A couple of days back, I chanced on this programme on one of the *religious* channels on TV. A middle-aged man was standing in some kind of a park and speaking about the Bible, Christ, the Lord, salvation and like. An interested crowd had surrounded him and it looked like an active discussion was going on with questions, answers and opinions being tossed around. This guy then started talking about the entire abortion wrangle. One of the things he said went something like this,”Why should a woman punish a child for a man’s mistake? I know a woman who was raped by her husband. She chose to have the baby. How can you kill a child on some other person’s account?”
That stance struck me as purely audacious. A man has no idea or imagination whatsoever about what a woman goes through when she is raped. To suggest that a rape victim should think about life in a perspective beyond her *bad* experience and choose to bear a child out of rape and all that stuff is pure drivel, when it comes from a man. Or for that matter, any person who has not been through such a traumatising experience… On issues like these, people should reflect on what they say at least once before they speak it out.
kookygoblin says:
“people should reflect on what they say at least once before they speak it out”
I absolutely agree……pity most people are fools.
November 16, 2004 — 7:12 am
parag says:
The most vociferous opponents of abortion are men. That is what stinks about it. How can they have any credibility in their arguments?
November 16, 2004 — 7:14 am
arunshanbhag says:
sadly you can expect more of this in the next four years. It may even be legislated!
Like your mood icon!
November 16, 2004 — 8:09 am
Lakshmi says:
Does this mean that abortion will be non-permissible in all cases? Irrespective of age and condition?
November 16, 2004 — 9:41 am
fugney says:
Ah…. abortion……
November 16, 2004 — 8:13 am
sthira says:
Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971 had addressed this argument in a paper called ‘A Defense of Abortion’. Let me just cite the example from the article :
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. To unplug you would be to kill him. But the doctors say,never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument(related to abortion) which grants that a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it.
November 16, 2004 — 12:49 pm
Anonymous says:
Interesting. The problem with Ms.T’s argument of course, is that
while you had no hand in giving the violinist this disease, you actually had a hand in getting pregnant (rape, i will grant you, is a special situation).
I can easily think of numerous examples to counter the example above. You give birth to a kid. The kid is one month old when you begin resenting the very real shackling to another person. The responsibility, the financial outlays. So you stop feeding the kid. You don’t actively kill it you understand. You just stop feeding it. Don’t you have the right to not cook and clean after said baby? It’s your body, your time etc. Why is there such a big distinction made between a foetus and a baby?
This confirms my opinion that all debate on abortion comes down to two questions. when does life begin? and when is it permissble to take it?
November 16, 2004 — 6:15 pm
99kanitas says:
Why is there such a big distinction made between a foetus and a baby?
i think the issue is between an embryo and a foetus
November 17, 2004 — 10:27 pm
savyasachi says:
I must say that I find this attitude demeaning and inhuman. But then the Bible does not consider women quite as human as men anyway…..
November 16, 2004 — 3:14 pm
ruchikapoor says:
Which leads me to ask: is there any religion that does?
I’ve given up on this planet.
*off to Mars*
November 16, 2004 — 5:28 pm
savyasachi says:
Read the Vedas. Especially the line that says “Any one or thing with consciousness has an equal right to the light of knowledge”
November 17, 2004 — 1:46 pm
savyasachi says:
…..which implies that an AI robot can read and be regarded as an expert on the Vedas, in principle…..
November 17, 2004 — 1:47 pm
fugney says:
Abortion is is a fairly perplexing issue. I think the moot point here is whether it should be left to individual choice(the mother). If law is regulate/ban abortion, it must be serving it’s purpose in doing so. It goes back to what principles we are to use as the basis for law. A state may be secular, but may still base it’s law on democratic consensus, allowing morality (religious or otherwise) a say. On the other hand, the law of the land may be completely independent of any version of morality, and base itself on the general welfare of the people. In other words, it should draw the line where actual damage is being done. The latter approach, I believe, allows for maximum freedom among people.
