NationStates Jolt Archive

Lorraine Allard, a 33-year-old mother of three, with a fourth on the way, found out four months into the pregnancy that she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Rather than killing her unborn son in order to begin immediate chemotherapy, she waited until the baby was able to be delivered before starting treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=510308&in_page_id=1799&in_page_id=1799&expand=true#StartComments

Instead of killing the baby to gain maybe a few more months of existence (she was terminal after all), she saved her baby.

What an inspiration. Thank God there are still people who think of something other than their own selfish interests.

Rest in peace, Lorraine, and comfort to your family.

Meh.

What if she hadn't been terminal? What if chemo might have saved her life? What decision would, in your mind, be the right one then?

She dies, leaving behind her children to be cared for by others...or she aborts, takes the chemo, and remains to care for her family?

i wouldnt recommend her choice or call a woman who chose to terminate a pregnancy so she could perhaps save her own life selfish but i respect her choice.

To play the devils advocate, she wasn't all that unselfish. She cared more to spread her genes around the world than to take care of the three children she already had.

Issue reversed!

Fair play, I suppose.

Can't think of anything else to say, really.

This is not anywhere near as simple as you paint it, Mitanni.

Frankly, I think she should have gone through the chemo, terminal or not, and ESPECIALLY if she wasn't, because that way she could care for her children that are already fully existing.

What I wonder is if it was possible she wouldn't have been terminal had she gotten the chemo immediately upon learning of her cancer. If not, then she made, in my mind, a very stupid mistake.

Lorraine Allard, a 33-year-old mother of three, with a fourth on the way, found out four months into the pregnancy that she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Rather than killing her unborn son in order to begin immediate chemotherapy, she waited until the baby was able to be delivered before starting treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=510308&in_page_id=1799&in_page_id=1799&expand=true#StartComments

Instead of killing the baby to gain maybe a few more months of existence (she was terminal after all), she saved her baby.

What an inspiration. Thank God there are still people who think of something other than their own selfish interests.

Rest in peace, Lorraine, and comfort to your family.

Yes, yes. Abortion is murder of babies and women who get abortions are just cowards. Why don't you spare us from your cro-magnon worldview for once, you wormy little troll?

Also, I'm sorry, but I don't see this as so remarkable. If you knew, without a doubt that you were going to die fairly soon...why wouldn't you grasp at some last chance at immortality and have the baby?

And I just realized this was the Daily Mail, which suddenly renders the story entirely untrustworthy. New article please, this time NOT from a tabloid.

Frankly, I think she should have gone through the chemo, terminal or not, and ESPECIALLY if she wasn't, because that way she could care for her children that are already fully existing.
.

Assuming she would be any position to care for her kids at that stage

What if she hadn't been terminal? What if chemo might have saved her life? What decision would, in your mind, be the right one then?

She dies, leaving behind her children to be cared for by others...or she aborts, takes the chemo, and remains to care for her family?

A more difficult situation, but probably the same decision. Chemo's effectiveness is not guaranteed. She might have gone into complete and permanent remission, but she might also have gained maybe a few months or years at most, and then still died, leaving her family behind as before (but without her son). On the other hand, abortion is 100% certain to have killed her son.

So, on the one hand, maybe two people survive, maybe only one, maybe none. On the other hand, one person certainly survives and looks forward to a full lifespan.

BTW: I am personally familiar with a similar situation. My own mother suffered from lymphoma and underwent chemo, after which she went into remission for over two years. Unfortunately, she then relapsed. She found this out after she had just gotten out of a long hospital stay, and shortly before Christmas 2004. Chemo would have put her back into the hospital and wasn't assured of success at any rate. She decided to wait and observe how things developed for the time being, and also chose not to tell anyone about her condition at the time, so that everyone would have a happy Christmas holiday and also so that she would be able to attend her first grandson's baptism the following January. After that was over, her oncologist told her she needed to take action immediately. She finally agreed to go back into chemo. It appeared to be working, but she suffered from heart-related complications and didn't make it.

So she made a somewhat similar choice. I don't know how I would have advised her if I'd known, but she was pretty determined once she'd made decisions.

And I just realized this was the Daily Mail, which suddenly renders the story entirely untrustworthy. New article please, this time NOT from a tabloid.

Bah, who cares, it's probably mostly true. What's more interesting is the issue itself.

Yes yes anyone who saved themselve to care for their children is a baby killer.


Daily....*sigh*:sniper:

Since when is it remarkable for a mother to care about her child more than herself? This is typical mother behavior.

I don't see bravery in evidence anywhere in this thread, so it's inclusion in the title perplexes me.

