Moms Defy Opinions And The Odds To Choose Life

In our increasingly liberal culture, many American women find themselves under attack by feminists for standing for life.

The new feminist movement has focused on a “me first” agenda in which pro-life women are criticized for daring to put the rights of the unborn before their own.

In a society where women are pushed to be equal to men, and where children are often viewed as a “nuisance” on a woman’s path to power and success, several women are coming forward with testimonies that give hope in the fight against the liberal anti-life culture in America today.

The modern feminist would never consider putting a child ahead of their career and self-involved life goals, let alone making the decision to put their life in danger to save their unborn child.

LifeSite News reported on an awe-inspiring story of one woman who did just that.

Becky Anderson was two months into her pregnancy when she was diagnosed with cervical cancer.

LifeSite News reported:

Her doctors gave Becky a terrifying ultimatum — end the pregnancy and start treatment straight away, or risk the cancer spreading.

Becky said: “They wanted to give me a hysterectomy the following week but I was adamant I would not have an abortion.”

It is not clear from the story whether “abortion”means here a hysterectomy for cancer treatment with the unintended side-effect that the twins would die, or whether a genuinely abortive procedure with the aim of lethally attacking the twins was proposed.

Becky said: “I’d gone from being on top of the world to being in the depths of despair, worrying whether I was going to actually survive…I knew I needed to survive for the sake of my children. There was no way I was leaving them.”

“I kept thinking that their lives were just starting while mine could be ending, but it was a risk I was willing to take.”

Becky chose to risk her own life so that her twins could live, a decision criticized by liberal feminists, but that made her a powerful witness for choosing life.

Becky’s twins were born healthy, and she was able to start treatment to treat her cancer.

And in another stunning case of a woman fighting against the anti-life culture that often pervades modern medicine, Ashley Caughey put off her cancer treatment to give her daughter a chance at life also.

Live Action reported:

An X-ray revealed the news Ashley Caughey dreaded to her. A doctor told her she had a bone cancer known as osteosarcoma. During this same time, Ashley found out she was 10 weeks pregnant. The doctors wanted her to begin chemotherapy as soon as possible, but Ashley knew that that would harm her child.

They told me what would likely happen to Paisley, that you know, she most likely wouldn’t make it and I just knew. It wasn’t a choice to me. It was like this is what needs to be done. She’s first. I’m not going to kill a healthy baby because I’m sick. There’s nothing wrong with her. Her life is just as important as mine if not more important. I mean as a mother my job is to protect my kids.

These testimonials enrage feminists who could never understand putting anyone ahead of their own needs and goals.

And they give hope that our increasingly liberal society will eventually turn against the anti-life culture that has risen up out of the early feminist movements.

The Atlantic reported on the feminist notion that a woman must place her own needs before those of her child.

Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.

In feminists’ view, a woman is not permitted to put the needs of other people first, because “self-sacrifice” is the linchpin of female oppression. Instead, she is expected to ascend to a higher level of enlightened self-regard, where the act of putting her own needs first is tantamount to striking a blow for women’s freedom.

The chief goal of feminists is to restructure the family as a totally contractual arrangement from which anyone, but especially any woman, may withdraw at will.

We can give thanks and praise that there are still women in America today who not only choose life for their children, but choose the sanctity of their child’s life above their own.

The stories of these brave women, and those of many others, give hope that a culture of life will eventually overcome the feminist hypocrisy so readily accepted in America, and so heavily covered by the liberal media.

27 Comments

  1. Feminist only have children on demand. One only has to look at NBC morning shows to see those people parading their children before a audience or have to adopt if they do not have one to benefit that station. They are not really mothers. To see a real mother go look at Kellyanne Conway

  2. Aileen Milton says:

    So proud of these Women – God Bless and protect these mothers and their beautiful children

  3. The self-absorbed women today only care for their own ego; a group of pompous hypocrites, modeled after their goddess, Maude…

  4. Abortion should be… safe, legal, and rare.

    Keep your laws out of women’s uteri. And, use some of your energy to teach family planning.

    • theescotsman says:

      so said Phillip who was not aborted . . . .

      • Really? Is that the best you could do???

