|
I can't have children, but taking the hypothetical in the OP as a given--I'm pregnant, it's possible to save my life or the baby's, and I'm not able to decide on my own, I'd want Grace to choose the baby over me. She wouldn't (we've discussed this very issue as a part of our preparation for starting our own family); she'd choose to save my life, and I can hardly blame her as I'd make the same choice with her.
This very situation has occurred. There have been a handful of young pregnant women who suffer an injury and end up in a coma. One became a big issue case in the abortion debate when the husband wanted to abort the fetus to try to save his wife.
It isn't exactly parallel because in the case of comatose pregnant women, those who've attempted to take the baby to term have more often resulted in a miscarriage with stillborn child and a dead mother. Only when the mother is near term has the child survived, but this inevitably is fatal for the mother.
The other case is one in which a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and requires chemotherapy to treat the cancer, but that chemo will kill the fetus. Treat the cancer or carry the child to term? I've read cases where both decisions were made.
I think the key here is that it's a decision that can and should only be made by the person in the situation and politics and outside opinions should be left out of it.
Gilda
|