Last Updated:November 24 @ 07:11 pm

Baby or clump of cells?

By Kay Daly

A young woman, pregnant for the first time, went to her local Safeway pharmacy to pick up a prescription.  Rather than receiving the medication that was prescribed for her use, the pharmacy mistakenly gave her methotrexate, a powerful medication used to treat cancer patients, psoriasis, and to induce abortions.   She took one of the pills and then realized that something was terribly wrong so she called her physician right away.

After attempting to vomit, rushing to the hospital and ingesting charcoal to try to soak up the toxin, all this first time mother can do now is fretfully wait to find out if she will be able to carry her child to term and if so, what damage may have been done.  

Absolutely tragic story.

But it brings up an interesting juxtaposition of language issues.   Remember back in the 60's and 70's when the great nuclear debate was going on and most of Hollywood would chain a body part to a nuclear power plant fence in protest?  There was actually a communications case study about the language utilized to describe different aspects of the nuclear debate. An example?  "Kill ratios" was a common pro-nuke buzzword, according to these leftist professorial types, which allowed those who supported the development of nuclear technology to separate the horror of the slaughter of humanity caused by these weapons away from the debate. 

Now apply this theory of language and its usage to aspects of this tragic story.  In the discussions about this story on television and in various articles online, the baby is clearly no longer merely a disposable clump of cells but a life and the ingested drug has done harm to this baby.....this little life.  The baby isn't referred to ad nauseum as a "fetus" or an "embryo" or a "cell mass" but instead, is considered nothing less than this young mother's child.   Otherwise, what would the tragedy be here?    Haven't the pro-abortion leftists made the case that abortion today is no big deal, medically, physically, psychologically, etc.?

What is the difference between the baby whose young pregnant mother who goes in to pick up a prescription and takes home an anti-abortion drug by accident and another baby whose mother who goes in with the specific intent to take this drug ?   If you have two mothers, both early on in their pregnancies, is it merely the vague notion of "intent" or "choice" that designates one a baby and the other a clump of cells?   Does the dehumanization of the baby make it easier to kill?

Makes one think about the power of sonograms and the overwhelming data that shows that once a mother sees a sonogram she is most likely not going to choose to stop that heartbeat.   Powerful stuff.   

Pro-abortion forces have designated dehumanizing language to refer to innocent, vulnerable babies who are still in the womb.  Who would have ever thought even a dozen years ago that mothers would be able to go to their local pharmacy, pop a pill and rid themselves of any inconvenient results of a hard night of partying.  Not even a shocking notion -- mothers using toxic drugs to poison their own babies while still in the womb.  Why does the baby have to pay the ultimate price for the sins of the mother?

We look at this story with sadness, hurting for this young mother who faces an unknown future with her child.   Is it really just a matter of a child that is wanted versus unwanted?    There probably isn't a mother alive who hasn't, during the course of her pregnancy (and sometimes, after the pregnancy as well), asked herself a dozen questions about the wisdom of her decision to become a mother.   Hormones are powerful things.....but so are words.  

The pro-abortion leftists deployed a mountain of dehumanizing words to convince the FDA to approve the sale of the quaintly-termed "morning after pill".    But this young mother now must wrestle with the most human range of emotions a mother can feel while agonizing over the health and safety of her baby, now having mistakenly ingested this "safe, effective" pill.   The overwhelming emotions she is experiencing is what every new mother feels as soon as she discovers she is pregnant, and it is why when pregnant ladies are asked what gender they would like to have, they always put the word "healthy" somewhere in the answer.  Now this roller coaster of hormones and emotions has just been complicated by the introduction of a pill that in another situation, a mere change of circumstances, we have been told, would be an entirely different and supposedly unremarkable occurrence.  This young mother has tragically discovered much earlier than most new mothers that her concerns are going to be ever present for the lifetime of her child, and it is only just the beginning of a lifetime of motherly worry. 

This is no disposable clump of cells for this mother.   

Sending prayers for the health and safety of  both mother and child, two precious lives indeed.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 8.6/10 (35 votes cast)
Baby or clump of cells?, 8.6 out of 10 based on 35 ratings

Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:


