s/o of Faithmanor's post. If carrying your baby could kill you....

[sewingmama]

I know what my DH would do in that situation.

 

He would be heartbroken over the baby - but he would still choose me over the baby.

 

I probably wouldn't choose myself over the baby -but I would choose my already living children over the baby.

[Mommy22alyns]

Ugh...reading these replies brings back some very awful feelings for me. Let me say that I was always brought up to believe that terminating a pregnancy was wrong. Unfortunately, I ran into a situation with my 4th where due to the development of the heart, the baby would not survive and *if* anything temporary could be done, would be cronically ill. The manner of death for the child would not be easy/painless. I had another toddler at home about 1.5 years, a 3.5 year old and a 7.5 year old. They knew about the pregnancy. We essentially were given one hellish weekend to decide what to do. We made the decision to end the pregnancy due to the stress/depression/etc that it would cause to our family and in order to avoid suffering for the yet to be born baby. (I know everyone doesn't agree with this but please don't comment on whether this is true or not...it was our feeling). Our kids know that the baby died of a broken heart....I'm not sure how much they remember about this.

 

Needless to say...I agree with those who say that it is a personal decision made at the time based upon family circumstances. It still makes me cry to even think about this time in my life and we revisit the decision we made quite often. It is by no means an easy one and sometimes we can never know if it was the *right* one. Either way...we live with the decision we made.

 

I will never be judgemental of anyone who has to go through this agonizing decision.:crying:

 

 

:grouphug: I am sorry as well.

 

If I missed anyone, ladies, :grouphug:. I am so sorry for everyone's heartwrenching decisions and losses. What a hard subject. :(

[TracyP]

... I think what people don't understand in the abstract is that it's not always a choice between mom's life and the baby's life; it's often a choice between the baby dying or both mom and baby dying. You wouldn't be dying for your baby; you would be dying with your baby.

 

Yes! The baby/babies must be delivered if the mom is no longer alive. You could try to wait it out as long as possible, but if you are dying, that's that. I hate to be this blunt, but a dead woman cannot keep a baby alive. It would be an absolutely heartbreaking decision to make, but I would wait as long as was medically possible and then pray for a positive outcome for that tiny baby that had to be delivered to save my life.

[Kathryn]

DH and I discussed this with both of my pregnancies. We both agreed that if it came to our unborn child's life or mine, I live. We would both die for our living children without hesitation.

[Bluegoat]

I would maintain the pregnancy as long as possible, and if the situation became critical I would deliver then. Of course such things are not always totally clear and we'd make the best decision we could. My husband and I would both be upset about it but he would agree with my reasoning. He would be very upset if I dies, and very upset if the baby dies, and very upset if we both died.

 

I wouldn't have an abortion in any case - I don't consider delivering early to be quite the same thing, even if the baby dies.

 

Having older kids wouldn't really factor into it for me - I know they would be well cared for. If I was in a situation where there was no one else to care for them and they would end up in a bad/dangerous situation, I might be more inclined to deliver early than push to wait as long as possible.

[Little Nyssa]

:grouphug: to all mothers who have faced this awful situation.

[Dmmetler]

FWIW, in my state (at least 10 years ago), Legal viability was set at the start of the 2nd trimester, so there WAS a grey area where a baby was legally viable, but wasn't practically viable-and while abortion can't be legally forced, if the mother's life is in imminent danger, delivery of a legally viable baby can be.

 

In my case, I have to be honest-I went into delivery believing that my baby would survive-that the miracle would happen, so I didn't fight it because I didn't think it was a case of "If I could just hold on a week or two, he'll live, but he won't if I have him now". I believed that he'd live-even though I'd been told that the chance was extremely low (at the time, no baby had been saved in the USA that early, and only a few worldwide-and that included countries where the date is counted from estimated date of ovulation, not Last Menstrual period-the estimated chance of survival was less than 1% all told). I suspect that I probably really wasn't in a good mental state to make decisions at all, because I WAS so sick. DH and my parents, though, knew exactly what was going on, and knew that it was a choice of delivering the baby or losing both of us. It wasn't until after the fact that I got hit by the guilt and started second guessing in the "maybe if I'd stayed in the hospital for a week or two, he would have lived". I'm assuming, given the steps the hospital had taken, that there HAD been similar cases where women had attempted to resist delivery, putting both lives at risk, such that they wanted their ducks in a row.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes! The baby/babies must be delivered if the mom is no longer alive. You could try to wait it out as long as possible, but if you are dying, that's that. I hate to be this blunt, but a dead woman cannot keep a baby alive. It would be an absolutely heartbreaking decision to make, but I would wait as long as was medically possible and then pray for a positive outcome for that tiny baby that had to be delivered to save my life.

 

:iagree:

 

As much as anyone would like to say they would die for their child, if a child isn't viable losing your life isn't going to save them, as sad as that is.

 

I have other children, if it was at least 20-something weeks then I would try but I would have to consider the needs of my existing children, not just me and my husband.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Sis

[NASDAQ]

My religion doesn't permit me to carry a life-threatening pregnancy. Induction or abortion in such a case is mandatory.

