It’s Not So Bad

A pharmacy in Colorado accidentally gave a woman pills used to induce abortion instead of her prescribed antibiotic. It seems Mareena Silva was given someone else’s prescription, someone with the same last name and a very similar first name. Silva had apparently not paid close enough attention and took some of the medication. Methotrexate is often used to terminate early term pregnancies and as a result the pills could cost Silva her baby.  “My doctor immediately told me to try and make myself vomit to see if I could get the medicine to come back up,” Silva said.  She was taken to Platte Valley Medical Center and gave her charcoal to absorb the Methotrexate. “For all this to happen now is really overwhelming, …so it’s really difficult to deal with.” Silva said.  Silva does not appear to be taking this incident very well.

I have some things I’d like pro-abortion advocates to clear up for me.  Why was she advised to induce vomiting, and why was she rushed to a hospital?  Why is Silva so upset?  If it is not a human being growing within her, but is instead a tumor-like clump of cells, why is anyone trying to prevent her from expelling the simple mass of tissue?  People have masses of tissue and tumors removed all the time, many times it is complicated procedure with a hospital stay involved.  This woman is being relieved of her mass of cells she should be thankful, right?

Through my interactions with pro-abortion advocates I have learned quite a bit.  I have learned that fetuses are  really  bodily invaders, they are parasites:

Also, a fetus isn’t completely unhostile [sic]. If a women can’t get enough of certain vitamins the fetus will try to take them from other sources. Ex. pregnant women need to drink extra milk, not because the baby won’t get calcium, but because the pregnancy will start to steal calcium from the mother’s bones. Also, the body itself has been known to treat fetuses as invaders. Fetuses with a different blood type from the mother’s, + vs -, have a high chance of miscariage [sic] because the women’s body builds up antubodies [sic] to kill it.

If this is the case, that a fetus is a parasite, didn’t the pharmacist do this poor infected woman a favor?  She should be contemplating a thank you gift rather than a law suit.  This poor woman had no idea how unhealthy it is to be pregnant, the pharmacist is owed a debt of gratitude.

But for some reason Silva is upset.  She thinks she carrying an actual growing human being within her womb.  Why didn’t her doctor reassure her no actual harm was caused by taking the wrong medication?  Surely the doctor knows the medication will only be expelling a mass of tumor-like cells, or even better, killing a parasitic invader.  Silva, her doctor, and the medical staff at the hospital all seem to be under the same mistaken impression that there a bona fide human being’s life and well-being  at stake.  What am I missing, what are they missing?


Related Articles: What’s The Dilemma?, You Are What You Eat, Pregnancy: Won’t You Help Cure This Terrible Disease?


  1. You say “pro-abortion” as though pro-choice advocates would like every single fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, and fetus aborted. Obviously that’s a distortion of the position. A person can be sad or nervous about the prospect of not having something they anticipated having in the future. If I told you I was going to give you $100 tomorrow, and then later I told you I changed my mind, you could still be disappointed — it would be weird to say that since you didn’t yet have $100 you couldn’t possibly be let down.

    If you invite someone into your home, they’re not an invader. If they break in against your will, they are. There’s a separate conversation about the extent of the precautions you should be expected to take against intruders breaking into your home — you should probably lock your doors, but should you put metal bars over your windows? Should we chide you for calling the police if you don’t live in an underground bunker with a single metal hatch?

    Context matters. I think that’s what you’re missing.

    • I say pro-abortion because that is the choice they are advocating for. The choice is abortion, and advocates want that choice so available to the point where they want it for any reason whatsoever and if it is not available they argue a human right is being denied. So I’m not going to change that one. You are going to have to reword yout $100 analogy, I read it a couple times and I just don’t get the point, sorry.

      Second, what I believe you are missing, is no one is caught by suprise that sex is linked to pregnancy, thats the only activity. Second, it is so widely known birth control is not a guarantee. Whether you intend to get pregnant has nothing to do with the fact that you are now pregnant, as a result of your activities.

