"Another pregnancy will kill me" question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feedmysheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Feedmysheep

Guest
Since abandoning the pro-abortion rhetoric of my upbringing, and learning all I can about promoting the pro-life cause, I have often seen people stating that there simply is no medical scenario doctors can come up with where the mother must abort her child or die (the second favorite argument my family gives to “prove” the fascism of pro-lifers. “What if the woman is raped?” is the first.)

Ectopic pregnancies, cases where the mother learns she has cancer after becoming pregnant, or various “St. Gianna cases” do not fall under this umbrella, as I can explain why these scenarios are not abortion-or-die cases.

My question is this: Since coming to these forums, I have occasionally run across posts from a few people who mention that another pregnancy will kill them. These comments have been made by women who practice NFP as well as those who use ABC.
I don’t remember who these posters were, so I can’t PM them, but it got me thinking- what is this condition that would make childbirth automatically deadly?
 
I’m not one of those moms, but the condition of toxemia comes to mind.

A friend of mine recently had this with her 5th pregnancy. She was hospitalized for several weeks, delivered via C-section nearly 2 months early, and had a very touch and go summer.

Her blood pressure for several weeks was something like 200/140 and they could not bring it down. They were afraid she would have a stroke. It is very scary.
 
I think the real problem is that WILL die is used when they really mean COULD die. For example a severe heart condition. During pregnancy you have approx 1/5 more blood running through your system than normal, not to ention extra wieght to carry around, etc. which stresses your heart, and could aggravate a known condition.

So what really happens is doctors say another pregnancy COULD kill you, and they can guess at the likely hood that complications would arise. But since they can’t read the future they are usually only educated guesses or (less charitable) CYA attitudes they have been taught all their medical careers so even doctors believe they are true.

So how much of a chance are you willing to take, and how much falls into trusting God, versus taking stupid chances? (Even trust in God doesn’t mean you should walk off a cliff…)
 
no one can say with absolute certainty that the mother will definitely die if she becomes pregnant again. They can predict the various problems she may encounter, and the probably prognosis, but no one can make that definite statement. The aborted baby is definitely killed, however, by the direct action of the doctor who has pledged his life to saving, not killing, mothers AND babies, and even worse, with the cooperation and consent of the mother. Any time you are weighing a possible evil against a definite evil of equal gravity, morally speaking, you have choose the probably/possible over the definite, since there is still a chance both lives may be saved.
 
Catholic90 said:
I’m not one of those moms, but the condition of toxemia comes to mind.

A friend of mine recently had this with her 5th pregnancy. She was hospitalized for several weeks, delivered via C-section nearly 2 months early, and had a very touch and go summer.

Her blood pressure for several weeks was something like 200/140 and they could not bring it down. They were afraid she would have a stroke. It is very scary.
Click to expand...
Toxemia is a “could” condition. Not necessarily a “will”

Kathy
 
I have a serious genetic blood clotting condition that almost killed me. I had a stroke 2 yrs. ago due to a 12" clot on my brain, a DVT last yr. and 8 yrs. ago, 2 DVTs 36 months apart.

I bled out on Coumadin and IV heparin and had to be transfused 4 units of blood. touch and go for a short time.

After being given the dx of MTHFR genetic mutation, my hemotologist told me that if I were to get pregnant, I’d have to be hooked up to a bloodthinner IV for nine months & closely monitored. Seeing as how I bled out twice & was transfused, I’m considered a very high risk for clotting and hemmorhage due to not being able to take bloodthinners expect Lovenox shots (even taking that is a risk right now). She felt bad telling me that DH & I can’t have children but she said that both the baby’s life as well as mine, would be jeoparodized. She even got my other MDs involved for their opinions and they agreed that my risk is too great to have children.

Yes, it stinks but we have been blessed with 3 nieces and 5 nephews so God does work in mysterious ways.

We have been using NFP faithfully (10 yr. yesterday 😃 ) to avoid a pregnancy. We love it since it doesn’t interact w/all of my medications plus is extremely safe to use & has brought us closer together as a married couple.
 
I have renal insufficiency bordering on chronic renal failure. A pregnancy requires strong kidneys. My right one does not function at all and my left is less than half functional. My nephrologist (kidney doctor) advised me to avoid pregnancy as there is a high risk of fatality. My OB-GYN advised similarly.

In Peace,
DS
 
TAS2000 said:
I think the real problem is that WILL die is used when they really mean COULD die…)
Click to expand...
That is the line that always cracks me up in these types of converstations. You are quite correct “WOULD” means “COULD”

I’ve generally wondered, if the doctor says that you “WOULD” die if you got pregnant, and you sucessfully brought a baby to term, could you sue them for malpractice? :cool:
 
If a woman has young children who rely on her for their very lives, physical and spiritual, and another pregnancy “could” result in her death, then I think the use of a non-abortive ABC is the lesser of two evils. If the couple can practice total abstinence, then this would be preferred, but if the husband is unwilling to do this, then I think the woman must consider the children she already has first.