[Crimson Wife]

As much as anyone would like to say they would die for their child, if a child isn't viable losing your life isn't going to save them, as sad as that is.

 

From a Christian perspective, however, dying isn't the worst thing that can happen. Eternal separation from God is. Prolonging one's earthly life is not worth risking one's soul by violating the 5th/6th Commandment (depending on which numbering one uses).

[Whereneverever]

My religion doesn't permit me to carry a life-threatening pregnancy. Induction or abortion in such a case is mandatory.

 

What religion is that?

[staceyobu]

My son was born at 22 weeks when I developed severe HELLP syndrome, and didn't survive. I still, 10 years later, struggle with guilt that he died to save my life-because that's so opposed to what parents are supposed to do for their child.

 

The single thing that helped most was that, at one of my follow ups for BP, I tearfully asked my perinatologist if the baby could have been saved if I'd just hung on longer-and he pulled my file and showed me where the hospital had put in a request for a court order specifically in case I tried to do exactly that or to leave AMA-because my life was SO unstable at that point that it was not possible for me to hang on long enough to give the baby a chance to survive. It was literally either deliver now, and have a chance of saving my life, or lose both of us. Knowing that it truly wasn't my choice-it was the choice of people outside the situation, who had judged it from a medical standpoint (in a Baptist hospital, so preserving the life of that baby is something that they considered paramount) made a big difference. It's not POSSIBLE, in the case of class A, 2nd trimester HELLP syndrome to simply hang on longer, because the only effective treatment is to deliver the baby. Even waiting a day to do steroids and the like to mature lungs is a serious risk in such cases. Fortunately, HELLP usually strikes slower, and in the 3rd trimester, so having a rapid, severe onset so early in pregnancy is fortunately about a 1-5 million chance. My son and I just happened to be the unlucky one.

 

I read a lot of books on pregnancy and infant loss, and in those written for counselors and psychologists, it was repeatedly stated that this is one of the hardest situations for a mother to manage BECAUSE it's so hard to deal with that guilt, and that diffusing that guilt, over time, is necessary to allow the mother to grieve the loss and move on. The fact that society is constantly reinforcing the guilt, and many mothers face direct comments from family members and friends who do so, make it even harder. And I do not go to church when I know abortion is likely to be a topic, because emotionally, I can't handle it. Threads like this are tough-but I think the story needs to be out there that it is real, that it does happen, and that, no, it's NOT always possible to sit back and say "I'd save the baby"-because sometimes, you can't.

 

:grouphug:

 

There just isn't a black and white answer to this question. As others have stated, if the mom dies, the fetus dies too. And, a sick mother puts the fetus in distress. It's a guessing game. How sick can you let a mom get before her OR the baby crashes? The mother mentioned in the other post could deliver 24 week twins today that would survive, or the babies could get a horrible infection, be delivered at 25 weeks and die.

 

You can't just run the clock down on a mother's life and pull out a healthy baby. It just doesn't work like that. If a mom crashes, you better hope to God that you have an ob on the floor that can cut the baby out in less than five minutes. At a lot of private hospitals, staff doesn't stay there around the clock. If mom codes at 3 am, you may not have an ob or a perinatologist.

 

If mom's going to die... it is not going to be good for the baby. The only hope of the baby making it is to be delivered before things get to that point.

[Slartibartfast]

From a Christian perspective, however, dying isn't the worst thing that can happen. Eternal separation from God is. Prolonging one's earthly life is not worth risking one's soul by violating the 5th/6th Commandment (depending on which numbering one uses).

 

 

I am a Christian, I do not believe that God would want my kids to lose their mom. He would never forsake me. NEVER. I would NEVER believe that.

 

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

There is nothing in there about being eternally separated from God because you fought to live for your children. There is a trite poem about footprints and being carried during life's darkest moments...we obviously have very different outlooks on God, despite sharing a faith.

 

You don't speak for my perspective.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Sis

[Amber in AUS]

I've not read the original post. As the mother of a micro prem (25w, 865g) and having been through the NICU roller coaster when you are caught up in it all you have an inner drive as a mother to protect your baby at all costs. Perhaps you are not in a position to think rationally at the time because of your adrenalin?? I have no idea. I gave myself to my son, yes, effectively abandoning my other children and DH for almost 4m as the NICU is in a different city. My life was not in danger, but it could have been if i had contacted a uterine infection which was highly likely given i was pPROM. I guess my rational at the time was that my other children knew that i loved them and my new little one had no idea about the world and i had to do what i could for him to make sure he knew we loved him too.

 

I guess it depends on the diagnosis too. If you had cancer or some other slow moving disease which meant you could reach viability and then receive treatment then i would hold off. If it was a situation of PE of HELLP then you have next to no time and holding off could kill you both. You have to rely on the critical timing judgement from staff at your hospital.

 

Unfortunately all hospitals consider viability differently. At our NICU they will take steps to save a baby that is born breathing at any gestation. I personally know of a 21+4 baby who is now 3 and have a friend with a 22+5 who is still in NICU but currently 15 weeks old and doing really well. Another state here has a line in the sand of no intervention before 24 weeks.

