Monday's Morals

Monday’s Morals – Episode 37


A cancer patient is being denied potentially life-saving treatment because of strict anti-abortion laws. This is happening in Nicaragua, where laws against abortion are among the world’s most restrictive.

Because the cancer drugs could harm the fetus, doctors are not able to do anything to help the 27-year-old patient who doctors think will certainly die if not treated. A government-run medical commission is expected to announce a decision on appeals for treatment some time today.

This week’s question has you facing this same dilemma.

  • First to play last week: psychfun . Congratulations!
  • (According to the rules, “First to Play” requires you to be the first to include the link to the specific entry in which you answered the questions, not just the general link to your blog.)

Here is this week’s “Monday’s Morals” question. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your blog…but either way, leave a link to your site so that everyone else can visit! If you repost the questions on your site, you must link back to this site as the source. Permission is not granted to copy the questions to message boards for the purpose of having members answer and play along there.

You have the authority to allow doctors to treat a young female cancer patient who is pregnant. The drugs that could save her life may also destroy the fetus she is carrying. Assuming the mother wants to live and wants her baby to live as well, would you allow the treatment to occur to potentially save the mother, even if it means potentially killing the unborn child? Why or why not?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.

the authorPatrick
Patrick is a Christian with more than 30 years experience in professional writing, producing and marketing. His professional background also includes social media, reporting for broadcast television and the web, directing, videography and photography. He enjoys getting to know people over coffee and spending time with his dog.


  • My feelings are always toward the mother’s survival. The mother, once treated, may have another child. The child current in gestation, on the other hand, will be orphaned and may not survive the treatment anyway. Either way you look at it, the potential for the baby’s survival is limited. I would agree to whatever the parents decide; but my private opinion is for the mother to survive.

    When it comes to older women getting pregnant and having the amniocentesis to see if the baby is healthy or has Down’s Syndrome, autism, or other maladies that will severely impair the fetus, I once again agree with the parents’ right to choose. I know speaking for myself, I would not allow myself to carry a fetus – not because I’m 43 (although I do feel that ship has sailed) but because I have dystrophia myotonia II and the baby will have it and it will show symptoms earlier than I did. Why subject another human to this?

    And of course, you know I am a staunch advocate of Roe v. Wade!

  • I think it’s the patient’s choice, not mine, not the government’s, not the doctors’, the patient’s, with the full understanding of potential outcomes if she is treated.

    Really, in this case especially, if God wants a baby to be born healthy, don’t people understand that God will arrange things to make it happen. How big is God, if we think he can’t make anything possible?

Comments are closed.