Here we go. Heroism in the face of the banality of our present holocaust.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 26, 2005

Answers

"She was aware that if she gave birth she wouldn't have had any hope of surviving," Quote from source: lifenews

Even I admire this woman her choice , at the same time I call her choice incredible stupid !!

Why ??

Actually , this was an exceptional emergency !!!! She was directly playing with 2 lifes , hers & the baby !!

What if the baby died before it was born , or when the baby was born , or after it was born ??

Or what if both died at the birth ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 26, 2005.

"Or what if both died at the birth ?? "

But What if they BOTH Lived?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 26, 2005.

I hope the baby is still allright !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 26, 2005.

So what are you saying? That it is acceptable to kill a child now because that child "might" die later???

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 26, 2005.

Paul ,

Even I am against abortion , this case I should called an exception !!

I understand she wanted to give life to her baby , but that way she putted herself & the baby in great danger !! Her cancer could killed her baby too , besides , she had 2 healthy kids & a husband !! Those kids (age 10 & 12) needed their mom !! So , it was better for her to go on with the cancer treatment !! The real mom & dad which raise their kids , is not the same as an aunt/uncle or grandparents that take care for the kids !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 26, 2005.

There is no type of cancer that I am aware of where chemotherapy treatment guarantees a cure. In many cases, there can be, at best a "likelihood" of a remission of the cancer with chemotherapy, and somewhere down the road, if the cancer does not reappear after a period of time (usually years), THEN a cure can be cautiously announced.

Yet there is a definite consequence to the unborn fetus from various types of chemotherapy. Usually, it's death. Chemo is strong stuff..it has to be. A physician cannot say to a pregnant woman, or anyone else, take the chemo and I guarantee that you will live.

They CAN say, "if you do not have chemo, and continue a pregnancy, you will die sooner rather than later, since the pregnancy itself speeds things up." They CAN say that pregnancy speeds up the cancerous process, even with chemo.

Yet here's another thing..no chemo, and no harm to the developing fetus. As long as the Mother remains relatively healthy, so does the growing baby inside her. The body will take from the mother and give to the unborn child. I've been PRIVILEGED to witness a woman with cancer make the same decision and come into the hospital so that she could be cared for while she was comatose, so her unborn baby could have another 10 days in the uterus..those 10 days made the difference.

She was 34 years old and had a husband and 3 little boys. We did a c- section on her poor emaciated body and delivered a healthy 36 week little boy. I will NEVER forget her, or her husband, or their boys. Somewhere in the world there is a 27 year old man whose mother loved her family more than herself. And she loved God more than her family.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 26, 2005.

Laurent,

I have a challenge for you. 20 years from now, go find the young man who is the baby in the news story, and try to convince him that he should have been aborted.

Just try it.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 26, 2005.

She is a woman I will look up to. Any woman who has love in her heart will put life before her not matter what for another life. Her family as in her husband and children will only respect her more for it in the long run. A woman who has done this had the backing of her husband and trust me, they are far better off than most of us here. Her sacrifice speaks volumes and does not need our approval. She was not stupid, but loved her child and made that sacrifice. The chemo could have killed her child and made her live. Once you have the love of a true mother and knowing what you went through to save yourself instead of your child, that alone would have killed you knowing you did not put him/her first. She was the type of mother all of us should be lucky to have.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 26, 2005.

well it's her choise...

but i can't imagine how the RCC can praise something like this,why should the women's life be less worthy than an unborn baby's life?

killing an embryo(or zygote?) is murder...(she discovered about her pregnancy on time...the baby wasen't much developed back then)

but killing yourself isn't?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

why should the women's life be less worthy than an unborn baby's life?

***Her life wasn't less worthy. She knew the risks that she would have put on her child had she gone through the chemo.

killing an embryo(or zygote?) is murder...(she discovered about her pregnancy on time...the baby wasen't much developed back then)

but killing yourself isn't?