 

I'm probably rambling now and off topic. Anyway i don't think you can know what you would do unless in the situation and i dare say some of you may be surprised by the actions you take at the time.

[Slartibartfast]

I've not read the original post. As the mother of a micro prem (25w, 865g) and having been through the NICU roller coaster when you are caught up in it all you have an inner drive as a mother to protect your baby at all costs. Perhaps you are not in a position to think rationally at the time because of your adrenalin?? I have no idea. I gave myself to my son, yes, effectively abandoning my other children and DH for almost 4m as the NICU is in a different city. My life was not in danger, but it could have been if i had contacted a uterine infection which was highly likely given i was pPROM. I guess my rational at the time was that my other children knew that i loved them and my new little one had no idea about the world and i had to do what i could for him to make sure he knew we loved him too.

 

I guess it depends on the diagnosis too. If you had cancer or some other slow moving disease which meant you could reach viability and then receive treatment then i would hold off. If it was a situation of PE of HELLP then you have next to no time and holding off could kill you both. You have to rely on the critical timing judgement from staff at your hospital.

 

Unfortunately all hospitals consider viability differently. At our NICU they will take steps to save a baby that is born breathing at any gestation. I personally know of a 21+4 baby who is now 3 and have a friend with a 22+5 who is still in NICU but currently 15 weeks old and doing really well. Another state here has a line in the sand of no intervention before 24 weeks.

 

I'm probably rambling now and off topic. Anyway i don't think you can know what you would do unless in the situation and i dare say some of you may be surprised by the actions you take at the time.

 

I think you are right, I don't think anyone can really know.

 

I was fortunate that my mom was able to come and take my dd away while my son was in the NICU. It did feel like a completely different world. :grouphug:

[Mergath]

From a Christian perspective, however, dying isn't the worst thing that can happen. Eternal separation from God is. Prolonging one's earthly life is not worth risking one's soul by violating the 5th/6th Commandment (depending on which numbering one uses).

 

And now we're equating the early delivery of a non-viable baby to save the mother's life to committing murder. Because, you know, they're totally the same thing.

 

Can we get a rolling-my-eyes-while-vomiting smiley?

[BakersDozen]

Dh would want me to live to raise our other children and be with him.

 

With all due respect to your dh and others who feel this way (because mine would feel the same), I would still decide otherwise and my need to protect my baby/babies if at all possible would override what my dh wanted; in other words, my priorities would be unborn baby/babies first, dc at home second, dh last. I would not be the same wife/mother my dh knew if I didn't do everything I could to help my baby/babies survive.

[Bear23]

We have talked about this quite a bit and our ultimate decision would be to end the pregnancy. It's such a hard situation to be in and I am so ever thankful to never had to have been in such a situation. The close I got was having high blood pressure and being induced at 37 weeks.

[Melissa in Australia]

I think this is one of those situations that is easy to say you would do such and such, but you never know until you are in that situation.

If I was the mother in the original post, absolutely I would try to keep pregnant for a few more days or weeks. At 25 weeks every day can make a difference.

[elegantlion]

I think this is one of those situations that is easy to say you would do such and such, but you never know until you are in that situation.

If I was the mother in the original post, absolutely I would try to keep pregnant for a few more days or weeks. At 25 weeks every day can make a difference.

 

:iagree: My pregnancy caused complications and ds was born via c-section 3 weeks early. My complications were from my health and a prior surgery.

 

I do know that my dh would be physically and emotionally unable to make a decision. My hormones were so out of whack during pregnancy, I couldn't make a decision. We would probably rely on the doctors and have my MIL advocate for us. Her time in the medical field left her with a lot of wisdom and a lot of connections.

 

I do know that while dh and I would grieve the loss of a baby, if I died in the process of trying to save them dh would probably have given up the will to live himself. I don't say that lightly either.

[Teachin'Mine]

And now we're equating the early delivery of a non-viable baby to save the mother's life to committing murder. Because, you know, they're totally the same thing.

 

Can we get a rolling-my-eyes-while-vomiting smiley?

 

No. What a sad comment.

 

Everyone here has given their point of view without judgment. She is stating what our faith teaches. Judgment is totally in God's hands - not ours. And it is our belief that eternal separation from God is a fate worse than death.

 

The Catholic Church allows for the termination of a pregnancy when the mother's life is in jeopardy - as long as the purpose is to save her life, not to terminate her baby's life.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Teachin'Mine

[mommaduck]

I didn't see the original post, but I would try to carry a baby long enough until it has the potential to survive (so around 25 weeks). At that point, it is in God's hands and I would allow the doctors to deliver him/her as a micropreemie. No way would I have an abortion even to save my own life, but delivering past the point of viability I see as different. I have responsibilities to my other children. My responsibility to the unborn baby is very important as well, but once he/she could survive outside the womb, I think it is morally permissible to deliver early in order to save my life.

:iagree:

[mommytobees]

This isn't something I share and very few people know.....

 

And, honestly, I can't believe I'm sharing this here.

 

BUT.....

