Termination of pregnancies - too willing to terminate, maybe there are other choices?

[Ilovepastafortea]

I have trouble with the issue of terminating pregnancies.

For context I had 5 miscarriages & 1 baby born 'sleeping' at 29 weeks.

Also 2 of my (3) husbands were adopted-well DH's mother was adopted in the 1920's. The point is if abortion was available in 1963 & 1926 neither of them would have existed. Their childless mothers wouldn't have had babies to love & care for.

If my first husband had been aborted my lovely son wouldn't exist. He killed himself at the age of 32 leaving me with a baby. But at least I had my baby which was part of him.

If my DH's mother had been aborted my 3 lovely step children & 7 gorgeous grandchildren wouldn't be here. Both of my step sons served in the Royal Navy - one in special forces & got his Green (Marine) beret. My Step daughter is a nurse & worked in A&E for many years, is now a Matron. She has saved many lives & made a difference to many other people's lives including taking unpaid leave to be there when her grandmother was dying.

But then I understand why some people do it.

I can particularly understand it if the woman has been abused or raped - who would want to bring their abuser's or rapist's child into the world. I get that.

I just wish that they would think about having their unwanted baby adopted so that someone who can't have a baby can love & care for it.

My heart goes out to those with an unwanted pregnancy & facing this.

I don't know what I'd do to be honest.

I have no doubt that most women terminate a pregnancy after much heart searching & grief. However, I also hear about women who are terminating their 3rd or more pregnancies & using it as a method of birth control.

So brings me around to AIBU to ask if people terminate a pregnancy number 3 or 4 are being unreasonable?

Or not.

Just canvassing opinions.

I don't see what giving people glares is going to achieve. I mean no one is going to get a glare and think "hmm, wonder why that person glared at me. I'll do some self reflection and see if I can become a better person,".

No they'll just think that you're a twat.

Well I guess abortion will continue to expand over the next 60 years. Are we all of an agreement that once out the birthing canal it’s definitely 100% murder? What if the child is highly disabled? They have no money? The Father is an abuser? The Mother has psychosis? They can’t afford more? Do you think some of you would campaign to extend it to a trial month after birth as the same arguments stand or is that definitely the ethical line you can’t cross? What about these late term abortions at home if it’s shown the child was definitely alive upon birth and would have made it with medical intervention is that still ok she’s not facing any charges? If it was one of us and no one called a ambulance it would be seen as morally and criminally wrong and charges would be brought, if we keep eking out the law on this where does it end? It will happen for sure with euthanasia, the lines will get more and more blurred like they are with abortion. I’m not comfortable with that.

Vets get very upset putting down dogs for trivial reasons that owners would rather not rehome. Not in all cases as there’s many genuine cases for abortion but I do think there’s people out there who just don’t give it a second thought. You see people who rehome their pets constantly it’s the same thing irresponsible behaviour in many cases and yes that makes you an inadequate Mother anyway but when society shifts to try and normalise it and justify it well it’s just reinforcing the message your needs come first, you can do what you like with no repercussions and people who feel uncomfortable with the whole thing as right wing lunatics.

Thank you. I resonated a lot with what you said.

You're doing the typical forced birther thing of positing hypothetical and very extreme scenarios which are completely ridiculous.

We don't know whether abortion rates will rise or fall. We know what we need to do to bring them down: reduce poverty and inequality, provide excellent sex education, ensure healthcare is available and affordable for all, including contraception, and provide affordible childcare. That is what sets apart those countries which have low abortion rates. So that is the choice that needs to be made - do we continue with rampant capitalism or do we decide the social democratic model is the way to go?

Oddly enough, many forced birthers (not all) are very right wing and don't want to do these things - they just want bans which do not work and kill women. Choices, consequences.

Extreme hypothetical arguments as always to distract from the fact that most abortions are early, and most women are not using them as contraception.

@pointythings thanks for your post. You put it in a much better way than I would have.

The thing is it’s not. Where we are now would horrified most people in 1967.

I always quote the late, great George Carlin on this subject.

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own.
Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
― George Carlin'

They are my cells. I don't want my genetic child brought up in another family, so I chose not to have that child brought into being. I had a miscarriage knowing i definitely wanted children one day but was not in a position to have one then (i was too young). I knew it would be horribly traumatic for a child if ever they discovered that their birth mother had chosen to give them up but had kept their siblings and did not want that for my offspring.

