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

[Veritaserum]

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.

 

Except than an infant's life is not physically dependent on the mother's life the way an unborn baby's life is. That's the whole reason why these types of situations are ethically trickier: two (or more in the case of multiples) lives are sharing one body. Unfortunately those lives can put each other at risk of death. When one of these tragic situations occurs, it is unethical to not consider abortion as an option. The mother's life is at least as worthy of saving as the baby's. Pro-life should include the mother's life as well.

[Teachin'Mine]

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

 

 

Yes, SKL is exactly right about my comment on what was sad. This was Mergath's post:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Wife

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?

__________________

-Mergath-

 

The eye-rolling "smiley" is definitely what I was referring to. As for the interpretation of the post, I took it to mean something very different.

[Mergath]

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."

 

:confused:

 

My eyerolling was in regard to the comment that saving your own life and letting the fetus die is an act of murder. I certainly wasn't rolling my eyes at anyone in that situation. Are you intentionally misreading what I wrote? Because I honestly have no idea how you could have gotten that from what I wrote without twisting my words waaaay out of context.

[Audrey]

My dh's response was that you (meaning me) are already here. That trumps "maybe they'll live" babies who aren't here any day. I am glad he said that, because I'd divorce him in a heartbeat if he didn't value me more than that.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Audrey

[NASDAQ]

What religion is that?

 

Judaism.

[NASDAQ]

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:

 

FWIW, we don't do that. The practice of naming unborn children is very far from universal; In many cultures and religions children are not named until after birth -- often not immediately after birth. We don't name our unborn, buy clothes or toys for them, hold baby showers, or decorate nurseries.

 

It's also difficult for me to imagine a hypothetical situation where one of my very young born-alive children is killing me.

[NittanyJen]

I have no idea how I'd respond.

 

Intellectually, I agree that my living children need me, so I would choose to live, even if that meant the baby didn't. But in the moment? Filled with emotion? Facing the burial of a child? No clue. I also have no idea how DH would react.

 

A cousin of mine had HELPP. But her case was bizarre in that delivery didn't cure her. The baby was 26 weeks and did much better than anyone expected, but her liver failed and she had to have a transplant. The doctors said she could only live two or three days without a donor liver; she lived 10. She spent 8 months in the hospital. Her son is 4 now. They are both doing well.

 

I have no idea how she made the decision. I suppose his gestational age made it easier - odds at 26 weeks are much better than 24. Still, I pray I never have to make the choice.

 

:grouphug::grouphug: to all of you who've been there.

 

With HELLP there isn't much choice to make. If you don't deliver, you and baby both die. I can see where a mother could struggle over a decision of baby-or-me, but with HELLP, it is one or both. There is no hang in there and baby will be okay. I've had two HELLP kids, and knowing it could happen again, won't have a third bio kid, as the two who are here need me here with them.

 

:grouphug::grouphug: to all who have had to make a difficult choice, no matter the outcome. We were tremendously fortunate, and I am grateful every day.

[Murphy101]

FWIW, we don't do that. The practice of naming unborn children is very far from universal; In many cultures and religions children are not named until after birth -- often not immediately after birth. We don't name our unborn, buy clothes or toys for them, hold baby showers, or decorate nurseries.

 

It's also difficult for me to imagine a hypothetical situation where one of my very young born-alive children is killing me.

 

I don't view it as my unborn baby is killing me either. A medical situation as arose. The best way to deal with it for ME is promptly. The best way to deal with it for my baby is to hold off treatment. The baby is a sad bystander as worst. Certainly not an active participant in my death.

 

If my van went off an icy bridge into water...

I could choose to get out as fast as possible likely saving my own life.

Or

I could choose to do whatever I could to also get my baby out of their carseat also.

 

I certainly wouldn't say my baby killing me.

The circumstances are no one's fault.

I certainly wouldn't be thinking that I should leave that baby in the carseat because I have other children and a husband at home.

None of those thoughts would even enter my mind.

 

There are many circumstances a mother might face where saving her child could mean her death. Happens every day somewhere in the world.

[Iucounu]

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.

I'm not so sure that it is. We're supposed to care for our children, and in extreme cases we may have to give our lives to save our children. The analysis is a little bit different at the very beginning of life, though. Is it really a good idea to orphan a child at the beginning of life? Doesn't the parent's life have value at least equal to the potential for life of a person not born yet?

 

What if there are other children-- are we to leave them without a mother in order to bring a medically challenged pregnancy to fruition? If not, and that's the only differentiator, once again I think the value system may be wrong in completely disregarding the life of the mother.

 

It just doesn't make sense to me from a logical or moral standpoint to have a rule that a mother's duty is to die to save an unborn child. I personally think it's a terrible situation, but that irrespective of any self-sacrificing motherly impulses, it's irresponsible to kill oneself in order that a child be born that one is also morally obligated to care for.

[mommaduck]

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::grouphug::grouphug:

 

 

And this is why my Orthodox priest said that he had no problem with sterilization (if we want to go back to any RC/EO discussion), because, due to my health, it could prevent worse (and more necessary) decisions later. Truthfully, we really don't know EVERY circumstance and a lot of people have not heard of such circumstances as these. If it's possible to hold on, then that can be encouraged. But to judge another without any knowledge of the actual facts (or with, as I know some believe that even if it's known that both will die, then they should, even in cases of tubal pregnancies) is harsh and unkind. I don't sit on God's throne.

[Aelwydd]

Evolution and hormones being what they are, I think most women would opt to sacrifice health or life for their unborn baby. Besides which, we're also conditioned from childhood through much of our literature, media, and religious experience that the birth of a baby sometimes regrettably costs the mother her life. It's just one of those risks most of us accept when we become pregnant.

