Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Original poster

DH would abort but I wouldn't........help!

219 replies

Bloo · 25/04/2006 20:04

My DH really took me by surprise - he was asking at what stage we take all the tests for DS etc etc. I said that we should only have them if we would potentially act on the results as they come with some risk. to cut a long story short, DH said he would want to abort if the baby had DS. I am mortified. Has anyone else been in this situation>

OP posts:
Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 26/04/2006 20:11

Actually I find Trifle's post incredibly offensive as well. Morally right?????? Morally right??????? I don't mind people talking about their own family dynamics but morally right???

FWIW My son attends a school for children with severe learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulties. I don't know of a single mother there who knew their child had a disability before they were born (and many didn't anyway- birth injuries, or the results of meningitis etc) . What are we meant to do to be morally right? Drown them?

I do not intend to be caring for my son as a pensioner (because its not fair on him- when we drop dead everything that makes him safe would go if we did that). There are alternatives. Some better than others.

Not sure what relevance being unable to attend a normal school has. My son's special school is a better place than any mainstream school I've been in (including the one that ds2 will be going to). The staff there seem to know what's important in life as well.

PLease note this is not to say that any decision is right or wrong, people make their own choices, but morally wrong to have a disabled child?????? Eugenics.

Elf1981 · 26/04/2006 20:17

We didn't have any additional tests when pregnant. We were of the notion that we would raise the child no matter what so additional tests for Downs wasn't something we wanted.

bubble99 · 26/04/2006 20:19

We had our 13 week scan today and asked for nuchal testing.

wads · 26/04/2006 20:32

An amnio will only give you chromosome abnormalities, not to what degree they will affect the child & there are huge variants with any SN child. I'm pg with 3rd child & have just had an amnio because I'm concerned what effect a SN child will have on my SN DS but don't ask me what the hell I will do if any abnormal results come through, I think too that my DH & I will have different opinions. It's an incredibly personal decision & FA to do with morals

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 26/04/2006 20:48

Exactly wads. In my 3rd pregnancy I faced the same sort of dilemma. Seriously worried that we couldn't cope with another child with SN (not emotionally just physically), but not really knowing what the tests would tell us anyway. Even positive for DS wouldn't tell us the effect it would have on our particualr child. IN the end I turned it around and asked whether I could go through with a termination, Decided the answer to that was no. We had screening tests, for preparation but decided we wouldn't go any further (they were fine anyway).

Now ds3 is 15 months and tbh I still don't know whether he's OK or not. We're 70% sure that he is NT, but there are some sensory signs and I'm getting his urine sent to Sunderland ASD unit because I have about a 30% niggling uncertainty about him. And if he is ASD at 15 months I srtill couldn't tell you where along the spectrum, and whether he'd be looking at normal life, marriage, kids or life needing 24 hour care.

I don't think there are any certainties in life, and as you say FA to do with morals.

Original poster
Bloo · 26/04/2006 21:13

Don't be too hard on Trifle....I THINK I understand th notion - I believe that having children is essentially a purely selfish act - we don't have them for the sake of the children, we initially have them for our own sake as we are primevally (sp.!!) wired up to do. We wouldn't wish SN on anyone, gorgeous and lovely as they are however and the fact that we have these tests available to us, there is an argument that we can prevent people having to suffer (not the right word at all!) a life where they feel 'different' - something we all strived against when we were children. Our chance to do something for the child's sake rather than our own. We are the adult. I understand that and I presume this is what Trifle was meaning? I think this is where DH is coming from. It's just that at 20 weeks....you know the rest more than I do. Oh I hope that this hasn't come out wrong.

Bubble - please can I ask why you requested a nuchal scan (Please don't feel you have to answer)? Are you high risk?

OP posts:
Original poster
Bloo · 26/04/2006 21:14

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads, what is NT?

OP posts:
bubble99 · 26/04/2006 21:19

Bloo. I'm 39 and will be 40 when I give birth. Also, I have three other children and would have to consider long and hard about continuing with a pregnancy if serious fetal abnormalities were found.

