Elective Abortion | Cliché debates | #1
The fall 2017 edition of POPCON comes to the readers’ devices bundled with one and a half promises: the promise to liven up their generally pathetic, paltry existences, and the one-half of a promise, not particularly significant, to illuminate them on the subject. Introductions out of the way, we can now move on to impress our gullible audience with plagiarized snippets from a variety of sources.
Abortion
Short and sweet, abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, which is when the fetus gains the ability to survive outside the womb with medical supervision. Abortion can be induced (elective) or spontaneous, the latter being termed as ‘miscarriage’.
It is imperative to note that all induced abortions are not elective per se; our perception of the term ‘elective’ entails the mother’s decision to abort a fetus for reasons not housed in medical concerns such as mortal danger to her own life through continued pregnancy or during delivery, or a severely deformed baby. An abortion forced by strong circumstantial repercussions fails to be elective. In certain cases, for example, abortion is solicited to preserve the mother’s life. It is induced, but not ‘elected’ as per the framework discussed above, as there is little room for any negotiation.
History
Abortion policies were standardized across the United States after the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Roe vs. Wade. In 1969, Norma McCorvey, pregnant with her third child, attempted to get a legal abortion claiming that she was raped. Failing to obtain the green signal due to lack of police records relating to her claim and in getting an illegal abortion, she filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas under the alias, Jane Roe.
The case was appealed in the Supreme Court, where, in a landmark decision in 1973, the Court upheld the right to privacy of a woman in terminating her pregnancy. However, this right was not absolute; the court introduced the trimester framework, wherein a woman had the right to avail an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy but the State could regulate, even forbid abortion during the second and third trimesters to protect the health of the mother or the potential life in her womb.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971
In India, the legality of abortion, previously considered unlawful except in cases where the mother’s life was at stake, was revisited by the Government owing to the possibility of controlling the population growth through abortions, and numerous instances of illegal abortions. Abortion in India is now regulated by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, which declares abortion as a qualified right.
- Pregnancies in minor and mentally unsound (‘lunatic’) women may be terminated after obtention of written consent from their guardians.
- Pregnancies in major women up to twelve weeks may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner, based on an opinion formed in good faith, if the pregnancy (a) poses mortal, physical or mental injury to the mother, which includes pregnancies caused by rape or those in married women caused by contraceptive failure, or (b) results in a new-born with severe mental or physical abnormalities.
- Termination of pregnancies in major women ranging from twelve to twenty weeks requires the consent of at least two registered medical practitioners based on the same grounds as in (2).
Additionally, the abortion procedure on a mentally sound major must entail her consent, if available. The MTP Act also provides for one exception: the duration of the pregnancy may be ignored if at-least one registered medical practitioner, based on an opinion formed in good faith, considers the abortion immediately necessary to preserve the life of the mother.
A tricky debate
Abortion is a heavily contested topic. In order to develop an objective understanding of the situation, it is necessary to enlist and examine both pro-life and pro-choice arguments. What ensues is a discourse between the proponents of the pro-life and pro-choice positions.
Pro-life 1: Life begins at conception. The fetus is a human being at all stages of development, with a right to life. Aborting a fetus is an infringement of its right to life.
Pro-choice 1: The fetus may be a human ‘being’, but not a human ‘person’. It doesn’t acquire personhood until viability, and cannot be seen to have a right to life until then.
Fetal Personhood and the right to life of the unborn child
While it is commonly accepted that a fetus is a living human being from the point of conception, there is a good amount of debate as to whether it can be seen as a human ‘person’ entitled to basic rights such as the right to life¹. Pro-choice proponents believe that the fetus can only be seen as an independent being after it achieves viability, which is during late pregnancy. Until then, the fetus has no right to life. Pro-life activists argue that abortion is equivalent to taking the risk to kill another person since it is not known whether the fetus actually has a right to life. This is also called the ‘argument of uncertainty’.
Pro-life proponents sometimes add that the fetus feels pain during abortion. This claim has been falsified by scientists, who believe that sensory development in fetuses takes place during late pregnancy, by which time most abortions are regulated by statutes, although opinions are divided on the exact time span.
¹Article 21 of the Indian constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty): No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Pro-choice 2: A woman has the right to control her body. Even if the fetus is a person with a right to life, a woman cannot be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy and support the fetus with her life-support systems against her will.
Pro-life 2: A voluntary pregnancy involves the mother’s implicit consent to let the unborn child use her systems to grow and develop. The mother is duty-bound to nurture the fetus.
Privacy and bodily rights
While it is true that a woman has the right to control her body, pro-life activists believe that a pregnancy resulting from a voluntary intercourse entails the mother’s consent. This is because pregnancy is a natural, easily foreseeable outcome of intercourse. Pro-life argues that legalized abortion will be abused for sex-selective feticide and as a mere contraceptive tool, desensitizing the youth about the immense responsibility that accompanies conception by providing an easy way out and propagating the idea of disposability of human life.
Pro-life 3: Eugenic abortions are explicit discrimination.
Pro-choice 3: Terminating an abortion that may lead to a severely malformed child saves both the mother and the child from a life condemned to pain and suffering.
Conditional abortion rights
Conditional abortion rights mediate between the two stances by finding common ground and legalizing abortion in compelling, generally mutually-agreeable situations. As a matter-of-fact, pro-life recognizes the dominance of the mother’s right to life over her unborn child’s. Quite interestingly, this middle-ground is where most people, knowing-unknowingly, lie: most people intend for abortion to be legal under certain circumstances, which signifies a reconciliation between pro-life and pro-choice movements. By incorporating the best and most valid arguments offered by both stances, a delicate balance is maintained between state interests and personal rights.
Reader’s Takeaway
Adoption has often been suggested as the alternative to abortion. Over time, it has been realized that adoption, albeit an innovative solution, is not a practical one. The adoptive uptake of most countries is marginal compared to the number of abortions performed each year, legal or illegal. Moreover, once the child is delivered, a large share of parents make up their minds to not hand in their newborns for adoption. Those who do generally suffer from chronic grief and guilt.
Originally published at populationcontrolweb.wordpress.com on November 4, 2017.
Previous Around the world in 1100 words | The Peruvian Debacle