      I don’t like to use a negative analogy, since there are those who will say “you equate pregnancy to a car wreck, you should be for abortion!!” that’s not the point so anyone who is looking to pull that trigger, I’m editing it out of the comment before hand.

      If you are driving your car and get into a car accident where the other person is severely injured, you are responsible to to that person for their damages. Lets say you have insurance, but not enough to cover the entirety of the injury and damage, and you must pay out of pocket and taked 18 years to pay off the medical bills, you are still responsible to that person. You didn’t intend to get in an accident, you didn’t intend to hurt anyone, but that is a potential consequence to driving a car. You cannot just say, “I never intended to hit you with my car, I shouldn’t be have to be responsible for your damages.” It would be morally wrong for you to not pay for the damage. It would be wrong to kill the other driver because you couldnt afford it, or you werent ready to pay for an accident this severe, that it would dramatically change your life, or that your partner wasnt ready to shoulder some of the commitment, or because your family would be disappointed that you werent careful enough…or any of the reasons women have abortions.

      Same with pregnancy, you may not have intended to get pregnant, you may have tried to be careful by using contraception, but “accidents” happen. I can’t remember where I read this stat and cannot cite it and feel free to dismiss it or search it out. But about 50% of pregnancies are unintended, and about 50% of those involved failed contraception. Even if you take precautions, it doesn’t morally allow you to skirt your responsibilities.

      • I thought the point of the $100 thing was pretty clear. But I’ll try again.

        Your complaint appears to be (correct me if I’m wrong) that people say both “a fetus is not a person” and “it’s unfortunate when a happily pregnant woman loses a fetus.” These things are not contradictory. You can be disappointed to lose something you wanted, even if it is not a person, and even if it is not yet realized in the form you were actually looking forward to. That’s what I was trying to get at with the $100 — it wouldn’t make sense to say, “But you didn’t have the money physically in your hands yet, so how could you possibly be disappointed?!” (besides the fact that money is obviously not a person).

        True story: when I was little, I got my mom’s permission to plant a peach pit in my backyard. We didn’t live in a climate where peaches would actually grow on the tree, but I didn’t fully understand that and at any rate I wanted to see how big the tree would get. The peach pit was not a peach tree. A few weeks later, there was a small green stalk, maybe a foot tall tops, sprouting out of the spot where I had planted the peach pit. It was far from being a peach tree yet, but I was so excited about seeing something actually beginning to grow. Then, my dad mowed the lawn — and I realized I had forgotten to talk to him at any point about the peach pit I had planted. He thought it was a weed of some kind, and mowed right over it. I was crushed.

        Did I not have any right to be disappointed about the loss of my sprout, because it was not yet a peach tree? Do you see my point that I was excited about the future, and that future was taken away from me, and that in itself is a sad thing?

        I’ll respond to the rest of your comment after you’ve let me know whether I’ve made this point any clearer than before. In anticipation, though, I’d like to ask you one small question — do you accept abortion in the case of rape or in the case of unexpected health risks to the pregnant woman (i.e. either she has an abortion or can expect to die during childbirth), or is abortion always completely impermissible?

        • Here’s the point you overlook with your story. The peach pit is not a peach tree, but it is a peach in essence. The pit will not grow an apple tree, or poison ivy, it is peach by its very nature and remains so from pit to tree. Peach seed, peach sapling, peach tree. Same with the human fetus, human infant, human todler, human adolesent, human teen, human adult. You were a human from the point of conception right through present moment, it has never changed. The only thing which has changed is your size, location, and level of development. Todlers are not as developed as teens, are todlers less human than teens? Of course not. Same with the peach, a pit does not contain less “peachness” than the fully developed tree.

          Yes your point is clear, and I guess rautakyy is much more on the ball, because I just don’t see the same point in the previous analogy as with the tree, thank you for the clarification. I would argue that abortion is morally impermissable even in the cases of rape and incest, I don’t see how the solution to a child concieved in rape is to kill the child. It doesn’t take away the pain of the rape, the woman will still go through her entire life with the reprocussions of it everytime she sees a person who looks like the rapist, everytime she is in or near the location of the rape, and many more. Taking the life of her child is not a solution and is in fact a punishment upon the child.