***She didn't kill herself. Chemo doesn't save all people with cancer. God could have allowed a miracle by allowing her to live, but did not. We can die today or tomorrow and only God is in control as to when he shall take us.

As for my statement that all of us would be lucky to have a mother like this..all of us are because we are here. :o) Our mothers chose life for us not abortion.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.

pfff

but there was a chance that she would stay alive if she aborted the embryo,why to put the life of an embryo before your own?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

Because the embryo is life and your own flesh and blood.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.

you are crazy...

would you give up your life for a stupid embryo that doesn't even have a life?

go ahead

but i'm not...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

sdqa,

If your embryo were not painstakingly preserved and protected, you would not be here to talk about how embryos are stupid.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 27, 2005.

Anon , to covince that person he should have been aborted , that would impossible !! The baby has the right to live , no doubt about that !!

There is no type of cancer that I am aware of where chemotherapy treatment guarantees a cure

Chemo is indeed "heavy" !! The radiation , indeed it could kill the fetus and , even damage the patient (I've seen that with my own eyes) !!

Yet here's another thing..no chemo, and no harm to the developing fetus. As long as the Mother remains relatively healthy, so does the growing baby inside her. The body will take from the mother and give to the unborn child.

And what if both dies ??

jalapeno , Because the embryo is life and your own flesh and blood.

Maybe weird for some of you , but I agree !!

She was not stupid, but loved her child and made that sacrifice

I never pretend she was stupid , but her choice , it was stupid or better to say , the wrong choice , because she had already a family who needed her !! She decided to give her life for her kid , so it's done , and there is no return possible anymore !! But .... Anon gots a good point too !!

But what really bothers me (I'm gonna play open card with you all) , is the vatican view to this woman , the way they lift her up !!!! This is one of the things I really don't like about the vatican , and I don't mean catholics , just only the vatican itself !! I maybe will regret what I just have said , but I really had to tell you what was on my mind !! Sorry for that !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 28, 2005.

I never pretend she was stupid , but her choice , it was stupid or better to say , the wrong choice , because she had already a family who needed her !! She decided to give her life for her kid , so it's done , and there is no return possible anymore !! But .... Anon gots a good point too !!

***Laurent, once a woman has had children (OK not all), you love them so much you would never do anything to harm another one even if you had never seen him/her or touched him/her. Yes your family does need you, but there are not guarantees in life. Only God knows when He will take us and it could be sooner than later. She was an honorable woman, and probably could not have lived with herself if she had not put her child first.

But what really bothers me (I'm gonna play open card with you all) , is the vatican view to this woman , the way they lift her up !!!!

***Probably because there are very few women left like her and we only hear about women having abortions.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 28, 2005.

To make a choice such as this one, in todays world of glorifying the "self" over everything else is remarkable. If it were not so, it wouldn't have drawn any attention whatsoever. All over the globe,we read every day of women who choose to have abortions because a child would be a "bother", or a "financial hardship" , or an "embarrassment" ..we also know that some women chose to have an abortion rather than deliver a child who will "only" live a few years due to an "inherited illness", or will be "horribly disfigured" or "mentally deficient"..and some have an abortion of a healthy fetus because it's origin was "rape or "incest". And some have an abortion because they mother "might" be at risk if the pregancy continues. And some have an abortion because the mother WILL die if the pregnancy continues..

Yet rarely do we hear of a woman who REFUSES to murder her HEALTHY FETUS for the CHANCE that it MIGHT save her own life. Those are the key words. Her unborn baby is healthy..there's not a thing wrong with it. Yet her choices are to have it outright murdered to allow HERSELF a CHANCE at survival, or to forgoe that CHANCE herself and allow her unborn child to live.

You ask "what if they both died?" You may as well ask "What if she got hit by a truck on her way to chemo after she aborted the baby"?

"What if the baby dies from SIDS a few months from now? " "What if her husband dies next year?"

