Posted on 12/13/2005 7:49:21 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
As other posters pointed out, the use of "partner" in a British publication does not necessarily mean "unmarried." Maybe it's just a misunderstanding.
The three children she had can be lovingly raised by any other family member or adopted out to a loving home. The unborn child had only one option to survive into a loving home--and it wasn't abortion.
If and it's a big if, she would have had the chemo and survived, how would her three children's lives been any different if she would have been hit by a bus and killed after beating cancer? The point is that having a mother is great, wonderful and I am lucky to have an exceptional one of my own, but simply having a mother is not a reason to kill an innocent child. She cared enough about all of them to give them life and siblings, that's a lot more that can be said for some "mothers".
As far as giving up her life for her child, she should be commended.
It seems as though since the child was premature and a pregnancy is only 9 months, there is the possibility that the cancer was not curable through chemo.
"I wonder if the mother couldn't have had the treatment and prayed for the health of the baby?
"
Pretty much not. Assuming the treatment involved chemotherapy, the outcome would have been the death of the fetus. Pregnancy and chemotherapy just aren't compatible, basically.
Lots of good Philippino Catholic women.
Another Gianna Beretta Molla
Tenth of thirteen children born to Alberto and Maria Beretta, she was a pious girl raised in a pious family; two brothers became priests, a sister became a nun. While in college, she worked with the poor and elderly, and joined the Saint Vincent de Paul Society. Physician and surgeon, graduating from the University of Pavia in 1949, she started a clinic in Mero, Italy in 1950. She returned to school and studied pediatrics, and after finishing in 1952 she worked especially with mothers, babies, the elderly, and the poor. Active in Catholic Action, and a avid skier. She considered a call to religious life, but was married to Pietro Molla on 24 September 1955 at Magenta. Mother of three, she continued her medical career, treating it as a mission and gift from God. During her pregnancy with her fourth child, she was diagnosed with a large ovarian cyst. Her surgeon recommended an abortion in order to save Gianna's life; she refused and died a week after childbirth, caring more for doing right by her unborn child than for her own life. Today that child is a physician herself, and involved in the pro-life movement.
"but if she was such a "devout Catholic," why was she living with a "partner"?"
My first question too?
Or was it a reporterette's version.
St. Gianna Molla!!!!!!
The question is: even if she had received the treatment for the cancer, would she have lived? There is not guarantee on that. But, by waiting for treatment until the baby could be delivered, she guaranteed at least one of them lived.
There is no such requirement.
Assume for the sake of argument that the woman had uterine cancer. Then an act which has as its primary object the saving of the woman's life (a hysterectomy) would have as a necessary consequence the concommitant effect of killing her unborn child.
Since the evil averted is equivalent to the (secondary) evil resulting necessarily from the same act, the primary act is judged to be morally permissible (under the principle of double-effect).
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.
I think that knowledge will be of little comfort to him. People feel survivor's guilt for much less than this. I only say that because it'd be easy to forget that the guilt and heady responsibility this knowledge will bring for the baby/child/adolescent should not be underestimated or taken lightly.
I ~might~ even go so far as to say he'd be much better off not knowing... it'd certainly have to be handled really carefully.
It makes you think that she was married in that the article refers to her other children from her first marriage. I would take that to mean that there was a second marriage--although who knows if this partner was number 2.
The "choice" is normally murder. I'm sure you're not "pro-choice" regarding the criminalization of murder. So the crux of the issue is the humanity of the unborn.
Can you look at the pictures and say that they're not?
"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.
As also the reading in of the word "divorce" where none was mentioned."
Let's be realistic. In the U.S., "partner" still means unmarried and "former marriage" generally means divorce. In this case they might not mean that (and it doesn't matter to me personally what it means) but the vast majority of Americans would read them that way.
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.