RU-486 Finally Available in Canada

-1=e^ipi · August 3, 2015

First off, it's a big assumption to assume everybody would be in favor of this.

I'm not assuming everyone would be in favor of this. I'm just saying it is extremely unlikely anyone would be opposed to this in this forum. Much like a topic on the Earth being round. And from what I have observed so far in this thread, there is no one opposed to this.

For example, why did this take so long, and what are the political ramifications.

If you aren't personally interested in the topic, why not move along instead of being a crybaby? Complaining that somebody started a thread that you don't personally find interesting is a diva move.

You have 2 false premises here:

1. The claim that I'm being a 'crybaby'.

2. The claim that I'm complaining about the existence of this thread.

In any case, I have contributed to this thread. For example, should we get rid of the precautionary principle if it slows down drug availability?

Big Guy · August 3, 2015

To cybercoma - Certainly you must see a difference between a male surreptitiously slipping a pregnancy termination drug into somebody's drink or food and him using force as an obvious attempt to injure an individual. Before this drug, it would have been very difficult for someone to cause a termination of pregnancy in someone not wanting the termination. This way the male could stay anonymous and still accomplish his goal - without endangering the life of the mother.

I can see this drug also being abused by parents of young pregnant females who they believe to be "too young to be a mother".

As far as getting access to these drugs - ANY drug can be obtained illegally.

At this point in time the male parent has no rights as to the potential child that the mother is carrying. He has no say in the future of that pregnancy and the effect that it would have on his future.

WestCoastRunner · August 3, 2015

To cybercoma - Certainly you must see a difference between a male surreptitiously slipping a pregnancy termination drug into somebody's drink or food and him using force as an obvious attempt to injure an individual. Before this drug, it would have been very difficult for someone to cause a termination of pregnancy in someone not wanting the termination. This way the male could stay anonymous and still accomplish his goal - without endangering the life of the mother.

I can see this drug also being abused by parents of young pregnant females who they believe to be "too young to be a mother".

As far as getting access to these drugs - ANY drug can be obtained illegally.

At this point in time the male parent has no rights as to the potential child that the mother is carrying. He has no say in the future of that pregnancy and the effect that it would have on his future.

This would be difficult to achieve. First you need a prescription. Second. In order for this to work the pills need to be taken over a couple of days.

WestCoastRunner · August 3, 2015

I'm not assuming everyone would be in favor of this. I'm just saying it is extremely unlikely anyone would be opposed to this in this forum. Much like a topic on the Earth being round. And from what I have observed so far in this thread, there is no one opposed to this.

You have 2 false premises here:

1. The claim that I'm being a 'crybaby'.

2. The claim that I'm complaining about the existence of this thread.

In any case, I have contributed to this thread. For example, should we get rid of the precautionary principle if it slows down drug availability?

We have no idea of precautionary tests or trials in Canada because of health Canada's secrecy. If you look to the states they are far more transparent, releasing tons of data that is available to the public. At one time health Canada was far more transparent but not anymore.

cybercoma · August 3, 2015

To cybercoma - Certainly you must see a difference between a male surreptitiously slipping a pregnancy termination drug into somebody's drink or food and him using force as an obvious attempt to injure an individual.

No. I really don't. It's assault and a criminal offence under s. 245 of the criminal code. Under the circumstances you describe the person could get 14 years in prison.

Big Guy · August 4, 2015

May I suggest that the difference is in the chance of the perp being caught, charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

My point is that with this medication, it will make it easier and therefore more tempting for a disgruntled male to surreptitiously terminate the pregnancy of the potential mother of his child without causing permanent harm to her or getting caught in the process.

I agree that the act is as criminal as using a coat hanger without the permission of the female but the end is result is almost guaranteed and the potential mother may not even know what caused the termination - a natural miscarriage or one that has been induced.

WestCoastRunner · August 4, 2015

May I suggest that the difference is in the chance of the perp being caught, charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

My point is that with this medication, it will make it easier and therefore more tempting for a disgruntled male to surreptitiously terminate the pregnancy of the potential mother of his child without causing permanent harm to her or getting caught in the process.

