I consider myself a reasonably cool-headed and peaceful person. However, there are times when I really, really long for the opportunity to smash a dozen teeth down a few throats.
Today, for example, I was browsing through the internet when I stumbled upon a news article describing how Irish legislators have debated till late last night over the introduction of a new bill. Apparently, this is the result of the storm of public outrage that had erupted since the death of Savita Halappanavar. Didn’t know that name, did you? Of course not. There are far more important things to occupy your mind; like Shahrukh Khan‘ s surrogate child or Jiah Khan‘s sex life.
Assuming you’ve sincerely clicked on that link and read the Wiki article, or, even more surprisingly, that you knew about it already, you must have noticed the tone of the reports everywhere. They all remark that this is a grave question, with far-reaching moral, legal, ethical repercussions. The hell it is! Before you start hollering “Yes it is! Yes you Godless inhuman beast, it is!!”, consider carefully the specific question that is being debated. The topic being debated in the Irish assembly is not whether abortions should be permitted or not. The topic of this post isn’t that either. The subject of the debate is this: Whether a pregnancy can be terminated or not if the mother’s life in danger, and the fetus is not viable. Note the term viable. In legalese, a fetus is said to be viable when it can survive outside of the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.
Tell me, this is a debatable topic? Do a room-full of sane people actually need to debate whether a pregnancy can be terminated or not when the mother’s life is in danger, especially when they already know that the baby cannot be saved? What about you? Whether you’re a man or a woman, pro-abortion or anti-abortion, do you really need to think about this? Take Savita’s case for example. The doctors knew the baby could not be saved. They knew it would endanger the mother’s life. And no, they did not hesitate because they wanted to give the baby a chance. They refused to operate because the heart of the fetus was still beating, and terminating the pregnancy could, mind you, could have gotten them in jail.
Am I the only one whose first reaction was disbelief when I heard about the incident? That some doctors stood by and watched her die, because saving her life would have been illegal?? And today, eight months since Savita’s unborn baby took her to the grave, people are still debating whether women in her position deserve a chance to live? And their defense is Religion?? Let the mother die, because the Bible says abortion is wrong? Tell me, how does that differ from Al Qaeda, who claim that The Quran urges them to kill innocent non-muslims, and that doing so would actually be rewarded by Allah?
I’m sorry. I give up. This is beyond me.
If you haven’t been paying proper attention to what I’ve said so far, by now you must have concluded that I’m one of those pro-abortionists, who, in your opinion, revel in murdering unborn babies. (By the way, I refuse to use both the terms “Pro-choice” and “Pro-Life.” ) No, I’m not. Maybe I’ll explain later. Or maybe I won’t. Like I said, this isn’t about the legality or justifiability of abortions. This is about the absolute minimum humanity, and common sense. The world seems strangely devoid of both.
P.S : a quote from the Guardian : “The outgoing leader of Ireland’s Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, held out in May for the possibility of banning Irish parliamentarians from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for the bill.” [full report]
If this is what religion makes of man, I’m glad I’m an atheist. You take care.
- Ireland and abortion: this inadequate, fraudulent bill reflects the decline of Catholic political influence (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Irish politicians debate divisive abortion bill until dawn (cnn.com)
- Irish politicians to vote on divisive abortion bill – Times of India (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)