          However if the life of the mother is at stake, if she will die or has a high chance of dying during or as a result of the delivery it would be permissable as a last resort. For example if two people are drowning, you can either do something and save one of them, or do nothing and they both drown. It’s better that one live (the mother) than that both should die, the mother and her child. The intent isn’t to kill the unborn child, even though its unavoidable in this case. The intent is to save the life of the mother.

  2. I think you’ve named the biggest problem with pro-choice rhetoric in America today. Pro-choice rhetoric makes maternal feelings simply incoherent.

    I think the second biggest problem with pro-choice rhetoric is that the ‘choice’ being defended is generally illusory. Many, if not most, women who seek abortions do so because they have no other choice.

  3. I understood the analogy of the 100 dollars. It is not that complex.

    Nick Don has a point there. Women do abortions because they have no other choise. What happens if this “choise” is denied them? What are the societes like, where abortion is denied from women?

    The fetus is not a person, but it is a possibility of a future person. So the harm done to this woman in the article is regrettable. She wanted her child. Some responsibility has to be thrown at her also, what kind of an adult eats medication without reading the instructions first?
    Where do you draw the line and why should it be drawn there? Is a sperm a human being? It is a human cell and a promise of a future person. Most doctors would define the fetus as not a person before half way pregnancy. There is no wide consensus among doctors about this, just like there used to be no wide consensus among doctors about tobacco being unhealthy.

    As pregnancy is a result of sex, should people start having less sex, start having more sex that does not risk to lead to pregnancy, or just accept that there will be millions more of unwanted children born around the world every year? Societies can be changed, but the results can be devastating.

    • “the fetus is not a person” is an unsubstantiated assertion. Please don’t say “most doctors” unless you will cite a survey. Maybe in your country there is no medical consensus, but in America I have never heard a doctor who didn’t believe tobacco products are bad for your health.

      To help along the discussion, maybe you could link to some medical doctor’s published work about personhood, I figure if it is as broad a consensus as you make it seem, this should be no problem. Then we can discuss the errors in their reasoning.

      • So, you choose not to answer my questions about what makes sperm and fetus different and how stopping abortions would affect the society in general. That is within your freedom of choise. They are, however, within the topic I take it?
        There used to be a group of US doctors who claimed that tobacco is not dangerous. It took a long time to change that and the consensus between doctors in this matter has not existed for wery long. That is what I said, or is it my bad english again? If that is the case, I offer my humble apologies. This is however how it works. It takes time to form a consensus. The world changes. New radical ideas turn into accepted values and then later they turn into conservative dogmas. The process is often helped by the development of science. Further we come in time, the more our values are determined by science and less by religion or other myths. There has been of course some setbacks on this journey like the dark ages.

        I based my former comment on the fact that in general doctors have not stopped from providing abortions. The universal medical community or the WHO have not asked them to do so. If doctors providing abortion would see the half way developed fetus as a person, they would be in contradiction of their wov of Hippokrates. And even those doctors who are not actually performing abortions would have to take a stand in unity against those who do. They do not. Hence most doctors do not see the fetus as a person. This needs no survey to prove, since there is no universal action against abortion by the worlds medical community. In fact it seems to be completely the opposite. Most organisations that support legal abortion are by doctors or the medical community, while most organisations against abortion are run by religious fanatics. Many moderate religions have not taken a stand against abortion. Immoral acts of medical professionals are universally condemned by the WHO, the universal medical community and they are illegal in most countries. Does this substantiate my former assertion?

        • The difference between a sperm and a fetus is a sperm is a part of a whole, it is a single celled mode of transfering dna to an egg. At conception the fertilized egg becomes a genetically complete whole. From the point of conception on to adulthood, you gain nothing more by means of dna or genetics. The fetus is a complete unique entity.

