I’m uncomfortable with the press coverage this story has gotten. Yes, she did a selfless thing, but it would have been just as acceptable if she had saved herself and let the baby die from the effects of the chemo. No one can expect another person to die for another person, and I fear pro-lifers will begin to “look down” on women who aren’t willing to die for their babies. I’m 100% certain I would be one of those who would take the chemo.
It would have been a truely beautiful story if they had both survived.
Choosing to do the chemo earlier and possibly extending her own life at the risk of her daughter might have been a ‘reasonable’ option {and if she had an older kid or kids it would have likely factored in, both in the fact that they would do better having a mom than a(nother) sibling and that she wouldn’t be giving up her only chance to have a kid…I’ve got 3 small children and I don’t even want to think about what we would do if we got pregnant again and then they found a cancer early enough that it was likely to be curable but fast growing enough that they didn’t want me to wait 7 months to treat} but it wouldn’t really have been newsworthy. It is the nobleness and selflessness of it that makes it worthy of talking about whether or not the mom survived.
“No one can expect another person to die for another person…” Really? No greater love has a woman than this, to lay down her life for her friends, or in this case, her daughter. It’s unusual, to be sure, but I think we can certainly relish these tremendous stories of heroism. We need to be reminded of great, inspiring stories in this age. “I fear pro-lifers will begin to “look down” on women who aren’t willing to die for their babies.” I hope not, and this commentary wasn’t a generalization on what all women should do, rather, what one woman did do. Short of deliberately killing the baby to pursue treatment, yes, there are other acceptable options.
Really? No greater love has a woman than this, to lay down her life for her friends, or in this case, her daughter. It’s unusual, to be sure, but I think we can certainly relish these tremendous stories of heroism.
What I mean is that we have no right to demand that someone else dies for us, or for anyone else. Just like I have the right to shoot and kill an intruder in my house, I have the right to seek medical treatment that will save me, even if it will kill my baby.
I think what she did was absolutely brave and she had the right to make that choice; but the outcome would have been just as valuable if she had lived and the child had died.
I don’t think that we should legislate saying that people must give up their lives for other people, even mothers for their children, but I do think that the choice she made is absolutely morally *better* than the alternative.
Are you a bad person for choosing yourself over another person? No, it is completely reasonable and you have the right to do it. But even when you are making that decision you know that someone else who would have put the other person above themselves is a better person.
by 
I’m uncomfortable with the press coverage this story has gotten. Yes, she did a selfless thing, but it would have been just as acceptable if she had saved herself and let the baby die from the effects of the chemo. No one can expect another person to die for another person, and I fear pro-lifers will begin to “look down” on women who aren’t willing to die for their babies. I’m 100% certain I would be one of those who would take the chemo.
It would have been a truely beautiful story if they had both survived.
Choosing to do the chemo earlier and possibly extending her own life at the risk of her daughter might have been a ‘reasonable’ option {and if she had an older kid or kids it would have likely factored in, both in the fact that they would do better having a mom than a(nother) sibling and that she wouldn’t be giving up her only chance to have a kid…I’ve got 3 small children and I don’t even want to think about what we would do if we got pregnant again and then they found a cancer early enough that it was likely to be curable but fast growing enough that they didn’t want me to wait 7 months to treat} but it wouldn’t really have been newsworthy. It is the nobleness and selflessness of it that makes it worthy of talking about whether or not the mom survived.
“No one can expect another person to die for another person…” Really? No greater love has a woman than this, to lay down her life for her friends, or in this case, her daughter. It’s unusual, to be sure, but I think we can certainly relish these tremendous stories of heroism. We need to be reminded of great, inspiring stories in this age. “I fear pro-lifers will begin to “look down” on women who aren’t willing to die for their babies.” I hope not, and this commentary wasn’t a generalization on what all women should do, rather, what one woman did do. Short of deliberately killing the baby to pursue treatment, yes, there are other acceptable options.
Really? No greater love has a woman than this, to lay down her life for her friends, or in this case, her daughter. It’s unusual, to be sure, but I think we can certainly relish these tremendous stories of heroism.
What I mean is that we have no right to demand that someone else dies for us, or for anyone else. Just like I have the right to shoot and kill an intruder in my house, I have the right to seek medical treatment that will save me, even if it will kill my baby.
I think what she did was absolutely brave and she had the right to make that choice; but the outcome would have been just as valuable if she had lived and the child had died.
I wonder if she really had a chance to live very long even if she had had the chemo — http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mom-with-cancer-dies-after-she-refuses-chemotherapy-to-save-her-unborn-baby/ this article says she found out about the cancer in July and Dottie was born August 16th: somewhere between 2 and 6 weeks after the cancer was found.
I don’t think that we should legislate saying that people must give up their lives for other people, even mothers for their children, but I do think that the choice she made is absolutely morally *better* than the alternative.
Are you a bad person for choosing yourself over another person? No, it is completely reasonable and you have the right to do it. But even when you are making that decision you know that someone else who would have put the other person above themselves is a better person.