My mother is a cancer survivor, and has told me in no uncertain terms when it comes back she won't get treatment. As someone who worked for years as a nursing assistant I tend to believe her when she says dying of cancer is far less painful than dying of cancer and being used as a lab rat.

But huzzah! Another mouth for the state to feed. Yay...

Bah, who cares, it's probably mostly true. What's more interesting is the issue itself.

True.

Also, the one who pointed out her possible difficulties in caring for her children after chemo also has a point.

As I said, it's not simple. Not by far.

Medical abortion. That's what the choice was, and nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't as though she didn't have children to care for. She made her choice and it was hers to make. Not inspiring though. I'd say foolish as she already has children to care for.

I see no reason for her to have forgone chemo therapy when it could have very well saved her life. What's better? For the mother of the children who are already born and exist to gain a sibling and lose their mother, or vice versa? IT seems that it would have benefited her children more to have their mother to guide them through life and to be there to hold her grandchildren then they're born.

The woman had three daughters already. Three children she gave birth to. Three children that will not have their mother there for them during their turbulent years to hold them and help them over come heart break after their first break up; there to help them become good women.

Lorraine Allard, a 33-year-old mother of three, with a fourth on the way, found out four months into the pregnancy that she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Rather than killing her unborn son in order to begin immediate chemotherapy, she waited until the baby was able to be delivered before starting treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=510308&in_page_id=1799&in_page_id=1799&expand=true#StartComments

Instead of killing the baby to gain maybe a few more months of existence (she was terminal after all), she saved her baby.

What an inspiration. Thank God there are still people who think of something other than their own selfish interests.

Rest in peace, Lorraine, and comfort to your family.

I am sure it was not an easy decision. Advanced liver cancer is not notorious for being curable so aborting to have chemo likely wouldn't have saved her life anyway. I know of a woman who was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer during pregnancy and she would not abort for the same reason. Sadly she died before the baby could be saved.

Medical abortion. That's what the choice was, and nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't as though she didn't have children to care for. She made her choice and it was hers to make. Not inspiring though. I'd say foolish as she already has children to care for.

I see no reason for her to have forgone chemo therapy when it could have very well saved her life. What's better? For the mother of the children who are already born and exist to gain a sibling and lose their mother, or vice versa? IT seems that it would have benefited her children more to have their mother to guide them through life and to be there to hold her grandchildren then they're born.

The woman had three daughters already. Three children she gave birth to. Three children that will not have their mother there for them during their turbulent years to hold them and help them over come heart break after their first break up; there to help them become good women.

Let's not forget the possible impact of having a living, breathing reminder of why mom died (or, chose to die) living with them. Can't even imagine the tensions that could raise.

Let's not forget the possible impact of having a living, breathing reminder of why mom died (or, chose to die) living with them. Can't even imagine the tensions that could raise.

You killed mom.

Let's not forget the possible impact of having a living, breathing reminder of why mom died (or, chose to die) living with them. Can't even imagine the tensions that could raise.

Especially considering that two of the girls are old enough to be aware of this kind of thing. The kind of impact that it would have on the boy would be harmful.

You killed mom.

Simple and effective as usual.

Especially considering that two of the girls are old enough to be aware of this kind of thing. The kind of impact that it would have on the boy would be harmful.

Most definitely. If this doesn't play out just right. That baby is going to be the source of much resentment.

Yes, yes. Abortion is murder of babies and women who get abortions are just cowards. Why don't you spare us from your cro-magnon worldview for once, you wormy little troll?

Name caller. So I guess it is you who are the troll.

Greater Trostia, quit flaming. Kontor, don't respond.

I don't think this should be a typical Abortion Debate. We already have a trillion other threads for that! I admire the mother, it was her choice to have the baby instead of aborting, that should be admirable for both sides I think.

This is not anywhere near as simple as you paint it, Mitanni.
Nothing ever is.

I don't see bravery in evidence anywhere in this thread, so it's inclusion in the title perplexes me.

My mother is a cancer survivor, and has told me in no uncertain terms when it comes back she won't get treatment. As someone who worked for years as a nursing assistant I tend to believe her when she says dying of cancer is far less painful than dying of cancer and being used as a lab rat.


Yep, been there and puked that. If its terminal I'd rather just cut to the chase meself.

As I said, it's not simple. Not by far.
that kind of decision is never easy. :(

I for one refuse to believe that this woman even exists unless there's an article from a reputable source. My eyes have better things to do than read 'Hurrrrrr, abortions are evil, people who get them are the devil, people who don't are heroes' from the daily fail.

Greater Trostia, quit flaming. Kontor, don't respond.

Yea, I guess that makes me no better, sorry.

Instead of killing the baby to gain maybe a few more months of existence (she was terminal after all), she saved her baby.