All irrelevant. None of us are guaranteed another second of existance. Can you guarantee that you will be drawing breath tomorrow morning? I cannot.

When a person has Faith in God, they have a peace inside them which others cannot fathom. Those who live for this life alone, cling to it kicking and screaming. Those who live for God are assured that there is much better to come and are able to leave THIS life in confidence. This woman made the choice to give her child life and to put her own into God's hands, to have HIS will be done.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 28, 2005.

“But what really bothers me (I'm gonna play open card with you all) , is the vatican view to this woman , the way they lift her up !!!! This is one of the things I really don't like about the vatican , and I don't mean catholics , just only the vatican itself !!” (Laurent)

I’m honestly very sad to hear that you think that way, Laurent. Up to know, I had thought that EVERYBODY agreed with Jesus words “No one has greater love than this, to lay down his life for a friend.” Of course this lady is a heroine! Surely all Catholics and non-Catholics want to "lift her up"!?

As for her other children, how could she look them in the eye and say “I killed your brother or sister in the hope that you could have me as your mother for a few years longer.” If I was her kid I’d reply “I’d rather have NO mother than to have a mother who has killed my sibling.”

Sdqa, you think that an embryo “doesn’t have a life”. An embryo is moving, respirating, growing, taking in oxygen and food and using them to grow. That’s what living creatures do. If an embryo isn’t alive, then neither is my cat. And a dead creature can't grow into a living creature. Basic biology.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 29, 2005.

well,then you can easily give your life up for your cat steve,becaue your cat is more aware,has emotions,can suffer instead of this embryo

the embryo isn't worth of giving your life up for it just like your cat steve

did you know that it's the doctor's ethical duty when a mother's life is in danger during giving birth to the child to first save the mother and then maybe the child?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

sdqa..you are mixing up your ethics here. The Catholic Church recognizes that in the event of an EMERGENCY during delivery of a child, all efforts should be made to save the life of the mother..absolutely..and if the baby dies in the process, that is something which couldn't be helped.

There is a HUGE difference between that and any DIRECT action to KILL the unborn child in order to save the mother.

for example: a woman is delivering a child and goes into cardiac arrest..there is no time to do BOTH a c-section AND perform CPR and other life-saving measures on the mother. CPR is started on the mother immediately..the unborn child is unfortunately compromised by the lack of adequate blood flow and dies in utero. The mother is sucessfully treated and recovers. The Catholic Church would not ever say that the Doctors should have ignored the mother and done a c- section to deliver the baby.

There are clear medical ethics known to physicians everywhere. That is why for abortions, a signature CONSENT is required. In a case such as above, no "consent " would be needed, as none would be warrented in such an emergency. There would be no DIRECT ACTION TAKEN against the unborn child.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.

Lesley:

You ask "what if they both died?" You may as well ask "What if she got hit by a truck on her way to chemo after she aborted the baby"?

"What if the baby dies from SIDS a few months from now? " "What if her husband dies next year?"

What if .... , indeed all irrelevant , if we knew everything ....

Even , why do we live ??

Steve , jalapeno:

Do you agree with everything what they say ??

It's one of the reasons I left the rcc ??

The woman may be a saint , it's true , but at the vatican , "they talk very eas(il)y" !! They never will understand the mind of a mother !! Even we men don't understand a mother !! I support / admire her , but not the vatican way !! Only a mother will understand the choice !!

sdqa:

did you know that it's the doctor's ethical duty when a mother's life is in danger during giving birth to the child to first save the mother and then maybe the child?

You've got a point too , that was what I meant , but what if the mother decides to give her life to save her baby ?? Indeed a difficult choice , or what it's the duty of the doctor in that case ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 29, 2005.

Steve , jalapeno: (improvement)

Do you agree with everything what they say ??

It's one of the reasons I left the rcc !! (not: ??)

Lesley , I was still writing my reply while you had already sent a reply to sdqa !!

There is a HUGE difference between that and any DIRECT action to KILL the unborn child in order to save the mother.

