There was this furore sometime ago about Harsh and Niketa Mehta’s right to abort their child. It died down after the miscarriage but left a few questions unanswered. The couple wanted to abort the pregnancy because of medical test reports that showed a high probability of the child being born with a heart defect that would necessitate the use of a pacemaker from an early age, thus effectively ruling out a normal childhood, or indeed a normal life. The couple got to know this in the 24th (if I’m not mistaken) week of pregnancy, way after the 20 weeks deadline that the abortion law in India allows for. This made the Mehtas appeal in court, asking permission to abort the foetus in view of the circumstances. The court asked for a second medical report, and eventually rejected their appeal. Sometime later Niketa had a miscarriage.
That’s the story.
The court’s ruling and the logic behind it, is beyond the scope of this piece. I simply wanted to pen down my thoughts on the matter. And they are really rather simple. The logic against taking away a life is indisputable. However in circumstance such as the one that the Mehtas found themselves in, facing a lifetime of pain at seeing the misery of their child, and the impossibility of a normal life, for both child and parents, it seems to me that an exception could have been made. It’s unfortunate that the Mehtas learnt of the defect after 20 weeks of pregnancy, otherwise there would never have been this controversy in the first place. But in light of the situation, it seems logical to grant their request. I come to this conclusion from the following line of thought: What would I have done in the same situation? Not an easy decision at all. While it seems criminal to take a life, let alone the life of your child, it seems equally unfair to have a child who will surely be chronically ill. One can argue that some defect might have surfaced after the birth, which of course is true. And we all live with that reality anyway. Who’s to say if a medical defect will not show up, or an accident occur and incapacitate a close one at any stage in life. We don’t abandon people then, but to know in advance, even before birth, puts the matter in a different light.
Then again, I am not able to reconcile with the idea, at a humanitarian level, that abortion is okay till 20 weeks, and not after. It’s a legitimate life being taken away, even if it is before 20 weeks, how does a few days here and there make a difference? (Maybe a doctor can shed some light on the logic behind 20 weeks?) And if both acts are equally criminal, and yet one of them is legal, why not make an exception in a special case? One hopes that it’s a well thought out and responsible decision on the part of the parents or mother, as the case may be, in either scenario. It’s a decision that may well have life altering consequences for people. Certainly it’s difficult to imagine that it would rest easy on anybody’s conscience. Of course I also concede that the world is full of all kinds of people, making it essential to have all kinds of laws, but then such people have little regard for the law in the first place. Must be have laws that are designed to bring genuine offenders to book, while ignoring how simple law abiding folk can get affected by it? It’s tricky for sure, for after all, the people writing the laws, defending them and passing judgments based on them, are not always in the clean… have I gone completely off track here??
Anyway, this made me think of another case that had surfaced some years ago, and which was equally controversial, if not more. It was the death sentence for Md Afzal Guru, one of the prime accused behind the attack on Parliament in 2001. This isn’t about Guru, it is about the right to take a life, however heinous the crime committed by a person. In my personal opinion, I am against the death sentence, though of course he deserves the worst punishment possible. I realize that I am probably in a minority, but my argument is not in his favour in anyway, it’s just against playing ‘God’.
That’s the story.
The court’s ruling and the logic behind it, is beyond the scope of this piece. I simply wanted to pen down my thoughts on the matter. And they are really rather simple. The logic against taking away a life is indisputable. However in circumstance such as the one that the Mehtas found themselves in, facing a lifetime of pain at seeing the misery of their child, and the impossibility of a normal life, for both child and parents, it seems to me that an exception could have been made. It’s unfortunate that the Mehtas learnt of the defect after 20 weeks of pregnancy, otherwise there would never have been this controversy in the first place. But in light of the situation, it seems logical to grant their request. I come to this conclusion from the following line of thought: What would I have done in the same situation? Not an easy decision at all. While it seems criminal to take a life, let alone the life of your child, it seems equally unfair to have a child who will surely be chronically ill. One can argue that some defect might have surfaced after the birth, which of course is true. And we all live with that reality anyway. Who’s to say if a medical defect will not show up, or an accident occur and incapacitate a close one at any stage in life. We don’t abandon people then, but to know in advance, even before birth, puts the matter in a different light.
Then again, I am not able to reconcile with the idea, at a humanitarian level, that abortion is okay till 20 weeks, and not after. It’s a legitimate life being taken away, even if it is before 20 weeks, how does a few days here and there make a difference? (Maybe a doctor can shed some light on the logic behind 20 weeks?) And if both acts are equally criminal, and yet one of them is legal, why not make an exception in a special case? One hopes that it’s a well thought out and responsible decision on the part of the parents or mother, as the case may be, in either scenario. It’s a decision that may well have life altering consequences for people. Certainly it’s difficult to imagine that it would rest easy on anybody’s conscience. Of course I also concede that the world is full of all kinds of people, making it essential to have all kinds of laws, but then such people have little regard for the law in the first place. Must be have laws that are designed to bring genuine offenders to book, while ignoring how simple law abiding folk can get affected by it? It’s tricky for sure, for after all, the people writing the laws, defending them and passing judgments based on them, are not always in the clean… have I gone completely off track here??
Anyway, this made me think of another case that had surfaced some years ago, and which was equally controversial, if not more. It was the death sentence for Md Afzal Guru, one of the prime accused behind the attack on Parliament in 2001. This isn’t about Guru, it is about the right to take a life, however heinous the crime committed by a person. In my personal opinion, I am against the death sentence, though of course he deserves the worst punishment possible. I realize that I am probably in a minority, but my argument is not in his favour in anyway, it’s just against playing ‘God’.
2 comments:
I didn't know you have a blog. You never told ... anyway, it's good that i know now ... i can come and peep here sometimes to know what's happening with you.
Hey! Yeah, I don't advertise it, but maybe I should :)
Hope you all are well... and yeah, do keep visiting, its nice to have traffic ;-)
Post a Comment