| Username |
Post |
| aboriginal abortion |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 12:57 PM
Nepal Parliament Approves abortion bill, Times Of India, Mar 15
"Nepal, one of the few countries that prohibits abortions under any conditions, is set to legalise the procedure ." Times Of India.
@ http://nepalworldnews.com
The rationale for this is to reduce the country's high maternal mortality rate due to illegal abortions.
Whats your opinion on this?
|
| NumbVoices |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 01:02 PM
Its about time.
|
| DivaShah2 |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 01:32 PM
But its only condtitional.
|
| naresh_karki |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 01:45 PM
What will be social impact? It should be considered.
Naresh Karki
Baltimore
|
| Boston_Dude |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 03:53 PM
Abortion as most of us in US know is a highly devisive and controvertial topic. I for one am an abortion proponent, so I would obviously support a bill that legalizes abortion. I don’t know much about the details of the bill that was passed in Nepal, but a few good reasons why abortion should be legal in Nepal are:
People with access to wealth have been doing it for years anyway. It is mostly the poor and the UNINFORMED who have suffered. It is time to rectify that. Make it legal, affordable and sanitary. And, educate people about it.
Woman’s right to choose. I think this stems from a right to property argument. I mean, what can be more of your property than your own body? And, as long as a fetus is inside a woman’s body, it is part of her. This I believe is the strongest reason to argue for abortion rights. Something to note here is that we have to separate moral issues from legal issues. A lot of people view abortion as being extremely immoral and extend it into a legal argument. Also, abortion opponents will argue that no individual has right over another; and that a fetus is an individual, a life…. And then the debate extends over to when does life begin?…… To me, all this secondary to the Right to Property argument. But, that is just me. A liberal as some might say :)
|
| _BP |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 04:47 PM
Well, I for one am a conservative, and someone in the health profession who is pro-choice. Never say never, or ever, or forever...there are always exceptional and extenuating circumstances. Anti-abortionism is a stand that doesn't allow for any "conditions." They equate pro-choice with pro-death. In reality, sometimes abortion is wrong, sometimes it is right. As with many other grey zones of societal law, this has to judged by a jury of peers, not decided for ever and ever by a single sweeping law.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 15-Mar-02 05:46 PM
Give right to women. They wanna give birth to a child, fine. If they don't want,
it is their right, nobody should coerce them to give birth and nurse some fetus
which doesn't have life yet.
But once the fetus becomes life, then it should be made illegal. Esp those
abortions, which are direct result of the detection of sex of the baby, should
be banned, and made severely punishable.
|
| suna |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 06:58 AM
Biswo
You must have a great woman/mother in your life to be so balanced!
Or you must have the makings of a good politician. Either way, you are good!!
I feel the same way. George Bush needs one reality check on this issue as well.
It's a woman's choice whether she wants to have the baby or not. Its her body, her time, her ability and she is fully aware of all those. Why does it have to be anybody else's business is beyond me.
I think we have a social stigma regarding this. Only "certain" women would have abortions.
Someone has raised the issue of a certain class that have been having it all along. Thats right. But there are also some cases where certain people would want an abortion once they find out its a girl. I have heard this with my own ears.
But then, who are you going to blame? the woman who wants to be accepted and elevated to the status of chora-ko-ama or the society which indirectly enforces this chora thing?
|
| Nomad |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 09:45 AM
Since women nurture the foetus for 9 months and play the biggest role in raising the child, she should have the right to decide if she wants to carry the baby or not. Having a baby is a big decision in life and like all crucial decisions in life, women must have the right to choose.
Having said that, abortions are done by three groups of women:
1). like Biswo said, by women who feel pressured by their family to get rid of the baby after finding out that the baby is a girl.
Men, and parents-in-law, could easily misuse women's right to abort.
2). Teen pregnancies: With increasing sexual freedom (face it, things are changing, though slowly) induced by the media, teen pregnancies will become more frequent. There is no reason to not let teenage girls abort the consequences of their immaturity and carelessness. The focus here should be on sex education so that teenage girls won't be pregnant in the first place.
3). Inadvertent pregnancies: Yes, contraceptives are available that are pretty reliable and keep getting more reliable with time. But we are only human to make mistakes and forget to use contraceptives. Yes, doing so is irresponsible but it is aso a fact of life. No one should be forced to face the consequences of a small mistake for the rest of their life.
We can't just say whether making abortions legal is right or wrong. Now that women can (legally) abort, we should be worried about how not to let that be misused.
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 10:33 AM
Regarding point 1: The situation won't even arise if abortion is made illegal.
Regarding point 2:So, you are saying that promiscuous teenagers, who have unprotected sex w/o thinking of the consequences have the right to abortion??? That does not make sense to me. U gotta be responsible for your actions, you know.
Regarding point 3: Being irresponsible isn't an excuse. Again, u gotta be responsible for your actions.