 

I couldn't do it. I had my son and I aborted a pregnancy that _neither_ of us would have lived. It was too early....way too early. He wouldn't have survived and had I waited much longer I wouldn't have survived. People who knew about the pregnancy only know that I miscarried.

 

It is a hard decision to make and I don't regret mine. I am sad about the loss, even now 12 years later, but I don't think I made the wrong choice.

 

Kris

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with those who pointed out that in most life-threatening pregnancy cases, there is no "hanging on." Mom and baby will both die. What makes this more complicated is that many women will not tell people what really happened. I had a friend who terminated a pregnancy because it became life threatening. I am the *only* person who knows besides her dh. Everyone else thinks she miscarried. It was completely and totally devastating to her. She did therapy, was on anti-depressants, etc. And she is an atheist, so the religious guilt was not a factor. But, it was still devetating.

 

The condemnation in some of these posts is the reason more families are not open about such decisions.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Mrs Mungo]

Kris,

 

I know how devastating that time was for my friend. I am sorry you had to go through that. :grouphug:

[Mrs Mungo]

No. What a sad comment.

 

Everyone here has given their point of view without judgment. She is stating what our faith teaches. Judgment is totally in God's hands - not ours. And it is our belief that eternal separation from God is a fate worse than death.

 

The Catholic Church allows for the termination of a pregnancy when the mother's life is in jeopardy - as long as the purpose is to save her life' date=' not to terminate her baby's life.[/quote']

 

This post does not make sense to me. If it is acceptable to terminate in order to save the mother's life, then how is she risking eternal ****ation by taking the option to live? Understand, in most of these cases if mom does not terminate, then they will both die. You don't have the option of choosing your baby's life over your life, you are choosing to die with your baby.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[deacongirl]

It would depend on the babies' chances. Would they be likely to live and be healthy if I held on for the few days I could before dying or refused treatment for myself? Would my efforts likely be futile, leaving me and the babies dead, or perhaps me alive and babies suffering to live only briefly and at high risk for severe disabilities? I do not think I would die to keep micro preemies inside of me a few days. I probably would risk dying if it were to save babies who had a better chance of survival. I don't know what DH would think.

 

I agree with this. I have spent time in the NICU and have had 2 high risk pregnancies and this issue was not hypothetical.

[Teachin'Mine]

This post does not make sense to me. If it is acceptable to terminate in order to save the mother's life, then how is she risking eternal ****ation by talk the option to live? Understand, in most of these cases if mom does not terminate, then they will both die. You don't have the option of choosing your baby's life over your life, you are choosing to die with your baby.

 

The first part of my post was addressing the reply to Crimson Wife's post. The second part was clarifying the Church's position - as some may not be aware of what it actually is. However, at least one notable Saint made the choice to sacrifice her life for her baby. But you are right that sometimes the end result would be the death of both. I don't think there would be condemnation for either choice if the decision was made out of love for others - whether that be the baby or the other children. God knows our reasons and is certainly a merciful God. There is no easy choice if faced with the decision. It's one that you hope to never have to make. I'm praying for Faith's friends.

[kricau]

Yeah, I would have to think about the other children alive and well and needing their Mommy

 

I didn't see the original post, but I would try to carry a baby long enough until it has the potential to survive (so around 25 weeks). At that point, it is in God's hands and I would allow the doctors to deliver him/her as a micropreemie. No way would I have an abortion even to save my own life, but delivering past the point of viability I see as different. I have responsibilities to my other children. My responsibility to the unborn baby is very important as well, but once he/she could survive outside the womb, I think it is morally permissible to deliver early in order to save my life.

[dancer67]

I don't think anyone can really answer this question unless you have been there.

 

What I can say is that my kids need me. And my husband needs me. My DH would want me to live.

[kricau]

I totally understand (DH giving up if I was gone) & agree. I also had to have an emergency C-Section 3 weeks early. But they did so many tests and ultrasounds, and knew that she would be ok. So we did it.

 

:iagree: My pregnancy caused complications and ds was born via c-section 3 weeks early. My complications were from my health and a prior surgery.

 

I do know that my dh would be physically and emotionally unable to make a decision. My hormones were so out of whack during pregnancy, I couldn't make a decision. We would probably rely on the doctors and have my MIL advocate for us. Her time in the medical field left her with a lot of wisdom and a lot of connections.

 

I do know that while dh and I would grieve the loss of a baby, if I died in the process of trying to save them dh would probably have given up the will to live himself. I don't say that lightly either.

[RainbowSprinkles]

I would choose for my dc to live instead of me, whether they are already on earth or still in tummy.

 

Eta: the baby in tummy would have to have a chance for surviving. If the baby's chances are good, I would chiose baby over myself.

Edited June 23, 2012 by RainbowSprinkles

[Murphy101]

No. What a sad comment.

 

Everyone here has given their point of view without judgment. She is stating what our faith teaches. Judgment is totally in God's hands - not ours. And it is our belief that eternal separation from God is a fate worse than death.

 

The Catholic Church allows for the termination of a pregnancy when the mother's life is in jeopardy - as long as the purpose is to save her life' date=' not to terminate her baby's life.[/quote']

 

Yes. This. Crimson wasn't judging anyone. She just pointed out that for some people death isn't their greatest concern. That's not saying anyone here is going to hell.

