The debate on abortion has moved away from the empowerment of women to cutting religious propaganda
Of course, all this is not happening for the first time. Since time immemorial, a woman’s body has been the theoretical and unembellished territory for societal and political war. From the theoretical, scientific and religious end, there are numerous logical stages that define the starting point where ‘human life’ begins. Many schools of thoughts believe that sperms and eggs have life; and put them at par with humans, thus considering them as preconceived life. Many don’t! But almost all blocks ranging from political to religious are in some or the other form discussing the issue of abortion – or as the critics call it, immoral killing of a life.
So what is the debate all about? That’s simple, as that rests on the analysis of the options a woman with unwanted pregnancy has, and those are: one, she can put up the child for adoption; two, she can accept the child; and three, she can abort the unborn child. And that is where the whole debate on abortion starts, with opposing philosophies promoted by two schools of thought: Pro-choice campaigners (who demand a mother be allowed to choose whichever of the three options she might wish to undertake), as opposed by pro-life campaigners (who generally argue in terms of foetal rights rather than reproductive rights). The pro-choice group believes that “a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy,” and demand that a woman is given ‘the guarantee’ of reproductive rights – access to sexual education, fertility treatments, contraception, to safe and legal abortion, and even legal protection from forced abortion. The pro-life group’s philosophy revolves around the argument that “…human foetuses and embryos are persons, and therefore they have a right to live.” Thus, the movement is characterised by extreme wingers opposing sale and use of contraception, practise of death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research et cetera. Philosophers and writers have been key in this debate, saddling further complicated arguments. Mary Anne Warren, noted American writer and philosophy professor (cited in major publications like Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral of the Story:
An Anthology of Ethics Through Literature’ and Bernard Gert’s ‘Bioethics: A Systematic Approach’) concludes that the foetus “satisfies only one criterion: consciousness (and this, only after it becomes susceptible to pain); the foetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.” Using a scientific angle, a former President of the British Academy and current President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, the well known Anthony J P Kenny believes that since division of the zygote into twins through the process of monozygotic twinning can occur until the 14th day of pregnancy, abortion should not be permissible after two weeks! Again, noted American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith J Thomson states that even if the foetus has a right to life, abortion is still morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body.
Of course, all this is not happening for the first time. Since time immemorial, a woman’s body has been the theoretical and unembellished territory for societal and political war. From the theoretical, scientific and religious end, there are numerous logical stages that define the starting point where ‘human life’ begins. Many schools of thoughts believe that sperms and eggs have life; and put them at par with humans, thus considering them as preconceived life. Many don’t! But almost all blocks ranging from political to religious are in some or the other form discussing the issue of abortion – or as the critics call it, immoral killing of a life.
So what is the debate all about? That’s simple, as that rests on the analysis of the options a woman with unwanted pregnancy has, and those are: one, she can put up the child for adoption; two, she can accept the child; and three, she can abort the unborn child. And that is where the whole debate on abortion starts, with opposing philosophies promoted by two schools of thought: Pro-choice campaigners (who demand a mother be allowed to choose whichever of the three options she might wish to undertake), as opposed by pro-life campaigners (who generally argue in terms of foetal rights rather than reproductive rights). The pro-choice group believes that “a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy,” and demand that a woman is given ‘the guarantee’ of reproductive rights – access to sexual education, fertility treatments, contraception, to safe and legal abortion, and even legal protection from forced abortion. The pro-life group’s philosophy revolves around the argument that “…human foetuses and embryos are persons, and therefore they have a right to live.” Thus, the movement is characterised by extreme wingers opposing sale and use of contraception, practise of death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research et cetera. Philosophers and writers have been key in this debate, saddling further complicated arguments. Mary Anne Warren, noted American writer and philosophy professor (cited in major publications like Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral of the Story:
An Anthology of Ethics Through Literature’ and Bernard Gert’s ‘Bioethics: A Systematic Approach’) concludes that the foetus “satisfies only one criterion: consciousness (and this, only after it becomes susceptible to pain); the foetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.” Using a scientific angle, a former President of the British Academy and current President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, the well known Anthony J P Kenny believes that since division of the zygote into twins through the process of monozygotic twinning can occur until the 14th day of pregnancy, abortion should not be permissible after two weeks! Again, noted American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith J Thomson states that even if the foetus has a right to life, abortion is still morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body.
Read these article :-
Follow Arindam Chaudhuri on Twitter
Delhi/ NCR B- Schools get better
IIPM fights meltdown
IIPM News
1 LAKH COPY SOLD in less than ten days of Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri's new book Discover The Diamond In You
IIPM B School on Twitter
Delhi/ NCR B- Schools get better
IIPM fights meltdown
IIPM News
1 LAKH COPY SOLD in less than ten days of Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri's new book Discover The Diamond In You
IIPM B School on Twitter
about shedding blood. In the latest bout of suicides, as many as three dozen youths laid down their lives in an apparent fillip to Telangana’s claim for statehood. Garnering maximum television footage, TRS supremo K. Chandrasekhara Rao (KCR), the biggest apparent champion of the cause, shed tears remembering the latest martyrs. Ironically, the viewers are sceptical of the credibility of his tears. In the six decades of struggle for a separate Telangana, KCR is not the first leader to be distrusted but definitely the latest.
24 seats – down from their previous tally of 61. In West Bengal – once the Red Citadel – the CPI (M)’s share of MPs dropped vertically, from 27 to nine. It lagged behind the Trinamool Congress and Congress in over 200 of the 294 assembly segments. Indeed the outlook is so bleak that in the 13th West Bengal Legislative Assembly polls in 2011, even the CPI (M)’s friends expect the once impregnable fortress to collapse as the Berlin Wall did in 1989!
another feather to the increasing Indo-US bonhomie and vindicates that USA’s crusade against terrorism is not essentially one against those which are directed towards the US only. Interestingly, the Indian government at large, the major political parties as well as the intelligentsia and the common man in India don’t seem to be too much concerned about this particular news and aren’t much grateful towards the US either for the incredible feat of FBI in unearthing this major conspiracy. One wonders what would have happened if this plan had succeeded. Reports state that this one was on its way to even dwarf the mayhem created by the ghastly terror attack of 26/11. So, essentially, we owe much to the US for nipping this plan in the bud. No wonder that there would be many a conspiracy theory that would be erected to drive home the staple logic of India’s left leaning pseudo intellectuals that this was all stage managed by the US for inching closer to India for business purposes. No wonder now that the next 26/11 type incident has been avoided for the time being, everyone would conveniently forget about it and not try taking lessons. Interestingly, reports even state that these two perpetrators were even involved with the planning part of last year’s 26/11. Further, if one looks at the series of incidents in the post 26/11 scenario, whatever actions are being taken by the Pakistan government against the likes of Taliban and al-Qaida or others is primarily because of the pressures from the US government rather than the same from India. No doubt India’s current Home Minister P Chidambaram has done a lot in improving the response capability of Indian state in the last one year and no doubt that in J&K and North-east the armed forces have been successful in neutralising several terror modules based on real time intelligence but those two parts of India are special cases with special powers being given to the armed forces. With respect to the rest of India, one wonders as to whether India would continue to only end up catching the foot soldiers of terror modules or strengthen the intelligence gathering machinery to that extent that it can catch the real ‘rainmakers’ the way FBI did this time. A huge conventional army is literally helpless when pitted against the invisible terror modules or the guerilla tactics of Maoists. It is being repeatedly proved in the fight against Maoists in Chhattisgarh and West Bengal. The designs of al-Qaida and its sister networks is far more sinister than what they look. An attack now on Indian soil would surely provoke India to wage a war against the already fragile Pakistan state and then the whole current outrage against the Jihadis over there would turn towards India, thereby benefiting the Taliban and al-Qaida. Pakistan army would be forced to withdraw its forces from Swat and Waziristan to defend the eastern borders thereby giving a breather to the beleaguered Taliban. And thus the best way to prevent such a situation to come is by preventing such terror attacks from happening, which cannot happen merely by increasing the size of paramilitary and the NSG. It can only happen through the setting up of a fool proof intelligence grid and a strong network with other nations for intelligence sharing. It’s time we become a little more rational. Remaining non-aligned didn’t help India ever. And with wonderful neighbours like China, fuelling Maoists and North-East militants,and Pakistan, the mother of all kind of Jihad, around, it has no option but to take sides. Under the present scenario, the US seems least likely to be a ‘fair weather friend’ only. And thus… India’s best friend in need.