Rest in peace, Lorraine, and comfort to your family.

And some people think abortion is OK. This woman is a true hero who put the life of her child above her own.

And some people think abortion is OK. This woman is a true hero who put the life of her child above her own.

no she isnt.

she is a woman who decided that her child's chance at life was better than her own and went with that decision.

it is not heroic to die for an unborn child.

no she isnt.

she is a woman who decided that her child's chance at life was better than her own and went with that decision.

it is not heroic to die for an unborn child.

Your opinion, not mine. :( I may be a man, but would die to save my child, born or unborn.

Well some may have not done what se did but to me whats the point of living a few more months. My life isnt so important to me that i will do anything to have some more time. I already lived part of it. The mom lived a life so she thought that a few months of hers was not worth a whole life time of the kid's. She would have left her daughters anyways and died anyways.

And some people think abortion is OK.

Yeah, and those people are people who are not misogynists.

i hope you don't intend to ue this as an anti abortion argument, cuz it fails.

Your opinion, not mine. :( I may be a man, but would die to save my child, born or unborn.

im sure you would.

but would you sacrifice your wife for the life of an unborn non-viable fetus?

the only thing that makes this womans choice acceptable is that cancer treatment was very unlikely to work.

Yeah, and those people are people who are not misogynists.

You must have me confused with someone else. I love women. I also respect them. Without them, neither of us would be here. :eek:

You must have me confused with someone else.

No, no. I know exactly what you are.

I love women. I also respect them. Without them, neither of us would be here. :eek:

And in your "love" and "respect" you'd want them shackled to what would become their ovarian Bastilles and make yourself the warden. My, my - who isn't masochistic enough so they can't feel the love in such sexist oppression and sadism?

the only thing that makes this womans choice acceptable is that cancer treatment was very unlikely to work.

Precisely. She would've been a fool (but still within her rights, of course) to compromise a treatment that could have been curative or at least given her years. Now, she exercised her right to choice, a right the OP and people like him would like to have taken away from her. I love the irony in that the OP actually makes a very strong pro-choice argument and not one at all for the anti-choicers.

Precisely. She would've been a fool (but still within her rights, of course) to compromise a treatment that could have been curative or at least given her years. Now, she exercised her right to choice, a right the OP and people like him would like to have taken away from her. I love the irony in that the OP actually makes a very strong pro-choice argument and not one at all for the anti-choicers.

yeah. if she hadnt had the legal right to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life she would have only been a sacrifice to someone else's "morality".

i respect her choice but it would have been an equally brave choice to terminate immediately and fight for her own life.

No one said the fetus was non-viable. I do believe in abortion under some circumstances. My niece was pregnant and the fetus has no brain stem and was not viable. I support her and her husbands choice to have an abortion because if she didn't both she and the fetus would have died. I support abortion if rape or incest is involved.

If two adults choose to engage in sex and do not want children, both should use birth control. If they choose not to practice birth control, or if birth control fails, both should take the responsibility of raising the child or insuring the child is adopted.

Killing a fetus who can not defend itself is not an option in my book.

I understand we will never agree on this subject. There is little room for negotiations on this.

that is a horrifying position. that a woman must DIE for an unborn child.

the fetus was not viable at the point where she was diagnosed. if it had been born then, it would have died.

im sure you would.

but would you sacrifice your wife for the life of an unborn non-viable fetus?

the only thing that makes this womans choice acceptable is that cancer treatment was very unlikely to work.

No one said the fetus was non-viable. I do believe in abortion under some circumstances. My niece was pregnant and the fetus has no brain stem and was not viable. I support her and her husbands choice to have an abortion because if she didn't both she and the fetus would have died. I support abortion if rape or incest is involved.

If two adults choose to engage in sex and do not want children, both should use birth control. If they choose not to practice birth control, or if birth control fails, both should take the responsibility of raising the child or insuring the child is adopted.

Killing a fetus who can not defend itself is not an option in my book.

I understand we will never agree on this subject. There is little room for negotiations on this.

Oh for the love of fuck...here goes Fass again...

Celtlund, also, your opinion is wrong. I'm well aware that it is grammatically impossible for an opinion to be wrong, but it is my opinion that it is wrong.

Oh for the love of fuck...here goes Fass again...

Celtlund, also, your opinion is wrong. I'm well aware that it is grammatically impossible for an opinion to be wrong, but it is my opinion that it is wrong.

Was the first part of that even remotely necessary?

How is it grammatically impossible for an opinion to be wrong? I could be of the opinion that the moon is made of swiss cheese. This is verifiably wrong.

Was the first part of that even remotely necessary?

How is it grammatically impossible for an opinion to be wrong? I could be of the opinion that the moon is made of swiss cheese. This is verifiably wrong.