 

With all due respect to your dh and others who feel this way (because mine would feel the same), I would still decide otherwise and my need to protect my baby/babies if at all possible would override what my dh wanted; in other words, my priorities would be unborn baby/babies first, dc at home second, dh last. I would not be the same wife/mother my dh knew if I didn't do everything I could to help my baby/babies survive.

 

Me too. I simply do not understand the argument of "I have to think of my living children first." My unborn baby IS one of my living children.:confused: We have named them, talked to them, bought clothes and toys for them, looked upon their face with awe at ultrasounds, felt them move our hearts and beneath our hands.:confused:

 

This post does not make sense to me. If it is acceptable to terminate in order to save the mother's life, then how is she risking eternal ****ation by talk the option to live? Understand, in most of these cases if mom does not terminate, then they will both die. You don't have the option of choosing your baby's life over your life, you are choosing to die with your baby.

 

She isn't. Crimson never said she would be either. A few people are presuming something not in evidence.

 

The RCC stance is simple really.

 

Is it at all possible to save both?

If yes, then that is what should be done.

 

Is it at all possible to save either?

If yes, then that is what should be done.

 

If the baby is the only one to be saved, which is unusual, then it is expected that is what will happen.

 

If the mother is the only one to be saved, then that is what is expected to happen too. Iow, if the baby can't be saved, then it isn't a question of purposely harming the baby. That is ONLY a byproduct of doing what it takes to save the mother. (Some cancer treatments for example would fall under this one. They hope the baby survives the mother's needed treatments.)

 

For most of these cases, usually, if a mother is declining to near death, the baby is going to be taken. It's really no longer even a question at that point. Whether she lives or not, she can't sustain the pregnancy any longer regardless of her desire to do so.

 

So usually the scenario is not so dramatic. It's a quiet decision of the mother to hang on or put off treatment as long as she can in hopes of giving the baby as much time as possible precisely so that the baby will be viable outside the womb when she can't carry any longer.

 

Sometimes they don't get enough time. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they both get lucky. Sometimes only one of them makes it.

 

And yes, sometimes the quiet decision is not to do that. Sometimes the mother decides to not take the risk for whatever reason. Sometimes that reason is intense pressure from her husband/family and doctors. Frankly, there isn't much support for women who choose otherwise.

 

In this very thread there seems to be an attitude that they are somehow wrong because:

 

They aren't thinking of their living children

They don't think their life is important too

They don't respect the agony it would create for their dh.

It's a waste if the baby isn't healthy enough anyways.

 

I'm not judging any woman who would make a different decision than me. It's a heartbreaking decision where no one "wins" in the end.

 

But those four attitudes? Wow. That's rather painfully judgmental to me. Maybe I'm projecting. I'm willing to contemplate that possibility. But that's what it feels like to me.

[Veritaserum]

With all due respect to your dh and others who feel this way (because mine would feel the same), I would still decide otherwise and my need to protect my baby/babies if at all possible would override what my dh wanted; in other words, my priorities would be unborn baby/babies first, dc at home second, dh last. I would not be the same wife/mother my dh knew if I didn't do everything I could to help my baby/babies survive.

 

I went through a scary time with my recent pregnancy (placenta previa with bleeding). The baby was not yet viable and I was a wreck because I obviously wanted him to live. The bleeding happened six weeks before viability. I prayed evey day that I'd stay pregnant and that I wouldn't bleed more. Thankfully the bleeding stopped, the placenta moved, and I carried him to almost 38 weeks. However, if the previa had been more severe, if I had started hemorrhaging to death, the only thing that would have made sense would have been to save my life instead of letting both of us die.

[Murphy101]

I went through a scary time with my recent pregnancy (placenta previa with bleeding). The baby was not yet viable and I was a wreck because I obviously wanted him to live. The bleeding happened six weeks before viability. I prayed evey day that I'd stay pregnant and that I wouldn't bleed more. Thankfully the bleeding stopped, the placenta moved, and I carried him to almost 38 weeks. However, if the previa had been more severe, if I had started hemorrhaging to death, the only thing that would have made sense would have been to save my life instead of letting both of us die.

 

Prime example of my previous point. There is no decision to be made there. You hang on until you can't and at that point, what has to be done is either going to work out or it isn't. A woman with severe hemorrhaging can't stay pregnant whether no matter how much she wants to.:grouphug:

[Soror]

Martha thank you for explaining the RCC's position. Crimson Wife's description does not fit with my understanding. It is not the RCCs position that measures taken to save the mother's life that result in the death of the baby is not a sin but an unfortunate consequence. Every measure is to be taken to save both mother and baby but we are not forbidden from live saving measures, even if that means the death of a baby.

 

As for myself I've been blessed that I've never had to face such a horrid decision. I would pray that God would give me strength and guidance in such a time.

