Tags
Abortion, Abortion Pill, De-humanizing & De-personalizing, Female Foeticide, Female Gendercide, Female Genocide, Harm Reduction, Mifegymiso, Personhood, Pill-Popping Society, RU-486, Take a pill for that, What it means to be a person
Bottles of the abortion-inducing drug RU-486. Charlie Neibergall/AP Photo
Global News recently reported “Abortion pill prescriptions likely to rise after 4,253 women used new option last year.”
“One year after the abortion pill became available to Canadian women, new numbers show thousands have used the new option for reproductive health care and sexual health experts say they expect that number to keep rising.
Mifegymiso is the commercial name for a two-drug combination approved by Health Canada to be used to terminate early pregnancies up to nine weeks, which was approved in 2015 with tight restrictions but only became available to the public in January 2017.”
In a Pill-Popping Society – what’s another Pill?
Is this a case of “oops, I did it again”? Unprotected sex, casual sex, or just a case of “didn’t want children right now” sex – taking a pill to terminate the child is an easy way to clean up an accidental spill, all the while not being in touch with what life is.
Sure, just take a pill for that. I get it. It’s harm reduction at it’s most relationally disconnected. People weren’t intending to make another person, they were just wanting to have fun.
Before You get all Moralizing on me
I am not intending to be about anti-abortion (sic); I’m trying to pump the breaks on a trend that further de-humanizes and de-personalizes us all. A society that so casually devalues pre-born life surely must eventually answer questions about the value of life at any stage.
But then, our society is already answering that question with hastening the end of life with Physician Assisted Death legislation. I am sure they’ll get around to finding “there’s a pill for that” too.
What’s the Concern?
The concern of “Reproductive Rights Advocates” (sic) isn’t about the life of the per-born child (of course not), or about a society that so casually terminates so many unwanted pregnancies. Instead,
“Reproductive rights advocates had raised concerns about the restrictions on the drug… While advocates say there is still much work to be done to improve access to the drug, they told Global News they’re encouraged to see the demand for the medication among Canadian women seeking abortions.
“It was really great to see that number,” said Frederique Chabot, director of health promotion for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights.”
Is it really “Great” to see the Number?
Really? Each year in Canada, roughly 100,000 women terminate their pregnancies.
Is it encouraging to see that number too?
How about the “great” number of abortions for no other reason than to eliminate more females than males from the gene pool?
Where the Conversation goes from here
If you want to keep the conversation about abortion firmly in the realm of “a woman’s right to chose what to do with her own body,” then I understand: this discussion means nothing to you.
If I have caused you some discomfort by bringing up this topic – I am sure you can take a pill for that.
What does it mean to be a Person?
However if you want to explore what it means to be a person… there’s more to the issue.
For more see “What it means to be a Person.“
More Enigma Than Dogma 
Forced birth will NEVER come back as long as progressive, medically aware people show up to vote.
Early term fetuses are unconscious and unable to experience pain; forcing early term pregnant girls and women against their will to stay pregnant and give birth by law or otherwise is inhumane and unjustifiable.
LikeLike
Amanda, thanks for your comments. At no time or in any way am I advocating for “forced birth.” I suspect the subtleties of my argument can easily get lost in this emotionally charged topic. As I contend, “I’m trying to pump the breaks on a trend that further de-humanizes and de-personalizes us all.” And therefore am trying to bring this discussion into considering what it means to be a person.
I am not advocating forcing women against their will to stay pregnant.
One of my concerns is about gender deselection of female fetuses? Are you concerned about this at all? https://moreenigma.com/2018/05/09/a-contradiction-for-mothers-day/
LikeLike
Obviously I dont agree with forced abortion by government or at all. No one should be forced to stay pregnant against their will, give birth against their will, or have an abortion against their will.
“Person” is irrelevant to suffering. Non-human animals suffer tremendously and early term fetuses are unconscious and unable to suffer. “Person” is an arbitrary concept to separate our species from all the rest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the record, I said nothing of “forced abortion” either. I wondered if the decision to terminate a female fetus because she is female, factors into your thinking.
Nor did I conflate “personhood” with “suffering.” I respectfully disagree with “person” as a arbitrary concept to separate our species from all the rest”.
I contend that the lack of understanding personhood leads to further dehumanizing anyone at any stage of life: this is the world we live in. The lack of respect for other species, I suspect, is related to the lack of respect for personhood.
Again, thanks for taking the time to comment.
LikeLike
If the decision is the pregnant girl or woman’s decision then it doesn’t matter what gender the fetus is.
So you’re saying there is an inherent difference in the human species than all other millions of species that’s relevant to the topic of abortion? Or is the topic forced abortion?
Because it seems to me that forced abortion against a woman’s will is wrong, not because it happens to “people”, but because it causes unnecessary suffering and because it violates basic life rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will remind readers that I welcome comments pertaining to my article, and to please resist the temptation to jump to conclusions I neither state nor suggest. Thanks.
LikeLike
You said society casually aborts fetuses in this article. I don’t know about that. I know of people who have had to have an abortion and there was nothing casual about it. It caused a great amount of grief. I understand where you are coming from. But, the reality is that many women who seek an abortion do not do it casually. And yes the number of abortions are high but, then again the world is overpopulated. It is unsustainable. Development experts are calling for birth control measures and programs to reduce the birth rate. Especially in Africa since we don’t have the infrastructure to provide for everyone. If all the fetuses could have been carried to full term and born who would have adopted all these children and supported them. I understand that you care about this issue there just isn’t an alternative which is viable in my view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nikki, thanks for your comments. I implied that the easy use of the abortion pill contributes to “a society that so casually devalues pre-born life surely must eventually answer questions about the value of life at any stage.” I suspect this is too nuanced a comment to make – since I am concerned concurrently with gender selection abortions that ironically enough usually means that females are more often being aborted than males.(https://moreenigma.com/2018/05/09/a-contradiction-for-mothers-day/).
I also implied a “casualness” that does not recognize personhood of the pre-born child. Frankly, I am more concerned about the dehumanizing trend than I am about choosing the word “casual.” But I will stick with “casual”, since Frederique Chabot, director of health promotion for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights seems to celebrate seeing the “really great number” taking the abortion pill. In comparison to a mere generation ago, I think it is safe to say, there is a frightening casualness to eliminating fetuses today, in particular, female fetuses.
I agree that those I know who have aborted their unborn child have gone through grief, and the dirty little secret is, they often continue to grieve. I suspect “taking a pill for that” makes the decision with less awareness of the child – and possibly with less grief.
As for abortion used as a birth control method, you may be too young to remember when society was quite against this as a purpose for abortion. Alas, that was many years ago, and the flood gates are open now. Some abortionists even suggest infanticide is acceptable if the new born child is disabled. https://moreenigma.com/2015/09/03/what-am-i-when-i-am-not-thinking/
In the West generally, couples hunger to adopt. It is a huge growth industry (sic). But I get your point: there is a fear that there would be too many children for families to adopt. I am not sure about that. But I am not suggesting that women who do not want to keep their child automatically become incubators for others. This to would be dehumanizing. The whole trend is sad.
I do see other viable alternatives to abortion though: birth control is ubiquitous, but not available to all? And as far as I know, people can still exercise self control re: sexuality; But this doesn’t touch what I am getting at: I am suggesting that taking a pill to abort is a symptom of a bigger issue of how we dehumanize and depersonalize the other.
Thanks again for commenting on such a topic as this.
LikeLike