- Share This Post
- submit
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
I started drafting this post on a flight from Bangalore to Kolkata last August, after an abortion story hit and hogged Indian headlines for weeks. Then life took over, and the post remained on my laptop, waiting for me to gather. It's been months since the story broke, but even as I revisit it, I find myself just as tongue-tied as I was five months back.
A high court decision to disallow a Mumbai couple to abort their 26-week fetus with a possible serious heart condition, triggered a national discussion about India's 37-year-old abortion law, which many feel is obsolete and does not take into account advances in medical sciences. What, however, got me thinking -- like Shefaly -- was the sociological implication of this case. The couple didn't want this child -- their first -- because they were convinced the baby would most likely need a surgery the day she/he was born, an unaffordable pacemaker replacement every year, and would never lead a normal life. They turned down an NGO's offer to raise the child ["It's not that I would deliver the baby now only to give it away.[...] I am not heartless. My child's not a burden.]
They were clearly in distress. I wondered if the harrowing experience the parents were going through -- a personal tragedy playing out in public -- wasn't already taking an extra toll on the sick fetus. I wondered how the child, if born, would one day deal with the fact that she/he is alive because of a court order.
The child has been spared that moment of excruciating truth. Within 10 days of the court order, the mother miscarried.
I was conflicted and heartbroken then. It doesn't feel any different now. Except that I am acutely conscious now more than ever that it is impossible and unfair to judge anyone in similar circumstances. That legislation can only do so much to ensure justice. That we live in an imperfect world and have tons of learning to do.
The couple were excited about having their first child. But when doctors revealed that the fetus had a congenital heart block (the mother was nearly 24 weeks pregnant by then), the couple, along with their doctor, decided to approach the court for an abortion. The choices they had were excruciating but they had to be made and only by them, within the scope of the law.
Now, to discuss this in the right context, let me get a few things out of the way:
-
First, when it comes to India, we cannot debate this on a religious/moral platform. Unlike in the U.S. where this discussion leans heavily on faith, the public discourse that followed the high court ruling in India steered clear of any religious or cultural questions and focused on the medical and socio-ethical aspects. Traditionally speaking, in India, getting married and raising a family is a given. It's been the natural order of things. So abortion thus far has had more of a corrective role (a recourse -- limiting a family, not feasible now, risky, socially and mentally traumatic, rape, etc) than that of pure choice (I'm keeping the female feticide discussion out of this).
-
Second, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (amended in 2002), subject to certain clauses, allows for abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Any action beyond 20 weeks can be taken only if it threatens the life of the mother. Now, there has been some discussion