Edited June 23, 2012 by soror

[SKL]

I simply do not understand the argument of "I have to think of my living children first." My unborn baby IS one of my living children.:confused: We have named them, talked to them, bought clothes and toys for them, looked upon their face with awe at ultrasounds, felt them move our hearts and beneath our hands.:confused:

 

I agree that the unborn IS one of your living children. But there is a difference in my opinion. I do not believe that the baby will suffer greatly and long-term if s/he does not survive an early c-section. By contrast, my children would be devastated and harmed in the long run by the loss of their mother. Especially since they don't have any other parent and have already gone through the disruption of adoption before. Of course anything could happen to me on any day, but if it's in my control, I'll choose to keep my adopted daughters from being orphaned. (Granted, it's a moot point because I won't be risking pregnancy.)

[Mergath]

No. What a sad comment.

 

Everyone here has given their point of view without judgment. She is stating what our faith teaches. Judgment is totally in God's hands - not ours. And it is our belief that eternal separation from God is a fate worse than death.

 

The Catholic Church allows for the termination of a pregnancy when the mother's life is in jeopardy - as long as the purpose is to save her life' date=' not to terminate her baby's life.[/quote']

 

Claiming that women who choose to save their own life over the life of the fetus are committing murder, especially after several women have stated they had to do just that, is far from a "point of view without judgment." And the very idea that anyone would think that makes me feel ill. I seriously doubt God would ever place a woman in that situation if choosing to live was considered murder.

[TravelingChris]

I am pro-life but that doesn't mean that the unborn baby's life is more important than the mother's. They are both important. Sometimes the pregnancy or a disease is causing the pregnancy to not be able to continue. If the baby can survive, great. But otherwise, if you do not deliver early, both mother and baby will die. There is nothing noble in that. You save who you can.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug: to all the moms here who had to make the difficult decision and had such a problem pregnancy. No judgement here from me.

[sagira]

As much as I love my babies and children, and it would be a tough decision wrought with tears and anxiety, I would choose to live over my unborn baby who doesn't seem to stand a chance anyway. Like it or not, and I have doubted this too before, the father and mother are IMO what starts out the family. We could always have other children. It would be heart-wrenching for sure, I am certainly not saying this lightly, but I would choose my life. Especially, and this is important, if I had other, older children. Those other children need me. They would be devastated if they lost their mother. There are long term effects of losing a parent at a young age. I wouldn't ever willingly put them through that. If I thought about dh as well, it wouldn't be fair to put him in that position. Most likely he would lose his whole new family. If I had a chance to save my own life and half his family, I would. This almost did happen, by the way. I almost died when pregnant with our first ds. I know as painful as it was, he would have chosen my life over his.

 

In this case, if by a miracle the baby ended up living, there is a good chance dh would resent that child because I chose him/her over myself. He/she would always grow up feeling that. He couldn't help myself. He chose me to be his significant other for life. In sickness and in health. A promise to God. Like it or not, I made him a promise to to stay by him. That includes staying alive.

 

That said, I don't ever judge what other people do. It is a very personal decision. However, I do understand the husband's point of view. It must be agony for him, too.

Edited June 23, 2012 by sagira

[DawnM]

:iagree:

 

As much as I love my babies and children, and it would be a tough decision wrought with tears and anxiety, I would choose to live over my unborn baby who doesn't seem to stand a chance anyway. Like it or not, and I have doubted this too before, the father and mother are IMO what starts out the family. We could always have other children. It would be heart-wrenching for sure, I am certainly not saying this lightly, but I would choose my life. Especially, and this is important, if I had other, older children. Those other children need me. They would be devastated if they lost their mother. There are long term effects of losing a parent at a young age. I wouldn't ever willingly put them through that. If I thought about dh as well, it wouldn't be fair to put him in that position. Most likely he would lose his whole new family. If I had a chance to save my own life and half his family, I would. This almost did happen, by the way. I almost died when pregnant with our first ds. I know as painful as it was, he would have chosen my life over his.

 

In this case, if by a miracle the baby ended up living, there is a good chance dh would resent that child because I chose him/her over myself. He/she would always grow up feeling that. He couldn't help myself. He chose me to be his significant other for life. In sickness and in health. A promise to God. Like it or not, I made him a promise to to stay by him. That includes staying alive.

 

That said, I don't ever judge what other people do. It is a very personal decision. However, I do understand the husband's point of view. It must be agony for him, too.

[Murphy101]

Martha thank you for explaining the RCC's position. Crimson Wife's description does not fit with my understanding. It is not the RCCs position that measures taken to save the mother's life that result in the death of the baby is not a sin but an unfortunate consequence. Every measure is to be taken to save both mother and baby but we are not forbidden from live saving measures, even if that means the death of a baby.

 

:confused: Did you put in "not" by accident?

 

Is IS the RCC position that measures taken to save a mother's life that result in the death of her baby is not a sin, but an unfortunate consequence.

 

I agree that the unborn IS one of your living children. But there is a difference in my opinion. I do not believe that the baby will suffer greatly and long-term if s/he does not survive an early c-section. By contrast, my children would

 

Ahh. But I view no difference among my children.

 

Suffering is suffering.

 

And as a Catholic, suffering is not viewed with the same aversion. Suffering is how we grow spiritually. How we develop compassion. We are not called to avoid suffering necessarily. Rather we are called to accept it with love.