I meant that technically, due to the definition of an opinion, it is impossible for it to be wrong.

Or something.

Or maybe I'm just not feeling too well right now.

Oh for the love of fuck...here goes Fass again...

You need to get a new obsession. Sure, I am worthy and kind of flattered, but also somewhat creeped out and unreceptive to this your... stalking tendency. Really, from having me in your sig (until the moderators removed it - thanks!) to invoking me in threads - seriously, get over me already.

that is a horrifying position. that a woman must DIE for an unborn child.

the fetus was not viable at the point where she was diagnosed. if it had been born then, it would have died.

I am confused or you misread my post. In the case of my niece the fetus was not viable and if she continued to carry it both would have died. My niece and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy. I support that.

In the OP, there was no indication that the fetus was not viable. If the mother went without chemo, the child would live. However, if the mother opted for chemo, both would have died. I cannot support that. In my opinion mom made the right choice.

Mom has lived a full albeit shot life. The fetus has a full life ahead. Who knows, maybe the fetus will live and find a cure for cancer or become the leader of some great nation.

I am confused or you misread my post. In the case of my niece the fetus was not viable and if she continued to carry it both would have died. My niece and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy. I support that.

In the OP, there was no indication that the fetus was not viable. If the mother went without chemo, the child would live. However, if the mother opted for chemo, both would have died. I cannot support that. In my opinion mom made the right choice.

Mom has lived a full albeit shot life. The fetus has a full life ahead. Who knows, maybe the fetus will live and find a cure for cancer or become the leader of some great nation.

Bolded for emphasis, because that's the important part of all this. She had a choice to make, as to taking the treatment, likely dying months down the road, and losing the fetus, or allowing herself to die months earlier than she might've so that the fetus would have a shot at life.
The important thing isn't so much her ultimate decision, as it was the fact that she had a choice, and was allowed that choice. Just as every woman who ever becomes pregnant should be allowed to make a choice to keep or abort the fetus.

The fetus has a full life ahead. Who knows, maybe the fetus will live and find a cure for cancer or become the leader of some great nation.

Or be the next Hitler. Such a nice "argument" you had there...

Celtlund, also, your opinion is wrong. I'm well aware that it is grammatically impossible for an opinion to be wrong, but it is my opinion that it is wrong.

I can live with that opinion. :p

I meant that technically, due to the definition of an opinion, it is impossible for it to be wrong.

Or something.

Or maybe I'm just not feeling too well right now.

Here, have a cookie to go with that whiskey. :p

I am confused or you misread my post. In the case of my niece the fetus was not viable and if she continued to carry it both would have died. My niece and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy. I support that.

In the OP, there was no indication that the fetus was not viable. If the mother went without chemo, the child would live. However, if the mother opted for chemo, both would have died. I cannot support that. In my opinion mom made the right choice.

Mom has lived a full albeit shot life. The fetus has a full life ahead. Who knows, maybe the fetus will live and find a cure for cancer or become the leader of some great nation.

when the woman in the OP was diagnosed her baby was not capable of living outside her womb.

it was her choice to forego useless cancer treatments to give her fetus a chance to stay in utero long enought to reach viability.

that was her choice and not a terrible choice given how soon afterwards she died.

but she had no moral duty to DIE for her fetus. it would have been equally moral and equally brave to terminate the pregnancy and fight for her own life.

to suggest that she had some DUTY to die because she had sex is creepy.

The important thing isn't so much her ultimate decision, as it was the fact that she had a choice, and was allowed that choice. Just as every woman who ever becomes pregnant should be allowed to make a choice to keep or abort the fetus.

There is a BIG difference between "every woman who becomes pregnant" and this woman.

In the case of this woman, both she and the fetus would have died although she may have gained a few months or years of life. So, I feel she made the right choice because her life was terminal and she wanted to give her fetus (child) a chance at life.

In the case of "every woman who becomes pregnant," many (probably most) are not terminally ill. If they decide to have an abortion, they will live but the fetus (child) will not.

Big difference in the scenarios.

There is a BIG difference between "every woman who becomes pregnant" and this woman.

In the case of this woman, both she and the fetus would have died although she may have gained a few months or years of life. So, I feel she made the right choice because her life was terminal and she wanted to give her fetus (child) a chance at life.

In the case of "every woman who becomes pregnant," many (probably most) are not terminally ill. If they decide to have an abortion, they will live but the fetus (child) will not.

Big difference in the scenarios.

Obviously the only difference is in your mind, and that solely because you feel she made the right choice.

Had she instead chosen to end the pregnancy to prolong her life, would you have, in a position to do so, moved to block her from obtaining the abortion? It seems that, should you say yes, you're in fact suggesting that she be allowed no choice unless she makes the choice YOU feel is right. Which is not a choice at all.

