A woman was given a terminal cancer diagnosis. She was pregnant and doctors told her she needed to abort the pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant that limits the dose of chemotherapy drugs that can be given to her, because of concern due to how those drugs will affect the fetus. The woman refused to give in, with the odds stacked against her. She was determined to keep her pregnancy, despite what the doctors said. (Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion) Pregnant Woman Chooses Life, Survives Terminal Cancer Diagnosis - YouTube, EWTN, September 3, 2022
I am pro-Choice, Glad that she was allowed to make the choice and the Government did not choose for her this is a free country, the woman should be free to make the choice for herself
What was your point....that women should be able to choose? Yes, they should..... OH WAIT , the Catholic church wouldn't let her abort !!
Oftentimes doctors can tell a woman that she needs to abort, and that is not always true. We talk about women getting necessary abortions for health reasons, but many times those abortions can needlessly kill a preborn child who doesn't absolutely need to be killed. Of course, it can depend how much risk that woman is willing to take to herself. I'm sure there are some women out there who might choose to abort late into the pregnancy because they are told the pregnancy creates a 1 percent risk to them.
Yes - She had the CHOICE as to what she was going to do. What is so ****ing hard for people to understand about the word "choice".
The argument here is that the choice she made was the good choice. Maybe you'd like me to post a story about a woman who aborted because she was told by doctors the late-term fetus might have an abnormality, and then after it came out during an induced labor abortion they discovered no such abnormality actually existed, that the diagnosis had been incorrect. (Of course most of the time the doctors never choose to tell the woman. That would only pointlessly upset her. Or they never find out because the abortion is a suction abortion and the fetus is shredded apart and liquified into a goo, all evidence of whether something was actually wrong destroyed)
Doctors don't make recommendations based on abnormality of outcome. They present the knowledge based on MOST cases and let the patient DECIDE. The patients gets to make the choice. CHOICE. Understand? Pro-Choice. Get it?
NAW, she had no choice at all because her religion (Catholic) is against abortion... OK, now what was the point? The only point you seem to make is that sometimes doctor's make mistakes...WOW what a revelation!!...and so should never recommend an abortion or OBVIOUSLY anything else since OH GEE they may be wrong
Absolute and total nonsense. The issue is that for any individual, doctors can estimate odds given their experience, but they can't tell whether you will win or not. And, having the government require that the woman take mortal risk is absurd. There are people who have survived dire risk. But, that is NOT AN ARGUMENT for having the government REQUIRE that an individual take that risk. Your "1 percent" thing is just more crap. Nobody is basing any decision on 1 percent. You need to get real.
She got to choose. I'd explain that this is consistent with a pro-choice position on abortion, but the term Pro-Choice pretty much does all the explaining necessary.
She received eight to 10 opinions before moving forward with treatment. A couple of doctors told her to terminate the pregnancy and she explained that “it was not necessary at all. My prognosis didn’t change. My treatment plan did not change — pregnant or not pregnant.” She made a choice and that is all pro-choice people are saying...the freedom to choose. https://ewtn.co.uk/article-pregnant...an-with-terminal-cancer-survives-chooses-life
"""(Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion)"""""" She had no choice if she wanted to be one of those ""saintly"" CATHOLICS
Okay, question: What if a woman was told there was a high chance she was going to die unless she received an organ transplant, and the only compatible match was her unborn developing fetus that was growing inside her. Would we be okay with harvesting the organs from her fetus for the sake of the woman's own medical benefit? (this would necessarily kill the fetus) That is actually kind of similar to the ethical dilemma in this story.
What organs does the fetus have that can be harvested? Back to the TOPIC : Once again """"(Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion)"" So she did NOT CHOOSE anything.
FoxHastings said: ↑ What organs does the fetus have that can be harvested? Back to the TOPIC : Once again """"(Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion)"" So she did NOT CHOOSE anything. No, :Once again """"(Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion)"" So she did NOT CHOOSE anything.
There are many Catholics who are not opposed to abortion, certainly not when the chances are that the pregnant woman will otherwise die. Plus, she chooses her religion.
LOL Doctors don't present the data and let the patient decide particularly in very difficult cases. Doctors narrow the choices and often steer the patient in the direction the doctor wants the patient to go. That direction might be the best medical direction (in the doctors opinion), but the MD still influences the patient. Sometimes treatment options presented are limited to what that particular hospital can provide. Sometimes treatment options are limited by what the medical board at the hospital decides are appropriate standards of care. Its like there are options A, B, C, D. The doctor likes A, B, C, but the hospital won't approve C so the MD presents A & B to the patient so the patient can "make the decision".
FoxHastings said: ↑ What organs does the fetus have that can be harvested? Back to the TOPIC : Once again """"(Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion)"" So she did NOT CHOOSE anything. No, :Once again """"(Being a Catholic, she refused to have an abortion)"" So she did NOT CHOOSE anything. And she doesn't appear to be one of them. Oh, c'mon, you know that's not the "choice" we're discussing.
This is all true. There are limits to medical capabilities and solutions for many sound reasons that are not going to change. In the case mentioned, the medical team clearly provided at least two (probably more) choices. The woman chose one of those. It certainly was not the one that gave herself the best chance of surviving, but it WAS her choice. Choice does not mean abortion. Choice means CHOICE. The important point here is that government (legislatures and courts) did not block her from having a choice. The system of "pro choice" absolutely did work for her.
It was entirely her choice what religion she follows and what she believes about health and life. It was HER choice. She was in the care of doctors who presented a range of care options and supported her decision. This is not that rare a situation. In serious health cases it is frequently the case that different approaches to care are offered. For example, there may be a need to choose between months of life and a procedure that might not be survived, but might offer more than those months. And, there are often issues of quality of life after different approaches. Patients do make those choices. The case in the OP is not that much different. --- The point YOU should be celebrating is that "pro choice" allows people to make these decisions. And, the "anti choice" direction means the government is forcing a government decision that has monumental impact on the lives of individuals.
