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 ...
She chose to die, she knew she would die and that the treatment plan would not work. She chose to deprive her living children of a mother. She could have chosen a plan that insured her survival and gauranteed her 3 children had a mother to take care of them, she didn't choose to do so, therefore she deserted her children and condemed them to a life without a mother. That is not saint hood and I doubt if Christ would think very highly of her. Of course I can't speak for Christ, but I can have my own thoughts on the subject. Have a nice day!
But that makes it seem like the ONLY person who can provide a loving home to a child is the birth mother. She did not condemn her children to roaming the streets as homeless waifs without parents. I just don't buy that. Many adoptive parents provide as loving, if not more moving, homes that birth parents.
Everything is God's decision. What bothers me is that posters here don't care about anything else this woman may have accomplished. Her job is die. That baby is MORE important. Being a wife, being a mother, whatever she was doing outside that, as a human being, is immaterial. She is simply the incubator. When the baby is born, she can die because she has no worth outside of that.
I happen to think that a mother's care is the best situation for a baby to be raised under. That belief stands whether I am talking about day care or a situation like this.
It seems that posters here are insisting that the baby must be born and to hell with anything else. The other children suffer, the husband watches his wife die, they are without her for the rest of their lives, but who cares? That isn't important. The baby MUST be born!
"I agree. I have seen "partner" used many times in the British press as a catch all that can mean married or shacked up. Interesting that so many people here jumped to the conclusion that puts the woman in the poorest light."
That's interesting. If the British press is using the word *partner*, even when the person is married, it sounds like they might be playing with people's heads. By doing away with the use of the word marriage, they probably hope the whole concept of marriage will disappear. Sounds far fetched, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Glad you are ok with killing a child so your other children might have a mother
Thank you for your response.
Thank you for your response.
Thank you for your response.
Thank you for your response.
Thank your for your response.
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?
It seems that way to me, although the act might still be permissible depending on the degree of certainty of the prognosis. I'm grateful to God that I've never had to face a decision like this.
She killed herself didn't she? She committed suicide in order to save her childs life and in doing so she condemned her other children to a life without a mother, and, incidintally, condemned her new born to a life without a mother also. Are you saying that the mother's life is worth less than that of the child? If so, how do you equate that? What formula did you use to determine which life was more valuable?
IMO, the mother's life was more valuable because she had other children to take care of, children already born and healthy.
To paraphrase your idiotic one line reply, I am glad you are ok with killing a mother.
As a Marine I would willingly give my life so that others may live.
As a parent I would willingly give my life so that my child would live.
none of the above is suicide, it is mearly love of your family and others. Look up the word sacrifice.
"partner"? Was she married? Don't canonize her yet!
Yes, but the other choices, if true, were quite selfish, and unfortunately balance out the good one.
Hitler performed some good deeds too. I hear he was kind to dogs and little children.
Reading the Catholic press, its sometimes hard to discern that though, since it is so saturated in discussions of abortion and homosexual liasons.
A work of supererogation! One of my favorite words.
Its one thing entirely to procure a direct abortion to kill the child, and quite another to take needed medical treatment that may result in unfortunate side-effects on the child.
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.