          “This is however how it works. It takes time to form a consensus. The world changes. New radical ideas turn into accepted values and then later they turn into conservative dogmas. The process is often helped by the development of science. Further we come in time, the more our values are determined by science and less by religion or other myths.”

          The Nazi’s used this method to make it’s citizens less offended by the mass extermination of Jews, homosexuals, mentally handicapped, etc. This was the method used to justify to themselves that performing medical experiments on them was acceptable also. Science cannot account for and by nature ignores conscience. If we let science determine morality, Holocaust’s will be as common as baseball games.

          So we’re clear, the overwhelming majority of doctors do not perform abortions in America, perhaps they do where you’re from, but that is not the case here. Of course its doctors who perform abortions, who else is going to do it, auto mechanics? This does not mean abortion is moral, it does not mean most doctors believe it is moral, it does not mean doctors overwhelmingly agree the fetus is not a person.

          People all over the world wish to escape life long consequences to their behaviors. the prevalence of abortion internationally also does not prove morality. At one point every strong nation enslaved entire societies, on your view, if enough people think its a good thing, that makes it a good thing. You’re wrong about that. No matter how many people believe slavery is good, it is wrong. No matter how many people exterminating Jews is good, it is wrong. No matter how many people think abortion is morally permissable, it is wrong.

  4. Kelsey Barringham says:

    Wow. Way to take Angela out of context! And the Pro-choice argument agrees it is as wrong to force a women to keep her pregnancy as it is to take her pregnancy from her! Hence choice! If that women choices to have another person sustained by her body, no one else has the right to change that! That fetus isn’t effecting anyone else! Also, welcomed guests aren’t invaders! And you’re the one who uses the term parasite all the time!

    • Angela’s comments are not out of context. The Facebook dialogue was a defense from Angela and Shelly for why abortion is not morally wrong. One argument used was a fetus was to some degree a hostile unwelcomed entity inside the mother’s body. That’s called a parasite. The absence of the word “parasite” from Angela tells me that she can recognize calling a yet-to-be-born child a parasite is wrong, and so softens her language in order to avoid having to actually say it. But it’s hardly out of context.

      • Kelsey Barringham says:

        Fine. If that’s your definition of parasite then a fetus is a parasite, simply by living off another. But by naming something by it’s technical terminology doesn’t mean all parasites are equal. A fetus can be both parasite and human at the same time, there is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive. When you use the terminology though, you are attempting to claim that I put a fetus on the same level as a virus or bacteria, because that is what is often thought of as a parasite. Which I don’t and neither does Angela if you bother to read her entire argument. You are also assuming that all parasites must be something horrid that a women would be crazy not to want saving from, and so that now that we have established a fetus is a parasite than this doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Obviously good things can come from a parasitic relationship. And Angela’s statement was trying to put in perspective that pregnancy is more biologically than plug in and go, that pregnancy is a process that the women’s body is involved in as well and plenty of people try to simplify pregnancy down to an “inconvenience”. Making an extra trip to the grocery store, that’s an inconvenience, a pregnancy, is much, much more complex than that and physically wearing.

  5. I don’t know if this claim has been made yet (I’m really tired), but I think your questions are rather loaded.

    Firstly, I am not advocating abortion. I have not read as much as I need to to make an informed decision on where I stand on the issue. Having said that, I think it is safe to say that since she wanted to keep the baby, an accidental abortion is absolutely devastating emotionally.When anticipating a human life in which one can nurture and love – of course the abortion would be disheartening. We cannot apply this logic to every case, however. For instance, this would not be applicable to many rape victims (I say ‘many’ because there are, indeed, those who still choose to keep the baby). There are two very distinct categories here: those who choose to keep and those who choose to abort. Attributing the emotional state of a person in one category to a person who belongs in the latter category is fallacious.

    Also, I would like to say that you are, perhaps, one of only a few people I have come across on here who has actually thought about their religion and for that I must commend you. While I may not agree with you, I have truly enjoyed our debates (you’ll get used to my pedantic character lol).