        • theescotsman says:

          Think about it for a moment, Phillip – not all retorts have to highly intelligent, rapier, to be a ‘zinger’. Had your mother, for whatever reason, decided to abort you, think of all that you have lived through and all the people you have touched that would not have been exposed to you. On the other hand, that could be a good thing . . .

          • You “retort” is idiotic by any measure.

            You should be ashamed of yourself not only for your marginal intellect, but more so for your sheer foolishness and lack of common decency.

            It’s disgraceful that you wear a US uniform.

          • theescotsman says:

            Do I hear a chorus of How Great Thou Art when you begin to type?

            You are a pompous ass, sir.

            And what branch of service did you enter?

          • Note my reply to PW, above.

            Not pompous, just respectful, and deserving of respect.

            And, although I have not been active military, I have taught MANY military and veteran students via eArmyU and other such programs, and have many friends and relatives who are military or veteran. Thus, I have come to know and respect many people who serve, and your behavior/comments pale in comparison to their fine examples. That aside, why does my role within the military have to do with the contradiction between you presenting yourself as a man of honor (i.e., your military uniform) and your degrading comment towards someone who has done nothing more than disagree with you? That is, I am using my 1st Amendment right to express an opinion (just as you are) that you have taken an oath to protect. FWIW… by your reasoning, the only person who could take exception to a judge taking a bribe, would be another judge. Clearly this is not good reasoning.

          • theescotsman says:

            if you can’t ‘do’ – or for lack of courage, won’t – then ‘teach’.

            You are ‘all hat and no cattle’

          • There are many ways to be brave and serve your country.

            Since my students are in medical and pre-medical programs, and that you don’t value my contributions, if/when you ever need medical care, please ask your caregiver(s) if they were ever my student. As you claim to be a man of your word, I expect that you’ll (foolishly) refuse their care.

          • getstryker says:

            Oh yeah . . . let’s see: “Oh, were you ever a student of ‘Phillip?’ . . . you know – the supposed medical/pre-medical program instructor with an apparent IQ three points below a carrot? He was the one handing out suckers to the little kiddies! Would you like a red or green one?”

          • theescotsman says:

            You may be certain I WILL inquire if they are a student of yours. If so, I most certainly will refuse their assistance presuming you have inculcated into them your knowledge and understanding. I would most likely be better off just bleeding out then to have to suffer the torment of their ‘care’.

          • getstryker says:

            OoRah!!!

          • theescotsman says:

            Semper Fi Brother !

          • getstryker says:

            Hahaha . . .

          • Paul Whitley says:

            Apparently, Phillip, you have a real problem understanding what you read. The other poster was simply pointing out how many blessings you have received in your life, he was not, in my estimation, trying to denigrate you in any way. I personally do not believe in abortion on demand, but I do not attempt to influence others whose beliefs differ from mine.
            We should be grateful for each days’ blessings, and we will do well to be a blessing to others each day.
            Take care, and take the time to enjoy – really enjoy – the days God makes for his children.

          • You do note that he wrote “so said Phillip who was not aborted”, right? I don’t see how that is anything but an attempt to ‘denigrate’ someone with whom he disagrees.

          • getstryker says:

            You mean like the words you used to ‘denigrate’ theescotsman?
            You wrote:

            idiotic by any measure
            ashamed of yourself
            marginal intellect,
            sheer foolishness
            lack of common decency.
            disgraceful that you wear a US uniform

            Somewhat glaring hypocrisy in your comment . . . wouldn’t you agree?

          • getstryker says:

            Interesting: I read ‘theescotsman’ retort and it was accurate, cogent and intelligent, in my opinion. Since I and millions of other vets wore a US uniform so individuals with opposing views like yourself and your ilk could speak your mind . . . I should think that you might show ‘theescotsman’ a lot more respect. You’re entitled to your opinion, just as ‘theescotsman’ is. He’s right about the abortion thing too.

          • getstryker says:

            OoRah!

  5. Peggy Halstead says:

    Abortion should not be used as convient birth control. It should not be paid for by tax payers. Private insurance should cover if necessary, and adoption should also be considered. They have a pill for after the event, and anytime over 48 to 72 hrs. no abortions should be done for the personel or monitary (sale of fetal tissue) use of anyone. Women that are suppose to be smart know about birth control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

1 Shares
Share1
+1
Tweet
Pin