I find myself cold, uncaring, and unimpressed.

to suggest that she had some DUTY to die because she had sex is creepy.

I never implied that and you know it. However, she and her partner have a moral responsibility to the life they could create if they have sex. That moral responsibility is to give the life they have created the chance to live.

As I said earlier, we won't agree on this but that is OK. I don't understand your position on abortion but I can accept it. This would probably be a very bad world if everyone agreed on everything.

I never implied that and you know it. However, she and her partner have a moral responsibility to the life they could create if they have sex. That moral responsibility is to give the life they have created the chance to live.

As I said earlier, we won't agree on this but that is OK. I don't understand your position on abortion but I can accept it. This would probably be a very bad world if everyone agreed on everything.

seems like the same thing to me

the had sex, she got pregnant, she must die to save her unborn child.

if she had sex she has the duty to die if necessary.

thats just creepy. she has a right to her own LIFE. the life of the unborn is not more important than the life of the living person.

You need to get a new obsession. Sure, I am worthy and kind of flattered, but also somewhat creeped out and unreceptive to this your... stalking tendency. Really, from having me in your sig (until the moderators removed it - thanks!) to invoking me in threads - seriously, get over me already.

I'm not even remotely close to being obsessed. I simply commented on your ranting. I apologize: I probably should not have. (However, I should point out that this once again makes you look like a self-obsessed jackass by assuming an obsession on my part.)

I never implied that and you know it.

You've done everything but flat out state it.

I never implied that and you know it. However, she and her partner have a moral responsibility to the life they could create if they have sex. That moral responsibility is to give the life they have created the chance to live.

As I said earlier, we won't agree on this but that is OK. I don't understand your position on abortion but I can accept it. This would probably be a very bad world if everyone agreed on everything.

In your opinion. You'll find that a lot of people disagree nowadays. It was a sensible opinion to hold back when the human species needed every newborn to keep on going, but in this overly populated world we live in, it's a big mistake to keep acting this way, especially when the fetus hadn't yet even reached the point of brain activity.

The difference was the mother was basically doomed. Chemo is good if it can save you. Otherwise, you're just adding a few months more pain to your life. The mother felt that she could make a bigger contribution by letting her not-doomed fetus be born and live years, most likely decades, and make contributions to society (even if it's just by paying taxes) than to live a few months more.

In most abortian cases, the mother's not exactly going to die soon after. In most cases, the mother still has years left to make contributions to society. In this case, she can't make her contributions. She doesn't have years left to leave her mark on the world. She probably felt it was in her best interest to not have chemo and cut her pain short.

And yet again, it was still her choice, whether it was the correct one or not.

Obviously the only difference is in your mind, and that solely because you feel she made the right choice.

Had she instead chosen to end the pregnancy to prolong her life, would you have, in a position to do so, moved to block her from obtaining the abortion? It seems that, should you say yes, you're in fact suggesting that she be allowed no choice unless she makes the choice YOU feel is right. Which is not a choice at all.

The difference was the mother was basically doomed. Chemo is good if it can save you. Otherwise, you're just adding a few months more pain to your life. The mother felt that she could make a bigger contribution by letting her not-doomed fetus be born and live years, most likely decades, and make contributions to society (even if it's just by paying taxes) than to live a few months more.

In most abortian cases, the mother's not exactly going to die soon after. In most cases, the mother still has years left to make contributions to society. In this case, she can't make her contributions. She doesn't have years left to leave her mark on the world. She probably felt it was in her best interest to not have chemo and cut her pain short.

I'm not even remotely close to being obsessed. I simply commented on your ranting. I apologize: I probably should not have. (However, I should point out that this once again makes you look like a self-obsessed jackass by assuming an obsession on my part.)

There are two types of assholes in this world. Those that are perfect and those that have hemorrhoids. FASS has previously admitted to being the former.

What an inspiration. Thank God there are still people who think of something other than their own selfish interests.

Procreation is a selfish instinct. Just about everything that perpetuates us is.

Also, I'm sure if the treatment could have saved her life she may have made a different decision. You talk about "people who think of something other than their own selfish interests" like it's something rare. If anything, most of us are conditioned from a very early age that "selfishness= bad." I'd make the argument that too few of us are paying attention to (rational) selfish interests.

especially when the fetus hadn't yet even reached the point of brain activity.

In your opinion, when does a fetus become a human being? Oh, and was the fetus (child) of the woman in the OP at or past the point of brain activity? Would that make a difference in your mind? Do you support “late term abortion?”

How many of you here are female, have children, have or have had cancer, have had an abortion?

