Abortion can be used to save a woman’s life in case of a life-threatening pregnancy condition. Here the woman is not just vying for her reproductive right but also for her right to live. Often different complications may arise during pregnancy, including ectopic pregnancy (where there are chances of internal bleeding), eclampsia (where a pregnant woman faces the risk of multiple organ failure) and many others. Even the viability of the fetus is questionable. Under such circumstances how “pro-life” would it be to ask a woman to keep the fetus, all the while risking her own life?
It can be used to terminate pregnancy if the fetus is diagnosed with conditions that are characterized ‘incompatible with life’. Some examples are triploidy (where chances of miscarriages and still births are high), Trisomy 13, also known as Patau syndrome (80 percent of these infants will die shortly after birth), and anancephaly (where the fetus will not survive under any condition). Is it justified to ask a mother to give birth even if these conditions are detected early in pregnancy? Think of the emotional and physical toll this could put on a person. Even if the baby survives, the quality of life of that child should be considered. It is unfair to dictate that a couple must give birth even though these conditions can be diagnosed and the pregnancy can be terminated as early as 15 weeks after conception.
Abortion helps preserve the physical and/or mental health of a woman. Sometimes women develop cancers like persistent Trophoblastic disease and Choriocarcinoma while pregnant. If a woman is already undergoing or has to start chemotherapy during pregnancy, how humane would it be to force her to keep her fetus? What if she is diagnosed with HIV after conception and faces the risk of transferring it to her baby? Sometimes a woman may have genetic predisposition to developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after birth. Is it fair to ask her to carry the fetus to full term even when she knows that she will not be able to give the child a good life?
In case of rape which results in pregnancy, is it okay to force a woman to keep the child of her attacker? Not only would this have a deep psychological impact on the mother but also on the child. Let us also consider the status of single mothers in Nepal and various stigmas attached to children borne out of wedlock.
Sometimes incestuous relationships can lead to conception. Children born to parents who share genetic makeup are predisposed to congenial disorders and disabilities. Although the chances of this are pretty slim, i.e. less than 10 percent, when paired with the psychological trauma that victims of incest face, is it worth it to put a mother and child through such pain and suffering, just so that a few zealots can sleep better at night?
There are various social and economic reasons that can lead to abortion among unmarried women and the primary one is the fear of being ostracized by society. Interestingly, in matters sexual, while the notion “boys will be boys” is as rampant and justified in Nepal as it is in developed countries, life is not as easy for the female counterparts, who are vehemently castigated and rejected by their family and society. Let us not forget it takes two to create life. While women are judged on their ‘lack of character’ because of the events that lead to abortion, people do not treat the man just as harshly. Before people point at and malign women, it would be best to think over the role of the male in such cases, especially if he chooses to walk out on the woman who is carrying his unborn child.
Male culpability should not be easily dismissed. People should learn to be more responsible and careful while choosing sexual partners. But a single mistake should not dictate the rest of a woman’s life. Thus, if a child is conceived out of wedlock, and if the father of the child is unavailable for marriage and\or unwilling to raise the child then women have every legal and moral right to terminate their pregnancy.
If religious zealots really believe that abortion is a sin, then they must also believe that all life is sacred, whether born in or out of wedlock. Such people should therefore work to create a society where single parent households are not discriminated against. This would encourage more women to give birth and raise their child by themselves. However, this is never the case, such zealots are, ironically enough, the very same people that criticize and ostracize such households.
However, abortion is just a means to an end. Nobody is putting it on a pedestal and it should not be a one stop solution to every situation. Rather it is an option that victimized women can exercise according to their circumstances and predispositions. It is important to note that when used carelessly and when used to promote misogynistic agendas like female infanticide, abortion can be a double edged sword. The very tool used to preserve the rights of the women can be used to murder many of our unborn sisters.
Human history has made it clear that legal restriction on abortion will do nothing to check the situation. In fact, it will increase the rate of unsafe abortions among the poor and increase maternal morbidity and mortality rate. What can be extrapolated from this is that advocating safe abortion is not preaching murder but in fact being pro-life, pro-choice and liberal.
Nobody can love an unborn child more than a mother. It would be redundant to preach to a mother the value of her fetus’s life. But in spite of this bond, certain circumstances may leave a woman no choice but the one of termination. No matter what the reason, the decision and duration and aftermath of the abortion present a woman with a lot of psychological and physical trauma. During this difficult time what the woman could do without is the judgment from strangers who cannot empathize with her.
The author is pursuing Bachelors in Biotechnology in Asian Institute of Technology and Management
sneha.pandey@hotmail.com
Published on 2014-12-09 in REPUBLICA
0 comments:
Post a Comment