 

I have no doubt my children's and dh's lives would be turned upside down and their hearts scarred by my loss.

 

I simply don't view that as the worst thing in life. I tend to view suffering as just a part of life in general. I'm not sure how to explain it. I have a rather brutal such is life attitude to doing what I feel is right. If I think something is the right thing to do, then whatever pain I must endure because of it is just the way it is. It doesn't mean I like it. It doesn't mean I don't wish there was another right option. It doesn't mean I don't cry about it or fear it or have no compassion for it. It simply means that on MY scale of doing what I feel is right - how feelings doesn't rate as high on the considerations as doing what I think is e right thing to do. Again, I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that.

 

Claiming that women who choose to save their own life over the life of the fetus are committing murder, especially after several women have stated they had to do just that, is far from a "point of view without judgment." And the very idea that anyone would think that makes me feel ill. I seriously doubt God would ever place a woman in that situation if choosing to live was considered murder.

 

Which would be valid is anyone had actually claimed any such thing. No one did. Not crimson. Not anyone.:glare:

 

Also as a point of reference. Any act that a the person does not have free will to choose is automatically not a sin. Regardless of life and death issues. Sin requires they know it the wrong is a sin and freely consent to participate in the that wrong sin.

 

And for whatever reason, people ARE placed situations every day all over the world where their choices could mean the death of another. And we call it murder every time. When people in oppressed countries tell authorities where a rebels are hiding to save their own lives. Yeah. That's murder. But it is not necessarily a sin.

 

Sometimes choosing life means risking death in the RCC. It's not popular. But people all over the world are living this fact every day.

 

I am pro-life but that doesn't mean that the unborn baby's life is more important than the mother's. They are both important. Sometimes the pregnancy or a disease is causing the pregnancy to not be able to continue. If the baby can survive, great. But otherwise, if you do not deliver early, both mother and baby will die. There is nothing noble in that.

 

:confused: and not one person has said otherwise. In fact, they have repeatedly said exactly that.

 

The entire option of waiting to deliver is based on:

The mother can wait. If she can't, it's a non issue bc as a pp noted dead women can't continue pregnancies.

And

The baby needs a bit more time to have a chance. Obviously if the mother can't wait and or the baby's prognosis doesn't change if she waits, then there is no reason to wait to deliver.:confused:

[Soror]

:confused: Did you put in "not" by accident?

 

Is IS the RCC position that measures taken to save a mother's life that result in the death of her baby is not a sin:

 

Typo

[Soror]

 

:confused: and not one person has said otherwise. In fact, they have repeatedly said exactly that.

 

The entire option of waiting to deliver is based on:

The mother can wait. If she can't, it's a non issue bc as a pp noted dead women can't continue pregnancies.

And

The baby needs a bit more time to have a chance. Obviously if the mother can't wait and or the baby's prognosis doesn't change if she waits, then there is no reason to wait to deliver.:confused:

 

That is exactly how CrimsonsWife post reads, she just stated that prolonging your life is murder ie violating the 5th or 6th commandment. It cannot be stated in such a way and be accordance with the Church's teaching. It is not cut and dry, there are too many variables as your post elaborates.

[SKL]

 

Ahh. But I view no difference among my children.

 

Suffering is suffering.

 

And as a Catholic, suffering is not viewed with the same aversion. Suffering is how we grow spiritually. How we develop compassion. We are not called to avoid suffering necessarily. Rather we are called to accept it with love.

 

I have no doubt my children's and dh's lives would be turned upside down and their hearts scarred by my loss.

 

I simply don't view that as the worst thing in life. I tend to view suffering as just a part of life in general. I'm not sure how to explain it. I have a rather brutal such is life attitude to doing what I feel is right. If I think something is the right thing to do, then whatever pain I must endure because of it is just the way it is. It doesn't mean I like it. It doesn't mean I don't wish there was another right option. It doesn't mean I don't cry about it or fear it or have no compassion for it. It simply means that on MY scale of doing what I feel is right - how feelings doesn't rate as high on the considerations as doing what I think is e right thing to do. Again, I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree that my intentionally imposing great, long-term suffering on young children would lead to positive spiritual growth. Sounds nice the way you say it, but we all know what tends to happen to kids who are asked to bear such a huge burden without any parent to help them through. I don't think it would be "right" to make that choice.

 

I also don't see how it's a sin to expose child A to risk in attempting to protect child B, but it's not a sin to expose child B to risk in attempting to protect child A. As another person said, I'm pro-life, but I don't believe that an unborn child's life is MORE important than everyone else's life. Also I note that God makes use of spontaneous abortion sometimes to protect a mother. Maybe God Himself prioritizes the lives of mothers over the lives of their unborn.

 

However, reading to the end of your comment, your conclusion doesn't seem to disagree with mine. It seems both of us feel we'd choose to have a c-section if the only other medical possibility (barring a miracle) was the mother's death.