My personal opinion: Abortion should be legal in extreme cases, like if the mother was impregnated by a rapist, or if maternal death is inevitable without abortion.
Don't forget that fetus is also a human being. Killing a fetus, IMHO, is synonymous to killing a child. Tell me something, people. How come killing a boy is a heinous crime, whereas killing a fetus isn't???? Just imagine the baby's future potential. Who knows, he could be the next Einstein. By killing a fetus, one is taking away it's future.
People who participated in illegal abortion should have been dealt with iron hands. Seriously, I don't mind the introduction of capital punishment in Nepal in order to deal with these murderers. I don't mind working as an executioner.....
I'm really stupefied by Nepal's decision to legalise abortion.
|
| hmmm.... |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 10:43 AM
What about protected sex? Masturbation? Aren't you killing the potential forms of life?
Where or when does life begin? What constitutes of killing? These questions need to be answered.
I do understand, its the women who bear all the pain carrying the baby, its literally inside their body. Thus they should be able to choose, but I am totally against late abortions. Late abortion is killing.
Somone pointed out somewhere that-- humans and dolphins are the only ones who have sex for pleasure.
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 10:57 AM
Hmm, no masturbation isn't killing future potentions. Sperm doesn't even have 23 pairs of chromosomes yet, for god's sake... Life begins after cleavage ,IMHO.
It's not just woman who are responsible for making babies? Where do those little swimmers come from??? If u don't wanna have a baby, then don't start the process. Wear protection.
GTG now.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 03:28 PM
>Biswo
>You must have a great woman/mother in your life to be so balanced!
>Or you must have the makings of a good politician. Either way, you are good!!
Very sweet words , Suna. Thanks. May be I have (had) both!
But above all of these, the issues of abortion is directly related to the way we want
to treat women. No country ever progressed without taking care of half of their
population. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. They were one of the richest
countries in the world in 1984. PCI in today's value about US$40,000.00, but now
their per capita income is just above US$7,000, and its economy is perennially
shriking.(in 80's decade only, its economy shrunk by more than 5 percent! it is just
shrinking!) Ditto in most of the Moslem world. So data is there for us: where do we
want to lead our society? By ignoring 50% of our population and their right to
stand in par with another half, we will reach nowhere, even if we try to run very
fast.
|
| Homophobic |
Posted
on 16-Mar-02 06:59 PM
Abortion is a woman's right not privilige. All those lawmakers (mostly men) can kiss the dirt. Thank god atleast the pakhe MPs are finally realizing it. Power to the sistas :)
P.S: Atleast I am not that chauvanistic - i do support women rights. Radha, thank you very much.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 17-Mar-02 03:00 PM
All creatures, including human, are robustly programmed by nature to want to have babies. Actually, the instinct of reproduction is one of the fundamental design on which life is based, with which it has sustained billions of years of evolution on earth. Therefore we have the nature’s guarantee that humans are never going to lose the reproductive instinct, no matter what. Therefore there is no reason to worry whether those limited cases of the termination of unwanted pregnancies pose threat to human life as a whole. Abortion is a threat to nothing.
Is abortion immoral ? Yes, if it is anything but termination of UNWANTED pregnancies and if it is decided by individual OTHER THAN the woman bearing the fetus. Why the voluntary decision by a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is moral ? Because there can not be a moral standard higher than that which ensures well being of the new life. The first and foremost condition for the well being of a baby is that it should be being WANTED. Wanted not by the Pope or the chairman of the World Hindu Parishad, but by the very person who bears, give birth and raises the baby. Imposing unwanted pregnancy to a woman is immoral and ugly. In retrospect, it destroys the beauty of motherhood. Yes, having no option for terminating unwanted pregnancy destroys the beauty of motherhood.
Should there be a restriction/condition imposed on abortion ?
The only condition that should be imposed is that it should be a case of pregnancy unwanted by the responsible woman. That’s all.
What about late pregnancy, should it be a condition ?
No. A decision by a woman to terminate her late pregnancy is itself a proof telling how severely UNWANTED is that pregnancy. Trust the nature. A woman will always feel an emotional bond to the fetus inside her womb. Any decision she makes on the fate of that fetus is the best indicator of what she must be going through. As a rule, there is nobody more trustworthy than the woman herself. Trust her.
What about gender based abortion prevalent in North India and now being practiced in Nepal too ?
It seems there is (in this thread as well as at the national debate in the country !! ) an unanimous opposition to the practice of abortion of female fetus. Therefore, prepare yourself, what I am going to say is going to shock all of you.
I think if it fulfils the only condition for abortion I proposed above, i.e., it is UNWANTED by the PREGNANT WOMAN HERSELF, then nobody has right to force her to give birth to the unwanted fetus. I know upon this statement, all proponents of equal right/respect to women will jump on me. Let me tell you this- I am a hardcore supporter of equal right/respect to women. and I think the freedom to choose the gender of a baby is the only natural way to eliminate discrimination against women in our society. Before you point out the self-contradiction of my statement and/or you think I must be insane, let me explain my theory.
Women are oppressed and discriminated in all stages of their lives in our society. The story begins right from their birth. Daughters are discriminated by parents, because they are UNWANTED. Imagine what would be the situation if they were somehow WANTED. Of course, they would not be discriminated and would enjoy all the care, love and respect that a WANTED son is entitled to. Therefore UNWANTEDNESS has a causative relation to the discrimination. Therefore, if you want to eliminate discrimination against a born girl child, don’t force the mother to keep an unwanted female fetus. Only when a parent really wants to have a daughter, then only you can be sure she gets everything a child should get.
Now the scary thing is what if ALL or, let’s be realistic, majority of the parents decided to have sons only. Wouldn’t an unbalanced ratio of men to women be problematic ? May be so for men, but not for women. For women, that will be the best time in the whole history of mankind except for those primitive maternal societies at the beginning of human civilization. Scarce number will make women valuable, wanted and respected for the first time in our society. Problem of dowry, property rights, equal opportunity will be vanished and we will be reading them as a history. We will be talking then about discrimination against men, abortion of male fetus, dowry from groom’s parents etc. The entire game will be played by an opposite rule. That will be a golden era for women. Okay, let’s not go that far. But certainly, at one point during such process, the society will come to an equilibrium of equal importance of men and women. And that too in a very natural way, without uttering a single word to educate conservative parents of our society. Think about it.
Nepe
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 17-Mar-02 07:38 PM
Nepeji
I don't doubt that you are supporter of equal right to women. But to prove a point,
you are allowing death of an unborn child(as you did by decriminalizing late
pregnancy abortion) which is too harsh. You know what, that's too insane an
experiment to prove obvious worthiness of women.(I also disagree when you
emphasize North India and Nepal in your point, China these days is facing acute
problem of aborition of baby girl after finding out gender. The latest I heard from
China was when the government meted out 18 years jail sentence to a doctor who
helped abort the child, the harshest yet!)
Crime and punishment is a system. We need to increase awareness while without
jeopardising the system. My point only.
|
| hmmm.... |
Posted
on 17-Mar-02 09:14 PM
NEPEJI:
WHAT ABOUT THE EQUATION OF HOMOSEXUALS COMING OUT. WITH LESS WOMEN IN THE "MARKET", THERE IS A POSSIBLITY THAT MEN WILL TURN TOWARDS "HOMOSEXUALITY". TO PROVE MY POINT-- "HOMOSEXUALITY IS PERSISTENT IN ALL MALE ARMY OR ALL BOYS SCHOOLS"
|
| hmmm.... |
Posted
on 17-Mar-02 09:50 PM
Nepeji, I was waiting for your comments/views on the recent development of Maoist/Girija relationship. Tara ahilesamma comment aayena! Lets hear your thoughts.
Your fan
hmmm.....
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 18-Mar-02 12:33 PM
Biswoji,
I agree with you that the abortion of late pregnancy is too harsh. In a normal condition, it is a horrible thing to do. My recommendation for decriminalization was based on my assumption that a woman who decides to do such a horrible thing should be in a horrible situation, and it will be a horrible thing on our part to force her to remain in that horrible situation and have horribly unwanted baby. May be my assumption is imperfect. If there are chances of abuse of legality of abortion, they should be prevented by all means. But care should be taken to define the ‘abuse’. Abuse of the ‘abuse’ has more chances than the actual abuse of the abortion in a conservative society like ours. Your citation of 18 years of jail sentence to a Chinese abortion doctor is an example of the abuse of ‘abuse’ in my view.
Thank you for adding the reference of China to the problem of abortion of female fetus. I think this problem is mostly a result of one child policy of China. Correct me if I am wrong. In any case, I think that opposition to gender based abortion is less of a voice for emancipation of women and more of a manifestation of our prejudice against women. We need to draw a really big picture to see this.
If I have to say my view on abortion, population and related theme in a sentence, I would say, I want to see this world full of wanted and loved children. If that brings a crisis, then only we should resort to having unwanted children.
====================================================
Hmmm ji, (on homosexuality),
I do not have a good knowledge on homosexuality. But I think it has a genetic and physiological basis, although largely unknown. That’s why it is a natural trait. There may be unnatural homosexuality too. But for a natural homosexuality, the sex ratio of the population should have no effect. In any case, there is nothing to worry about. Accept the nature.
On Girija-Maoists politics
First of all,thank you, Hmmm. It’s my pleasure to learn that I have got a fan. As you should have observed I am a type who basically comments randomly on someone else’s comment. I do not have enough confidence and whatever it takes to start, lead and maintain a discussion by myself. That said, if there happens to be a discussion on the topic you mentioned, I certainly will put my views. Until then, I would call (borrowing your signature) Maoists-Girija dimension of Nepali politics as something that should make everybody hmmm….,
Nepe
|
