Inkyji asks a very tough question. The fundamental problem is this – what when one senses a conflict of two persons’ rights. A woman has complete choice over her body. If she doesn’t desire to have a child with a disability she should and does have the right to abort the foetus.
Truth is – you can extend this argument to say that a woman should be allowed to abort a female foetus. (Horrible, unfortunate, unfair – but true.)
The foetus does not have human rights. Its Right to Life is entirely dependent on whether or not the woman who is pregnant desires it. However, the dilemma experienced by the woman when she contemplates aborting a foetus with a disability is reflective of the fact that people with disabilities are denied most of their rights. The pregnant woman in this case is caught in the dilemma of bringing to the world a child who is more vulnerable than another child. This might call for more effort to raise the child than a woman is physically, emotionally or financially capable of or is prepared for. This could be largely due to the fact that the system itself has not addressed the rights of the vulnerable or the disabled.
The Right to Life, irrespective of disability comes into the picture only after you are born. A woman’s decision to abort a foetus with a disability is not reflective of the Rights of the disabled who are born. It isn’t a matter of ethics. But a recognition of the fact that only one of the two parties has rights. The foetus is only as much of an emotional entity as the woman wills it to be. Legally, I am not sure if it is an entity at all. As long as it is inside a woman – it is a part of her that she may choose to remove. It might seem like a cold or hard stand to take – but in the mess of vulnerabilities and should-have-beens – it’s the only stand that makes sense.
absolutely.
“Truth is – you can extend this argument to say that a woman should be allowed to abort a female foetus.”
This exact point was raised in this article a few days ago.
http://indianexpress.com/story/1766.html
nv, help.
Let me throw in more complications by adding that in countries like India, where people don’t really look forward to girl children, sex determination testing of foetuses is discouraged, but checking for disabilities is encouraged, and the medical machinery urges mothers of disabled foetuses to abort.
Give everyone the freedom to make a decision and they’ll have to live with their choices.
Better to abort a female foetus than to let it grow into an unloved, harassed child.
It’s all brownian motion anyway. I’m not advocating anarchy, but sooner or later when the rural (or otherwise) female population dwindles, people will suffer and adapt.
Some might argue that passing the buck back to individual families (by giving them the choice of aborting female or male foetuses) is ignoring injustice, but any utopian establishment will eventually be corrupted by humans.
I too feel it is a part of the woman’s body, and as such,the mother is entitled to decide.I had written a post some time back about a similar thing—care to read it?
http://cvlakshmi.blogspot.com/2005/09/punishment-or-reward.html
its the mother who’ll be in a emotional turmoil after the abortion.nobody else has felt a wee bit of the child..no body else can argue..the argument for the ill formed child would be weaker than one against euthanasia..
but extending this argument to female foeticide is ridiculos.
What you are asking (in effect) is: are all moral parameters equal?
If a foetus can be aborted on account of health, why can’t a foetus be aborted on account of its gender? (I am not arguing in favor of the latter or the former, btw.)
Is the foetus’s health somehow a more valid parameter for abortion than gender? Rationality tells me the answer is yes. But again, that’s *my* rationality. Would it not be wrong to impose it on others?
Is there an equivalent of the Grand Unification Theory in Philosophy that can explain contradictory issues like euthanasia, abortion and reverence for life?
don’t get pregnant. adopt.
Nevermind: ?
Rahul: Thanks for the link
Ink Spill: See Inky – I don’t understand the moral dilemma of it. Parents should have a right to know the nature of the foetus. However – who encourages – is it a policy to encourage – who adopted this policy – What does the law say about it? Why do doctors let their personal bias into the picture?
Tarun: True. What good bringing in a child who will not be loved, probably abused, not given enough to eat – especially given that the State cannot look after children anyway. Children do not belong to parents – and yet parents are the guardians. Maybe people should have to get a license to have a baby.
LAK: Thanks.
Shashi: By not extending the argument to female foeticide – the logic becomes ridiculous. Fathers also feel the emotional trauma of the loss. Parents may choose to look at the foetus as their child. I know of men who were broken by the loss of a child due to a miscarriage. However, emotional trauma isn’t the premise of the Right to Choose.
km: Actually km – I am saying that moral parameters don’t make sense. Because morality cannot be the foundation. I believe that the Right to Choose is fundamnetal – but the choices that a woman makes are reflective of the realities she lives in.
Wendigo: True. However adoption isn’t about choice always. For instance, if you have a female child already – you cannot adopt another female child. (Or has that law been changed?) Adoption is the highest form of choice – however, that choice is influenced by what the Social Worker thinks of you.
Since you are in UK try to read the report of the Warnock committee.Choosing to abort is a part of the reproductive rights.But when a woman aborts a fetus on account of its gender i.e.
girl she is acting against the collective interests of all women,
including hers . Try to read some books on feminist bioethics to understand more.
Ravi: Thanks for the suggestion. I have another post somewhere on this blog that talks about female foeticide and how it is indicative of misogyny. However, it still is the prerogative of the pregnant woman as far as I am concerned.
The fundamental problem with bioethics is the ethics of it. It is too ambiguous and subject to personal morality. It also assumes an intellectual superiority that I am uncomfortable with.