Lessons from a Mother's Sacrifice

This morning I woke up to see an article about a mother who made a deliberate decision to sacrifice herself in order to have her baby.  The story is tragic, but there's also something very beautiful about the way it expresses motherhood: A mother giving her life to ensure that the child within her would simply have a chance at life.  When you think about it, its almost strange that this article would be newsworthy; Isn't it a given that a mother, or indeed any parent, would sacrifice themselves to save their children?  Deep down, I think most people know this is how it should be:

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.

Pro-Life consistency

For the past couple years I've been struggling with my Pro-Life views.  The issue isn't whether or not the fetus is a child, but rather it's a problem I have with the Pro-Life movement. It's also the issue that zombie discussed in a recent post he made to PJTV:

I think both sides of the abortion debate are lying and have been lying since the argument first arose. Anyone who wants to forbid abortion “except in cases of rape or incest” is, frankly, full of crap. And here’s why:

If you truly are “pro-life” in that you believe abortion is murder because the unborn child is a full-fledged human being, then you wouldn’t so casually allow the child to be murdered simply based on its parent’s misbehavior.

Most people who are anti-abortion adopt the label “pro-life” based on the shared notion that the zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what its stage of development, is an undiminished human being with full human rights. And that’s a principled position which I can respect — if you stick to it consistently. But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed. Because if you really and truly believed that an embryo was a full human being, then you wouldn’t allow it to be murdered simply because its father was a bad man.

Zombie starts his post out by saying that he's not going to make any friends by writing this, and I'm sure that more than a few people won't be able to stomach everything he has to say.  However his review of both sides, while harsh, is 100% accurate and something that long needed to be said.  At this point I'm going to recommend fully reading the article, which I'll go ahead and link again.

The Pro-Life movement has attatched an asterisk next to their platform.  

"A fetus is a life!*"
*: Except in cases of rape or incest.

In terms of political pragmatism, that asterisk makes sense.  Abortion isn't particularly popular in this country, but then again neither is the thought of forcing a woman, who was just raped, to carry the child of the man who raped her.  However this isn't an argument about what is politically pragmatic.  This is an argument about the intellectual, and principled consistency of the Pro-Life movement, and as zombie points out, the people who buy into and promote this pragmatism aren't really Pro-Life so much as they are anti-abortion, or anti-sex.  The main concerns of any Pro-Life person are in protecting an innocent Human life, not on what is going to be easiest to sell to the American public.  Looking at it from this perspective you inevitably reach the conclusion that there is no valid reason to punish an innocent person for a crime someone else committed, or as zombie puts it "Allowing a rape-and-incest exception to any abortion ban essentially means we are willing to punish the children for the sins of the father."

The argument may not be a winner, but if you truly believe that a fetus is a life, what other conclusion can you reach?  When innocent lives are at stake, principle needs to trump pragmatism every time.  The Pro-Life movement needs to drop the asterisk.