I agree that the act is as criminal as using a coat hanger without the permission of the female but the end is result is almost guaranteed and the potential mother may not even know what caused the termination - a natural miscarriage or one that has been induced.

If the woman is considering aborting with the drug you can be sure she is not going to tell her partner. Women aren't stupid. Edited August 4, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Big Guy · August 4, 2015

My point is that if the male is considering aborting her pregnancy with a drug you can be sure he isn't going to tell his partner. He is not stupid and does not intend to go to jail.

WestCoastRunner · August 4, 2015

My point is that if the male is considering aborting her pregnancy with a drug you can be sure he isn't going to tell his partner. He is not stupid and does not intend to go to jail.

For gods sake. He would have to do an awful lot of planning to obtain the drug and dispense it over a number of days. Do we really need to be concerned about this?

On Guard for Thee · August 4, 2015

My point is that if the male is considering aborting her pregnancy with a drug you can be sure he isn't going to tell his partner. He is not stupid and does not intend to go to jail.

How would he get the drug? And if he somehow was able to without leaving a trail a mile wide, I suspect the drug would be traceable after the fact and she would likely have suspicion as to how she got it. Do you also worry about why water doesn't flow up your bum when you sit in the bathtub?

-1=e^ipi · August 4, 2015

If the woman is considering aborting with the drug you can be sure she is not going to tell her partner.

What? Are you saying that heterosexual couples that have an unexpected pregnancy and where both individuals agree that they aren't ready to start a family don't exist?

Women aren't stupid.

Some are. Don't generalize.

bush_cheney2004 · August 4, 2015

We have no idea of precautionary tests or trials in Canada because of health Canada's secrecy. If you look to the states they are far more transparent, releasing tons of data that is available to the public. At one time health Canada was far more transparent but not anymore.

Oh yes...so much better..."in the states".

WestCoastRunner · August 4, 2015

What? Are you saying that heterosexual couples that have an unexpected pregnancy and where both individuals agree that they aren't ready to start a family

Some are. Don't generalize.

I'm saying. If it's a one night stand bring on the drugs.

Edited August 4, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

-1=e^ipi · August 4, 2015

I'm saying. If it's a one night stand bring on the drugs.

Well sorry, I can only read what you write, not your mind. I apologize for taking what you wrote literally.

WestCoastRunner · August 4, 2015

Oh yes...so much better..."in the states".

Troll alert. You are seriously moving this thread forward.

bush_cheney2004 · August 4, 2015

Troll alert. You are seriously moving this thread forward.

No...same question that has still gone unanswered. Why did it take so damn long to get this abortion drug approved in "liberal" Canada ?

Was Health Canada still reeling from the Thalidomide fiasco ?

Edited August 4, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

cybercoma · August 4, 2015

My point is that with this medication, it will make it easier and therefore more tempting for a disgruntled male to surreptitiously terminate the pregnancy of the potential mother of his child without causing permanent harm to her or getting caught in the process.

First of all, you need a prescription for the drug and secondly you need more than one dosage. Further still, what you're asking is akin to saying "what's to stop people from killing each other" or "what's to stop a guy from raping a woman?" The answer is nothing. If someone wants to do those things they can and they will. There are numerous other abortifacients that someone intent on poisoning someone could use. The Greeks used them in antiquity. Tribes in Africa had knowledge of plants for this purpose hundreds of years ago. There's all kinds of ways a man intent on doing so, could terminate his partner's pregnancy. So how exactly does legalizing this drug and making it available by prescription have any bearing on your question?

Big Guy · August 4, 2015

I do not look at bringing up a possible consequence of making a new drug available as fear or concern. I assume posters bring up issues here for analysis and discussion. I took a view that no others seemed to offer or consider.

Knowing human nature, every positive discovery or invention will be abused by some to satisfy a personal agenda. It is only a matter of time before this new drug will be abused in exactly the manner I suggested - I will guarantee that.

Unfortunately, It appears that under the current atmosphere on this board, any suggestion is classified as good or bad or depending on which poster made the statement - then it is crap on poster time.

My personal view is that this drug is badly needed and should have been available earlier. As a matter of fact it has been available on the underground market in Canada since 2000 when it was approved in the USA.

