Recently there was a long (long, long, long!) discussion on the issue of abortion on a messageboard I frequent. Most members are American, so abortion rights are a more serious (and prominent) issue for them than they are in India.
I was discussing the issue with another member of the board (she's from Germany) later. The topic turned to female foeticide.
It's hard to reconcile abortion rights with a problem like female foeticide sometimes. Because what one is effectively saying is that a woman (or a couple) is free to abort as long as they're not doing it based on the sex of the foetus. That clause is problematic in itself (if you're going to allow people to abort anyway, why shouldn't sex be a determining factor, etc). But I'm willing to accept this even if I don't agree with it in theory because if you allowed it in this country at this time the results would be...messy.
I think the solution that the law has come up with in India is a reasonably sensible one - to keep abortion legal but to ban doctors from disclosing the gender of the foetus to the family. When I explained this to Monika (my German friend) she found it really odd - because the action that had been made illegal (knowing the gender of the foetus) was not harmful in itself. There was really nothing wrong with the parents knowing that they were going to have a little girl; it was the abortion of the little-girl-to-be because of her sex that was the problem.
I agree. It's weird. But, you know, I've seen enough people consoling new parents for their daughters, enough disturbing statistics about the male-female ratio to know that this is necessary and more important than the parents' need (and right) to know what gender names they need to be thinking of and what colour to paint the kid's room (green! yellow! purple! And it's okay for your son to be in a pink room - pastel blue isn't all that 'manly' anyway!).
So hurrah for weird but strangely sensible laws, I say.
Note: On this blog I often contradict myself. This is not because I am stupid, it is because I am trying to be balanced and unbiased and so end up confusing myself utterly. Please take any indicators of confusion or idiocy as evidence of what a good person I am. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Thank you for your note on contradicting yourself. I too find myself doing such things as I try to work therough the "oh so hard" issues of life.
I am VERY opposed to abortion and think these new surfacing questions of gender discrimination in the womb can be no other than contradicting to those who support abortion.
These are difficult issues that need to be weighed in the heart and not in politics. (although I know they do need to be worked through politically).
my blog: highchairtheology@blogspot.com
yes thank you for being a realist and stating that you contradict yourself, I find it fascinating that anyone could be a pro choice person. I am not offended by this even though I am a pro life person all the way. I think that no child's spirit should be condemned becuase the mother is lazy and doesn't want to "deal" with a baby.
I am personally opposed to abortion. But I do believe that there may be some situations in which abortion although not justified may be understandable.
Rayan Felix Coutinho
http://www.rcoutinho.com
I've see-sawed on this issue for years, but I think I've finally come to rest on the side of what is known as 'pro-choice'. Actually, I feel a bit puzzled even by the terminology of this debate. Pro-choice vs. pro-life? Why assume that the decision to not have a baby is opposed to life? I doubt if a terrified teenager caught unawares even thinks of a missed period as 'life'.
And then again ... (yes, I contradict myself too) - I do understand that for would-be parents longing for a baby, the missed period is truly a sign of life. And that it can be incomprehensible to them that anyone would want to 'kill' it.
For my own comfort, I've chosen to equate life with consciousness. And I do believe it is ok for a mother to decide whether or not she wants to create another conscious life.
Jodi - I think we all struggle with contradictions in our beliefs. That said, I don't think "those who support abortion" are contradicting themselves when they worry about gender discrimination and sex ratios.
elohimus maximus - Thanks, I try to convince myself that contradiction is due to my desire for balance. I'm glad you weren't offended by this...needless to say, though, I disagree with you on the abortion issue. I think it's terribly unfair to make such a sweeping statement, condemning all those who want abortions as 'lazy'. perhaps you could do a little research on the subject? Abortion is often necessary to save a woman's life, for example. And since I don't believe that a child's spirit is condemned, that the child feels any pain, or even that the foetus is a child at all, it's impossible for me to share your beliefs.
Rayan - by 'personally opposed' to abortion, do you mean that you would not choose to get one if you were saddled with an unwanted pregnancy? I know many people who share that opinion...but then, pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion, it includes the right to choose not to have an abortion too.
Or, if I've misunderstood you and you mean that abortion should only be allowed in particular circumstances, in which circumstances do you think they would be permissible, and who should be allowed to decide, legally?
Anjali - I think arguing about this issue is impossible, really. Everyone has their own ideas about what 'life' and 'personhood' mean and at what stage they begin, and no one is likely to budge from their position on that issue. Whatever decision is reached about legalising abortion, one side is sure to feel that rights are being violated.
For me, as for you, life begins with consciousness and interaction with the world.
maximus, that generalization is silly enough to be almost dangerous. Would you think that a woman who was raped was being 'lazy' for not wanting to hold the result of that crime in her womb for nine months? Or that a woman who would die if she was to attempt to give birth was being lazy in aborting? Like it or not, the baby is created inside the woman's body. It is HEr choice and nobody else's (other than perhaps the father, though to a lesser degree than the mom) what she does with it. What you're impllying is that the baby's life (and its not even really a very scientific thing to think of a month old fetus as a 'spirit' or a 'human being' or anything other than fledgling tissue really) is of primary concern over the mother's life and this is a criminal thing to suggest.
And those of you who think that abortion is 'ok in some cases' are pro-choice whether you like it or not. Because being 'pro-life' implies being opposed to abortion No Matter What.
Insightful post. Being pro choice means you support an individual woman's right to choose what happens to her body. But when a trend develops of aborting female fetuses, then that issue must be addressed. The reasonable choice is to deal with discriminatory views toward women, not by limiting women's autonomy.
Jodi-the selective abortion of female fetuses fits in with the more global view of controlling women's behavior. No contradiction here.
Maximus, thank you for providing further evidence that the pro life position is fundamentally an anti-woman viewpoint.
When I said "personally opposed to abortion," I meant that I would rather take care of the baby on my own than have the girl abort it, if it came to that. I know it is easier said than done. And I know being a guy I will never have to face that decision blah blah blah.
"But I do believe that there may be some situations in which abortion although not justified may be understandable." ---- incest, rape, mom's life in danger etc.
I hope that clarifies.
I was glad to come across some views on abortion. I thought the debate in India on this issue was dead. Our abortion law was lifted in toto from the british law with two additional explanations which were not required. I am pasting the essential section of the law below.
THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971
(Act No. 34 of 1971)
(10th August 1971)
An Act to provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered Medical Practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner, -
(a) Where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks if such medical practitioner is, or
(b) Where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioner are,
of opinion, formed in good faith, that -
(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or
(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped.
Explanation 1 - Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
Explanation 2 - Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
(3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant women’s actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.
I am comfortable with all the provisions of the Act. The problem area is Explanation 2. Contraceptive failure seldom takes place. The point is that this explanation can be used to terminate even the first healthy pregnancy of a married woman. Please note that this clause is applicable to married couples only. Now married couples know how children are conceived so should a first or even second healthy pregnancy of a married woman be terminated on this ground? This is the excuse which has been used to conduct sex selective abortions. It is however for consideration that a couple should be allowed to abort a pregnancy provided they have two surviving natural or legally adopted children. Our law in its present form actually encourages a medical practitioner to abort a pregnancy to restrict the number of children in a family when a family has not even been started! You can read a detailed article on the subject and a fairly animated discussion on www.indiatogether.org.
Hey your site looks a little bit strange in Firefox on my laptop with Mac .
Post a Comment