Posted on 12/13/2005 7:49:21 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
A mother who found out she had cancer after becoming pregnant sacrificed her life for her unborn baby by refusing an abortion and chemotherapy, a British newspaper reported.
Devout Catholic Bernadette Mimura, known as Milai, shunned the potentially life-saving treatment because doctors told her it would kill the child, the Northern Echo regional daily reported Friday.
The 37-year-old, a native of the Philippines who lived near Stockton-on-Tees in northeast England with her British partner, Adam Taylor, survived long enough to see the birth of their son, Nathan.
But soon after seeing him baptized, she was transferred to a hospice and died about a week later.
"Being a Catholic, for her abortion was out of the question," Mr. Taylor told the newspaper. "It was a tough decision, but the decision was we could not give up on Nathan."
The boy, now 4 months old, was premature but was born fit and healthy.
Father Alan Sheridan, who performed the baptism, told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency: "Bernadette said the most important thing was the birth of her baby and she would not do anything to harm him.
"Having an abortion was never a consideration. I know she talked it over with Adam and because she was a Catholic, there was no way she would have done it.
"She had to judge which life was more important and she just prayed there would be a cure for cancer." Father Sheridan is spearheading an appeal to raise $6,490 to repatriate Mrs. Mimura's body to the Philippines for burial. Money left over will help her other three children from a first marriage.
The priest said he hoped the Manila government would help with a grant to fly the three youngsters from Britain for the ceremony.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It isn't morally permissable to kill an intruder who plans to rape my children?
I don't see how dying and leaving your other three children motherless makes you a Saint. Dr. Laura would agree with me.
It think what they are saying is that one can treat the mother and save her, even at risk to the baby, but an overt act to abort the baby is not called for. IOW, it's OK to do the treatment. If the baby dies, it's not a sin.... And not an abortion.
It's like if a building was on fire with several people in it, and one (say, very heavy) person was unconscious and blocking a door, you could "move" that person to save the others, even if you could only drag him to another part of the burning room. You didn't kill him. Whether he was in location "A" or location "B", he was a goner.
A judgment call. Tragic situation. Triage.
So, we are required to sacrifice our lives and leave our children without a mother because HAVING mother isn't all that important... unless this is a day care vs stay at home mom discussion.
I see this as a basic case of self-defense. That is why I used the example that I did.
Quote "Now that was a very generous thing to do for her child ... but if she was such a "devout Catholic," why was she living with a "partner"?"
What a jerk you are. I am sure you have plenty of sins to repent for before morning. Unbelievable that that is all you have to say to this wonderful story.
Shameful at best...
Your comments are like saying that a firefighter who dies in the line of duty is selfish, because he had a wife and kids at home who are now widow and orphans while he died "doing what he wanted to do."
Let's allow our hearts to be touched by this heroic Filipina mother. God bless her; God reward her.
How sad. God rest her soul. I hope the baby is loved and well cared for and that he/she learns of Mother's Greatest Love.
Placemark.
Yes, HairOfTheDog, that's succinctly and exactly right.
Well, thanks, I though it was kindof clumsily said ;~D... but I can see the distinction. It's not an abortion for the health of the mother argument. It's a treatment for the mother at risk to the baby argument.
There was no guarantee that having an abortion would save this woman's life.
Indeed, unlike an ectopic pregnancy, it was not the baby but the cancer that was a threat to the mother's life. The abortion here would only be a side effect to the mother's chemotherapy which may or may not have saved her life. Further, there was no indication that the child had cancer. So, again unlike an ectopic pregnancy in which there is essentially no chance that the child will survive but there is a great chance that the mother could die, here the probabilities were completely reversed. The mother's survival was hardly a fait accompli, whereas the baby survived, just as the mother expected.
I doubt that the Catholic Church sanctions abortion in just such a case. Am I wrong about that? If so, I'd appreciate correction.
By your logic, she should have committed suicide before she found out she had cancer.
After all, it is easier to die than raise 3 kids. Puh-leeze.
I'd appreciate your input re: post #133. Forgot to ping you.
What I meant was that this particular woman is not the only person who could raise these children. Many children go on to have wonderful loving adoptive parents after the death of their birth parents. By choosing to give her fourth child a chance a life, she is not dooming her other three children to a life without a family.
It occurs to me that "Mothers and Marines!" could be something of a conservative dictum...LOL!
This should be the ruler that those considering abortion should measure with.
And the last sentence is the most important one of all.
Before the birth of all of my children, my husband and I always discussed what he'd do if something went wrong in the delivery room...the baby comes first. He always knew this and promised me he would follow my wishes should it ever come to that.
Bingo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.