Woman Told of Fetal Abnormalities: "I Will Not be the Killing Hand."

By Tim WaggonerOTTAWA, August 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 20 weeks into her pregnancy, a happily married Catholic teacher was informed her baby had holoprocencephaly - a hole in the brain stem - as well as fluid in the brain and a severe heart condition. After being given her medical…

Full article…

“20 weeks into her pregnancy, a happily married Catholic teacher was informed her baby had holoprocencephaly - a hole in the brain stem - as well as fluid in the brain and a severe heart condition. After being given her medical ‘options’, including the choice to terminate her baby’s life, she informed her doctor that she refused to be the one responsible for her child’s death, trusting that God had a plan for her son.”

Twenty weeks, folks.

“The little one in my womb is moving around, kicking his mother, and hopefully enjoying a refreshing swim.** I am told that he knows **no pain, and that while he is in the uterus, he is as safe as can be. I walk him every day, talk to him often, and pray for him always,” she said.

Just sayin’.

(Nice to be back.)


and remember under Hillary -care, her refusal to abort would have resulted in the cancellation of all medical benefits for the child … she would have had to pay for it all because she refused to be a party to her child’s death. Anyone think Obama-Care would be any different?

I thought we were prohibited from mentioning particular candidates or parties on this forum. Or did I just dream that?


He knows no pain, because he is not suffering because of his ailments. I don’t think she meant he cannot feel pain.

Shouldn’t the Catholic mom have a choice to not kill her unborn child?

The fetus has reached 20 weeks’ gestation. The mother says she has been assured that it knows no pain. Not that it knows no pain from the malformation of its brain or its heart problem. According to the report, this mother has been told that the fetus knows no pain from holoprosencephaly, which might include cranio-facial abnormalities or skeletal or neurological or muscular problems. Might the person(s) who told her that be medical staff who have considerable experience with this condition? Might this then not affirm that a 20-week-old fetus cannot sense pain? If this fetus is not suffering from any or all of these conditions, then I feel it is fair to say that it cannot feel pain.

Of course the Catholic mom should have a choice to not terminate a pregnancy. So should moms of every faith - or no faith. By the same token, there will continue to be moms who need to consider every option when presented with the news that they are pregnant. The option for every woman will not be the same. This is the essence of choice. Your choice might not be another woman’s choice.


He knows no pain until he is torn limb from limb, then of course the pain would be excruciating. And he is as safe as safe can be until he is murdered with no escape.

There is a very nice website with lots of information and assistance for those who have just received an adverse prenatal diagnosis. It is prenatalpartnersforlife.com.

Of course, some of these choices you speak of only God has the right to make.
The choice of termination should not be an option.

You know, when I was in high school, I remember feeling very clever and anti-establishment wearing this shirt from The Body Shop which had a quote by Jeremy Bentham reading, "The question is not, “Can they reason?, nor, Can they talk?, but, Can they suffer?”. It was supposed to convey my contempt for the establishment’s callus treatment and consumption of animals- or something like that. :rolleyes:

Now that I’m no longer a child, I see that the “do they feel pain?” argument is just irrelevant in the discussion on the termination of human life. Whether or not a human being can feel pain should not determine their right to live.

Just sayin’.

Excuse me? Hillary-care requiring abortion? When and where was this stated?!

No one has to have an abortion. Particularly for this condition, which in its severest form is 100% fatal before or after birth. As a matter of fact, it would be better for the mother to carry the fetus to term, as the organs can be used for transplants.

Ummmm…why is my post being quoted in your above post? I didn’t say anything about Hillary-care. :shrug:

Medical research continues into when a baby feels pain, but the receptors spread throughout the body at seven weeks’ gestation and fetuses do react to stimuli in ways that suggest pain. The development of the baby’s reactions may reflect the gradual inensification of unpleasant stimuli or the development of the child’s ability to respond by moving away, making crying expressions and grimacing. Ability to react and ability to feel are different things. So, while it is possible that whoever told this mother her child doesn’t feel pain meant he literally can’t feel pain at all even if his arms and legs were pulled off, and it is possible that that person knew something the rest of medical science doesn’t, it is also highly possible that one or the other of those assumptions is false, and this child can feel pain. It is indeed possible that he has had the capacity to hurt for three calendar months now.
His right not to be killed does not depend on his ability to suffer during the killing, as his mother wisely understands. The mere possibility that it would have hurt him to be killed would have simply been an aggravating factor if someone had done so.

It isn’t about choice exactly. It is exactly about law and justice. Anytime a human life is considered to be terminated before it’s natural death it must go through a judicial review/court to be valid in order to end the life. This is the fallacy with Roe v Wade as law. It isn’t a legitimate law since Congress did not pass it and the President did not sign it, and that is the only way new law can be introduced in America.

No human (individual or social/government entity) has the right to end the life of another human without approval from a legitimate authority. The womans choice is to have sex or not. Peoples (men and women) choices after conception do not include killing without a lawfull determination by a legitimate authority.

And the man’s choice?


The same.


Do you, like strngrnrth, believe that it is also the man’s choice not to have sex? If that is so, why did you not state your full thought on the issue? As a matter of fact, I see that you have assigned responsibility to the man only **after **conception in your post:

“The womans choice is to have sex or not. Peoples (men and women) choices after conception do not include killing without a lawfull determination by a legitimate authority.”

Legalisms aside, would it have weakened your argument to recognize women’s **and men’s **complete responsibility in unwanted conception without someone having to lasso it and drag it out of you?

Did you hope the “oversight” would go unnoticed?


You, ma’am (or sir), are an amazing person!

I am shocked how you trivialize another’s life just so YOU can push your own agenda. You spout your pro-women views but yet you give no thought to the pain a woman who has had an abortion has to over come. You calm that you care about a woman’s view but yet you are willing to say that her child is not human and could be murdered and it would make no deference to the world.

Who do you think you are fooling? There are many who can see through your lies. Do you honestly thinking you are helping a woman who finds herself in bad situation, by advising her to KILL her child? And if so how?

You talk about minding your own business, I sure hope that when you are in need others wont have the same nonchalant attitude as you have for your fellow human being.

Very sad indeed. My heart breaks for you and your indifference to the murder of so many innocent human beings.

st lucy,

Where in my post to Verisimilitude did I “trivialize another’s life” in order that I might “push [my] own agenda”? And what do you interpret that agenda to be?

I most certainly do care about a woman’s view, whether or not she is pregnant, whether or not she agrees with me, whether or not she she is absolutely ignorant. Where did I say an abortion could take place and “it would make no deference [sic] to the world”?!

I make my thoughts and feelings as clear as I possibly can in an effort to fool no one. I have never in my life advised a woman to have an abortion. It is not my place to do so. Even if she solicits my opinion I never advise. So if you are shocked, as you claim, then it is because of your faulty interpretation of my post(s).

Lies? Name one. Tell me how you think I have lied and I will try to help you to understand how I have done no such thing.

“You spout your pro-women views,” you admonish, “but yet you give no thought to the pain a woman who has had an abortion has to over come.”

I am pro-women for a lot of reasons, but one critical reason, st lucy, is that** I know the pain.** My abortion took place before Roe v Wade. I have had forty years to give serious thought, meditation and prayer to the issue of abortion and the pain that it can cause. Can you say the same?

Your heart doesn’t break for me. I breaks for the person you think I am.


Seems to me you are trying to create a red herring here.
Your own initial foray into this debate addressed only the woman’s choices.
You cannot blame susequent responses to your initial answer not mentioning a man’s side on anyone but yourself.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.