Original poster
Bloo · 26/04/2006 21:28

I understand and fingers crossed that it will all be ok for you. I am still unsure what it offered / advised in the way of tests or whether it's left up to us to request them. I will find out as I get closer I guess. Thanks x

OP posts:
Trifle · 26/04/2006 21:32

Exactly Bloo, worded far more understandably that I can do. Having children is something anyone can do for free regardless of your circumstances but everyone else has to pick up the pieces. No one grows up dreaming of having a special needs child as essentially it is a life long one of battles with every conceivable authority going. My question is, is it morally right to knowingly bring a disabled child into the world when you know that you will be totally reliant on the govenment, tax payer, education authority, local council etc to fund that child throughout its life simply because you decided that you wanted a baby no matter what. I agree Bloo that we are the adult so a rational decision rather than an emotional one has to be reached as to whether it is right to have a child who will always be different, never completely fit in, whose long term prospects are limited simply because it is our right to have one.

onlyjoking9329 · 26/04/2006 21:58

Trifle, what a load of offensive tripe, some people place a very low value on children with additional needs.i guess i must be very irresponsible to have three children with autism.

Original poster
Bloo · 26/04/2006 21:59

But then from the other side.....we only put animals down that are in extreme pain or are distressed......and a human life is at least as precious as an animals.

OP posts:
Trifle · 26/04/2006 22:03

Autism is not detectable pre-birth so not the same at all.

emkana · 26/04/2006 22:16

trifle as jimjams has already pointed out the vast majority of special needs are not detectable pre-birth or do not even exist pre-birth, but only develop later, so I find it rather dodgy to say you should abort for moral reasons if you find out pre-birth but if it's something that can't be detected then fair enough?

I'm in a totally grey area then because my baby's problems couldn't be detected by amnio but there is in all probability still a problem there, I still have six weeks to go before I give birth, would you say I should still terminate now for moral reasons?
Where do you draw the line?

emkana · 26/04/2006 22:19

btw when we were having the amnio I was for a time inclined to terminate in case of a positive result, but purely for emotional/family reasons, not because I thought that that would be morally right.

I can totally understand, and have felt myself, that people feel they couldn't cope with bringing up a SN child.

But, as my experience and many others' proves, in the end you can't plan things anyway and things might happen to you after all, and then you have to deal with what life throws at you, and IMO society has a moral obligation to support people in caring for children with SN.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 26/04/2006 22:29

"My question is, is it morally right to knowingly bring a disabled child into the world when you know that you will be totally reliant on the govenment, tax payer, education authority, local council etc to fund that child throughout its life simply because you decided that you wanted a baby no matter what."

You're sick, Trifle, sick.

FWIW I think people are free to make their own decisons, but this is the most offensive tripe I have ever read on mumsnet. Absolutely sick. A life is a life. Who the hell are you to judge its worth.

sparklemagic · 26/04/2006 22:46

blimey trifle, the life of many disabled people is different yes but for many, no less enjoyable and valuable than our own lives. If the value of our lives is to be judged on 'fitting in' and whether you will 'always be different' then I fear for our society.

Yes there are some costs to society in caring for some disabled people - but thank god most of us are civilised enough to accept that a proportion of our taxes goes to fund this sort of provision, because it is ingrained in human nature to nurture those that need it and is part of a healthy and caring society to provide this care. Some people become severely disabled during their lives through illness or accident and is someone then going to decide whether their life is too much of a drain on society to allow to continue? There is no difference between this decision and that of a termination on grounds of disability - well, only that the unborn child has no voice...

5ms · 26/04/2006 22:50

more often than not neither does a disabled person, child or adult

Original poster
Bloo · 26/04/2006 22:50

Can I clarify? The tests aren't 100% are they? Even with a positive, there's still a chance that the baby is 'normal', will all the tests?

OP posts:
skerriesmum · 26/04/2006 22:51

So why have these tests at all then? They aren't available at all in Ireland, because terminations aren't available either. You just cope with life, whatever that brings.

bubble99 · 26/04/2006 22:52

I think amnio is the more reliable test as the baby's cells/DNA are tested. I think nuchal scans are less conclusive but are used as an indicator.

emkana · 26/04/2006 22:53

I think if an amnio comes back as positive then there's no chance of the baby being healthy after all.
There is a chance though that it gives you the all clear and your baby is SN after all.

bubble99 · 26/04/2006 22:53

skerriesmum. Some people want the tests so that they can be prepared for a baby with special needs.

bubble99 · 26/04/2006 22:55

And others want the test so that they can choose to have an abortion.

5ms · 26/04/2006 22:57

amnios check the babies chromosomes. for all chromosome abnomalities. if positive in any area the result can't tell you how the child will be affected. most disabilities won't have prenatal tests available.(learning problems, autism,etc)