That's true !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 29, 2005.

> "did you know that it's the doctor's ethical duty when a mother's life is in danger during giving birth to the child to first save the mother and then maybe the child?"

A: Sadly, there are probably many doctors who see it that way. Which is why, when we had our children and when my daughter had her children, we made sure we had doctors who were extremely clear about the fact they were treating TWO patients whose lives were of EQUAL value, not just "a pregnant woman". That is the only way we could feel confident that my wife and our children were both receiving the best possible medical care, and that they would both continue to receive the best possible medical care if any problems arose. We didn't want any doctor caring for our children who viewed their health as a "secondary" responsibility. We found our doctors through referrals from the state Right to Life organization.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 29, 2005.

ok...

if a mother finds her embryo more important than herself to give her life up for it,it's her thing,it's her choise

but there is nothing glorious or heroic about it

my opinion is that the life of a full-developed person that is aware of everything,that has a life,that has feelings,that can suffer,that can think goes by all means before the life of an embryo that isn't aware of anything,that doesn't live a life although it's alive,that has no feelings,that can't suffer,that can't think

if i was a doctor and knew she had cancer in the beginning of the pregnancy i wouldn't want to take any part in the further pregnancy because i would feel guilty for the death of this women

she didn't give her life up for her child,she gave her life up to have a child

this embryo isn't a child yet,please realise that...

if having a child is more important to her then her life...go ahead...die for your embryo

but the RCC shouldn't idealise this...it's her personal thing...if this is being idealised,than it means if someone would abort the embryo in her case,that would be criticised...and that isn't fair

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

Medical ethics are clear: In the event of an emergency, all efforts are made to save the life of the mother and unborn child, yet if it is impossible to do both, the life of the mother is paramount.

You are mixing up a medical emergency and situations which are not "emergencies" but which are occasions of a serious nature involving "complications" of pregnancy or even labor & delivery.

In a non-emergency situation, where something should arise which dictates that EITHER the unborn child or the mother will more than likely die unless the physician initiates intervention for ONE of them..it becomes the CHOICE of the woman, NOT her physician. The physician may disagree..he can even appeal to the courts if he chooses to, and the courts will step far away from it as long as the woman is of sound mind, not under the undue influence of others, and is totally informed of the consequences of her decision.

It amazes ME that people should be amazed by this. Under our laws, a woman has the right decide to end the life of her unborn child to save her own and people nod their heads and say to themselves "that's understandable"..yet when she decides to exercise her right under the law to decide to sacrifice her OWN life to save that of her unborn child, people shake their heads and say to themselves "THAT's insane." ..........what a world.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.

this embryo isn't a child yet,please realise that...

It's in development in the womb , so it's alive !! How else it can grow ??

What if you're wife , girlfriend would be pregnant (under the circumstances as the woman we're talking about or even under any other circumstances) ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 29, 2005.

laurent i suggest you please look up what an embryo really is...maybe you are confusing it with a foetus...if an embryo is a child then a zygote is one also...

well my girlfriend or wife would never be so crazy to do such a thing,but i certainly won't let her die for a stupid embryo...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

Do you agree with everything what they say

***For the most part I do agree with all they say.

look up what an embryo really is...maybe you are confusing it with a foetus...if an embryo is a child then a zygote is one also...

***If it is nothing then why get an abortion? Abortion ends life and if you believe there is no life then there would be no reason to abort something that is not there. Right? If no abortion is performed, in 9 months you will be blessed with a gift from above.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.

> "she didn't give her life up for her child,she gave her life up to have a child"

A: "have a child" means "give birth to a child". How can a woman give birth to a child if what is growing inside her is not a child?

> "this embryo isn't a child yet,please realise that..."

A: Well, that would obviously depend on your definition of "child". The commonly accepted definition of "child" is "a human being below the age of puberty". And by that definition an embryo is a child. Besides, by the time an abortion is committed, the child has almost always progressed into the fetal stage of life.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 29, 2005.