If the woman is already pregnant, then I believe she must allow the pregnancy to follow it’s natural course. There would be no exucse to have an abortion even it led to her eventual death.
 
marci said:
If a woman has young children who rely on her for their very lives, physical and spiritual, and another pregnancy “could” result in her death, then I think the use of a non-abortive ABC is the lesser of two evils. If the couple can practice total abstinence, then this would be preferred, but if the husband is unwilling to do this, then I think the woman must consider the children she already has first.
Click to expand...
Please no. Start another thread (or go find one in existence) about this. I wasn’t asking for “when can someone think they can justify ABC?”, I was asking about what sort of scenarios might exist where a woman could absolutely be assured that another pregnancy would kill her.
 
Feedmysheep said:
Since abandoning the pro-abortion rhetoric of my upbringing, and learning all I can about promoting the pro-life cause, I have often seen people stating that there simply is no medical scenario doctors can come up with where the mother must abort her child or die (the second favorite argument my family gives to “prove” the fascism of pro-lifers. “What if the woman is raped?” is the first.)

Ectopic pregnancies, cases where the mother learns she has cancer after becoming pregnant, or various “St. Gianna cases” do not fall under this umbrella, as I can explain why these scenarios are not abortion-or-die cases.

My question is this: Since coming to these forums, I have occasionally run across posts from a few people who mention that another pregnancy will kill them. These comments have been made by women who practice NFP as well as those who use ABC.
I don’t remember who these posters were, so I can’t PM them, but it got me thinking- what is this condition that would make childbirth automatically deadly?
Click to expand...
i have a friend who has had 5 children. Her body is falling apart, and she spent the last pregnnacy pretty much in the hopital always. She didn’t disclose really personal information to me, but she did say that doctors told her that should she get pregnnat again, her body wouldn’t be able to handle it. and chances were great she would pass on before the child was even old enough to survive outside the womb. Making a baby is hard on a woman’s body, and some just can’t do it again.
 
You would probably get a more accurate and useful answer by posting such a question on a board populated by OB/GYNs rather than one on moral theology.
 
One of them is me.

I have congestive heart failure caused by several congenital defects that over time has weakened my heart. My heart is enlarged, the chamber that pumps blood to my whole body is very small (from birth). Drugs that I take to keep my heart functioning well enough to sustain me would have to be stopped because they are harmful to a developing baby. Pregnancy causes about a 50% increased load of blood for the heart to pump. Barring intervention from God my heart just is not strong enough to sustain both me and a child.

I do have one child and my pregnancy was watched very closely. I did sustain some damage from the pregnancy which probably caused my heart issues to progress quicker than they would have otherwise. I was also much younger at the time (age 25). I have absolutely no regrets about my pregnancy at all. But now that I have a daughter, I would like to be around as long as possible to be a mother to my daughter.

We use strict NFP to avoid pregancy. If I were to become pregnant again I would stop the dangerous meds and place myself in the hands of God. I certainly would never end the pregnancy.
 
My brother-in-law’s wife had primary pulmonary hypertension, a fatal condition with no cure (short of a heart AND lung transplant) and not much in the way of treatment. She was put on medications that would, if she became pregnant, cause severe mental and physical handicaps to the child and her heart was in no condition to withstand pregnancy. The doctor did not even suggest the pill, since it would interact with her other medications and was not 100% foolproof (did everybody hear that?) He told her husband (my BIL) to get a vasectomy.

They both refused. My BIL said he would NOT put his nor his wife’s eternal soul in jeopardy for just a few months of earthly pleasure (she was given only about 2 years to live… didn’t even make nine months) and that they’d surely be closer living a celibate life during her remaining time on earth than if they’d been having sex every night.

So there IS one 100% guaranteed way of avoiding pregnancy…
 
My MIL almost died after both her c-sections, but her problem was never diagnosed. After her second, she spent months in a critical condition in a hospital and her baby didn’t recognize her - he cried when she held him. 😦
 
LeahInancsi said:
Since when has sex become more important than life?
Click to expand...
First I just want to say how awesome everyone is in this thread. The sacrifices you ladies make for your families is just beyond me.

The thing is … well, isn’t living a continent married life (no sex) an option in these sorts of cases? I mean, if the choice was really life and death?

I guess in this case the sacrifice would fall equally heavily upon the man. But on the positive side, both spouses would have a lot of sacrificial power to offer God in prayer. That’s the only silver lining I can see, but it could be a very powerful one.
 
There is always a possibility that you will survive. It may be a small possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. The couple has to decide whether to take the risks that will come with pregnancy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top