[Bluegoat]

Claiming that women who choose to save their own life over the life of the fetus are committing murder, especially after several women have stated they had to do just that, is far from a "point of view without judgment." And the very idea that anyone would think that makes me feel ill. I seriously doubt God would ever place a woman in that situation if choosing to live was considered murder.

 

How is it more offensive than the poster who said that her religion required her in such a case to have an abortion of deliver early? Doesn't that seem to suggest that women who didn't make that choice are going against God's will? To anyone who thinks that fetus is a person in the same way an infant is, isn't it a painful thing to read?

 

The CC's position on the unborn is pretty simple - they are the same as the born. It doesn't matter if they will die tomorrow, in a week, or in 50 years. We are all terminal cases. Our burden of responsibility is the same for them as for a ten year old. So yes, from that perspective abortion to save the mother's life would be no different from infanticide to save a mother's life.

 

Inducing labour near the line for viability, or even before that, is a slightly different question. But the principle is the same - the baby is a patient as much as the mother is, and due care must be offered to both.

 

I am sure this idea - the whole discussion, is painful for many people reading it. To those who have faced this decision no matter what they chose, and to those who see that people have made choices that contradict their most closely held beliefs - it is a difficult topic. If that is something we don't want, maybe it is better not to have discussions over potentially painful issues.

[SKL]

Claiming that women who choose to save their own life over the life of the fetus are committing murder, especially after several women have stated they had to do just that, is far from a "point of view without judgment." And the very idea that anyone would think that makes me feel ill. I seriously doubt God would ever place a woman in that situation if choosing to live was considered murder.

 

I think what was "sad" about the earlier post was the "eyeroll" comment. Whichever way a mom decides this kind of thing, it's not an "eyeroll" kind of situation. It struck me like hearing "who CARES if that person dies, jeez."

[Slartibartfast]

I think what was "sad" about the earlier post was the "eyeroll" comment. Whichever way a mom decides this kind of thing, it's not an "eyeroll" kind of situation. It struck me like hearing "who CARES if that person dies, jeez."

 

I am not sure how you are getting that from what she said.

[Murphy101]

I'm not sure I agree that my intentionally imposing great, long-term suffering on young children would lead to positive spiritual growth. Sounds nice the way you say it, but we all know what tends to happen to kids who are asked to bear such a huge burden without any parent to help them through. I don't think it would be "right" to make that choice.

 

There are two issues here.

 

I don't view it as intentional at all. Obviously if I don't have to risk my life for any of my children, then doing so would be intentional. But that is not the issue being discussed. The issue is whether a mother might feel right in risking her life for her child, even tho that child might be unborn. I've simply stated that yes, she might. And I would hope my children would understand that if I ever felt I had to do the same for them - I would without doubt do so.

 

I do think the suffering is great. I also think there are worse things in life than having a parent die for live of their child. I think most people carry that hurt for their life, but they also usually find some peace and healing and move on in their life. Life goes on. They still love their other family members. They still go up, get married and maybe even have their own children some day. It's never the same as it was before. No doubt about that. But yes, life goes on.

 

In my case, my children would not be alone. They have a father. They have siblings. They have a church. None of that replaces mom! I do understand that. But no, the pain will lessen over time. They will continue to life and have hope of doing so with joy.

 

I also don't see how it's a sin to expose child A to risk in attempting to protect child B, but it's not a sin to expose child B to risk in attempting to protect child A. As another person said, I'm pro-life, but I don't believe that an unborn child's life is MORE important than everyone else's life.

 

and no one has said it is either.:confused: Other people are talking sin, but not me and not others as I'm reading them.

 

To me, that's not even what we are discussing.

 

To me, it's saying that my other children's happiness is more important than the life of an unborn one of my children. I just don't agree at all.

 

Ideally, I want all my children to live and have happy lives.

But many times the ideal is just not an option to choose from. If my choice is life for all of them or no suffering for most of them, I'm going to choose life for all of them. Every. Single. Time. The conditions of their life will likely change. Most certainly their sorrows will lessen and pass and they will have opportunities to find happiness in their lives.

 

However, reading to the end of your comment, your conclusion doesn't seem to disagree with mine. It seems both of us feel we'd choose to have a c-section if the only other medical possibility (barring a miracle) was the mother's death.

 

Yes. I'm not sure why this is even being discussed. I have not seen anyone post otherwise.

 

In the other thread that this one spun off of, this is exactly the case. The mother is putting off every single day that she can in an effort to give her baby the best odds of making it. Right now, she is hanging on. It's rough and scary, but she is. And she isn't willing to do the c section until she can't hanging on any longer. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's hard enough without pressure and the poor woman doesn't need anymore stress than she already has. :(

[SKL]

In the other thread that this one spun off of, ... The mother is putting off every single day that she can in an effort to give her baby the best odds of making it. Right now, she is hanging on. It's rough and scary, but she is. And she isn't willing to do the c section until she can't hanging on any longer. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's hard enough without pressure and the poor woman doesn't need anymore stress than she already has. :(

 

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the situation was that the mom, in her current state, feels willing to die praying for a miracle, rather than have a c-section at 24-25 weeks.

 

I agree she doesn't need any more stress, and hopefully those discussing this with her aren't creating any.