    • By the way, the questions I was referring to in the beginning of my reply were:

      ” Why was she advised to induce vomiting, and why was she rushed to a hospital? Why is Silva so upset? If it is not a human being growing within her, but is instead a tumor-like clump of cells, why is anyone trying to prevent her from expelling the simple mass of tissue?”

      Again, I must stipulate that I am not advocating abortion. In the rape example I used, I was merely providing a different referential point to comment on emotional status and am not commenting from a moralistic standpoint. I hope I’ve made myself clear, if not please let me know!

      • I understand where you’re coming from, I’m not trying to equate the two mindsets. Rather the pro-abortion advocates are not correcting everyone’s misplaced urgency. If the unborn is not as person, why was the mother, the doctor’s and anyone who is comforting her acting as if there is a human being worthy of protection inside her? Why isn’t anyone telling her it’s just a lump of cells?

    • The point I’m really arguing from is if pro-abortion advocates are correct, that the child growing within the mother is not a human being, but is rather a clump of cells or a parasite, then this woman’s grief is misplaced–whether she wanted to continue her pregnancy or not. Why is no one from the pro-abortion movement making this argument: “don’t worry, its not really a baby”

      • John Barron jr is putting words into the mouths of the pro-choise advocates. It is as if he would want them to say “parasite”. They however do not. There is a difference between a parasite and a fetus. Just as there is a difference between a fetus and a person. If this is all about rethorics, why do not armies of the world collectively admit that they are institutions put up to murder people? “Don’t worry, all the people we murdered by carpet-bombing a city were evil. Yes, even the little children.”

        There have been done terrible things in the name of science, just as there have been done terrible things in the name of religions. Both may be distorted to serve political ambitions and sanctify horrid acts. Should our morals be rigindly based on one of these, and after that do we go blind to suffering, just because science or religion dictates something? Fortunately, both evolve in time and the morals of the past era is not absolute. Science is the only way we have to gain more information. We can only make moral desicions based on correct information. Otherwise we would still be burning witches and call it morally justified.

        The question here is wether or not it is moral to do a horrid thing to an existing person, the woman in need of an abortion, or wether it is moral to do horrid thing to the fetus, that is just a promise of a person. A creature that has not yet established connections to the surrounding world. It is a matter of choise. This is so until we have a better society where women no longer have need for abortion, but as the statistics by the Gutmacher institute John Barron jr published in his article “One of these things is not the same as others” clearly demonstrate, there is a dire need for abortion for most women having one.

        It is easy to yell that something is wrong, what is difficult, is how to correct that wrong.

      • Kelsey Barringham says:

        Why can’t she be mad that the clump of the cells she tried hard to establish in her body is gone? Just saying.

        And obviously it’s because no one is in the pro-abortion movement (at least I’ve not met any, and seeing the idea of promoting that all fetuses are worthless and should be destroyed would lead to the end of our species even the idea of that movement is a little silly), the people you are referring to are all in the pro-choice one, which also celebrates her CHOICE to keep her pregnancy!

        • It’s not that she can’t be upset, it’s that no pro-abortion advocates are “explaning” to her that she need not be upset, since she won’t be losing an actual human baby, but rather some un-human mass of tissue. No one mourns when a growth is removed.

          • Now we established fetuses are parasites, not growths. Growths are usually your own cells mutating, which can turn out to be cancerous. But why can’t the women be sad that she was going to and planning to have a baby in so many months, but now that’s not going to happen?

            Also, pro-choicers don’t judge people on what they are sad about. Many are consoling and supporting. Many people, who have had abortions, are partially sad about that decision too, but they feel it is still the right choice because of the circumstances. I know this is hard to believe, but most pro-choicers are extremely empathetic to ALL the emotions of women. Even a lot of pro-choicers would be upset to lose a wanted pregnancy, regardless of what their opinions of what a fetus is are.

            And side note, why can’t someone mourn a growth? There are no rules against mourning growths. I mourned the loss of my goldfish in 3rd grade, Bubbles wasn’t human. So if you’re trying to prove that something must be human in order for someone to get upset or be concerned at the possibility of losing it, that’s not the case.

