The intended ambiguity in the method of writing implemented in this article suggests that the reader is made to think for himself, the kind of emotional trauma that a parent must go through before making such decisions. It is also supported by a two sided approach into the decision “the joy of parenting is equal only to the agony of worry about the health and well-being of the offspring”. Jayanthi Natarajan at first seems to think that the parents must be given the choice to decide the fate of the offspring as they deem necessary and no pressure must be put upon them. She is of the opinion that the emotions which engulf the parents thoughts cannot be described, but in her view putting extra pressure on them is just unnecessary. In this article Jayanthi Natarajan forms no opinion other than that the decision must not be made due to public pressure.
Jayanthi Natarajan does believe that the debate on such an issue is different in different countries due to cultural, historical, and situational differences. The debate is often influenced by social and political cleavages in society, when society as a whole does not stand together on a certain stand. An issue such as abortion has never been a prime discussion in India, but still holds a lot of significance is society. The Indian Laws prohibit abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; the argument presented in this case is that the abnormality was known only after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The two discussion points or stands to this topic can be summarised is the two quotes below.
The dilemma which concerns Jayanthi Natarajan is the most is that, even though in India this is not a very prominent issue, it is public debate which will finally make the decision. She effectively brings this out, using words such as ironical. She expressed her hope that the law is not amended but public debate favours the parents, as if the law were to be amended the female foetus would be aborted all the time while the male foetus may not be aborted resulting in an inappropriate male-female ratio for the country. Althoguh she does agree that it cannot be decided arbitrarily amongst the parents for the right to live of an unborn child. This two sided debate can have considerable impacts on the moral and ethical thinking of society. Also access to abortion, a point well brought out by Jayanthi Natarajan, the young may misuse abortion. In this article she has effectively covered both the sides of debate, expressed her views on the public debate factor which decides the fate of the foetus, and India’s moral, social, political and ethical view on such a topic. She concludes her article by giving a just opinion, very well-thought of and a diplomatic solution which draws a line beyond which abortion must not be allowed, “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”.
Overall, this article is a very well written article as it brings forth the various issues which should be discussed, about abortion and various ideas which can be though about. It is imperative that public debates of such an issue is active but yet calm and reasoned and it is also important to consider the situation very gravely and act urgently upon the situation. Public pressure or any social or moral pressure must not affect this debate and the decision must bear in mind the various aspects which will plague the child (especially in this case). Jayanthi Natarajan uses simple but effective skills to ensure that none of her ideas are enforced upon the reader, but yet at the same time allows the readers to think for themselves and decide the most apt decision in various situations. She effectively communicates that the public such a personal topic will affect the emotional wellbeing of the parents.
