ue.
Like Kager says: Please provide actual examples of the medical conditions that would cause the scnarios you present.
I say: they can’t
I don’t find it hard to believe AT ALL that a woman would forgo life-saving treatments for the sake of her child. In fact it would seem kind of odd to me that she wouldn’t try to save the life of her baby at almost all costs. I’ve seen it, I’ve heard of it.
As 1ke said: She had uterine cancer while pregant. The only way to save her life was to remove the uterus, which of course would have resulted in the baby growing inside the uterus to die. She could have morally chosen to do so. But , she chose not to have the uterine cancer treatment until after the baby was born. The baby was born safely, but her cancer had spread and she died shortly after.
And I say: now that’s a choice, isn’t it? Her choice. I don’t know what I would do in her position, but these are the senarios that matter, not the over-the-top nonsense ones that are posted in a desperate effort to try and make a point that doesn’t fit the situation anyway.
Actually, I am one of those rare or unique women who were put into this situation. My husband and I were using NFP religiously and I became pregnant (was told this was due to a second ovulation - anyway I digress) let me preface before going on that I have kidney disease as well as serious gynecological problems - I will always be high risk with regards to getting pregnant. I wound up in hospital a few times for various reasons - some kidney related some related to high blood pressure. In the fifth month I began bleeding excessively - we got it under control and I was on bedrest in hospital. A few days later when getting my sheets changed, it began again - we waited as long as we could. At this early stage (at this time) fetus could not survive outside of the mother even with great help. I waited as long as I could and lost so much blood that I almost died as well. My husband and the doctor were smart enough to save my life - and I’m grateful they did. The first thing that had to be done was to get the baby out to stop the bleeding which they did. We did everything we could as did the doctor. So yes, there are situations where this does still happen. They may be rare, but I’m glad my husband and my doctor were wise enough to know that my life was valuable - the baby had to come out - I’ve been asked, if I could have just continued to carry the baby and be kept alive by artificial means - after getting over the callousness of that kind of question, I did mention it to my doctor -and unless I was willing to die to try to carry this child longer, there was no way he would have lived. And it’s very unlikely that with my having lost so much blood that the fetus would have survived with competent brain function even if he was born alive. For the two people that previously asked me (on another post and if you’re reading this one)- it really does make a woman feel like all she’s good for is to carry a baby when given that kind of question. IMHO, it really does seem that if the Church had to choose that it would always choose even the possibility of a fetus living over that of the mother. We wanted to have this child very badly, but as my husband has told me many a time, he doesn’t want to be a single father. Some of you may say “look at St. Gianna” - yes, she chose not to endanger her pregnancy, but that was her choice - not even the Church says we have to make that choice. And just as a point of contention - St. Gianna did not DIE of cancer - she died of sepsis - she got an infection after the tumor was removed. I haven’t posted my story to get comments or approval about what happened, I’ve only posted this because someone said something about these types of things no longer happen. I’m living proof that they do.
God Bless
Rye
How awful, this is sad.
Wow…