Thursday, August 07, 2008

Nikita Mehta Case

The pro-choice arguments that almost all the women bloggers have put forth essentially work to justify female infanticide or killing off a 10 year old mentally disabled kid etc. Allowing pro-choice, for the reasons mentioned by these women, would set a precedent for killing life outside the womb. I like pro-choice. Rather than some human rights group activists, who just want publicity, to be in control - it does make sense for the people who are responsible and accountable to have more control. But that is not enough to ring fence the problem. If one wants to argue for pro-choice the key would be to make an argument that distinguishes between life inside a womb and a life outside the womb.
P.S: Changing the definition of "life" requires religious endorsement, which might not be a bright idea.

14 comments:

Sowmya said...

Life inside the womb is not accounted for in the census, life outside is. - naan sollala. sonnaanga penmanigal.

Anonymous said...

yes - george carlin said it.

-d

Ganesh said...

In the United States, travelling with a life outside the womb entitles you to use carpool lanes whereas travelling with a life inside the womb doesn't.

Lekhni said...

Well, my argument was that a foetus, which cannot live independently outside of a woman's body, is therefore a part of her body.

I fail to understand how that's the same as arguing for killing a 10 yr old kid, or an infant. Please elaborate.

Anonymous said...

lekhni,

does that mean "dependants" have no right to choose and can be killed off by the person that they are dependant on?

hawkeye,
here is my opinion on this:
there is no right or wrong. the key is to find righteousness that the majority of the population will agree with and can be enforced.

as for the arguments, they are worthless. the sensibilities of people which are deeply entwined with religious beliefs and upbringing cannot be shaken even by well formed arguments. only new experiences can change the outcome.

-sr

amanchap said...

The key would be distinguishing life inside the womb and outside the womb?
I really don’t think so. may be it would provide a temporary solution.
Let us see the definition of life?
A biological definition of the life is:
"Long-term reproductive success for prolonged existence of the species"
So if we take each phase of a human life can we apply this definition to each of the phase in the life? Like, no! A fetus, an infant a child, doesn’t fit into the above definition because they are not capable for reproduction yet so these are not forms of life.

I believe Nikitha’s case is not about the life of the fetus and its survival, but more about her sense of insecurity, and emotions. Indeed the baby in the womb has been diagnosed for a heart disease and the choice of aborting it is more in terms of the emotional pain, and the expenses involved in taking care of the babies health and not in terms of its survival.

The difference between animals and the human beings is that, in case of the animals the fittest of the animals to survive is selected by the Nature a.k.a Theory of natural election. In case human beings, because of their thinking ability consciously or subconsciously they too participate in selecting the fittest of their species.

But the think to be remembered, is that unlike other animals, humans have this ability to help other human beings to survive.

The hue and cry of all the activists for a pro-choice is more about their emotion on visualizing the a mothers agony , the medias perspective is to reflect the un emotional Law system and the Judge’s duty is to provide a judgment but interpreting the laws laid by the people elected by their own people.

Now the question is, do people want to support Nikitha in handling her emotions, or support the overwhelmed parents by assuring them all support for the health care of the unborn child and help the child to survive?


And one shouldn't look for religious endorsement. Obviously, any religion would not support this idea. Once can rgue religion should change its outook with time. But should remember that religion is like roots, a tree can change its shape overe time by shedding leaves and and replacing them with new ones. but its roots will always remain same growing stronger, wider and deeper.

I said...

Choice is an illusion.

TWL said...

i am pro-choice, but just saying:

defining Life in terms of census or carpooling is just ridiculous.

Things like census and carpooling are derived after you have defined a Human Life, not the other way around.

I am not saying sowmya and ganesh are wrong, i'm just saying they make totally unconvincing arguments.

TWL said...

This is TWL again:

I got caught with my friend Abhimanyu in this traffic grid lock in Chicago downtown the other day and he was telling me about how when his pregnant wife sings, their baby still in the womb starts kicking and he got all emotional, saying that instead of being with *them*, he is stuck with me in a jam. Then he told me about how he once heard about getting into Chicago but never out...

Then, I changed the subject to how airlines are making me pay $ for a glass of water, these days...

Vee Cee said...

if changing the definition of "life" requires religious endorsement, then doesn't just defining "life" also require it.

maxdavinci said...

I agree with lekhni, but then the law must be followed in spirit and not literally.

The law helps to reduce female abortions not that it can stop female infanticide. But if observed in spirit it can enable Mrs.mehta to make her painful decision...

chokkathangam said...

i'd say it is meaningless to debate moral issues.. you can go on debating and never arrive at a conclusion. if you look at it from a large-scale perspective, which is what the government should be more concerned about, it is easy to find that the number of such people who want to terminate is pretty small. and most indians don't think of pregnancy as an unwanted after effect. most want to rear a healthy child. so it makes sense in this case to allow abortions in such circumstances.

Chenthil said...

I can talk only from my experience. My daughter was born premature, in 31 weeks. While she was in the NICU, I saw infants born in 26 weeks and doing well. So aborting in 24 /25 weeks sends shivers down my spine.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Lekhni, but that is too rational an argument for people with religious beliefs. To illogical 'anonymous' who asked about dependents: being unable to survive without being fed through the bloodstream and breathed for by only one specific person is one thing - that is what is being referred to. After a baby is born, the dependency is not absolute - anyone can feed that child, not just its mother, therefore it is not dependent in the same way.

As for religious arguments, I like the viewpoint of many Native American spiritual traditions: when the baby quickens - that is, starts kicking - it means the soul has entered the body. Before that it is only a mass of cells, not a 'person', thus abortion is ok before then. Afterwards, it is the same as killing a live infant. In fact this is about where most societies allow abortion: before the end of the first trimester.