.png)
Introduction:
The discussion of abortion regulations generates passionate exchanges and strong feelings in the vast and varied country of India,where customs coexist with modernity. A wide range of opinions have been expressed in public conversations over the issue of whether abortion ought to be considered a fundamental right or if the sanctity of life should take precedence. This blog post explores the complex tango between pro life and pro choice viewpoints, diving into the core of this intense dispute.
.png)
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of 1971 marked the beginning of India’s legal journey on abortion, as it sought to establish a framework for safe and regulated abortion practices. By the year 2021, the scene has changed to reflect both advances in medicine and shifting social mores. The MTP Amendment Act of 2021 brought about a number of noteworthy modifications, including an extension of the legal gestation period for abortions and increased access for vulnerable populations.
On paper, nevertheless, laws frequently encounter difficulties in practice. These difficulties have been highlighted by the recent Supreme Court case involving a 26-week pregnant lady who wanted to end her pregnancy. The decision—which the Court first upheld—was subsequently challenged, bringing attention to the precarious balance that exists between a woman’s autonomy and the potential life of the unborn child. The case has sparked intense emotions and critical thinking about rights, ethics, and social norms, reigniting the pro-life vs pro-choice argument.
This blog post will examine the latest Supreme Court judgement, navigate the complicated terrain of Indian abortion legislation, and offer strong arguments on both sides of the issue. Our goal in conducting this investigation is to shed light on the complex facts surrounding abortion rights and promote a more thorough comprehension of this important topic. Come explore the interplay of law, morality, and individual decision as we untangle this complex tapestry.
Defining Abortion:
Abortion means a pregnancy interruption “before the fetus is viable” or “before the fetus is able to live independently in the extrauterine environment, usually before the 20th week of pregnancy.
Induced Abortion:
Induced abortion is legally defined as an untimely delivery voluntarily procured with intent to destroy the foetus. It may be procured at any time before the natural birth of the child.
However, in medical terminology abortion means untimely delivery of a child before it is viable. A child is considered as viable from the twenty eighth week of pregnancy.
A pregnancy can be ended medically or surgically before the foetus is ready to live on its own outside the mother's womb. This procedure is referred to as an abortion. Expulsion of the foetus or embryo is required to terminate the pregnancy. Two primary categories exist for abortion:
1.Medical Abortion: Medical abortion entails administering medication to terminate a pregnancy. It is usually effective for up to 10 weeks of gestation and uses a combination of medications like mifepristone and misoprostol.
2.Surgical abortion: It is a medical treatment that removes a pregnancy from the uterus. Suction aspiration, dilatation and curettage (D&C), and dilation and evacuation (D&E) are the three types of surgical abortions available depending on the stage of pregnancy.
Historical Context of Abortion Laws in India:
A. Before 1960s:
Mahabharata, a great epic of the time, depicts the Hindu view as letting a woman's ritu (fertile period) go waste was a sin tantamount to embryo murder.
Before 1960s , laws relating to Abortion were very rigid in nature. The Indian Penal Code criminalised Induced Abortion under Article 312 to 316 of the code.
Article 312: Causing Miscarriage-
Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both and if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation — A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section.
a) Section 312 used the word ‘Miscarriage' instead of 'Adoption' purposely to avoid hurting the sentiments and belief system of traditional Indian society.
b) Section 312 makes it clear that the offender can be woman herself or any other person.
c) A person voluntarily causing a woman to miscarry can escape criminal liability under Section 312 only when the act was done in good faith in order to save the life of the mother or in bonafide faith that, had miscarriage been not performed, could cause serious mental or physical deterioration to the prospective mother. However, what constitutes good faith is a matter of fact and had to derived from the facts and circumstances of the case.
B. Mid 1960s:
In the mid 1960s, the Women Rights Groups, Reproductive Rights Advocates, Mental Health Groups and Humanitarian Advocates started voicing for the women's right over their reproductive choices based on the principles of Right to Bodily Integrity and Right to Privacy under Right to life and Personal Liberty (Article 21).
Moreover, the maternal mortality rate had reached high levels. It was estimated that before the enactment of Medical Termination Pregnancy Act, 1971,as many as five million induced abortions were carried out in India every year, of which more than three million were illegal, but perhaps not even one percent prosecutions and successful convictions had been taken.
