If we protect the present now,we can always protect a future later.By continuing the treatment you aren't saving the marriage per se but a full fledged life first.Who knows what happens to their marriage in future but we do know for sure what would happen to a life,if not protected NOW.What would be worse losing your true love %26amp; life partner, or losing your child, if you had to decide ?
partner. If we don't mind sending our soldiers to die 10000 kms away for sure we can terminate an early pregnancy. It is up to the mother.
Well said lacy u
You sure ask a whooper of a question.
.the things we don't know is the treatments she was taking.Ina case where a women is PG. and is no more than very early condition,the doctor and family will discuse Aborting.
the tretment of cancer is radition and cemo and in radition of 18 -28 treatments .this hasto be done
on a day after day,every day till completed,followed up with tretments of cemo.
End results,it may be in remision.most of the time
the cancer showes up in a different area.
Most likely the mother would want the baby to live.the wife would live on through the child.
I dought that this matter would get that far.
It's a question ask by most doctors early in treatment.NOT family Doctor but cancer Doc.
Yes some cancer patients survive and live a long
time,and they are called SURVIVERS,and have
fund raiseres for other's.what hurts is children
with it.
In this situation it is a miserable choice to be made. Spouses are, in a perfect world, going to be together long after the children are gone. However, I also believe that a mother has to put her children above everyone else when they are at the stage of life where they are totally dependent on her. Too bad they were not more careful about getting pregnant at that time. Ultimately the choice is in the hands of the individual. Nobody should be able to dictate your medical/moral choices. A right to chose abortion also means a right to chose not to have one.
you shouldnt be thinking that way obviously no pain hurts like loosing a child but if i lost the father of my child id hurt as much we hurt in different ways to different things everyone copes differently
That has to be one of the most awful situations you would ever have to face. I guess, if it was my first child, I might sacrifice myself for the baby, but it would have to depend on a lot of other factors,,, could my husband care for the child and bring it up alone... would that even be fair to him? If I already had children, I might choose to save myself... I don't know, but my born children would also have a right to have their mother present in their lives for as long as possible.. Ohh, really hard question.
Wow. Nice question - really! Without hesitation, I would also say it would be FAR worse to lose a child. In fact, I'll directly disagree with someone who answered above me when they said a couple would be together long after a child is gone. In my own opinion, your child will ALWAYS be your child. There's no legal process that breaks that blood relation. I think a child will be there MUCH longer than any significant other.
I've even thought to put myself in a womans shoes (Bear with me here.) If I am pregnant, and there's a decision to make similar to yours with not just the risk involved, but my definitive death as a result of taking the pregnancy to term. I have already lived a life. I may not be ready to die, but this little child inside me has every right to experience all I have this far. If one of us has to go, then let it be me.
I don't have children, so perhaps you will deem me ';unqualified'; to voice an opinion on this matter. But, you asked so here it goes.
If I were pregnant and the choice came between saving me or saving my unborn child, I would beg my bf and my doctors to save my baby. I know it would leave my bf without his life partner and my child without its mother, but that's what I would do.
I have had this discussion with my husband many times posed as this questions
';if a man had a gun as was going to shoot and kill either me or our child, which one would you tell him to shoot and kill?';
The answer would always be to let the adult die. They have had a chance to live a life, while the child has many years ahead of them. If you were in a situation where your child was gravely ill, wouldn't you want to take that child's place to end their suffering and take it on yourself?
That's part of being a parent..sacrificing yourself and your needs for the needs and good of your child.
People that don't feel that way don't need to have kids.
I think it is really brave of her to risk it on the baby. I know I would have done the same to save my baby had i been given the chance. Even though they are not born you develope a special bond with them. And nothing hurts more than knowing you lost your baby because you couldn't save it. Trust me, i would know.
Save the kid - no question
Worse? losing your child of course! You can always get another husband/wife.
If i were in her position, then i would keep the treatment goin because there is never going to be another me. And there is always going to be another child in my life. i would have never got to know the baby and see it and hold it and see it's personality, so i don't think i would have that big an attachment.
If this was me I would terminate my pregnancy and carry on treatment especially if I had other children already and if I did survive the cancer I could go on to have more children if I wanted.
well I have two kids but before they were born i did love them but i didn't know them. so that would be difficult but less to lose. that being said I now would die for either one of my kids no matter what
child... no hesitation... that is definitely worse...
No comments:
Post a Comment