When Stacie Crimm found out that she had finally gotten pregnant at 41, she was overjoyed. So overjoyed that she knew exactly what to do when faced with the decision of whether to save her life or her unborn baby's, newsok.com reports.
After she was diagnosed with neck cancer, Crimm decided to refuse chemotherapy. The heroic mom survived long enough to deliver her 2-pound, 1 ounce daughter, Dottie Mae, and hold the baby in her arms, just once.
“This baby was everything she had in this world," Crimson's brother, Ray Phillips told the news outlet.
Unfortunately, this isn't just a tragic-yet-inspirational story. Every time I'm directed to a HuffPo story I can't help but scroll down and view the comments. Most of the comments are what you would hope to see, but there's a noticeable number that aren't. Here are some:
That's not a selfless decision. Now she has left a motherless child, her own parents have lost a child and her husband has lost a wife. I would say that that was a selfish decision. I bet the people would have rather had her get treatment and keep her around then give birth to an undersized baby that will probably have health issues itself.
this was an incredibly selfish act..now this child will be motherless with a considerably lesser chance of a fair shake in society...a termination in this case would have been appropriate.
That woman is an idiot. She could have lived longer and had another child or adopted a child. Instead she was selfish, kept the baby knowing she needed treatment and now the baby will grow up without a mother.
That's just ridiculous. Why don't you get better then try to conceive again.
There are many more posts that are like these, but most can't be taken out of the context of the thread they're in. By no means is this how a majority of people are choosing to express themselves, but (as stated above) its significant enough to make one uncomfortable. One comment from a particularly terrible serial poster caught my eye:
But when I bring up how the anti-choice crowd uses these stories as propaganda, suddenly I'm the one bringing in politics.....sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh...........
It's simply impossible to get away from politics on this issue. Why? Because in an age where women are encouraged to kill their unborn children when they are considered an inconvenience, Stacie Crimm's story is incredible. The woman who posted that comment missed the glaring flaw in her argument: Pro-Choicers believe that the Unborn are fetuses, not human beings. When you approach the situation from that perspective then the only logical conclusion is that Stacie Crimm didn't make a heroic decision, but chose to commit suicide. It's natural for elements of the Pro-Choice crowd to be mystified by this decision since Stacie chose to give up a human life (her own) for a bundle of cells. That's the logical thought process if you use their perspective, and it also reveals them to be Pro-Abortion, not Pro-Choice.
Stacie's decision emphasizes the value of the Unborn's life, and calls into question the notion that the Unborn are not people worthy of protection. The question isn't "Does a mother have a right to abort her child if her life is at risk?", its something far more fundamental to the entire debate: "Is this unborn child a human being?". Stacie obviously decided her daughter was a person who deserved a mother's love and protection and a chance at life.