to despair or to be jealous of a life with so few real problems that you have to invent ridiculous hypotheticals to get your fix of drama.

FloconDeNeige · 13/09/2021 09:01

He chose the former

He didn’t. The medical team did.

drspouse · 13/09/2021 09:18

@thesugarbumfairy I am astonished that the medical team put the information (not the choice) to your DH in those terms. The c-section isn't a much greater risk to you unless you have some other condition we don't know about.

As I have posted above, there ARE situations where the mother (herself) can choose e.g. termination vs waiting till after birth for cancer treatment. My friend did this. Relatives won't be deciding.

sue20 · 13/09/2021 09:20

Oh god this almost a pro/anti abortion discussion. Same issues argued. Don’t go there.

thesugarbumfairy · 13/09/2021 09:26

@FloconDeNeige @drspouse

That is what happened. You can decide otherwise if you like. Obviously I condensed a very convoluted birth story into one paragraph.

Mepop · 13/09/2021 09:59

I think nobody can know this until they are in that situation. It depends very much on the circumstances. And it is also not the kind of decision that partners have to make often. Usually in the U.K. if the mother is in immediate danger the baby is delivered after all if the mother dies the baby will too. Mothers may decide to continue pregnancy when they have cancer etc but then it is their decision not their partners and their lives are not in immediate danger.

In one of my pregnancies I was told it was likely I could get a serious infection as my waters had broken. I went 10 weeks with my waters broken. I was told that if I got an infection then the only option to save me (and the baby) would be to induce. There would be no debate that was just what they would do.

sammylady37 · 13/09/2021 10:06

All these posters frothing themselves up and wringing their hands over this hard choice and dilemma... that doesn't exist. I don't know whether to despair or to be jealous of a life with so few real problems that you have to invent ridiculous hypotheticals to get your fix of drama

It’s somewhere between funny and frustrating that people are still insisting on agonising over this when it’s been made so clear that this is a scenario which will never arise in the UK. Still though, some have to martyr themselves somehow.

billy1966 · 13/09/2021 10:07

The mother every time.

Even more so when she has other children.

FloconDeNeige · 13/09/2021 10:45

@thesugarbumfairy

Unless this happened last century or somewhere obscure, can you stop it with the embellished tales, please?

As has already been pointed out on here by medical/legal professionals, partners/husbands are asked never asked to choose who to ‘save’. The medics have a legal duty of care to their patient (the mother).

HopingForOurRainbowBaby · 13/09/2021 14:31

My OH said he would prioritise me when we had this conversation during early Pregnancy. I said to save our Baby. He said that living without our Baby would be painful for us both but we would support each other through it. Whereas if something happened to me he wouldn't be able to cope with the grief and trying to raise a newborn with no help.