  1. interested1Comment by interested1
    February 10, 2011 @ 11:42 am

    This seems to be making a spurious connection between accidentally taking a cancer medication and an argument against abortion. This unfortunate woman should take serious issue with the pharmacy, but I don’t really see the connection to the language of a “clump of cells.” If you want to write a post about the sensitive issue of abortion, please don’t hijack this woman’s story and exploit it for your own purposes.
    I respect your opinion that her fetus is a life, but I think you’re misleading people with comments like these: “Haven’t the pro-abortion leftists made the case that abortion today is no big deal, medically, physically, psychologically, etc.?”
    NO ONE is pro-abortion. No one except psychopaths WANTS to kill anything that could become or is life. Your rhetoric hurts your cause. I was with you until you said this. I understand you have a “base” to satisfy, but please agree that this is a matter of being pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I can’t think of anyone who would say that abortion is no big deal medically, physically, psychologically. It is a horrifying thing to have to decide, I’m sure, and takes its toll in all three of these ways for a lifetime. Liberals don’t take abortion lightly and would never encourage someone to abort just because she partied too hard (but to be fair, what a terrible mother she might  make if she is so incredibly irresponsible in the first place. A poor, damaged child who has to deal with a mother so selfish).
    I would never ask you to change your mind, but I would ask that you not demonize the millions of people who simply thing it’s not their place to choose on behalf of another person.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.8/5 (20 votes cast)
    • jules91Comment by jules91
      February 10, 2011 @ 12:09 pm

      You know what the ironic thing about abortion is though, interested1?  The mother “chooses on behalf of another person” – she chooses death for the unborn baby.  They don’t get the baby’s opinion on whether the child would prefer to live or die.  The only one in this situation who doesn’t get any choice is an innocent human baby.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (19 votes cast)
    • interested1Comment by interested1
      February 10, 2011 @ 12:13 pm

      Jules, the mother isn’t making a choice on behalf of the baby. The mother is making a choice ABOUT the baby. And babies don’t have opinions until they can form thoughts, which doesn’t happen until they are alive for a quite a while. Do you imagine that they are living like the babies in Look Who’s Talking?
      I’m not defending abortion, I’m just defending people who want to stay out of it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (11 votes cast)
    • jules91Comment by jules91
      February 10, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

      Wow, interested1, I simply posed a question to you and you have to reply with such rude sarcasm?  As the mother of 4 children, I believe I know how things work during a pregnancy, thank you very much.  I also know without any doubt that the baby in a womb is very much alive and can feel the pain inflicted through an abortion process.  Of course they cannot think rationally and reason yet, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t alive.  If I took your argument to its fullest consequences, then you must believe that people with disabilities that prevent their minds from functioning fully (allowing for rational thought) could be “gotten rid of”  by those caring for them.    I cannot imagine you think this way, but yet you would argue this for an unborn child?  You are a contradiction.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (12 votes cast)
    • interested1Comment by interested1
      February 10, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

      I was only referring to your comment about the baby having an opinion, not about whether or not you should kill someone who doesn’t think. I guess that was just semantics. You’re right about being rude, though, and I’m sorry. It’s heated and I apologize. Even though there’s no way to prove tone of voice on a message board, I hope you believe I’m being genuine here.

      I do believe that it’s a bit of a slippery slope logical fallacy to say my argument lends itself to killing disabled people. I don’t think women have abortions because the baby can’t think. I think they have them because they are scared and unable to care psychologically or financially for a child or during pregnancy. If they make the choice to spare their babies a difficult life that may even end in starvation or death by negligence (or if it’s for their own selfish reasons), that’s their prerogative and only for a higher being to judge.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (10 votes cast)
    • Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
      February 10, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

      Interested1, you like the nice sweet term “pro-choice” but the fact is that that is another one of those euphemisms designed by pro-abortionists to sound less horrific.  If there was true “choice,” it would include the choice to carry the baby to full term.  The correct term in this case is “pro-abortion,” no matter what the lefties say.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (14 votes cast)
    • jules91Comment by jules91
      February 10, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

      Interested1, I thank you for your recent comment and do believe you are genuine.  I accept your apology.  This is a pleasant surprise to find kindness in online posts, as it seems a large segment of those who post online in general are very crude and vicious.

      I also agree with you that women don’t have abortions because the baby cannot think and cannot communicate.  I also agree that most women with unexpected pregnancies are scared and don’t know how they will provide for the child or get through the symptoms that come with a pregnancy.  However, pregnancy is a short term situation in the whole scheme of life.  It will be over eventually.  And there is nothing that requires that if the woman carries the child to term, she must keep it and care for it for another 18 years.  There are so many childless couples out there who would give anything (and some do) to have a child to love and raise. 

      As a woman, I can fully understand the fear and embarrassment that would come with an unwanted pregnancy.  We don’t have to experience it to know how that would feel.  But like I said, a pregnancy will be over eventually.  If a woman would honor the life of the baby, and put it up for adoption,  she could go on with her life afterward without the responsibilities and restraints a child puts on you.

      My final comment to you would be that the “higher being” you refer to has made His opinion very clear on the subject.  According to what He has said, I can see He loves every child and wishes them to live the best life possible.

      Thank you for your debate.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
    • fallingComment by falling
      February 11, 2011 @ 12:35 am

      This woman’s story IS the story of abortion!  It brings up the question of when a fertilized cell becomes a human life of value.  For this young woman the answer is the the “fetus” she is carrying is her beloved child and the pharmacy had no right to take a chance with her child’s life.  Should this young woman miscarry, the pharmacy who gave her the wrong pill will be paying out a very large amount of money. But even if she does not miscarry the pharmacy,by law, is responsible for all of her medical bills and all health problems the “child” she is carrying may have due to this medication…for the life of that child! 