And to On Guard for Thee - "Do you also worry about why water doesn't flow up your bum when you sit in the tub"? I am disappointed. I had mistakenly considered you above that kind of rhetoric. But, so be it.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Big Guy

The_Squid · August 4, 2015

It is only a matter of time before this new drug will be abused in exactly the manner I suggested - I will guarantee that.

Unfortunately, It appears that under the current atmosphere on this board, any suggestion is classified as good or bad or depending on which poster made the statement - then it is crap on poster time.

I think you're being overly sensitive. Your theory about how the drug might be used was illogical at best and a bit of conspiracy theory nonsense. If it is available on the black market, then wouldn't it be used in that way now? Even more so since a Rx is not needed.

It was a bit of a far fetched idea.

Big Guy · August 4, 2015

Time will tell if it was far fetched or not - it is of no consequence to me. It was my contribution to the opinion of uses and misuses of a new drug and the consequences of making it available in Canada.

As to my sensitivity - I would like to think that I am able to maintain a standard and level of communication and discourse which does not require insults. When I encounter rude individuals in real life, I ignore them initially and then avoid them in the future. That is difficult to do on anonymous public bulletin boards because of the large number of angry people who are drawn to the medium just because of the opportunity to be rude and insulting without suffering the consequences.

I am not prepared to accept the level of obvious opportunistic mutual dislike on this board as my acceptable level of communication. I have no intention of regressing to unproductive mutual bashing.

Inability to express one's views or to disagree with others without demeaning them is not a positive trait but a negative indicator of one's lack of self respect. Those who cannot respect others do not respect themselves.

WIP · August 4, 2015

My point is that if the male is considering aborting her pregnancy with a drug you can be sure he isn't going to tell his partner. He is not stupid and does not intend to go to jail.

Seems like you are really reaching in this last few posts to find some scenario to justify restricting this drug.

WIP · August 4, 2015

What? Are you saying that heterosexual couples that have an unexpected pregnancy and where both individuals agree that they aren't ready to start a family don't exist?

Couple or not, women are the ones who have to deal directly with nine months of pregnancy and giving birth to a baby, so it's up to the unexpectedly pregnant half of that couple, to have the choice of whether to take the drug/or not.

The_Squid · August 4, 2015

Time will tell if it was far fetched or not - it is of no consequence to me. It was my contribution to the opinion of uses and misuses of a new drug and the consequences of making it available in Canada.

As to my sensitivity - I would like to think that I am able to maintain a standard and level of communication and discourse which does not require insults. When I encounter rude individuals in real life, I ignore them initially and then avoid them in the future. That is difficult to do on anonymous public bulletin boards because of the large number of angry people who are drawn to the medium just because of the opportunity to be rude and insulting without suffering the consequences.

I am not prepared to accept the level of obvious opportunistic mutual dislike on this board as my acceptable level of communication. I have no intention of regressing to unproductive mutual bashing.

Inability to express one's views or to disagree with others without demeaning them is not a positive trait but a negative indicator of one's lack of self respect. Those who cannot respect others do not respect themselves.

Seems like you are really reaching in this last few posts to find some scenario to justify restricting this drug.

Exactly WIP... when someone makes fairly absurd comments and elaborate scenarios how this could be used in a bad way by someone, it gets a bit ridiculous and some posters may feel that you aren't all that serious about having a conversation in the first place. That's how people react to outlandish posts.

-1=e^ipi · August 4, 2015

Couple or not, women are the ones who have to deal directly with nine months of pregnancy and giving birth to a baby, so it's up to the unexpectedly pregnant half of that couple, to have the choice of whether to take the drug/or not.

This is incorrect. There are some men that give birth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2111259/The-man-given-birth-times-With-broad-smiles-Beaties-look-like-normal-happy-family-Nothing-truth-.html

cybercoma · August 4, 2015

This is incorrect. There are some men that give birth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2111259/The-man-given-birth-times-With-broad-smiles-Beaties-look-like-normal-happy-family-Nothing-truth-.html

And that doesn't contradict WIP's point at all. It's the pregnant person's choice about whether they want to be pregnant for nine months and deliver a baby.