            Also, the idea that people should do whatever they can to smother their own and others emotions is a patriarchal one based on our societies obsession with the importants of achieving the stereotypical masculinity. It’s healthy to have and express feelings openly, and have people welcome and help one heal with empathy for those emotions.

            • Kelsey, you’re missing it. It’s not that The mother can’t be sad that she won’t have a baby, it’s that pro-abortion advocates claim it’s not a baby in the first place. If that was really true, then why don’t pro-abortion advocates tell the mother she isn’t acutally going to be losing a baby, but instead a clump of cells?

              No one argued that you can’t mourn something if it’s not human. I am saying people don’t mourn for things like tumors, cists, and growths, etc. because they are being removed. Seriously, stop it with the “every man is a mysoginist” it’s non-sense and tiresome. I’m not saying this woman can’t be sad, not saying she shouldn’t be. No one is telling her how to feel, so stop it! The point is, if what is growing within the mother is not a human being, but instead a growth, or just a clump of cells–why should she be sad? If the pro-abortion advocates are correct, the woman’s sadness is misplaced.

              • Maybe no one is telling her that because it would be mean to trivialize her pain? You don’t tell someone they can just get another dog when their dog dies, as true as it is, that’s just cruel! This hole topic is just ridiculous to begin with, to actually believe that the only way for a person to be truly pro-choice or to believe abortion is an option means they should just be telling every women to get over every loss of a pregnancy, even wanted ones, is DISGUSTING! You’ve demonstrated that you obviously don’t understand what it means to be pro-choice at all! Seeing as YOU love to create your own strawomen of the heartless, PRO-ABORTION, baby killing bitch! Despite mine, and PLENTY of others attempts to explain what being PRO-CHOICE REALLY MEANS!

                By this token no pro-choicer would ever attend a baby shower either, “It’s not like she has the baby yet or anything”. Pregnancy IS something a women CAN be excited about and celebrate, but doesn’t automatically have to. And HARD for you to believe, basically every women she knows, Pro-life or (heaven forbid) Pro-choice, will be excited and happy for her too when they see how excited she is to have her WANTED pregnancy! And when she loses something she LOVES, yes you can love a fetus or being pregnant regardless of whether the fetus is human or not, WOMEN GET THAT, THEY CAN EMPATHIZE WITH HER FEELINGS! And even mourn for her loss!!!

                And if you have no interest in debating me STOP QUOTING ME!!! They’re still MY words no matter what name you give me!

              • “You don’t tell someone they can just get another dog when their dog dies, as true as it is”

                You just made another point for me. The pro-abortion advocates do not believe the thing groing inside the mother is a human being, so how can a pro-abortion advocate say “You don’t tell someone they can just have another baby when their baby dies”, they can’t say that and be consistent with their view.

                Kelsey, you need to calm down. You are not seeing the point! Through this entire interaction you have missed the point every time! My claim is the pro-abortion advocates are being inconsistent! To advocate for abortion on-demand they have to claim on the one hand there isn’t a real human being inside the womb, so it’s ok to take its life. And on the other when they, or someone close to them loses a baby before it’s born, they mourn as if it was an actual human being.

                Never once did I say pro-abortion advocates should be telling grieving women they have no buisness being mad, that would be terrible. My point again, in order to be consistent with their view they should be. The fact that pro-abortion advocates do in fact grieve and mourn losses exposes the fact that they are wrong about what is in the womb, and deep down every person knows what is in the womb.

                Please slow down a bit and read without the rage, it is causing you to think I am saying something I am not. I will do what I can to be more clear, but you have just missed what I am saying this whole time.

              • Kelsey Barringham says:

                You treat pro-choice like it somehow comes before every other view a person has. If a person wants to console someone, no one would approach it don’t worry, the fetus is just cells even if they completely had no understanding for the emotional state of the women and had those feelings about the fetus, consoling someone is not the place for politics, so your claim Pro-choicers are inconsistent because they don’t do this one thing isn’t fair. There are plenty of other social reasons a pro-choicer wouldn’t do that regardless of what they think a fetus is. “Deep down every person knows what is in the womb” though you can’t wrap your mind around why a person would be upset for losing a pregnancy, even if they didn’t believe a fetus was a HUMAN, doesn’t mean it’s true for others people.

