The Niketa Mehta case, and the subsequent judgment pronounced by the Bombay high court, have suddenly brought into national focus the important issue of abortion, and the social, moral, ethical and political issues surrounding it. Although the facts of the Niketa case were relatively straightforward, as was the judgment of the court, the issues that arise out of it are far reaching and important.

As the extensive press coverage has reported, Niketa Mehta and her husband filed a petition before the Bombay high court seeking to abort their unborn foetus due to the finding of a pre-natal test which suggested that their baby might be born with a congenital heart abnormality, which might entail their baby to be on a pacemaker, almost from birth, and require intensive care and treatment for almost the whole of its life. The court rejected their plea on the basis of the 37-year-old law, which prohibits abortion after 20 weeks, unless under exceptional circumstances such as a threat to the mother’s life. The court also declared that nothing in the medical report confirmed the fear of Niketa and her husband that their baby would be born with a congenital abnormality.

The emotional trauma that the Mehtas must have gone through can only be imagined. As any parent can testify, the joy of parenting is equal only to the agony of worry about the health and well-being of the offspring. If a mother knows beforehand that her child will suffer a permanent disability, the complex emotional conflict and the sorrow which engulf her are so raw and painful that it is impossible to describe. After all, it is the parents who will have to care for the child, and turn their lives upside down in the process. It is the parents who will have to watch as their disabled child tries to first understand and then integrate with a hostile environment which is so poorly suited to coping with disabled peers, both at a physical as well as emotional level. Having had some experience with disabled children and their parents, I have watched the daily stress and adjustment and the massive patience that is required to lead a near normal life.

To make such an issue the subject of law or a national debate is one of the ironies of modern living. It is an intensely personal matter, the dilemma of parents who have to make a crucial and painful decision: whether or not to abort their unborn baby, or if they should face the prospect of caring lifelong for the physical and mental health of a disabled child. The decision, by its very nature, is traumatic, but to have it debated in the media, the courts and by legislators is so invasive that it is difficult for anyone who believes strongly in individual liberty and freedom to accept. This is a classic case of an intensely personal issue becoming a socio-legal problem with medical dimensions.

Thus the human dimension of the problem, and the fact that the individual decision on such an issue resonates on an entirely different plane from the public debate, is something that has become part of the complex anomaly of the abortion debate. Abortion, or medical termination of pregnancy, as we call it in India, is one of the oldest methods of fertility control in the world. It brings to the fore primordial sentiments. The debate has diverse historical and cultural meanings, which are specific to countries, to stages of demographic transition, struggles over gender roles, reliance on abortion for fertility regulation in a particular area, struggle between religion and the state in some countries, on the abortion issue, cross-national similarities, the prevalent social construct, and the management of the surrounding conflict. The resultant debate is often poorly informed, particularly in the context of the gender, social and political cleavage in these matters, and the fact that society finds it awkward and difficult to openly talk about these issues.

In our country, the debate has never really focused upon abortion as a religious or moral issue with the same intensity that is found in several other countries. This is perhaps the reason that the Mehtas found the courage to take their problem to court, and also the fact that the public debate that followed has been somewhat calm and reasoned, and devoid of the hysteria that usually accompanies most of our national debates. Although this is an impression not based on any particular data or substance, I am inclined to believe that this important debate has been conducted in a calm atmosphere because it is not the political dynamite that some vested interests like to exploit in a bid to divide society and gain electoral advantage.

The issue is, nevertheless, extremely important. The law says that abortion cannot be carried out after 20 weeks of pregnancy, whereas, oftentimes, abnormalities, if any, can only be found after 20 weeks. Surely the parents have the right to determine if they should go forward and bring into the world a disabled child or not. On the other hand, those who oppose this talk about the advanced growth of the foetus, at this point, and about the right to life of the baby, also argue passionately about the harmful effects on the mother’s health if abortion is conducted at such a late stage. Over 40 to 50 million abortions are carried out worldwide, out of which it is estimated that between 20 to 28 million abortions are illegal. The reasons for these are varied, and range between saving the life of the mother, for the sake of the mother’s physical or mental health, if the mother had been the victim of rape or incest, foetal impairment (as in the Mehta’s case), economic and social reasons, and simply on request in a small percentage of cases. In Asia alone there are over 9.2 million clandestine abortions a year.

It is ironical that the moral, social and emotional complexity surrounding a decision to abort is not apparent in the public debate. Yet it is the public debate which will determine the right of citizens to opt for abortion. In India, although the debate is not so contentious as it has been in other countries, we too have to think very seriously about the perils of too much freedom in this regard, because if the law is amended to give parents the right to decide, it is all too possible that it will be used to get rid of the female foetus and further violate the already skewed male-female ratio in our country. The moral dilemma of those who believe in the right to life of the unborn child has also to be considered very seriously, for no right-thinking person can concede that couples may arbitrarily decide, perhaps even on a whim, that a foetus should be aborted. The more conservative elements in our society believe that easy access to abortion may encourage promiscuity among the young.

While some of these may be reactionary and incorrect arguments, they cannot really be wished away. Respect for individual human existence is, and has to be, basic to any civilised society. However, in the ultimate analysis, abortion, provided it causes no involuntary harm and produces some benefits for individuals and society, can and should be permitted legally. Above all, the emotional and personal dilemma of the persons involved should take precedence in the public debate, and inform the law.—The Asian Age

Jayanthi Natarajan is a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha.