Friday, March 9, 2012

Sex Selection & Abortion

Sex Selection & Abortion

Prepared by Krishan S. Nehra, Senior Foreign Law Specialist

Sex Selection & Abortion: India

In this article, the author uses four (4) similar Laws in four (4) different countries to compare and contrast each countries unique perspective on a similar subject, which is “Sex Selection and Abortion”.  Canada, a nation with no legal law prohibiting abortion, uses a sort of moral and ethical standard to prohibit medical practitioners from engaging in practices that allows the parents to terminate a fetus based on its gender.  Whereas a more conservative nation, such as India, uses the law to ban certain forms or types of abortion with a maximum of three (3) year prison term as the ultimate deterrent.
Abortion is a despicable, evil, peculiar practice that should be abolished worldwide.   Using the sex of a child as the motive for indulging oneself in such a simple and utterly disgraceful act only compounds the offense.  No matter the justification, to take a life without legitimate cause is murder.  Abortion is bad not only because it takes the life of an innocent child, it also damages the body of the mother in the process.  Abortion is seen as a mechanism to control population growth; however, there is no need to enforce such tactics, when other more humane methods of controlling human population exist. 
On the issue of a Government allowing for crimes against its citizens to include children through the practice of Abortion is justification for that Nation losing its legitimacy.  Any individual that willingly subjects an innocent to the dismemberment and torture of abortion deserves punishment at the greatest extent allowed under the law.  Government sanctioned abortions in public hospitals, such as is the case in India, given the circumstances of the abortion, is a violation of the taxpayer’s rights and a misuse of government funds. 
Regardless of the government, the power that it inherits is derived from the people.  To murder a defenseless individual despite the rationale such as birth defects, undesirable sex, etc. is a violation of Divine Law.  Even animals recognize and obey the natural law that is inherent in all living creatures.  While it is well documented that various species of mammals engage in infanticide there is usually a legitimate reason that can be explained through scientific rationale and reason for such occurrences.  Humans are viewed as the most evolved and advanced species on earth.  If this is a true statement, then why would we endorse and give legitimacy to such barbaric and heinous practices such as abortion?  To injure oneself and kill ones offspring is counter intuitive and goes against the whole notion of evolution and Divine Order.  The purpose of evolution is to survive from generation to generation by successfully passing on ones genetic code via ones offspring.  Divine Law, clearly prohibits Abortion because it is an affront to God and a sin against one’s own body.   Any Nation that legalizes such barbarism is destined for anarchy.

9 comments:

Catherine S said...

I agree with you that sex selection is not appropriate in any situation. It is essentially "playing God" for a couple to be the deciding factor on the sex of their child. However, I completely disagree with you on abortion. While I would never have an abortion myself, I do not believe that a government (especially a seemingly secular one like the US, Australia, or Canada) should control whether or not a woman can make that decision. Many of the arguments regarding abortion are religious in nature, which you did discuss in your blog. The question also arises of when is a fetus considered a person? Some say at conception, while others say not until it is born, and others say once it can survive outside the womb. I think there are certain situations (such as a rape victim becoming pregnant or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy and the child only has a small percentage of survival) where abortion is justified. While some women use abortion as a form of birth control, that does not mean that the entire procedure should be illegal. The US government should not make laws based on religious ideologies. Just because your interpretation of divine law prohibits abortion does not mean it should be illegal. You may consider it barbaric, but I do not.

kathryn y. said...

It is hard to know how to pose a respectful comment here in regards to such a heavily opinionated blog, but I will try my best. I believe that this is a direct example of the implications of allowing for such freedoms of the individual. There must be limits. While you are free to believe what you want regarding your religion, such reasons that you pose for concluding that abortion is "murder" and "barbaric" are based upon your individual beliefs. In order to present such a case to the courts, one might consider using an ethically situated argument rather than that of religious convictions or "divine law". This is precisely what the legal system is trying to clean it's hands of. I would have to agree here with Jefferson and Madison that there should be a high wall built between church and state. Allowing for abortions is a woman's choice. Just as we have the freedom to believe what we want, we also have the freedom to choose.

Alexis A said...

While I see your point about abortion being morally wrong, I disagree with your reasoning and subsequent legal application. One of the great things about living in a free country is having the right to choose. Your suggestion that the government revoke this right based on religious beliefs seems somewhat archaic. The first amendment grants every American the right to believe in their own divine law, whatever that may entail, but it restricts them from applying it to others so that each individual, including yourself, may choose a life that brings them happiness. I, too, believe that abortion is morally wrong, but I cannot and would not apply my religious beliefs to others because I believe each individual has the right to their own conscience. Imagine having to obey Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic laws because the government adopted them as national policy. Would you not cry out at such an injustice? It is the same with all religions. There can be no supreme religious doctrine in government if we wish to enjoy true religious freedom.

Emrah K said...

I really wonder if someone hits a pregnant woman, and then if the baby dies because of this hitting, how does a judge make a decision? Does the judge give a punishment only for hitting? In this case, if the judge gives a punishment addition to the punishment of hitting, the government can prohibit abortion because it means the baby has a judicial status. But if according to the judge there is not any difference between hitting a non-pregnant woman and hitting a pregnant woman who lost her baby after this hitting, the government cannot prohibit abortion because it means the fetus is ignored. I gave this example because before talking abortion as a personal choice, we should know whether or not there is a difference between these two women before the court. I think the decision of a judge on this matter may be a good basis as a secular argument. If you know such an event, please share with us.

Blake_S said...

I think you make some interesting points Jacob on a specific interpretation of Divine Law and abortion. Although you present one side of an argument, I do however believe that there is another side of the argument that you may miss. To begin, I do recognize that you make an argument but I do not know how influential your argument would be in the current legal system alone the way you constructed it. It is true that religion plays a major part in this debate but I do not think that brash language is a rhetorical approach that many take towards the subject. Within the practice of creating legal arguments that win over the masses, moral arguments are a common practice but they are done in a way where people are drawn in with the language and brought to an empathetic response. Beyond the construction of the argument there is another side to this argument. I question at what point a fetus becomes a person. I remember sitting in biology class talking about what a parasite was. The first time I understood what it was I immediately thought of a fetus because it cannot stand alone at any point until its birth. Parasite is a strong word here that does apply to the fetus but I use this example to demonstrate how the legal argument of a fetus being an entity dependent on another and not a separate being is formulated through brash language. Many would shudder at this constructed argument but again, I do this to prove a point.

Amisha P said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amisha P said...

I agree that sex selection should be illegal, because the female wants to have a baby. When it comes to the argument about abortion I disagree. I do not understand how practicing abortion is a “justification for that Nation losing its legitimacy”? Does it not show progression? I understand your argument that abortion is morally wrong, but the progressive fact is women have the right to choose. Women have the right to have an abortion. Like stated in pervious comments there are situations where an abortion is necessary. Also, if having an abortion becomes legal it does not mean everyone should/must get an abortion, females will have the right to choose. It is just like the contraceptive argument; it is an option, whether you take it or not is up to you.

Angela S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Angela S. said...

When I followed the link to your article what I found did not seem to be the same thing you were discussing in your blog post. In fact all I see the article discus is law in India. Specifically it talks about the MTP Act and the PNDT. It lays out the cases in which abortion is legal such as, the woman is a rape victim or she’s married and the birth control her and her husband were using failed. In addition the law also allows for abortion in cases where the woman’s life is in danger or there is a substantial likelihood of the child being seriously handicapped. The exception to that last clause is in cases where the family history indicates an increased likelihood of certain sex-linked diseases in which case you are still not allowed a sex based abortion.

I believe if you want to form a strong argument that people will listen to you should avoid overly emotionally charged words such as despicable, evil, and barbaric. The next thing I would do is to take into account the article that you are discussing; which is one in which abortion based on sex selection is against the law. You say abortion “also damages the body of the mother in the process” but I have no idea which expert said that or in what context. Citing where you pulled that information allows people that agree or disagree to respond in a reasonable manner. For example, “serious complications only occur in less than 1 out of 100 first trimester abortions and approximately 1 out of every 50 late term abortions” and that not only are these risks rare but some of them are also present in child birth, per The American Pregnancy Association*. Now you can follow that link to the source I’m using and decide for yourself if you trust the expert that I’m getting information from and if I’m representing what they said accurately.

*It won't let me hotlink in a reply so here is the web address: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/possiblesideeffects.html