What were the reasons behind such a increasingly high Maternal Mortality rate??
a) The prevalence of back alley abortions at the hands of inexperienced and unqualified individuals such as quacks, nurses and midwives.
b) Most of the induced abortions were performed in secrecy.
c) The methods used were often unhygienic and dangerous.
d) The rigid nature of abortions laws contributed to suicide by women, abandonment of unwanted children and infanticides.
In 1964, owing to the rising voices over women’s reproductive rights, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) ordered the constitution of a committee under the chairmanship of Shanti Lal Shah called Shanti Lal Shah Committee, for looking into the legal, social and ethical need for proper legislation on abortion laws.
The committed submitted the report on December 30,1966 and consequently, the Medical Termination Pregnancy Act, 1971 was passed on August 10, 1971.
C. The Medical Termination Pregnancy Act, 1971:
Section 3 of the Act specifies conditions under which abortion can be legally performed:
a)When there is a risk to the life of woman;
b) When there is a risk of grave injury to her physical or mental health;
c) When there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, he would suffer from a grave physical or mental abnormality;
d) When the pregnancy is caused by rape;
e) Contraceptive failure led to the pregnancy.
Gestational limit:
The legal gestational limit to perform abortion is categorised into two, 0-12 weeks and 12-20 weeks. In the former case, abortion can be performed with the approval of one registered medical practitioner and in the latter case, abortion can be performed with the approval of two registered medical practitioners.
What were the discrepancies in the Act?
Abortion was made legal in cases of pregnancy caused by rape. However, in cases of pregnancy caused by illegal sexual contact or in cases when the sexual intercourse didn’t amount to rape, abortion attracted criminal liability under Section 312.
The Latin maxim, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ,says, every man is presumed to be innocent in a court of law. Hence one is not guilty of rape unless he is convicted. The question is whether a woman who has been raped should wait for the court to convict the accused before seeking an abortion, or if the pregnancy should be terminated while the case is pending. If she chooses the latter and the accused is acquitted, she may be held accountable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code for illegal abortion.
D. Amendment in 2002 and 2003:
In 2003, a crucial amendment to the MTP Act expanded abortion options by allowing the use of misoprostol for medical abortions lasting up to seven weeks. This innovation gave women safer, more accessible options for ending pregnancies.
These Amendments decentralized the access to abortion care to district level. However the proposal to prevent sex selective abortion was deemed unethical and was not pursued.
E. The Medical Termination Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021:
The amendments made are as follows:
a) It increased the upper gestational limit from 20- 24 weeks.
b) The approval of only one registered medical practitioner is required for pregnancies upto 20 weeks and two registered medical practitioners for pregnancies of 20-24 weeks.
c) A pregnant woman can avail abortions services for pregnancies if she satisfies any of the following conditions:
(i) Risk to her life is pregnancy is continued;
(ii) Grave injury to her mental or physical well being if pregnancy is continued;
(iii) Pregnancy caused by rape or as result of contraceptive failure;
(iv) There is a substantial risk of serious physical and mental abnormality if the child were born.
d) Termination of pregnancy upto 24 weeks is allowed if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i)if she is the survivor of sexual assault, rape or incest;
(ii) if she is a minor;
(iii) if her marital status has changed during the continuation of pregnancy;
(iv) she is a differently abled person;
(v) in cases of abnormality being detected or there is a high risk of the child born be seriously handicapped;
(vi) if she is in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations has been declared by the government.
e) Termination of pregnancy above 24 weeks:
It is allowed only in cases when there is a risk to mother’s life. It is also allowed when a Medical Board diagnoses a substantial foetal abnormality. Each Board consists of a gynaecologist, a paediatrician, a radiologist/ sonologist and other members as notified by the State government.
f) Confidentiality Clause:
In order to safeguard the privacy of women seeking abortions, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Amendment Act, 2021, has a substantial secrecy clause. With the exception of those who are legally permitted to receive such information, this provision guarantees the confidentiality of the identity and personal data of women having abortions.
(i) XYZ Hospital v. ABC Hospital:
A hospital disclosed a woman's personal details after she had an abortion. The court ruled in favour of the woman, using the confidentiality section of the MTP Act, 2021, and penalised the hospital for the violation of privacy.
(ii) LMN v. State of Karnataka:
Without the woman's consent, her employer was informed about the specifics of the abortion. The woman's identity and personal information were protected by the secrecy provision, which was reaffirmed by the court. The employer was also ordered to make up for the breach.
g) Inclusion of unmarried women:
Legal advantages were historically linked to marriage, but contemporary thought is rethinking this idea and valuing individual rights apart from marriage. In order to ensure that laws fulfill their original purpose, our interpretation of them must adapt to the changing needs of society. Laws are seen of as "always speaking," constantly adjusting to the shifting social context.
In Badshah v. Urmilla Badshah Godse, AK Sikri J. reiterated,
“The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes patterns of behaviour. It reflects the values of society. The role of the court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a living organism. It is based on a given factual and social reality that is constantly changing. Sometimes change in law precedes societal change and is even intended to stimulate it. In most cases, however, a change in law is the result of a change in social reality. Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too. Just as change in social reality is the law of life, responsiveness to change in social reality is the life of the law. It can be said that the history of law is the history of adapting the law to society’s changing needs. In both constitutional and statutory interpretation, the court is supposed to exercise discretion in determining the proper relationship between the subjective and objective purposes of the law.”
In X v. Principal Secretary, the court was hearing a case of a 25 year old woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy of 22 weeks. However, her plea was rejected on the grounds that unmarried women can’t avail the benefits of MTP, 2021.
But, SC took a purposive view of the concerned legislation and explained that as per the Rule 3B of MTP, 2021, unmarried women are included within its ambit.
The Explanation clause replaced the point “ married woman or her husband” with “ any woman or her partner” indicating the intention of the legislators to extend the benefits legal and safe abortion services to unmarried women too.
Court's remarks on marital rape:
The Court decided that marital rape is included in the definition of “rape” or “sexual assault” under MTP Act Rule 3B(a). To force a woman to become pregnant after being raped in marriage would be to expose her to continual physical and psychological torment.
Justice Verma Committee had recommended that the exception to marital rape should be removed ,as Justice remarked, “A rapist remains a rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim.”
Drawbacks of MTP Act, 2021:
1. There exists a constant fear of prosecution on the part of registered medical practitioners (RMPs). They are often reluctant and insist on compliance with extra legal conditions such as consent from woman’s family, documentary proofs and judicial authorisation. As we know that a woman’ s consent is solely enough for abortion procedure ( except in cases of minor pregnant woman, where her guardian’s consent is required), but a lack of awareness in society of the new MTP rules results in women resorting to unsafe procedures at the hands of untrained individuals when they can’t comply with so many conditions imposed upon them.
2. The unnecessary delays by the authorities can have really disastrous effect on the woman seeking abortion.
In Z v. State of Bihar, the Court criticized Patna Medical College for delaying a rape victim’s abortion past 20 weeks, highlighting their negligence. The woman received compensation for the undue delay as after so much delay, the pregnancy couldn’t be terminated without putting the life of aggrieved woman at risk.
3. The MTP Act, 2021 is still a provider centric law as it requires the approval of RMPs for abortion.
The RMPs approval precedes woman's right to reproductive autonomy. India hasn’t still moved from grounds based and gestational limit approaches.
4. Lack of infrastructural facilities.
5. Failure to ensure Confidentiality care.
6. Social stigma around the topic of abortion especially for unmarried women limits their right of bodily autonomy.
Recent Supreme Court Judgement and the emergence of Pro- rights v. Pro-choice debate:
In X v. Union of India, a 27-year-old woman, unaware of her pregnancy due to Lactational Amenorrhea, sought to terminate her 24-week pregnancy on October 4, 2023, citing postpartum depression and suicidal tendencies.
The Court formed a medical board, and AIIMS reported the child's reasonable chance of survival outside the womb.
Despite this, Dr. K. Aparna Sharma from AIIMS warned of severe disabilities for a preterm baby.
The two-judge bench of Justices Hima Kohli and BV Nagarathna initially allowed the termination, emphasizing the woman’s reproductive autonomy. However, a split verdict arose when Dr. Sharma’s email highlighted the child's potential disabilities.
Justice Kohli opposed termination to protect the child, while Justice Nagarathna supported the woman’s right to autonomy. This led to a three-judge bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud, which ruled against stopping the fetus’s heart or risking severe disability. The case ignited a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.
Why Abortion should be a fundamental right?
Unsafe Abortions:
Unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and close to 8 women die from causes related to unsafe abortions each day, according to United Nations Population Fund ( UNFP)’s State of the World Population Report 2022.
The main causes of death from unsafe abortions are hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, genital trauma and necrotic bowel.
Approximately 42 million women worldwide seek abortions annually. Nearly 20 million of these procedures are unsafe.
Of these 20 million, 97% of unsafe abortions occur in developing countries. Only 3% of abortions are unsafe in Western nations compared to 55% in developing nations.
Consequences of Unsafe Abortion:
a) Incomplete abortion.
b) Hemorrhage (heavy bleeding).
c) Infection.
d) Uterine perforation.
e) Damage to genital tract and internal organs from dangerous objects.
f) Distress and Stigma
g) Violation of human rights( right to privacy, right to equality and non discrimination)
Reasons of Unsafe Abortions:
a) Extreme financial burden and loss of income makes access to safe abortion care difficult or even impossible for women with low resources,
b) A lack of clarity and understanding about what the law allows,
c) Limited infrastructure services,
d) Not enough qualified providers,
e) Abortion discrimination and social stigma associated with abortion,
f) Humanitarian crisis situation can hinder abortion care too,
g) Unwanted pregnancies can trap individuals in cycles of poverty and limit their educational and employment opportunities. Hence, the existence of restrictive abortion rights compels them to rely on unsafe procedures at the hands of untrained practitioners,
h) It has been observed that criminalisation of abortion or strict regulations doesn’t reduce the abortion incidences. On the contrary, it leads to aggravated chances of women resorting to such unsafe abortions due to fear of prosecution on one hand and social stigma on the other,
i) Often, the religious and ethical values of practitioners or abortion providers coupled with their fear of prosecution hinders them to provide abortion care and perform procedures. Hence, they make unnecessary delays and requires women to undergo multiple tests and authorization from family and courts. It turns out to be tedious and financially imposing on women.
Right to Reproductive Autonomy:
Reproductive rights go beyond the decision to bear children, embracing a range of liberties crucial to women's control over their sexual and reproductive health. These rights include access to contraception, sexual health education, and safe legal abortion. According to Zakiya Luna (2020), reproduction is both biological and political, with sociological, legal, and economic frameworks all having an impact. Thus, women's pregnancy decisions are intensely personal, rooted in physical and decisional autonomy, and free of external compulsion or intervention. This autonomy is critical for ensuring women's rights and well-being.
In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Supreme Court emphasised women's reproductive autonomy and recognised it as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. The case featured a mentally impaired lady who became pregnant after being raped, and the High Court overruled her willingness to bear the child. However, the Supreme Court affirmed her right to consent, emphasising that reproductive choices, including the option not to reproduce, are fundamental to human liberty and privacy. This emphasises the necessity of respecting women's decisional autonomy and bodily integrity in reproductive issues.
In Devika Biswas v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed the appalling conditions at sterilisation camps while upholding women's broader reproductive rights. The argument maintained that reproductive rights, including the right to safe and legal abortions, are essential under Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Court acknowledged that coercive or hazardous reproductive operations violate women's autonomy and dignity, emphasising that reproductive decisions are critical to personal liberty and bodily integrity. This is consistent with arguments defending abortion as a fundamental right.
In KS Puttaswamy v. UOI, a nine judge bench SC recognized right to privacy as a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also laid down that right to bodily autonomy is an essential ingredient of right to privacy. The judgment emphasized that privacy is an inherent right, not granted by the state but existing independently.
“Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being”.
Right to Dignity:
The right to dignity is essential, encapsulating the idea that each person is a self-governing creature with intrinsic value. It maintains that human dignity is innate, not dictated by external forces, and emphasizes individual's ability to make self-defining and autonomous decisions.
This basic right is taken away from women by forcing them to carry unintended pregnancies to term, depriving them of agency over their bodies and futures. Their right to make decisions for themselves is compromised by this coercion, which is an insult to their dignity.
Relevant Judgements emphasizing Right to Dignity:
a) KS Puttaswamy v. UOI:
The Court rightly emphasized,
“Dignity has both an intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itselfitself".
“The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual”.
b) Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union territory of Delhi:
Here, the court rightly observed as follows:
"The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing one-self in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation protanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights. Now obviously, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would be offensive to human dignity and constitute an inroad into this right to live and it would, on this view, be prohibited by Article 21 unless it is in accordance with procedure prescribed by law, but no law which authorises and no procedure which leads to such torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment can ever stand the test of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness”.
c) Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI:
The Court decriminalized consenting sexual behaviour between adults of the same sex, acknowledging the LGBTQ+ community’s claim to dignity and constitutional safeguards. Chief Justice Dipak Misra underlined that dignity is essential to one’s identity, and that legislative barriers to biological expression or personal choice undermine this dignity.
d) Kesvananda Bharti v. UOI:
The Court reiterated that dignity is an important aspect of one's life and constitutes the basic structure of Constitution.
International Human Rights Law:
Abortion is recognized as a fundamental right under international human rights law. The UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) have stressed the importance of reproductive rights in ensuring women’s equality and autonomy. These international norms have an impact on and strengthen arguments for domestic recognition of abortion rights.
Why Abortion should not be a fundamental right?
1. Philosophical and Ethical Considerations:
Abortion, according to philosophers such as Don Marquis, denies a foetus a “future like ours,” which comprises experiences, actions, and enjoyments. Bioethicists such as Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen argue that because of their capacity for rationality, human embryos and foetuses have inherent moral standing and should be protected legally and ethically.
2. Legal and Judicial Concerns:
Legal experts such as John Finnis argue that the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded its judicial authority by establishing a constitutional right to abortion that isn't expressly mentioned in the Constitution. They contend that important moral and social issues, like as abortion, need to be settled by legislation, enabling democratic discussion.
3. Sociological Impact:
Sociologists like Mary Ann Glendon contend that if abortion is made legal as a fundamental right, society standards about the worth of human life may be weakened, which could result in a devaluation of life in other situations, such assisted suicide or euthanasia.
4. Psychological and Medical Effect of Abortion on women:
According to studies conducted by psychologists and medical experts like David C. Reardon, some women may experience serious mental health consequences from abortion, such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This casts doubt on the idea that abortion is a simple fix for unwanted pregnancies.
5. Economic and Demographic Consequences:
High abortion rates, according to economists and demographers like Phillip B. Levine, may cause demographic imbalances that have negative economic effects on the population’s ageing and declining birth rates. In order to achieve better long-term results, they favour policies that assist families and childrearing.
6. Religious and Cultural Ethical Frameworks:
Numerous religious and theological experts, such as Pope John Paul II and Germain Grisez, claim that many religious traditions consider human life to be sacrosanct from conception. Proponents contend that abortion is incompatible with core ethical and theological doctrines on the value of human life and the obligations owed to the unborn.
7. Human Rights and International Law:
Mary Ann Glendon and other international legal scholars argue that acknowledging abortion as a fundamental right is in opposition to the rights of the unborn child. Conventions like the Convention on the Rights of the Child advocate for a balance that takes into account the rights of both the woman and the foetus, implying protections for the unborn.
9. Feminist Critiques:
Scholars who advocate for women’s emancipation, such as Sidney Callahan, contend that presenting abortion as a basic right can work against the objectives of feminism as a whole. Instead than emphasising the right to an abortion, they support all forms of support for women, including healthcare, education, and social services.
10. Natural Law Theory:
Natural law theorists, like Thomas Aquinas, contend that morality derives from human nature and the natural order. This viewpoint holds that abortion is against natural law and, as a result, is not a fundamental right because it contradicts the natural aim of procreation and the intrinsic value of human life from conception.
Some prominent questions and arguments surrounding pro life and pro choice?
A. Are Unborn children human beings?
The argument used by pro-abortion advocates is that the baby is not a human until it begins to breathe. In God’s design, however, the baby doesn’t need to breathe while in the womb because it receives oxygenated blood necessary for life through the umbilical cord.
When life begins at conception, a unique genetic blueprint sets the stage for human development. The genetic code is determined at the time of conception. By the tenth week, an unborn baby can feel touch and pain, responding to the world around it. This tiny voyager, though unseen, is a member of our human family with the potential for a rich, full life. It has no voice to protest, no means to escape the instruments of death that threaten its fragile existence.
Should we deprive this life of its right to exist based on whether it is “wanted” or “unwanted”? Is it just to silence this delicate life because it arrives at an inconvenient time or disrupts our plans?
However, many argue that there is no certainty regarding the time when life begins.
B. Does right to not get pregnant supersedes right to life of unborn child?
The State bestows its citizens with rights, but these freedoms come with boundaries, ensuring that no one’s liberties eclipse those of their neighbours. Imagine a vast garden where every flower has space to bloom without overshadowing another; that’s the balance of rights.
The pro choice advocates argue that all individuals have a right to privacy. As fetus is the part of woman, it has a matter of her own personal discretion whether she wants to bear the child or not.
On the other hand, it is argued by pro life advocates that fetus is not a part of woman but a whole different being with genetics different from that of its mother.
Yet, amid these debates lies a poignant question: Should a woman's right to bodily autonomy and privacy be permitted to overshadow the unborn baby's right to life?
C. Whether Poverty, discrimination and disability and the attitude of “unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child” justifies the killing of unborn babies?
Pro- choice advocates argue that if an "unwanted child" happens to be born, it would suffer from potential abuse.
Pro life advocates contend that abortion only ends the sufferer and doesn’t actually alleviate us from suffering.
This conundrum requires us to strike a balance between compassion and the sanctity of life since it intertwines ethics, autonomy, and society norms.
D. Should pregnancy caused by rape Or incest be terminated?
Pro-choice advocates assert that rape and incest inflict profound mental and physical trauma on women, shattering their dignity in harrowing ways. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy from such violence, they argue, would only deepen her suffering, tethering her to a lifetime of social stigma and emotional anguish.
Others contend that permitting abortion in such cases victimizes two innocents, believing that ending a potential life only compounds the tragedy, creating another silent victim in the unborn.
E. Is Abortion silently killing the minority and promoting the killing of those who are considered inferior human race, class or gender?
Abortion supporters claim that unborn children who are judged "unwanted" or "inferior" because to their colour, gender, or social class are silently eliminated. They contend that making abortion legal allows people with limited, dubious moral philosophies to justify taking potential life.
Even women with pure intentions and valid reasons for seeking an abortion can face deep regret once the decision is made. The choice, though justified in their eyes, often leaves an indelible mark of sorrow and self-doubt.
Pro-choice advocates argue that legalizing abortion empowers women by affirming their right to privacy and control over their bodies. It allows them to make choices free from societal or familial pressures, boosting their self-esteem and confidence as they take charge of their futures and stand firmly for their own rights.
F. Who is a “Person”? : The argument of Personhood:
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade on 24 June 2022, debates have swirled around the concept of “personhood.” The original ruling hinged more on interpreting the 14th Amendment’s definition of a “person” rather than simply relying on the right to privacy, asserting that a fetus does not meet this definition. This distinction has reignited discussions on when life and personhood truly begin.
Some argue that a fetus qualifies as a person from the moment of conception. They rely on the idea that an unborn baby possess a “future like ours” or it has its own genetic code, hence capable of becoming a person. Others believe personhood begins at some stage during pregnancy, while another view holds that personhood starts only after birth. This spectrum of beliefs fuels ongoing debates on when life truly begins.
The question arises here is how should a conflict between rights of a pregnant woman and rights of an unborn child be balanced?
G. Does mother’s right to life supersedes fetus' right to life?
The argument of self defence:
In the complex and heart-wrenching scenario where a decision must be made between saving the life of a child or the mother during childbirth, ethical and legal arguments come into sharp focus. Pro-choice advocates often argue that the mother’s life should take precedence, drawing on the principle of self-defence. This principle asserts that one has the right to protect oneself from threats of grave injury or death.
The essence of self-defence is the preservation of one’s life when faced with imminent peril. Here, the peril is the unavoidable consequence of a natural process, rather than a malicious act. Therefore, the application of self-defence must be adapted to the unique circumstances where the ‘threat’ is an unintended result of pregnancy complications.
In this case, the unborn child, being a helpless and innocent being, does not fit this criterion of a malevolent threat. This presents a philosophical and legal conundrum.
Potential v. Actual life:
The unborn kid is a potential future life, but the mother is a real, living, breathing human being with a complete life. It is ethically more urgent to prioritise the preservation of a current sentient individual over the protection of a hypothetical future.
Mother has the right to prioritize her own survival owing to her right to bodily autonomy and integrity.
Essentially, taking into account the mother’s established life, autonomy, and the wider consequences of her possible death, it is ethically appropriate to prioritise her life in these dire situations.
H. Does an unborn has identity??
Pro life advocates argue, we may think that nobody has right to kill us now and nobody had the right to kill us then when we were in our mothers' womb as we all were once a fetus. If the killing of unborn is just, then the perception of personal identity is discontinued. If our murder is not justified now, how could it be justified to kill us when we were merely fetus?
Conclusion:
Conclusively, the discourse surrounding abortion regulations in India persists as a multifaceted and intricate matter, encompassing ingrained ethical, legal, and cultural factors. The pro-life movement emphasises the moral and ethical duties to protect unborn life, while the pro-choice camp supports women's autonomy and the right to make decisions about their own bodies. India's legal system aims to strike a balance between these viewpoints, but in order to meet changing societal demands and protect women's rights and health, progressive regulations and continual discussion are crucial. It is essential to promote educated dialogue and compassionate comprehension as the country develops in order to handle this delicate matter.
References:
Comments
Post a Comment