Abortion Insight From An Unlikely Source

As longtime readers know, I’m no fan of Marc Emery, the self-styled “prince of pot”. Emery has built an entire career around avoiding personal responsibility and so I was quite surprised when I found his article on the Western Standard website to be so well-written and at the same time so personal. Unlike every other “why I had an abortion” article that I’ve read in the past two decades, Emery’s was detailed and honest; I still don’t agree with him but I’m also admiring his intellectual honesty in admitting what he got himself involved in thirty years ago.

If you scroll through the article (and just a warning, there is vulgarity used), you’ll find that he doesn’t mince words when talking about how the actual abortion procedure “killed” the unborn child or how he doesn’t skim over the details of his then-girlfriend’s painful day in a London hospital executing her control over her own bodily functions. In fact, I figure that if Emery’s piece were published in something like, say, the Toronto Star or the Globe, there’d be letters of protest screaming about not needing to know the ugly science behind abortion so long as it works — ignorance is bliss to the nth degree.

Of course, I think Emery is closer to the heart of the abortion issue than he knows when he questions whether sending literally hundreds of thousands of men and women to prison for murder (a scenario that would have to occur if we pursued every woman who had an abortion and every husband/boyfriend/fling who was an accessory); it’s true that if we did that we would have an amazingly guilty society. However, while I respect and understand where Emery is coming from on this one (he is, after all, the man who wants to overcome narcotics laws by viral marketing), I doubt our society would be nearly as nice if we didn’t pursue a society just as infiltrated with thieves; there is a reason we have justice systems in civilized societies.

Furthermore Emery’s admission that something died in the womb of his girlfriend 20 weeks after it came to be there is revealing in itself and a mature observation that many today are simply not capable of making. It is, for me, the thing Emery writes that is only trumped in significance by the bit Emery writes on having to name his dead child Ben.

When I read that part, I honestly got thinking and I wonder just how many abortions would go through in Canada if we made the mother give her “collection of cells” a name before the little bundle is escorted out of her. I don’t think that it will stop more abortions because people feel it is wrong, but rather because those who would find the simple act too much to bear wouldn’t be convinced that it was undoubtedly right. And that, my friends, makes the notion all the more significant when we realize that choices are the domain of adults, and not children who want to play grown-up.




Comments (2) to “Abortion Insight From An Unlikely Source”

  1. Thanks for highlighting this article. It was a riveting read.

    What I take from it is that there is a visceral reaction to killing one’s own child that our society tries to mask with euphemistic references to ’tissue’ and such. But in our guts we know the truth.

  2. I have spent a lot of time reading that article and I am still left hanging: What is Marc Emery advocating?

    As far as his personal experience is concerned, I do not trust his recollection of his own personal history. I find it highly ridiculous to believe that his long-time family doctor conspired to get his girl-friend pregnant by telling her to stop taking birth control pills yadda yadda yadda. This may sound harshly prejudicial but his account sounds neurotically paranoid.

    Instead of presenting himself as a “libertarian” in such a confused manner, I suggest that Emery just sticks to advocating the decriminalization of marijuana.

    At the end of the article, Emery writes: “In Canada, abortion is unregulated, and available with no state interference.” which is immeasurably naive for a self-described “libertarian” to say.
    In Canada, abortion is made available by the state and subsidized by the tax-payer. That is state interference.

    By the way, Matthew, thank you for the vulgar language warning.

Post a Comment
(Never published)