              • Also, why is it that pro-choicers are the only ones viewed as inconsistent. 1 in 4 pregnancies will be missed carried, but I’ve never heard of fetus obituaries and I rarely hear of funerals for miscarriages especially in the first trimester where most miscarriages occur. Huh, but we give people funerals and obituaries, why isn’t it our cultural norm to perform these things when a women miss caries? Maybe because we don’t put fetuses on the same level as people? And don’t get me wrong, miss carrying sucks, but on average losing one’s child, after the child is born, usually ranks as more devastating to a women’s life than miscarrying in the first trimester. Why does this tend to be the case?

              • I’d say because the pro-abortion lobby has at least marginally convinced people they haven’t lost a human being. It’s a matter of societal conditioning.

            • Yeah, I have to agree with John with your “societies obsession with the importants of achieving the stereotypical masculinity” bit. Not only is this assertion fallacious from a purely objective view, but it is also pejorative to every single male who agrees with you on any issue to which you have adhered. I’m not going to get in to the abortion debate, but seriously, Kelsey, refrain from using straw-men to evoke emotion. It is pointless and, frankly, rather annoying.

              • Oh, I’m annoying you? You know what annoys me every time I hear girl, sissy, fag, Homo, etc. etc. used DAILY as insults, to tell men they aren’t meeting societies standards. When 5 year old boys are told to STOP crying because it’s girlish. When my friends and I get CAT calls from random strangers, THEY’RE NOT COMPLIMENTS! And I’ve never called every man a misogynist! Not even close! But when there’s legislation that has to be debated over, that should not have even made it to the floor, that would give a Hospital the right to let me die on the table, not even send me somewhere else to get the emergency care I HAVE A RIGHT TO, TO SAVE MY LIFE! I know I’m living in a patriarchy, because society as a whole treats my life as LESS valuable because I got the obligation of being a women, what every boy is taught from a young age to try their hardest to not be like.

              • Well, for starters, what you hear on a college campus is not representative of the outside world. I don’t think I have heard someone insult an efeminate man by saying sissy, fag, homo outloud since high school. And of all the friends I have that have boys, I have never once seen a parent tell their son to stop crying because it’s girlish, I haven’t even over heard it in public. You and others may have anecdotal experiences, but it’s not the norm. I get the impression from your responses on my site, here and elsewhere, that you think it’s commonplace.

                If you think society treats you as less valuable, switch schools. Honestly, college girls college professors, and activists are the only ones complaining they feel this way. Its the same with minorities, for the most part. The Al Sharptons, and Jesse Jacksons make their living off making sure blacks feel oppressed. There may be bits of discrimination here and there, but as a whole it is gone. Where do you think political correctness came from–the fear of offending people. It is my experience that people who want to be offended will find offense everywhere!

                There is no hospital, nor is there legislation to prevent an abortion in the case of an emergency where the mother’s life is at stake.

              • If a hospital lets a woman have an abortion on the grounds of saving the mothers life, is it somehow less immoral to kill the fetus then? What if the possibilities of saving mother and the fetus were equal? How should it be determined whose life is it to be sacrifieced? Should the doctors toss a coin wich is to be saved? Or should the “innocent” fetus be saved and the mothers life taken?

                Why is it you John Barron jr think some people think they should defend the womens right to have an abortion? What is it, that they gain? Why do you think so many conservative christians are against abortion? Is there a bible chapter against abortion? It seems to me that the pro-life movement is run by people with conservative values? Have their values changed of lately, or are they still thinking that a woman should be at home and a man should do the working and hold the money in the family (and decide all things for the family)? I ask this, because I see a connection between the pro-life thínking and the mentioned conservative values of oppressing women. If the western society has changed and the conservative people have started to conserve something else than what they did, just few decades ago, why are they still in the trenchess about this particular thing?