Until you walk in something resembling her shoes I'd thank you to stop and think for a long, long minute...then hold your tongue

I am female, I have had an abortion, I have had cancer

I live with a genetic disease that has a mortality rate of 50% by age 57. I have had lung cancer - I'm not at the five year mark, but am not showing any signs of it coming back...

I chose to have an abortion - for reasons other than the cancer ...

but I know the depths of the decission she was faced with.

It was not simple.

It was not easy.

It wsa not selfish.

She had a cancer that is very hard to deal with even if caught at the earliest possible moment- and as someone else noted in an earlier post - especially with this cancer, chemo was not likely to have extended her life to any meaningfull degree / be a cure.

She saved the life she knew she could, not the one that 'might could be' -

"Blessed Be. Rest in the light until you chose to come round again"

In your opinion, when does a fetus become a human being? Oh, and was the fetus (child) of the woman in the OP at or past the point of brain activity? Would that make a difference in your mind? Do you support “late term abortion?”

All good questions. Please note that the following is purely my personal opinions and my opinion when it comes to the law is to let the women decide for themselves.

In my opinion, I would say the fetus becomes human at one of two points: either when it can survive on its own outside of the womb, or when it first has brain activity(the latter precedes the former as far as I am aware.) At that point, again in my PERSONAL opinion an abortion should not be performed except for medical reasons.

Prior to that, however, I am personally fine with abortions, and I most certainly do not judge any method of abortion. (Meaning that I don't allow my emotions to carry me when I hear about methods like partial birth abortion, which is a method used only in medical emergencies and is thus extremely valuable and should not have been banned.)

Again, however, I should point to this being my personal opinion, and I think that the law should not dictate these sort of things at all. A woman has full rights to her body and should be able to freely decide at any time if she wants an abortion. I have no right to tell her what she can or cannot do, anymore th an anyone else does. I can offer my opinion, based on what I might do in the situation, but she, ultimately, makes the choice. The law ought to reflect that.

No one said the fetus was non-viable. I do believe in abortion under some circumstances. My niece was pregnant and the fetus has no brain stem and was not viable. I support her and her husbands choice to have an abortion because if she didn't both she and the fetus would have died. I support abortion if rape or incest is involved.

If two adults choose to engage in sex and do not want children, both should use birth control. If they choose not to practice birth control, or if birth control fails, both should take the responsibility of raising the child or insuring the child is adopted.

Killing a fetus who can not defend itself is not an option in my book.

I understand we will never agree on this subject. There is little room for negotiations on this.

Okay, I understand how you can view a fetus as "human" and deserving to live if you consider a beating heart/brain waves (even if they aren't doing anything) etc.to be an indication of humanity. If you accept this, however how can you have the view that one child deserves to survive and one does not because of how it is concieved? I'm pro-choice because I don't consdier a fetus human in anyway except potential, but I'm curious as to how you logic goes.

All good questions. Please note that the following is purely my personal opinions and my opinion when it comes to the law is to let

Thanks for your response. I respect your opinions although I do not agree with all of them. :fluffle:

Okay, I understand how you can view a fetus as "human" and deserving to live if you consider a beating heart/brain waves

If the definition of death is the "beating heart and bran waves" then isn't the definition of life the antithesis of death?

If the definition of death is the "beating heart and bran waves" then isn't the definition of life the antithesis of death?
I consider them human when they have the mental capacity to feel pain up until this I think that they deserve no more dignity and consideration than a fruit fly. Also, I consider brain development more important than a heart beat. Just as I consider brain death the end of the line and thus don't care for a fetus if its heart has started to beat, but thank you for circumventing the question entirely.

It's always sad to read things like this. Mothers dying etc. She's a brave woman. :'(


no she isnt.

she is a woman who decided that her child's chance at life was better than her own and went with that decision.

it is not heroic to die for an unborn child.
Well yeah, in your personal opinion.


Yeah, and those people are people who are not misogynists.
No, no. I know exactly what you are.



And in your "love" and "respect" you'd want them shackled to what would become their ovarian Bastilles and make yourself the warden. My, my - who isn't masochistic enough so they can't feel the love in such sexist oppression and sadism?
......

Oh Fassitude, you so silly!

If the definition of death is the "beating heart and bran waves" then isn't the definition of life the antithesis of death?

Beating heart and bran waves? Sounds like an explosive combination...

she is a woman who decided that her child's chance at life was better than her own and went with that decision.

QFT. Nothing particularly "brave" about that; it's simply practical.

To be fair I've never been in the same position so maybe it does require courage to forgo treatment of a terminal illness even in this particular situation, but whatever. This is basically it.

QFT. Nothing particularly "brave" about that; it's simply practical.

