If this does not make you tear up, you have a heart of stone.
For those who can’t watch the video (no, seriously, watch it) a young pregnant mother named Ashley Bridges was told she had bone cancer while pregnant. To get life-saving treatment she would have had to kill the baby. The mother refused. She delivered the baby early and received treatment, but has still only been given a year to live.
So why did she do it? Easy answer: “’There’s no way I could kill a healthy baby because I’m sick,’ Bridges told CBS2’s Kristine Lazar.”
Despite saying that she’s “living a nightmare”, Bridges has no regrets. Contrast this with the incredibly high percentage of women experiencing mental health issues after abortion – some studies showing that over 90% regret the murder of their child.*
I can do nothing here but applaud and deeply admire the courage involved in Bridges’ decision. Look at how simple the logic is – you can’t kill a healthy baby because you’re sick. This is deep, sacrificial love, a beautiful and Holy thing even in the midst of tragedy.
I’m disgusted by the hypocrisy of the media, though. When the mother is a hero who is showing tremendous courage and sacrificing her own life to save her child, it’s a baby.
When the woman has an abortion, it’s a fetus. They should be ashamed.
So, Mrs. Bridges, Malcolm the Cynic salutes you and prays for you and your children (that’s right – she also has a six year old). May the Blessed Virgin Mary, the ultimate pro-life Mother, and the patron Saint of the blog, Saint John the Baptist, watch over your family.
And kudos on showing our twisted modern world what true girl power looks like.
*You’ll find a couple of reports claiming that abortion doesn’t affect women at all, but when I looked at those studies they inevitably interviewed less people, interviewed them less often, and were far less comprehensive then the numerous studies showing opposite results – and there were more studies showing the opposite results as well. Intuitively it makes a lot of sense as well, no?
Malcolm the Cynic 
That’s the decision I would make were I a woman and in that situation.
On the other hand, were it my wife in that situation, while I’d want her to make that decision, I wouldn’t in any way pressure her to make it. And, as I’m just human, I realize I’d be torn — wanting her to make both decisions (which is, of course, impossible) — and so at any given time, there is no telling which decision I’d in my heart-of-hearts be wanting her to make.
It really is an amazing sacrifice.
By the way, I must have a heart of stone: I didn’t tear up … and, in fact, I was annoyed by the tears on display.
Ha! Don’t feel bad; it’s a good rhetorical flourish in a post like this. I don’t get teary-eyed easily either.
This case is one of those exceedingly rare “hard cases” — that is, an abortion, if procured, isn’t really about killing he baby, but about trying to save the mother’s life — the possibility of which is used as a main justification for the vast mass of abortions, in which the mother’s life is not endangered and the abortion really is all about killing the baby.
I was even more annoyed by the woman “reporter” — she came across (to me) as reading her lines through clenched teeth. But, even aside from that (which may be in my hearing rather than her speaking), she has one of those all-too-common-for-women-in-local-news unpleasant voices that really grates on me.
I didn’t hear that myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she was unwilling to cover the story. It’s not a PC message coming across here.