 

I don't think there are any easy answers in a situation like this. I can only say that if it were my life on the line like that, it would be very hard to let my unborn baby go. However, this is one of those "big decision" times where my husband's and my philosophy of "mutual submission" kicks in. I would not simply override his need for his wife, or my son's need for his mother, to satisfy my compulsion to try to save an unborn life.

[Aelwydd]

I'm not so sure that it is. We're supposed to care for our children, and in extreme cases we may have to give our lives to save our children. The analysis is a little bit different at the very beginning of life, though. Is it really a good idea to orphan a child at the beginning of life? Doesn't the parent's life have value at least equal to the potential for life of a person not born yet?

 

What if there are other children-- are we to leave them without a mother in order to bring a medically challenged pregnancy to fruition? If not, and that's the only differentiator, once again I think the value system may be wrong in completely disregarding the life of the mother.

 

It just doesn't make sense to me from a logical or moral standpoint to have a rule that a mother's duty is to die to save an unborn child. I personally think it's a terrible situation, but that irrespective of any self-sacrificing motherly impulses, it's irresponsible to kill oneself in order that a child be born that one is also morally obligated to care for.

 

Yes, I agree with all of this. My analysis also includes my 9 yo son. He has friends and family, but I know if I were to check out early, none of them would replace me. That's a forever absence. And I'd miss seeing him growing up, too.

 

If I'm not there, I'd hope he would move on. But, it's so common for children who have lost parents to illness to experience emotions of anger and betrayal. Why did she leave me? Then, they feel guilt for having such emotions.

If I'm not there, who would balance my husband's parenting? What if my ds turned to self-destructive habits to assuage his pain? The teen years aren't far off.

 

Furthermore, my dh's health hasn't been great the last few years, although he is trying very hard to improve it. The fact is that he has had four uncles all with strokes or heart attacks before age 50. My dh is 44.

 

So, how would that stress of being widowed affect him? Combined with a potentially very sick infant, and a grief-stricken 9 yo?

 

Would he succumb early? Then who would care for my orphaned kids? My parents are sick, and my siblings also are in poor health.

 

Folks might say, oh that's over-thinking it. But, I really think many people tend to only look at the immediate situation, and don't consider these types of potential ramifications. Or, they naively assume that their presence (or absence) is an acceptable cost, and that everything will just rearrange itself around the new reality.

 

I'm not so willing to bet that, in terms of emotions, my son would differentiate from those with an absent father, or a drug-addicted mother who left them. And given how many of those kids turn out, I'd do everything I could to stay a part of his life.

[Element]

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.

 

I could not agree more.

 

I am so sorry for your loss. Words cannot convey how your post moved me.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Element

[prairiebird]

I also think of an unborn baby as my child. My religion would have me do everything I can to bring that baby to the point where she/he'd have a chance outside the body.

 

However, I have been in the situation to grow up without my mother and be raised by an ailing father. I was the oldest child and also expected to take on caring for my younger siblings and my grieving father. It was horrid. I still deal with issues from this and have lost many opportunities because of this. I could not consciously decide put my life at risk for my unborn child because I would not want to leave my own children without a mother because of this, no matter what my religion. I would grieve for my lost child and so would his or her siblings and father. But I could not make a choice that puts my life in danger when it might be saved by the alternative. To me, it's not the same as an accident or a non-pregnancy related illness.

[Dustybug]

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:

 

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.

 

I am not catholic, but I completely agree with the above.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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. :(

 

I don't view it as my unborn baby is killing me either. A medical situation as arose. The best way to deal with it for ME is promptly. The best way to deal with it for my baby is to hold off treatment. The baby is a sad bystander as worst. Certainly not an active participant in my death.

 

If my van went off an icy bridge into water...

I could choose to get out as fast as possible likely saving my own life.

Or

I could choose to do whatever I could to also get my baby out of their carseat also.

 

I certainly wouldn't say my baby killing me.

The circumstances are no one's fault.

I certainly wouldn't be thinking that I should leave that baby in the carseat because I have other children and a husband at home.

None of those thoughts would even enter my mind.

 

There are many circumstances a mother might face where saving her child could mean her death. Happens every day somewhere in the world.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

 

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:

 

No one is arguing that the child in the womb is not a child. But it is a child that may not live.

 

I have had a high risk pregnancy where everyday I was in fear. I had the weekly ultrasounds and time in the NICU. If someone hasn't been through that then they cannot imagine what it is like. I still thank God everyday but I spent months and months without knowing if I was taking a baby home.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Sis

[Dealea86]

Except than an infant's life is not physically dependent on the mother's life the way an unborn baby's life is. That's the whole reason why these types of situations are ethically trickier: two (or more in the case of multiples) lives are sharing one body. Unfortunately those lives can put each other at risk of death. When one of these tragic situations occurs, it is unethical to not consider abortion as an option. The mother's life is at least as worthy of saving as the baby's. Pro-life should include the mother's life as well.

 

:iagree:

 

The ethical thing is to save everyone you can. If both mom and baby could be saved, both should be saved. If only baby can be saved, then baby should be saved. If only mom can be saved, then mom should be saved. In my opinion, it's unethical to let both mom and baby die because the treatment to save one life would kill the other.

 

If mom dies in the process of saving baby, does that mean the baby carries the guilt of mom's death? Perhaps in a PTSD sort of way, but not in an ethical way. And in the same way, if the baby dies in the process of saving the mom, I don't believe that mom is guilty of her baby's death. That isn't murder. It's a tragedy.