IBNLive: IBN Conversations | Shows | Should Mehtas be allowed to terminate pregnancy?

Total posts: 42

Tracked by 0 users Track this thread

Should Mehtas be allowed to terminate pregnancy?

Time Posted by IBNLive at 01:33 PM, Aug 02, 2008 in Shows

A Mumbai couple, Haresh and Niketa Mehta, have approached the court seeking permission for an abortion as the foetus has been diagnosed with congenital disorders. The court has asked for a second opinion after J J Hospital said that though there is a heart blockage it does not warrant an abortion. The second opinion will be given on Monday. The law states that no abortion will be allowed after 20 weeks if the unborn foetus has a problem as it puts the mother's life at risk.

Posted by madancraja at 02:03 PM, Aug 03, 2008

Abortion is a sensitive issue, I disagree with one post where it says it is a woman's fundamental right nor do I agree with those who tend to reject it on ethical or religious grounds. My fundamental right is to decide the life I want to live, but to take away my own life is not. It is very hard to agree with the killing of a living being just because of a probability that the child might not live a normal life. Life does not end in 2 or 5 years, so supposing the problem had come up when the child was just 6 months old, can the child be killed then? Or say if the child has lost both the legs due to a accident at some later stage of his life, hence preventing it from performing simplest of daily activities, can it's life be ended on the ground that the child may not have a normal life? With the marvel of medical science reaching new peaks we can give someone a chance, that is the fundamental right any child truly deserves. In the words of His Holiness Dalai Lama, I quote: "Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance." The question we should be asking is should we support this abortion despite the safety of the mother at risk and the possibility of killing a child just because of a mere health problem. If this was a case of teenage single mother where the entire future of both mother and child is at risk or in cases of where a woman is raped and hence impregnated this issue can definitely be considered. Abortion is not an untouchable issue, but at an age where we condemn mercy killing of people who are neither dead nor alive and when we are at odds to fully support death sentence to hardened criminals, it's hard to accept killing a child when it might have a normal life.

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

Posted by darshanvasist at 12:43 PM, Aug 03, 2008

I think the couple should be allowed to get aborted as there is no bigger trauma than seeing her child suffer till the end of life.

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

Posted by scidambi at 11:21 AM, Aug 03, 2008

Dear Mr. Chaubey

I am a pro-lifer. Taking the life of a foetus is incorrect. The vedic era recognises "bhruna hatya" as one among five cardinal sins on the premise that the foetus is a person with awareness. Our hindu tradition places a premium on all life. This is my fundamental view. Our own scriptures - the vedas and the upanishads - have explicitly condemned abortion and accord the highest punishment to foetus-slayers. This is my fundamental belief.

Having said that, we have never dealt in absolutes - our philosophy teaches us that there is no absolute right or wrong especially where there are competing rights and values. Hindu scriptures make the specific exception, when abortion became necessary to protect the life of the mother - a position that holds to this day.

As I understand, the susruta samhita, our ancient medical text, has recommended abortion in difficult cases where the foetus is irreparably damaged or defective or in cases where a normal delivery is not possible. Susruta states that the surgeon should not wait for nature to take its own course but should intervene and remove the foetus.

It is a difficult and very emotional choice for the Mehta family. I support their choice and pray for them to come out of this ordeal stronger and happier for the future.

Peace
Sumanth

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

Posted by harshad_1975 at 09:36 AM, Aug 03, 2008

Our first daughter expired in 2005 as she had congenital heart disease( hypoplastic left heart). Normal sonography never revealed that. After a full term baby delivered, the new born expired within 3 days as one ventricle was not formed. Had we known it, we would have certainly pressed upon the termination of it. If the baby would have survived, still then her life would have been miserable.

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

less Posted by drypraveen at 06:31 AM, Aug 03, 2008

NO, because COMPLETE HEART BLOCK, is not the disease which can kill the child, pacemaker insertion should help the child. so why not give baby a chance to live.
the parents should have another expert opinion.

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

Posted by sangyd at 04:19 PM, Aug 03, 2008

It is very easy to comment saying give a chance to live. The pain is for the parents who have abnormal children. It is not fair to bring someone into the world with deformity and give them pain forever. You can feel tha pain only if you have gone through it.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by sumeetdhaawan at 04:15 PM, Aug 03, 2008

drypraveen,
they will give the chance, will you bear the cost of pacemaker every fourth year. in case of abnormal growth in its mentally / physicaly can you imagine the mental torture child parents will have.

let them decide what's good for them rest depends on lord.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

less Posted by schwarzenblitz at 06:43 PM, Aug 02, 2008

A woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy whenever she wants to. These are fundamental rights that the woman has over her body, and no one can infringe on them.
As far as I am concerned, an unborn child should not have the rights that an adult human being has.

In this specific case, who is going to live with the trauma all their lives ? The supreme court ? NO

It is the couple who have to live a life of misery taking care of a child who has a weak heart, and even bear the grief in case the child dies after a few years. Some laws in the country truly suck

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

Posted by vivekdshenoy at 10:35 AM, Aug 03, 2008

Woman does not have the right to terminate the life of another being. When will this end, does then the woman have a right to kill a baby just before birth. Who decides the rights for an unborn? We talk about animal rights rights of minority etc. Is Indian so self righteous about all those rights and not about an unborn baby created in the image of God? Some thing a miss. Parents have a responsiblity to take care of children no matter what. If we become selective in who gets to be born and who dies where does it end.... Where is love (unconditional love), are we so selfish that only the able bodied ones will have the right to live. Rise up India don't be a party to killing an innocent life that can't speak for him/herself! Let all the so called activist raise their voice for an human being who is at the mercy of people who are supposed to nurture him but have turnned in to terminators.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by nit123esh at 02:41 PM, Aug 03, 2008

I wish people knew facts and didnt talk on pure emotion. The scientific consensus is that the foetus feels no pain and is not "alive" in the sense of the world while most abortions are safe to go ahead with. Now where does the question of "human life" come in? And its not like you or the supreme court will help the parents live with an afflicted child. They will pass their judgement and move on leaving the parents to fend for themselves. If you cant help them, you have absolutely no right to comment on their predictament either. Its their decision to make, not yours or anyone else's.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by vinaleekha at 04:41 PM, Aug 04, 2008

sorry, but you live in a theoretical world. this is not a hypothetical case, nor an emotional wordplay. it is the harsh truth that the child will be living through each day of his life.& the parents will undergo the trauma of seeing their child suffering. will you come & nurture the child? will you undergo the child's & parents' suffering? then how can you decide for them? your opinion is fine, you can hold it. but don't generalize it with sanctimonious talks about the 'rights' of the unborn child. if you are ready to watch the child suffer, & go & live with the couple to 'nurture' it, then you can pronounce your decisions.
vina

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by rajeshtkm at 10:12 AM, Aug 03, 2008

Yes, I totally agree.

To add on, I am not happy with the way the media jumps upon such cases:
The media will flare-up this whole issue and spring a million debates on this. And within two weeks or so, will forget the whole thing. What about the trauma of the parents during this time and later whose personal lives have been converted into an open book by the media? Whether to abort or not is between the parents and the Court. Why should the media poke its nose into everything?

If its the parents decision to abort the child, it should be given complete importance. After all, its the parents who are going to bear the trauma. And what if the child dies after few years? What about the sufferings the child will undergo? Yes, the laws of this country are too obsolete and some of them do not take into account "human factors".

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by findmurali at 12:35 AM, Aug 03, 2008

Even when the foetus is in the first 4 weeks,it can sense a little and killing hurts

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by vikpramod at 10:26 PM, Aug 02, 2008

I firmly believe that its only the female who should have the right to decide to her pregnancy whether to continue or terminate it.
As far as this case is concerned its not only the grief but financial care and support which will be required to keep the child alive.People who are talking about technology advancement do thay really know how much such treatments cost or by just talking about human rights thay want to gather public attention.
Laws related to abortion does not cover such aspects so they need to be relooked and and reframed.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by sngtn at 09:29 PM, Aug 02, 2008

That's interesting to know that the woman can kill the unborn at her will, just as in the US. If the girl was not interested in having the baby, why accept to receive the seed? It is ok to state that the woman has the fundamental right over her body. but, it is insane to state that she can kill her child.

When she doesn't have the right to kill herself (suicide), how is it that she has the right to kill the baby in her stomach?

You do some mischief and you don't want to be responsible for the outcome!

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by vikpramod at 06:24 AM, Aug 04, 2008

I think you need to understand the gravity of the situation as here we are not talking about abortion in general which can be a separate topic for debate but we are talking about a specific case and just for fyi in US you cannot go for abortion as its against Christianity and rules are very strict and that's why even the teenagers have higher raios of preganancies in US than in India as they deliver and mostly abandon them.
And as far as the mischief is conecrened females go for abortions as the society don't accept them(that's a separate debate) and infact more than half of abortions in India are done against the will of the females.
And in this case two mature leaglly married people are concerned who are making a valid point.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by rahulibn at 08:31 PM, Aug 02, 2008

I guess your later half of the comments is very much right. But the first half of the comments are absolutely wrong. Before getting pregnant a couple should be mentally prepared for the child. Though giving birth is a fundamental right of a women, but she should not be given the right to kill a new born.

Only in an exceptional case like this, govt. should allow it wiht immediate medical check-up and necessity.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

less Posted by ijsvoice at 04:53 PM, Aug 02, 2008

We have human right commision to speak for those who deny just some 'rights'. Who are there to stand up and talk for these unborn babies? Why do people want to make their womb a death bed? This is an evil much greater than terrorism. Human life in all its form should be protected.

Reply to this post Rate this post Track User Click if Offensive

Posted by madhunairnagpur at 11:23 PM, Aug 02, 2008

Human right commission, talking or the unborn babies????
Where is the commission and the advocates of the BORN babies. Gentleman, be a little more practical. The trauma of bringing up the soul will entirely rest on the couple and nobody else and that is a truly painful affair - ask some such parents. No life for that matter in any form should exist if (i) it cannot attend to it by self (ii) it is a nuisance to the general public, state or government and most of all (iii) it is devoid of civic sense and social responsibilities an above all if it does not understand the minimum requirement of "Mutual co-existence"

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive

Posted by nit123esh at 09:40 PM, Aug 02, 2008

In pure scientific terms, the general consensus is that life does not begin before most safe abortions take place. So the question of "human life" doesnt even exist. Lets not get carried away with pure emotion and forget facts. Its not like YOU or the "moral police" is going to have to raise the physically ill child, so you have no right to tell anyone what to do. If you cant do anything positive for them, dont comment and dont pass your judgement on anyone. Its their perogative, not yours or the Supreme Court's.

Reply to this post | Rate this post | Track User | Click if Offensive