"the RCC shouldn't idealise this...it's her personal thing...if this is being idealised,than it means if someone would abort the embryo in her case,that would be criticised...and that isn't fair"

I've got a newsflash for you sdqa. You don't seem to be aware that the Church condemns abortion. Deliberate abortion is murder of a living human being. That's a basic biological fact. Whether the embryo "suffers" much when it is killed is not the point. Thou shalt not kill.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 30, 2005.

'thou shalt not kill'

oh so we can't kill animals also?

it doesn't matter in what an embryo will develop but in it's stage like it is it doesn't have the conditions to be considered as a person neither as a human being

and how are you so sure that this commandment is also about embryo's?

because your church tells you so?

and why to kill the mother and let the embryo live?

isn't this much worse?

i already said the mother can suffer,has feelings,lives a life,is aware,can think,is already an existing person,that will probably been missed by many people if she dies...an embryo doesn't have all these things...therefor the life of the mother ALWAYS goes first

don't you think that this is pure logic?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 30, 2005.

sdqa.. Your brand of "pure logic" could only apply if this woman had been wheeled into an operating room and after the embryo had been somehow carefully removed from her body to have it's life preserved, the physicians then proceeded to actively end the life of the mother.

You insist upon ignoring the fact that there is a vast difference between taking direct action to KILL and unborn human being, and the mother's CHOICE to not receive medical treatment.

Nobody took direct action against the mother to kill her. By choosing not to receive chemotherapy, she chose to accept the reality of her own death BY DISEASE rather than to CHOOSE to be a part of ACTIVELY killing her own unborn child.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 30, 2005.

'thou shalt not kill' oh so we can't kill animals also?

***The true translation for 'thou shalt not kill' is, thou shalt not murder. So this commandment has nothing to do with animals, but I know you knew that.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 30, 2005.

she chose to accept the reality of her own death BY DISEASE rather than to CHOOSE to be a part of ACTIVELY killing her own unborn child.

But what if she had chosen to save her own life and so start with chemotherapy ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 30, 2005.

That too would have been a morally acceptable decision. No mother, indeed no person, is morally bound to place their own life in direct jeopardy in order to preserve the life of another person. There is no moral principle and no Church teaching that would forbid a woman from accepting medical prcocedures essential for the preservation of her own life, even if such procedures inadvertently caused the death of her unborn child. That's why the decision to forego the procedures for the benefit of the child is heroic. If it was required, the decision would simply involve obedience, not heroism.

The situation is analygous, in terms of moral responsibility, to seeing a child trapped in a burning building. If it is possible to contribute to the child's safety without personal risk (call the fire department), someone outside the building is morally bound to do so. However, no onlooker outside the building is morally or ethically bound to rush into the burning building in an effort to save the child. If someone freely chooses to do so, we say that such an effort is heroic. Whether the would-be rescuer succeeds in the attempt, or dies in the process, he/she is honored as a hero. No-one says it was a stupid thing to do. And in this case the child the hero is attempting to save may be a complete stranger, not one's own flesh and blood.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 30, 2005.

Laruent, I would imagine that that would have been ok since she's trying to save her life. Nevertheless, I believe what she did is commenable!

No matter what way you cut it, abortion is MURDER! As long as your not deciding to KILL an unborn child because of having early sex or whatever, like in this case I think if she wanted to live it would be ok.

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

As someone said above, chemo is no guarantee of a cure. Also, it is not uncommon for people to refuse this or that treatment because of side effects that can be very debilitating.

And, just because some doctor tells you that you have x months to live doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to drop dead on that date.

I think that this woman, knowing the risks chemo would present to her CHILD, chose to leave the matter in God's hands. She may even have tried other, non-conventional treatments, like a macrobiotic diet, visualization, etc., that wouldn't hurt her child. I don't think she just "gave up".

This is a totally different situation than say, an ectopic pregnancy.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 01, 2005.