                The fact that women have traditionally seen as less valuable in conservative thinking should not be news to anyone. It neither is something that prevails only in adolessens. The kids in the college learn their values mostly from their parents. Of course they may grow wiser by time and abandon some of their parents more conservative values as the time passes. The strugle for womens rights is not something Kelsey B just came up all by herself. It is a real, altough in my mind only a part of greater strugle for more equal society, wich is ongoing.

                What would happen, if abortions were to be illegalized?

              • Well for starters, it doesn’t really hold much wait to try to disprove someone’s anecdotal evidence with your own anecdotal evidence, even when you try to belittle their experiences by claiming they don’t live in the “real world”. And I would love to see the actual proof that you have that says it isn’t the norm.

                Hmm, coincidence, the only people complaining are the people actually doing research on the topics, so weird. Maybe it’s because it’s the societal norm to tell people to get over it, or switch schools, which by the way even if I had the resources to do that, I’ve talked to plenty of people with similar experiences at different Universities so I honestly doubt that would change much. And even if it were so, why do I not have the right to feel comfortable at the university I choice? You try to phrase it as to say I’m the one with the problem, why is it that the people who are being oppressive aren’t the ones with the problem? Why don’t we ever question them? No, we tell victims to get over it. Maybe others don’t complain because they don’t realize they have the right to, maybe the activists are just the voice of others to afraid to question how society treats them. It is my experience that people don’t like being corrected, so when told we are being offensive, we deny it and tell them it’s their fault for having those feelings and don’t even try to empathize with why they might feel that way. Because we couldn’t possibly be offensive without trying to be.

                Secondly, H.R. 358 “Protect Life Act” look it up! If passed this act would give Hospitals the right to deny women life saving treatments on the basis that the hospital is morally upset over risking her fetus, it also gives them the right to not even send her or recommend her to a hospital that would preform the procedure.

  6. I realize it’s not easy to find, so I’ll just post it here. Under the protect Life act tax payers wouldn’t have to pay for abortions, but hospitals that refuse to treat pregnant women for moral reasons WILL get our tax payer dollars. Why do I have to pay ($) for a hosptial’s right, to let me die because they won’t touch me until my fetus dies on its own? Not only does this recognize that those hospitals can still have funding, but it doesn’t stop to question the morality of the act.

    (g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;‘(B) require or provide such training;‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions..

  7. Layla Gonzalez says:

    That is so unthinkable. Let me ask if a zygote turns into an embryo, and then the embryo turns into a fetus, and if not aborted 9 months later a live baby is born – how is it not human and not alive? How does a nothing glob or tumorous mass grow into a viable, living baby? Can something that is nothing, already dead, grow? NO! How stupid are these people, oh yeah, they are taking those stupid pills – I forgot!

    Pro-abortionists make me want to vomit and I need no pill to induce that! They are a vile lot of people with no ounce of the fear of God in them. Woe to them!

    • Layla Gonzalez I wish you no woe. Actually I wish no-one woe, or any ohter harm. You would see me as a vile person, but I see you as sadly mislead person. I respect your faith and devotion to have no abortions on your fetuses. I hope you will allways be in a eco-socionomic situation where abortion never even comes to be necessary for you. I only expect you to have the same respect on those women who would choose otherwise and not condemn them. In the words of a philospher: Do not judge, so you would not be judged yourself.

      The baby does not magically come out of nowhere at the moment when the sperm enters the ovum. It is an evolution from two single cells joining (that are both quite alive before they meet) into a living breathing mammal, that is human. It takes nine months to complete. It is completed at the moment of birth, when the baby draws its first gasp of air. Abortions are not normally done after half way of pregnancy because it is seen that the developing fetus has started to evolve into a human with enough neural synapses to have actual brainfunctions.

      Where in the bible is an abortion condemned? There are a lot of things literally condemned in the bible, like working on a sunday. Should you as a godfearing person not condemn all who work on sundays, like for example the police, firefighters, medical personnel and priests?

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: