Abort or NOT?

SC allows rape survivor to abort 24-week-old foetus

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday granted liberty to a rape survivor to terminate her 24-week-old abnormal fetus. The court ruled that disallowing the victim to terminate her pregnancy would put her life at risk. The 26-year-old had challenged the constitutional validity of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act that which prohibits termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks even if there is a fatal risk to the mother and fetus. A medical board was set up at King Edward Memorial College and Hospital in Mumbai on Friday to examine the condition of an alleged rape survivor who wanted to abort her fetus.

I was not sure where to post this, I do not have access to the debate forum, so MOD's move if you shall.

I am not a woman and there will be those that suggest as a man I have no business weighing in on something like this very hotly contested subject, one of many we deal with as a society daily.

I do believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to abort a fetus or not. There are those that suggest it is immoral to do so regardless of the reason. I do not think it is moral to force her to do so against her will. There are some women that were raped and chose to keep them and those that decided not to. If I were a woman that was pregnant because of abuse, then I would be hard pressed not to abort. If the genetics of the abuser are evidence of a predisposition towards being a psychopath then that unborn child already has a strike against it on top of the fact that it will be a daily reminder of the abuse that took place and spawned said fetus/child.

Then there is the question of when does a fetus become a human and when does the soul enter the body, at conception, mid way or at birth? And what if that soul is the one that is intended to become the savior as some are expecting? What if the soul that was supposed to save the world was aborted? Does it simply move on to another host? Or is that moment lost? What if the soul that is aborted was supposed to invent the cure for cancer or some other debilitating disease?

This is definitely not a black and white, cut and dried dilemma, there are many shades of gray and what if's or could be's, what if it were your daughter faced with this decision, what would you advise her? Not a choice I would relish.

a reply to: forthelove

Wait, did I read that correctly? Abortion prohibited even if there's a fatal risk to both mother and fetus? What kind of sense does that even make?

That's a new one on me.

I don't much believe in abortions.

Raper babies are a definite exception.

Raper dudes should be executed twice by the state in cases like this.

a reply to: forthelove
In cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother the mother should have a choice. All other cases, no.

How come she still has the baby after so long?

If she was raped, wouldn't she have gotten rid of the pregnancy as soon as she could?

a reply to: forthelove

Well, the article says the "abnormality" is:

The foetus suffers from anencephaly (a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull) but the doctors had refused to abort it since it will be illegal.

The life=expectancy of a child with this defect is only a few hours to a few months. A few might make it several months. Add to this constant care in an ICU for a "palliative care" death-watch.

I'm not "pro=abortion" nor am I "anti-abortion." I do feel this is the kind of case where a woman should be able to choose for herself what she wishes to do, and how to handle it, with the care and confidentiality of her doctor.

Can you imagine this scenario? The woman is forced to go to court and declare her fiancé raped her because he promised marriage and didn't deliver - that's not really rape in my book, but it IS a violation of trust and intent, leaving her to deal with all the consequences herself.

Anyway. It's a tragedy no matter how you look at it.

- AB

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

yea that certainly raised some with me.

But in any case, clearly women are the only people legally protected to conduct murder on helpless babies that were created by two parties. That statement was in general, and does not apply to circumstance involving rape. But why wait so long to terminate?? Certainly the time kill would have been earlier on, when it would have been within parameter of laws.

I have heard whispers of women that wait till the babies get as old as they can before termination, in order to feel the thrill of murdering a human. ahh birth defect, got it. Still should have been seen earlier.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think this is an issue of having to declare "rape" because it was the only way to deal with the legality of the situation.

Her fiance promised marriage, got her pregnant, and left her after she could no longer get an abortion. She has called this "rape," I believe, in order to get the court to hear her case. I"m speculating a bit with this, and not taking a hard=line on it.

The baby has a death=sentence already, and it is dangerous to carry. She's between a rock and a hard place.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Mumbai is not the most sensible place on Earth by western standards. That being said, I come from a region in which socks worn with sandals is not unheard of.

In all seriousness though, I am glad that the combination of medical reasons as well as the emotional aspects were enough to allow this abortion. While it is not a happy circumstance, at least logic won today.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Yes, but the quoted portion says that the abortion could be done up to 20 weeks, so that's where I am confused by this.

If this was the child of rape, why keep it 20 weeks? You would think she would have already aborted it ... unless, she actually wanted the baby right up until she discovered the defect and now that it has the defect, she wants it gone but the law won't allow it, so all of a sudden, the rape card gets played?

a reply to: AmericanRealist

She may not have seen it earlier. You don't have to have an ultrasound until around 19 weeks.

It is possible her fiancé left her to deal with the situation on her own...

Is it murder when the baby could kill her by carrying it/delivering it? Would the baby then be murdering her?

*sigh*

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm guessing she didn't know her fiancé was leaving her until it was too late to deal with.

This wasn't a normal "rape" but something she called "rape" to get the courts to hear her. I THINK. The article is really unclear on this, so I may be misunderstanding it.

- AB

a reply to: ketsuko

It's not just a defect. Carrying a child with this defect is dangerous to the mother's own life, as well as birthing it.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I still don't buy that since almost all laws make exception in cases where the life of the mother is at stake, especially if they also allow abortion in cases of rape.

a reply to: AboveBoard

my apologies for seeming insensitive, please allow me to elaborate

That statement was in general, and does not apply to circumstance involving rape, or the potential to kill the mother up to birth

I don't feel it is unreasonable to abort if the mothers life is at stake and there is slim chance for the baby.

That article is misleading. This took place in India.

More information about the defect - it is fatal.

Life expectancy:

About 7% die during the pregnancy (prenatal death), 20% die during delivery; 50% have a life expectancy of between a few minutes and 1 day, 23% live more than 1 day (Jaquier 2006).
In very, very few cases, the child can live for weeks or even months.
Get more information: Report about the birth and life of babies with anencephaly

Note: The article said the mother's life is in jeopardy, this could be from OTHER factors during pregnancy, but according to this source it is NOT due to the defect. I stand corrected.

LINK

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: forthelove

Wait, did I read that correctly? Abortion prohibited even if there's a fatal risk to both mother and fetus? What kind of sense does that even make?

That's a new one on me.

Yes you read it right.

But perhaps you (like I) did not notice that this is taking place in India. I just assumed it was an American court..

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: forthelove

Wait, did I read that correctly? Abortion prohibited even if there's a fatal risk to both mother and fetus? What kind of sense does that even make?

That's a new one on me.

This is Mumbai.

In my opinion, there are 3 reasons for aborting a pregnancy:

1) Legitimate risk to the mother's health
2) Legitimate possibility of severe handicap to infant
3) The mother is a victim of rape

Each of these should be handled on a case-by-case basis as it is a very serious and sensitive situation for both mother and father of the child.