      But if her pregnancy is really just a ”clump of cells” and NOT a human life, why should this story even be of interest to anyone…much less cost this pharmacy a large amount of money and the pharmcist their job and possibly much more?

      You say no one is pro-abortion…you have obviously never known a young woman whose boyfriend is saying she must get rid of the “problem” or he is leaving her.  Or known someone who has just had their eigth abortion in six years.  Pro-choice is just another way of encouraging these women to see their unborn children as nothing more than a “fetus, embryo, mass of cells” that can easily be gotten rid of, instead of a developing baby or child to be cherished and protected.

      No one believes a woman who gives birth must be forced to raise that child if she feels unable or is unwilling to do so.  It is a shame we have not made the act of giving a child up for adoption as acceptable a choice as we have made killing our unborn babies.  I do not believe ANYONE should stand in the way of a young woman chosing to give her child up for adoption, but I do believe that every developing child deserves the same opportunities to grow up that it’s mother was given. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  2. bgannyfComment by babs
    February 10, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

    Reply to interested1

    Oh my dear – the definition of ProChoice means Proabortion.  You cannot separate the two so flippantly.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (17 votes cast)
    • Mary SComment by Mary S
      February 10, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

      They always try to make a distinction by calling it “pro-choice”, don’t they?  Such a convenient and clever use of words.  Who isn’t for “choice”?  It’s a disingenuous argument.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (13 votes cast)
    • interested1Comment by interested1
      February 10, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

      Mary, your distinction is “Pro-Life.” Who isn’t for life? We all have it and cherish it! Nobody is for death. I don’t believe there is a cabal trying to figure out different ways to kill babies. For the same reason you don’t want me to tell you what to do, pro-choice means nobody can tell a woman what she is allowed to do under the law. I think both sides use language to their benefit. The blessings and curses of sharp marketing, I guess.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (9 votes cast)
  3. wallybluComment by wallyblu
    February 10, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

    I have a solution, we develope an abortion pill that kills the mother and leaves the baby viable.

    That way the mother doesn’t have to suffer the responsability of raising the child she helped conceive but the child doesn’t have to suffer the consquences.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (13 votes cast)
    • jules91Comment by jules91
      February 10, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

      Do you see what you are saying?!?  If you are pro-life, you want to preserve every life – even the mother’s when you disagree with her.  You should wish to change her mind, not wish her death!  Please think before you respond this way.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • ozoptimistComment by ozoptimist
      February 10, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

      I’m totally with you wallyblu,
      In fact, we should build a device that can read people’s minds and that way, anyone who is pro-abortion can be instantly killed before they even get pregnant.  That way we can get potential murderers off our streets.  It will be like “The Minority Report”, only better.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  4. lazarus2012Comment by lazarus2012
    February 10, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

    Legislation for abortion is not about a woman’s choice or a man’s responsibility although it has been marketed that way.  It is about long term government sponsored population reduction for the sole purpose of resource acquisition and rationing.   In the U.S., since 1973, 53 million consumers and their potential offspring have been “legally” killed through abortion.  Currently, our birthrate (excluding illegal immigrants) has stabilized at 2.08 children/family.  It is past time for these national policies to be ended.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (8 votes cast)
  5. tcal77Comment by tcal77
    February 10, 2011 @ 6:43 pm


    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • fallingComment by falling
      February 11, 2011 @ 12:02 am

      As a victim of rape, I feel free to respond to your post.  The child that resulted from my rape is now a wonderful young man, attending one of the best colleges in the country and will be graduating with honors in June, with a degree in international relations.  Perhaps the child you chose to kill would have appreciated the opportunity to become a mother/father, grandmother/grandfather, attend college, chose a profession…but you robbed your child of all that.  There was nothing forcing you to raise a child if you felt unable to after his birth, instead you refused a child already conceived all the life experiences you have enjoyed.  I am so very proud of my son, we are very close, he understands the circumstances of his conception and ever single day I am so glad I chose life…so is he.  You sound quite proud of your decision to chose to abort your child…wouldn’t you have been more proud to see him walk across the floor at his graduation?  Or to hold his child?
      You say people should not speak out loud about abortion…perhaps you are not quite as proud of your decision to kill your own child as you think you are?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (11 votes cast)
  6. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    February 15, 2011 @ 10:31 am

    Falling. Agree with you 100%. Abortion is more about the selfishness of the mother than anything else. As for Tcal177 by the fact you post in all cap’s you show too much anger to be at peace with your choice. You can lie to everyone on this site but you cant lie to God or yourself. My God show you the mercy that you could not show your unborn child.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment

Fresh Ink Archives

  • November 2015
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer