English Response on the Article Abortion Issue reflects ironies of modern living by Jayanthi Nataranjan

             Jayanthi Natrajan then goes on to explain why the abortion issue is one of the ironies of modern day life. Her contention is that abortion is an intensely private matter. It is a decision which is solely of the mother and her immediate family. Whether to abort or keep a child, who may be born retarded, is a decision, however painful and traumatic, which only a mother can make. But by dragging it into court and in front of a news hungry media invades the privacy of an individual to such a degree that one begins to question the very constitution which grants individual liberty and right to live freely and think and decide their own fate. She repeats the word “debated” in this paragraph which emphasizes on the number of debates formed on issues such as abortion.

        She moves onto discussing the details of abortion the law enforced on it, in other countries compared to India. She thinks that the Indian court is not very strict and this is the reason why people like Niketa Mehta have courage to take the case to the court. The subject of abortion has been debated worldwide and in different geographies, it is perceived differently. In several countries around the world, religious leaders have taken a strong stand on abortion. Yet in India, religious leaders are not very aggressive on the subject. The reason could be because India is made of diverse religions and they do not seem to be on consensus on the subject matter amongst them. There is not much debate on the morality of the issue. Again this could be because, although it is widely practiced, abortion is still something spoken off in hushed tones and kept under wraps. Jayanthi Natrajan believes that for once politicians have not politicized the issue as “it is not political dynamite that some vested interests like to exploit in a bid to divide society and gain political advantage”.

       Jayanthi starts talking about the law of India which states that a fetus cannot be aborted after 20 weeks but at the same time opposes the law as abnormalities in a fetus can be found only after it is 20 weeks old. She also says that the parents should have the full right to decide whether they want to bring up a disabled child or not. She brings her point of view very well in a stern tone which makes the reader agree with what she has to say. She says, “On the other hand, those who oppose this talk about the advanced growth of the fetus, 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.” Here Jayanthi uses words like “those” which clearly signifies that it is not her point of view and the tone may make the reader feel that she is against the point of view of these people and she also uses the word “passionately” for the mother’s health due to abortion and this may tell the reader that Jayanthi partly agrees to this point.    

            She then moves onto giving statistics on the number of abortions which take place which are illegal all over the world and also in Asia. She uses these statistics to support her point of view which is to look beyond the law in certain exceptional circumstances. This makes the reader think if so many abortions take place illegally why this one can’t be an exception if the parents who have already gone through a lot of trauma and torture have come to a decision.

             She moves onto giving the main link of the article to the title, also compares the Indian law to that of other countries and also gives some valid points which have to be considered before a decision is made. Here she discusses about how even youngsters are aware of the fact and take the fact lightly due to the easy access of abortion. She also talks about “the right of life of the unborn child” which is a valid argument against the abortion to take place in Niketa Mehta’s case. She says, “While some of these maybe reactionary and incorrect they cannot be wished away. Respect for individual human existence is, and has to be, basic to any civilized society.” Here she says how each and every public opinion has to be respected and considered even if she or any other person thinks it is incorrect. In the last sentence of the article she says, “Above all, the emotional and personal dilemma of the persons involved should take precedence in the public debate, and inform the law.” Here too she supports her point of view indirectly saying that the court should have looked more inside the full case before making their final decision.  

             The debate whether to “abort or not” in the Niketa Mehta case, did not divide the country politically or religiously. Yet it has thrown up several questions on whether to amend a four decade old law forbidding abortion of 20 week old fetuses. Abortion in exceptional circumstances like rape, protecting the mother’s health, etc. is acceptable. But can a license be given to individuals to abort “at will”?  Ones heart goes out to Niketa Mehta and her plight and predicament. But at the same time, it is important to understand that there are two sides to every coin. Abortion may be justified, even necessary, in cases like Niketa Mehta. Yet, it is very easy to abuse the license to abort in a country where abortion is rampant in case of the girl-child. The male-female ratio, heavily skewed in favor of males, is ample proof of this.

       Jayanthi writes the article in a very indirect tone giving all her points in details where the reader clearly understands what she tries to emphasize on with the help of various example keeping in mind that it is very formal and does not go against any individual. She conveys the message to the reader with the help of many repetitions such as “debate” and “dilemma.” It is a gripping article and which keeps the reader engaged till the end and giving her valid points also makes the reader sympathize with the Mehtas and many readers might begin to agree with Jayanthi Nataranjan.

      In the final analysis, the article is an eye opener and a wakeup call to bring out the issue of abortion into the open, conduct a national debate to get a cross section of viewpoints and reframe laws to accommodate cases like Niketa Mehta yet keep a check on misuse of the license to abort.