To be fair I've never been in the same position so maybe it does require courage to forgo treatment of a terminal illness even in this particular situation, but whatever. This is basically it.

it takes bravery to face certain death straight on like that.

the thing i didnt like was implying that it was the more noble to die than to fight for her life.

both were valid choices in her situation.

it takes bravery to face certain death straight on like that.

the thing i didnt like was implying that it was the more noble to die than to fight for her life.

both were valid choices in her situation.

I'll throw in another QFT here.

Or be the next Hitler. Such a nice "argument" you had there...

Fun fact: Hitler was nearly aborted, but his mother was talked out of it.

In the OP, there was no indication that the fetus was not viable. If the mother went without chemo, the child would live. However, if the mother opted for chemo, both would have died.

How could you possibly know that? She was in late stages, yes, but late stage cancer is not the same as terminal cancer. If she had accepted treatment then, she might have lived.

it takes bravery to face certain death straight on like that.

the thing i didnt like was implying that it was the more noble to die than to fight for her life.

both were valid choices in her situation.
Maybe a different thread, but it bugs me when certain actions or people are called brave. The 5 year old with cancer, etc. Stoic, maybe, but not brave. For me bravery must involve significant choice. The person who chooses to wrestle down the gunman robbing the bank is brave,and foolish, but brave. He could have just stayed on the floor.

In this case there are 2 decisions, which life do I give up. Mine, or my foetus. She decided she cared more about the foetus. I do think there are significant issues about "I killed mum" that will torment that child, but that's also another discussion.

I think the right choice would have been chemo, mainly for the reason of the 3 kids left behind, but I understand why she made her choice. It's not brave though.

If the definition of death is the "beating heart and bran waves" then isn't the definition of life the antithesis of death?

bran waves? That's a lot of fiber. You'll be regular in no time.

This is not anywhere near as simple as you paint it, Mitanni.

Frankly, I think she should have gone through the chemo, terminal or not, and ESPECIALLY if she wasn't, because that way she could care for her children that are already fully existing.

What I wonder is if it was possible she wouldn't have been terminal had she gotten the chemo immediately upon learning of her cancer. If not, then she made, in my mind, a very stupid mistake.

so in other words you would kill your child to save your own no good hide

No one said the fetus was non-viable. I do believe in abortion under some circumstances. My niece was pregnant and the fetus has no brain stem and was not viable. I support her and her husbands choice to have an abortion because if she didn't both she and the fetus would have died. I support abortion if rape or incest is involved.
Wait, you just said...
And some people think abortion is OK. This woman is a true hero who put the life of her child above her own.
You don't think abortion is OK and are saddened that there are people who do think that, yet you think abortion is OK in these circumstances? Hmm... Why the inconsistency?

In the OP, there was no indication that the fetus was not viable. If the mother went without chemo, the child would live. However, if the mother opted for chemo, both would have died. I cannot support that. In my opinion mom made the right choice.
So here's a question for you: What if she would have lived if she opted for chemo? Would you have denied her that choice?

For that matter, if she would survive for years, would you still say she shouldn't have done it, denying her living children their mother in the process?

And where would you draw the line? If she would have been given 20 years? 10? 5? One year? Six months?

No, it is, in the end, her choice. And I must say, I'm surprised at the black-and-white position you seem to hold - especially since this isn't really a case of "abortion".

Mom has lived a full albeit shot life. The fetus has a full life ahead. Who knows, maybe the fetus will live and find a cure for cancer or become the leader of some great nation.
That's just a silly claim. Who knows, maybe the mother would spend her remaining days finding a cure for cancer or creating peace in the middle east? See? Dabbling in potential possibilities like that gives us nothing.

Mom has lived a full albeit shot life. The fetus has a full life ahead. Who knows, maybe the fetus will live and find a cure for cancer or become the leader of some great nation.The chances of the fetus growing up to become a criminal are greater.

so in other words you would kill your child to save your own no good hide

yes.

a living person is worth more than a 24 week fetus. it would have been a moral choice to try to save her own life by aborting the pregnancy and taking cancer treatments.

she made a different calculation. that is her own perfectly acceptable choice. but that does not make her a better person than the one who would fight to live.

a living person is worth more than a 24 week fetus.No. They are equally worth nothing.

so in other words you would kill your child to save your own no good hide

That's a flawed way of looking at the manner. It's not that simple at all, as I said.

Please reread what I wrote there.

To be honest, though, I will reevaluate my opinion: she shouldn't have conceived the fourth child in the first place. No matter what she would ultimately end up doing, the fourth child would be a source of resentment, as pointed out previously.

No. They are equally worth nothing.
Oh really? Care to explain this statement?