November 17, 2004 — 1:58 am
fugney says:
If one were to follow such an approach, it is now important to consider whether a foetus may be considered a citizen of the state. For if it is, the state should protect it’s right to life. But rights I think, are not the primary principle of the law of such a soceity. Rights in such a society exist not for their own sake, but for welfare. For instance, security concerns make murder unacceptable(to put it mildly). So, if the curtailment of rights would lead to greater welfare, so be it.
November 17, 2004 — 2:04 am
fugney says:
So, if the curtailment of rights would lead to greater welfare, so be it.
That came out sounding totally wrong. I do not mean oppression should be allowed, for that creates resentment.
November 17, 2004 — 3:05 am
fugney says:
Is the foetus a citizen of the state? If so, why? How do we define the term “citizen”? By “birth” or by “conception”? I need help on this….
November 17, 2004 — 2:14 am
99kanitas says:
foetus is typically an embryo after 3 mths
November 17, 2004 — 10:29 pm
fugney says:
And?
November 18, 2004 — 5:07 am
99kanitas says:
You asked for help, just helping 🙂
Going by technicalities, it’d be an embryo sometime after conception, and a developed foetus at birth.
So if you’re quite sure that the foetus is a citizen of the state (as per the first question), then the second question – How do we define the term “citizen”? By “birth” or by “conception”? has already been answered – it is by “birth.”
November 18, 2004 — 10:59 am
fugney says:
Ok…. so you’re saying it’s a foetus only at birth? But can an embryo be considered a citizen?
November 18, 2004 — 9:23 pm
99kanitas says:
baby at birth (don’t know if it’s a foetus at birth)
embryo be considered a citizen?
your call.
They’re 4-8 cells the first days
Anti-stem cell research people say that if it has potential to become a human, then it’s a sin to kill it unless extenuating circumstances ~ rape..
November 18, 2004 — 11:55 pm
fugney says:
Anti-stem cell research people say that if it has potential to become a human, then it’s a sin to kill it unless extenuating circumstances ~ rape..
Their logic being?
November 19, 2004 — 12:29 am
99kanitas says:
logic for?
November 19, 2004 — 12:56 am
fugney says:
For the whole idea, especially for why rape is exempted….
November 19, 2004 — 2:59 am
99kanitas says:
lol dunno myself. should ask one of them.
November 19, 2004 — 9:31 am
fugney says:
It is important to consider if a society gains anything by bringing millions of unwanted children into society. I don’t think it does. It surely ends up with a some more improperly provided-for kids. Something, that could have been avoided…
November 17, 2004 — 2:23 am
fugney says:
Then of course, there are medical problems. Overage/underage mothers, mothers with medical problems, etc. Here, the law should surely interfere and ensure the welfare of the mother.
November 17, 2004 — 2:24 am
fugney says:
But looking at it more simplisticly, abortion does not cause too many problems to society. However, banning abortion would. Therefore, I think it should be an individual choice.
November 17, 2004 — 2:26 am
fugney says:
Individual choice, because it allows individuals to live according to their beliefs…
November 17, 2004 — 2:28 am
fugney says:
Also, if you were to say you cannot make a decision for another(the baby), it may also be pointed out that you have to make a decision in any case. To chose to let the child be born is a decision, made for the child.
November 17, 2004 — 3:09 am
Lakshmi says:
Sometimes, I wonder if you’re really 20…
November 17, 2004 — 6:09 am
fugney says:
What? Why?
November 17, 2004 — 6:13 am
Lakshmi says:
You speak like someone far older, that’s why… What have horns got to do with age?
November 17, 2004 — 6:16 am
fugney says:
What have horns got to do with age?
They have everything to do with age…. but in this case I meant the horns of conceit….
November 17, 2004 — 6:20 am
fugney says:
Don’t do that… I can feel the horns throbbing under my skull…
November 17, 2004 — 6:13 am
rileen says:
Totally agree – men are ill placed to comment on abortion in general, all the more so when the pregnancy is a result of rape.
November 17, 2004 — 4:16 am