Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She should have gotten treatment and stayed pregnant. As it is, she's dead years sooner than she might have been, and she leaves behind a sick micro-preemie and 5 other young kids.
GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.
She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.
That wasn't her choice. You cannot go through GBM treatment while pregnant. You think she wouldn't have if that had been a choice? WTF?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She should have gotten treatment and stayed pregnant. As it is, she's dead years sooner than she might have been, and she leaves behind a sick micro-preemie and 5 other young kids.
GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.
She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.
Anonymous wrote:I'm as pro-choice as they get. Part of being pro-choice is recognizing people will make a different choice than you. This was a private decision, made based on their priorities, circumstances, and between husband and wife. What you or I or anyone else would have done is irrelevant. She made the decision right for her and her values and her family.
It's sad all around. Even if she had chosen differently, it's not like she would be living some dream existence with her diagnosis.
Leave the judgment behind.
Anonymous wrote:All the "pro-choice" women who condemn - and hatefully - any woman's choice that would not be their choice: You shed so much light, and I thank you for your honesty. Anonymous insights are priceless.
Anonymous wrote:I lost my mom to cancer at 15 and would have given the world to have one more month, one more week, even one more good day with her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She should have gotten treatment and stayed pregnant. As it is, she's dead years sooner than she might have been, and she leaves behind a sick micro-preemie and 5 other young kids.
GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I found out I had cancer while pregnant. I opted for an aggressive surgery while still pregnant ("essentially cut the cancer out") and then as soon as my child was born, I did chemo. It is an AWFUL position to be in. Don't judge.
Here is to your continued good health.
+1 I hope you stay healthy, PP.
And I have to think that this pregnancy probably wasn't your sixth child? Part of the calculus with such a decision must involve thinking about the kids born already--I can't think how adding a micro-premie to a newly single parent household of five kids helped anyone. This situation sounds like pro-life ideology stretched to an extreme, not thinking about all the lives involved.
Yes, this. The thought of the two-year-old breaks my heart. Another year or two with his or her mother would have made all the difference for this child.
Anonymous wrote:I hate these stories and wish they'd stop publizing them.
Just more prolife fodder.
The women is not a hero.
Anonymous wrote:I lost my mom to cancer at 15 and would have given the world to have one more month, one more week, even one more good day with her.