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 ...
Sure, they will have family, but they won't have a mother. She chose NOT to mother them. All the adult perspective in the world won't help children to understand why their mother chose to leave them.
Why is the life of the unborn MORE important than the life of the mother? That is what is happening here. People aren't saying, "Both lives are important." The unborn is MORE important and overrides the mother's life PLUS the impact the mother's death would have on the rest of the family.
It depends entirely on what you mean by "abortion." If by abortion you mean: "directly and deliberately killing the baby because you hope to accomplish good by it" --- no, killing an innocent person is always morally wrong. It's, by definition, murder.
But if you mean, "Using the usual justified therapeutic means --- whether drugs or surgery or whatever --- to save the mother's life, with whatever regrettable side-effects to the baby": that's morally innocent. There is no intention to kill.
I hope this clarifies it:
The usual abortion methods (suction curettage, saline, D&E, D&X, etc.) are NOT therapeutic to the mother. They are not a cure for cancer, or kidney disease or congestive heart conditions or diabetes; they are direct attacks on the child, and they are not permitted.
The usual anti-cancer treatments (chemo, radiation, surgery) are NOT direct attacks on the baby. They ARE legitimately therapeutic for the mother, as their direct intention AND direct effect is to attack the cancer (not the baby.) Therefore they are permitted, in extreme cases, even if the "side effect" increases the risk to the baby, even fatally.
In any case,you never directly and deliberately attack the baby. (Or the mother!!)
Does that help?
That's an excellent point. Looking back, had I thought about that aspect of my dying and leaving them motherless, only God knows what decision I would have made. Makes me second guess my decisions now.
Here's her website:
Agree.
In addition, I don't expect a secular newspaper to give a complete or accurate Catholic presentation of someone's moral state.
If this is the actual info that the priest gave you, he is dead wrong. Abortion is never permitted.
If the child died as a result of treatment of the mother (say with radiation treatments), that's one thing. But to directly terminate a pregnancy, i.e., kill a unborn baby, is always murder. There is no such thing as a "theraputic" abortion.
I read a discussion of this recently, and I'm sorry, but I can't recall the link. It may have been on Free Republic.
Ectopic pregnancy (conception and attachment within the falopian tube) is another issue. The removal of the fallopian tube does not morally constitute an abortion, although the pregnancy is ended.
Anyone who calls himself an "ethicist" is not to be trusted with a dollar, and definitely not with anyone's daughter.
Back on topic, it is Judaism that says you must sacrifice the child if a choice is forced between the life of the child and the life of the mother. Makes sense for a people trying to survive - the mother could bear more children but the child would be many years from doing so.
I hope your brother-in-law is comforted by the fact that his late first wife was a saint and went straight to Heaven.
Thank you for posting such an inspiring story. It seems there are still heroes and heroines in this world.
The lady has found grace in the eyes of He who is all.
God bless and keep her, until she and her son are once again together in the life to come.
What a lovely sentiment. Mind if I use it (with atribution, of course)?
I think what people are trying to say is that it's God's decision. If a woman in this situation does nothing to treat herself, she is leaving the decision of who lives and who dies up to God. Meanwhile, she can do her best to save both lives. Surely, it is a balancing act. But the ultimate goal of a Christian in this situation should be to not interfere with God's will. Of course, this opens another theological can of worms, but I guess if God lets me have cancer while pregnant, He knows I will do what I can to protect my child. So, in essence, if God puts me in this situation, He has already chosen who lives and who dies. I am not God. It is really not a choice that I get to make.
Few here could do what she did. Few here would have that sort of courage. It can be intimidating.
What a lovely sentiment. Mind if I use it (with atribution, of course)?
Say it loud, say it proud! Use it early and often!
Killing in defense of human life is never a "sin".
God bless this woman and may she rest in peace.
Thank you Rutles4Ever.
"Anyone who calls himself an "ethicist" is not to be trusted with a dollar, and definitely not with anyone's daughter."
how true.
But let's say for a moment that the mother thought (as she surely must have) that the probability that the child's life could be saved by abstaining from treatment was far greater than the chance that her own life could be saved by undertaking the same treatment.
With this in mind, if she chose to undertake the treatment knowing that it would certainly result in the termination of her pregnancy and that it only offered a chance of recuperation, wouldn't that pose a moral problem of some kind? Or to phrase it another way, wouldn't the secondary effect (or permitted evil) be out of proportion to the intended (primary) effect, and thus no longer be licit?
An action that is good in itself that has two effects--an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect--is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil.
This is a beautiful, heart-wrenching gem of ultimate human compassion in a wasteland of selfishness.
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.