She's brave alright. She had the courage to make a difficult decision.

so in other words you would kill your child to save your own no good hide

She had three children already who loved and depended on her. She had her husband who loved and cared for her. The children lost their mother. The husband lost his soulmate. All for what? For another mouth to feed?

To give up her child to allow her children to have their mother would have also been a good choice to make. Those girls need their mother and no one could ever replace a woman who made a foolish choice.

To give up that foetus would have been a difficult choice as well because while she would be saving herself, she would be preventing her family from suffering because of a choice that would leave them without someone they have come to depend on.

Maybe a different thread, but it bugs me when certain actions or people are called brave. The 5 year old with cancer, etc. Stoic, maybe, but not brave. For me bravery must involve significant choice. The person who chooses to wrestle down the gunman robbing the bank is brave,and foolish, but brave. He could have just stayed on the floor.


i know what you mean. she was faced with a terrible situation and she made a decision. its not the one *I* would have made but it was up to her, not me. it certainly would not have been cowardly to have decided to abort the pregnancy and take cancer treatments. the only cowardly thing would have been to not deal with it at all and pretend that it wasnt happening.

so what was so brave about it? she did what she felt she had to do. she couldnt run away from reality. all she did was decide to die.

as humans, we look to people in these kinds of horrible situations for a kind of moral guidance. how will they handle facing death? how will they handle the very real chance that their fetus will die no matter what they do? we admire those who make a firm (morally correct) decision and go with it in good grace. no second guessing themselves and wishing that they had made a different decision.

when they do it well, we look to them for an example of what to do when WE face that kind of situation.

so in other words you would kill your child to save your own no good hide

And you would have abandoned your family and left them with another mouth to feed AND a constant reminder of your absence.



See, isn't it fun to purposefully misinterpret what someone else says?

What she did was extraordinarily brave. But her bravery exists because she chose to sacrifice for another, not because of any meaning you impart on what she must have thought about that "another".

Seriously, this is a really low level of douchebaggery; to take one woman's courage in the face of grave circumstances and, rather than playing up the courage, playing up how she makes your ideology good by virtue of some wierd association. Pro-life people don't have a monopoly on self-sacrifice or willingness to rise above mean self-interest, and taking that sacrifice and playing it up to make your side in some imaginary cultural clash look good by comparison reeks of exploitation and is quite frankly repulsive. Stop it.



But thats what New M. does.


Whoever said he was a wormy little troll was right.

Lorraine Allard, a 33-year-old mother of three, with a fourth on the way, found out four months into the pregnancy that she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Rather than killing her unborn son in order to begin immediate chemotherapy, she waited until the baby was able to be delivered before starting treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=510308&in_page_id=1799&in_page_id=1799&expand=true#StartComments

Instead of killing the baby to gain maybe a few more months of existence (she was terminal after all), she saved her baby.

What an inspiration. Thank God there are still people who think of something other than their own selfish interests.

Rest in peace, Lorraine, and comfort to your family.

What she did was extraordinarily brave. But her bravery exists because she chose to sacrifice for another, not because of any meaning you impart on what she must have thought about that "another".

Seriously, this is a really low level of douchebaggery; to take one woman's courage in the face of grave circumstances and, rather than playing up the courage, playing up how she makes your ideology good by virtue of some wierd association. Pro-life people don't have a monopoly on self-sacrifice or willingness to rise above mean self-interest, and taking that sacrifice and playing it up to make your side in some imaginary cultural clash look good by comparison reeks of exploitation and is quite frankly repulsive. Stop it.

What she did was extraordinarily brave. But her bravery exists because she chose to sacrifice for another, not because of any meaning you impart on what she must have thought about that "another".

Seriously, this is a really low level of douchebaggery; to take one woman's courage in the face of grave circumstances and, rather than playing up the courage, playing up how she makes your ideology good by virtue of some wierd association. Pro-life people don't have a monopoly on self-sacrifice or willingness to rise above mean self-interest, and taking that sacrifice and playing it up to make your side in some imaginary cultural clash look good by comparison reeks of exploitation and is quite frankly repulsive. Stop it.

I'm going to have to save this post for when someone makes a thread like this again. Thank you.

What she did was extraordinarily brave. But her bravery exists because she chose to sacrifice for another, not because of any meaning you impart on what she must have thought about that "another".

Seriously, this is a really low level of douchebaggery; to take one woman's courage in the face of grave circumstances and, rather than playing up the courage, playing up how she makes your ideology good by virtue of some wierd association. Pro-life people don't have a monopoly on self-sacrifice or willingness to rise above mean self-interest, and taking that sacrifice and playing it up to make your side in some imaginary cultural clash look good by comparison reeks of exploitation and is quite frankly repulsive. Stop it.

:fluffle: