The whole is more than the sum of its parts

A few years ago, a student who was apparently intrigued by my interpretation of economic geography came to my office to chat with me.  He was a non-traditional student who was also a naturalized citizen after his formative years in a large South American country where the Iberian Romance language is not Spanish.  (How about that for a clue, eh!)

We freely talked about a whole bunch of topics.  Including abortion.  He was opposed to it, he said, and added that he was a born-again Christian.  He asked me where I stood on this issue.

When people ask me, especially when we have established our interests in constructive discussions, well, I have no hassles sharing my thoughts.  I told him the long version.

During my internship way back when I was in graduate school, during a lunch time walking around in downtown Los Angeles, I came across a pro-life (anti-abortion) rally.  It suddenly clicked in me that I was neither in the pro-life camp and nor was I in the pro-choice camp.  To me, aborting a fetus is murder, yes.  Because, pregnancy is the only way we know how to create a human life.  Until science figures out some other process, abortion means terminating a life.

However, it is justifiable homicide even well into a woman's pregnancy.  If she decides to terminate the pregnancy late in the second trimester, yes, she has the right to do so.  Women choose to do it because they know that is the best possible outcome.  Who am I to say otherwise.  I cannot imagine the emotional decision-making process that a pregnant woman goes through.  "Imagine" is important here--given that I am a male who has no idea about what it means to be pregnant and, that too, unexpectedly.

Of course, that student was completely taken aback with such a view.  Especially because he knew that I am an atheist.  But, to me, such a stand is not anything strange.  As I often write here, all these are a part of a drive to understand what the point of my existence is.  The meaning of life.  In these contexts, I am, therefore, almost always saying yes to Camille Paglia, like in the following:

Although I am an atheist who worships only great nature, I recognize the superior moral beauty of religious doctrine that defends the sanctity of life.

I truly cherish and value the sincere sanctity of life arguments that sincere practitioners offer.  They--not many there are who are sincere--and I are fellow-travelers in the quest to understand the meaning of life though our preoccupation with the meaning is from different perspectives.

I like the way Paglia concludes as well:

A liberal credo that is variously anti-war, anti-fur, vegan, and committed to environmental protection of endangered species like the sage grouse or spotted owl should not be so stridently withholding its imagination and compassion from the unborn.

If only we can de-link the cheap politics from such profound discussions!

Abortion in India: as confusing as it is here

Here in the US, everything becomes ultra-passionate. Coke v. Pepsi, Bush v. Gore, pro-life v. pro-choice .... The story is not that different when it comes to India--the struggles are there, perhaps without the ultra-passionate fights, except when it comes to cricket and movies!

Niketa Mehta's gynecologist found out that the fetus might be born with heart problems, which might require a pacemaker almost immediately after birth. Not the best news for any parent. Niketa and her husband, Haresh, decided to abort the fetus and spare the child the possible trauma and low quality of life.

However, it was past the 20th week of pregnancy, and Indian law makes it illegal to abort fetuses at that stage. So, the Mehtas went to court. According to the Times of India, the court ruled that "Undoubtedly, the doctors opinion shows a substantial risk that the child would suffer severe abnormalities. But the opinion itself discloses the necessary treatment to be given with a rider that as things stand a cardiac surgery is not required at birth. In the end, there is no clear opinion that if child is born it would suffer serious mental or physical handicap. It is not mere desire to terminate pregnancy that would entitle a woman to abort her fetus. The legislature in its wisdom has stipulated a time bar of 20 weeks. There is nothing in the petition to suggest that the bar is placed arbitrarily or without logic. Since there is no case made out for us to exercise our discretion to permit the abortion, we dismiss the petition."

The Mehtas are, obviously, dejected--they know they have to carry on with the pregnancy fully aware that the child will have problems from the first second in this world and, for all we know, suffer a sudden death. They point out, "what is disappointing is that we have been proved to be fools. We are educated fools. People in remote areas go to quacks for an abortion. The lesson here being sent out is: don’t follow the law. We are being punished for being law-abiding citizens"

Kalpana Sharma in The Hindu comments that "the question of choice is restricted to an urban class in India that has access to and can afford to use technology to monitor the progress of a pregnancy. Poor mothers have neither the time, nor the money, to go for regular check-ups during pregnancy. If they and the child survive the pregnancy, that in itself is often a miracle given the high rate of maternal and infant mortality in this country. And if at the end of nine months, a deformed or incapacitated child is born, the gods are blamed for it and life goes on. The question of choice simply does not arise, not on whether to get pregnant, or on what to do about an infant with severe health problems.

Niketa and Haresh will now have to live with the choice that has been made for them by the court and the law. But they should be lauded for being open and seeking a legal way out. As a result, they have thrown open an important issue for people to understand and debate."