I saw this in a bad movie I saw on TV last Friday, Lost in the Bermuda Triangle. (And this has nothing to do with the BT.)
A woman goes to the doctor with her husband where she learns the following:
She’s pregnant.
She has cancer.
She can be cured of her cancer with chemotherapy, but the procedure will kill her fetus. It would probably also make her infertile.
She can carry the baby to term, but by then, the cancer will be too far gone to be stopped and she will die.
What would you do?
(The movie was no help. After disappearing into the BT, she was magically cured of her cancer and had her son who had grown to six years old or so by the time her husband found her a week later. The BT was a time vortex. There’s a lot of that going around.)
Since I’m a man, this would not affect me personally. If I were the husband, I’d prefer it if she got the chemotherapy. Perhaps we could have another baby. If the cure makes her sterile, we could adopt. It would be nice to have a Jab Jr. or a Jabette running around, but not at the expense of another person who’s already here, a woman I would presumably love very much. But even so, I would not coerce her. I’d let her know what I’d prefer, but the final decision would be hers.
I am on record here as being anti-abortion. However, I do not see this as being of the same ethical proportions. The purpose of the chemotherapy is not to kill the fetus, it is to cure the mother. An unfortunate side effect of that chemo is the loss of the fetus.
I think either decision is therefore morally justified, and should be left in the hands of the woman.
I’m not sure what I do – I rather think I would go for the chemo, especially at this stage in my life where I have three children to raise.
As a man, the only ethical choice is to urge your loved one to take the cure.
As a mother, I personally think I would take the cure also. I even think that’s the more ethical decision, because otherwise
a) You’re committing suicide, and
b) Your child would grow up with no one to raise them, and
c) There is always the chance of a miscarriage, so your sacrifice might be for nothing.
Quand les talons claquent, l’esprit se vide.
Maréchal Lyautey
I think that I would pick…the Time Vortex!
Leaving that possibility out, and not being a woman, I don’t think I have the information I would need to make such a decision.
You are driving in your car…your child in the car seat in the back seat…you have a blowout…car spins…you end up in the other lane…you look up…semi coming at you…
now…
You have time to save yourself…but not to save you and your child. What would you do?
If you can’t convince them, confuse them.
Harry S. Truman
Okay, which primal urge is going to win? Self-preservation or protection of our children?
I’d use the superhuman strength that we’re supposed to get in these situations – rip the car seat right out and leap 40 or so feet to the safety of the nearest ditch.
Actually, hoping I had a second or two to think about it, I’d try to save the child. How could I live with myself if I didn’t try?
How about asking the semi driver if he’d take the ditch? My uncle (who I’m named after) did this to avoid hitting someone, and died.
That’s a truly rotten question. A good one, but rotten.
In my very humble opinion, it depends on whether she already has other kids. If she does, she definitely should try to cure her cancer so she’d be around for them.
A lady at my church actually faced this decision. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer while she was 5 months pregnant with her second child. She decided to give birth to the child in what must have been an agonizing decision. Her husband apparently wanted her to have an abortion, but I do not know them personally so I wasn’t privy to their conversations.
She died a year after the child was born. Who knows whether or not she’d have lived anyway. I’m sure her husband wondered the same thing. BTW, he’s since re-married.
Personally, I think I would have an abortion if the baby was in its first trimester. After that, I just don’t think I could live with myself if I killed my child to save myself. But who knows really unless you’re face with that decision.
As for the child in the car and a semi’s coming, no doubt about it, I’d save my child.
If I was faced with a “Sophie’s Choice”, I’d take both my children’s hands and go to the gas chamber together, rather than choose one over the other.
I agree with David on the first question. In the ethical system to which I subscribe, abortion is mandatory if the life of the mother is endangered by continuation of the pregnancy.
I read the second question differently. I thought the implication was that you didn’t have time to save the child at all–the choice was to save yourself, or stay in the car with your child and die together. In that case, I think you’re obligated to save yourself, as horrible as that would be. If it is indeed a choice between me and my child, I’m with everyone else that I’d save my kid.
Sophie’s Choice is a much harder question. I don’t think it’s ok to commit murder (that is, to kill an innocent third party under threat of death–it’s ok to kill an enemy in self-defense) to save yourself or another. On the other hand, was Sophie being asked to commit murder, or was she being asked whether to save zero people versus saving two people (IIRC, she could save herself and one child, or all three could be killed)? I’m very conflicted on this. As the father of two, I totally understand PunditLisa’s position that it’s an impossible choice. I can’t imagine how horrible it would be to have to choose which of my children to lose (even the thought nauseates me), but I might also argue that it would be better to at least save one of them. This one makes my head hurt…
Sophie’s choice was to pick one of her two children.
On a related note, when John Kennedy Jr. and his wife were killed, when I heard that his wife was also on the plane, I remarked, “Oh, good.” My sister was shocked. I don’t know why, but it comforted me that they died together.
I felt the same way about the couple that chose to stay together on the Titanic versus the woman getting on the lifeboat to watch the boat, with her husband aboard, sink.
I guess I’d rather die holding hands with the person I love more than life itself rather than face life without them.
You may be right about the way the question was asked. The problem, though, is that you never know there won’t be enough time to save your child. So I would try. Maybe that means I would die with him, but I would die trying to save him (shielding him with my body to avoid flying glass and the like if necessary). Basically, I’m saying the question, if it was meant to be asked the way you said it, was too hypothetical to make sense in the real world. Maybe I have time to save my child, maybe I don’t. But I’m damn well gonna try.
For those who missed the news… They had a terrible marriage and were on the verge of filing for divorce. This was supposed to be their last public appearance together.
OK. I have a tendency to accept hypotheticals at face value, which I suppose makes me boring. Clearly, in the real world, I’m not going to be able to calculate the odds of getting my kid(s) out of the car in time–I’m just going to do whatever I can to get to get them out. So, I also find myself in full agrement with David. Thanks for pointing out this better answer, David.
If I remember right, Sophie’s choice was to choose one of her kids or the soldier was going to choose for her. This is actually more of a dilemma than the question of “one of you or all of you” because it is actually forcing her to decide between her own preferences and blind luck. She loves her son more than her daughter, so she forces herself to choose to save him. This adds to the importance later that she try to convince the director to save him - its not just his life on the line but the validity of her (extremely painful) choice.
The “save the mother or save the baby” thing happened to my grandmother. She had several children, in quick succession, and was told by the doctor that another baby might kill her. It was during the 20s, they were very poor, and my grandmother (so my mom says) was exhausted, depressed and unstable. When asked if she would rather risk her own life and try to carry the baby to term, or abort the baby, my grandmother wanted to risk it. She didn’t really care about her own life. (Probably she was so tired that she didn’t care anymore!) My grandfather insisted that my grandmother spare her own life, and have the baby aborted. There were so many kids at home that needed their mother, it was the only option.
I have heard Dr. Laura, who is strongly anti-abortion, urge a listener (who faced a simular situation) to get the abortion and spare her life. Dr. Laura reminded this woman that she had other children at home that needed to be cared for, and that the baby in her womb was “not meant to be”.
I’m going to stick to the initial dilemma: save the mother, definitely.
My wife and I have talked about that one over the years. She says if the choice ever comes up for us, and she’s unconscious on the operating table, I’d better choose her over the baby. I agree. Since it seems that that’s the general sentiment here, I’m wondering what this means.
Just to put the dilemma on the most even footing possible, let’s assume the mother is married to a man who would be a capable parent on his own, and that there are no other kids in the picture.
When we choose to save the mother over the unborn child, does that reflect some real difference in value between the two, or are we just operating out of our prejudices: to favor the one we know over the one we don’t; to favor the person whose uniqueness is already a part of our life, over the unborn child that (to us, anyway) is still fungible?
BTW, the answer to Sophie’s choice is to say: “If you kill any or all of us, the blood is on your hands alone; the choice you’re offering is what’s immoral. I refuse to share in your guilt and depravity.” Of course, how many of us would think that clearly in real life?
)