How is it possible that some people consider the actions of this selfless mother as ''selfish''?

Bottom line, we live in a very misogynistic society. People (both men and other women unfortunately) look for any reason to attack a woman because we are easy prey. I've noticed that women cannot do anything right in society these days. If she had aborted her baby, they would call her a selfish murderer. If she had undergone Chemo and the baby came out disabled, she would have been a horrible person for putting the baby at risk for deformity. Women can't win not matter what they do in a society run by a bunch of corrupt men. Which is why we should not live for the approval of human men, but only for the approval of ourselves and God. God bless this woman for making what she thought was the best choice in a very difficult situation.

there is not any selflessness. like all different answer suggested approximately george bush. And right this is yet another exciting one all of us be responsive to that the we people are destroying the international, and if we save going like this, we will spoil the entire planet. yet might you extremely kill your self and your loved ones for the earth and for all the different animals and flora? you will possibly think of oh my god it extremely is loopy why might i do this superb? no person might do this way of element. And for this reason no person is selfless. organic selflessness would not exist regrettably. yet while it exists, particular, each thing will settle into its very own.

In Catholic morality, abortion is either direct (induced) or indirect. Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil.

Indirect abortion is the foreseen but merely permitted evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb. The evacuation is not the intended or directly willed result, but the side effect, of some legitimate procedure. As such it is morally allowable.

The essential sinfulness of direct abortion consists in the homicidal intent to kill innocent life. This factor places the controverted question as to precisely when human life begins, outside the ambit of the moral issue; as it also makes the now commonly held Catholic position that human life begins at conception equally outside the heart of the church's teaching about the grave sinfulness of direct abortion.

Abortion has been condemned by the Church since apostolic times. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed before A.D. 100, told the faithful "You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child" (II, 2). Direct abortion and infanticide were from the beginning placed on the same level of malice.

Hundreds of ecclesiastical documents from the first century through to the present testify to the same moral doctrine, with such nuances as time, place, and circumstances indicated. The Second Vatican Council declared: "Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception," so that "abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes" (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, IV, 51). Pope Paul VI confirmed this teaching in 1974. "Respect for human life,' he wrote, "is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother. It is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already." Consequently, "divine law and natural reason exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent human being"

I must praise this woman's love to her child, she is a super woman who not only sacrificed her life for the life of her child but encouraged other people to practice pure love,at the other hand,only God knows how easy she was able to convince her husband and infact she must be a nice woman to start with, how i wish and pray that she will survive and train the child to her type.,oh! how sad to the husband after her d***.God bless her.

Most scientists agree that pain doesn't start until after 24 weeks, and actually push it further back than that. It does not magically become a human being at week 12. As long as it is inside of the mother's body, connected to her by umbilical cord, and using her body for nutrition, oxygen and life support it is a fetus.

Truth be told, there are very few acts in the world that are truly selfless and there are very few acts in the world that are truly selfish. Most selfishness is defined my the morals and standards of strangers. Often morals and standards that they themselves would have trouble sticking to in the same situation. The same can be said of selflessness, it's all formed on ideals and really nothing more.

If a person wanted to, they could turn any situation into a person acting selfishly. Saving a box of kittens from a burning house could be turned selfish. Now that those kittens have lived, there's a bigger chance that the kittens at a local shelter won't get adopted.

If I wanted to turn this into a selfish situation, I'd say that she's basically left the child without a mother. There's a good chance that the child's first few years is going to be watching her mother slowly die depending on how fast the cancer goes. Then her child will have to be raised entirely by her father, which isn't an ideal situation and a girl needs a mother.

I wouldn't call what she did selfless really, because honestly it sounds more like she did it because it's what is expected of her than truly out of love. Women are always expected to sacrifice themselves "Out of love" for their husbands, children, and even the unborn.

She did what she wanted to do, and I won't hold her at fault for it.

I agree with you, she decided that the baby's life was more important then her own. That is one of the most unselfish things you could do.

Trying to see it another way, I would guess people would see it as selfish in the since that she wont be around to parent the child? Like as if shes bringing a baby into the world to let it watch her die? Thats all I can come up with and it still doesn't make much sense....