Isn't it great then that we don't live in 1967? In 1967, South Africa still lived under Apartheid, rape within marriage was not yet a crime, marriage equality had not been achieved, there was no Equal Pay Act and women could be fired just for getting married. The Magdalene Laundries were still going strong, violence in the home was dismissed as 'a domestic' and not prosecuted, and women couldn't be priests. Life is so, so much better now. Get over your toxic nostalgia.

If you’re going to use that argument we can add in a larger social divide, giving children puberty blockers, women expected to run the home and work in stressful professional jobs, men not expected to grow up and commit, more suicide and much as I was against the apartheid they’ve now turned the table on white farmers and their land.

Don't worry about the white South African farmers. They are the only immigrants that Donald Trump will allow to come to the USA. All the rest of them can go straight to Alligator Alcatraz. The world is run by fucking psychopathic racists.

We've just reversed direction on puberty blockers in the UK, so that one isn't valid.

Women have choices and are able to walk away from relationships where men don't pull their weight.

Men weren't expected to grow up in 1967. They expected the little woman to look after her and were no better at doing housework if their wife worked than they are now - in fact, I'd argue that across the piece men are better although that have a looooong way to go.

If you think white people are being persecuted in South Africa, you've swallowed the Trump flavoured Kool-Aid!

I note you not mentioning marital rape, homosexuality or the way the workplace has opened up to women along with anti-discrimination laws...

I was born in 1968. I saw many of the positive changes happen. And yes, safe and legal abortion was absolutely one of those.

Can we have an apology for your ridiculous rant about how we must be in favour of expanding abortion to include the period after birth? Because that will never happen.

At what point is the child a separate identity and you’re no longer the omnipotent God, before/just after/ a month after birth/ seriously disabled but born? You must’ve your ethical line? What if illness or disability happens to you are they still your cells to decide what to do and no adoption if the law allowed?

No point in arguing with someone who thinks women working outaide the home is a bad thing. Or that white South Africans are oppressed.

Or that killing a month old baby is the same as taking abortion pills, which is what most women do.

Very true. I keep expecting a glimmer of rationality, silly me.

Same-I neither think about them or have any regrets. Both under very different circumstances for different reason but both best decisions I ever made along with the decision to have the four children I went on to.

It always confuses me that the forced birthers go on and on about 'wanting women to take responsibility', but that said responsibility doesn't include being willing to accept the consequences of having an abortion (if there are any). I mean, either you take responsibility or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

You’re stupid if you actually believe this. Better that you don’t reproduce

I really think posts like this should be allowed to stand. They certainly show the calibre of the kind of personality that advocates forcing women to give birth against their will.

You do know that many of us who are pro choice have children - and that we have taught our children to stand up for a woman's right to bodily autonomy?

I'm a social worker and have worked in adoption. It really isn't that simple. As you probably know when you think about it. Your adopted DH took his own life, it's common for adopted children to grow up to have mental health problems, separation from their birth family is traumatic, even if it happens when they are babies. Many struggle with their identity and feel they have had something missing.
There are also more children waiting for adoption than there are suitable people wanting to adopt. If anyone that wanted a termination chose to carry the baby and adopt instead then there would be lots more children stuck in limbo waiting for a family.
Adoptions do break down, many people who adopt accept that child as there own and wouldn't dream of sending them back no matter how tough it gets. However, some do call social services when they get to the difficult teen years. That's a big stage for identify development and as well as the hormones all teens deal with, adopted children have an additional layer of difficulty.
Giving up a baby once it's born isn't easy. I worked with 2 students (separate cases) who came to social services when pregnant as they wanted their baby to be adopted. Both changed their mind, one during pregnancy, the other a few weeks after the child had been placed with a prospective adoptive family. It was a family with other young children who started to bond with a new sibling but then the sibling was gone.
I really don't think termination should be taken lightly but that needs to be addressed with contraception, not adoption.

Oh, so English law is stupid then? Science is stupid too?

Thank you for saying that! People use the word "nuance" as a passive aggressive weapon constantly on MN. Eg; "You obviously just don't get the nuance here." It's insufferably pompous and I cringe whenever I see it.

Yes, let's do allow this poster to embarrass herself. It's my preference that posts like this stand so we can all see what kind of person the poster really is.