The Daily News from a month ago carries this article:
Abortions under strict conditions, and it gave me a momentary feeling of,
ok, that's a baby step forward. Step forward because it is a big deal for our pseudo-conservative government to consider the possibility that, hey, a 16 year old girl might not want to carry her rapist's baby to term; baby step because you either have to be raped, or have a severely abnormal foetus to be able get the abortion. As with anything the government puts out these days, this too seems full of holes. Now, it is always safe to take whatever the Daily News says with a
bowl pinch of salt, and not having seen any official statement from the Ministry on exactly how this amendment is worded, I am only going by this news article, but here are some gaps:
1. The suggested reforms once implemented will allow abortion for girls
under the age of 18 who have become pregnant due to rape or incest. Why an age limit? Are girls above 18 deemed fit and able to be raped and then be mothers? Why are they exempt from this choice to decide what happens inside their own body? What of mothers being raped by sons, grandmothers raped by grandsons? Sick I know, but I've seen both those cases reported in our newspapers. Fact is, every woman regardless of age, should have the right to abort a resulting pregnancy.
2. Will allow abortion [...] for mothers carrying babies with severe genetic abnormalities. Pray tell, who has access to these kinds of screening tests? Surely not rural women living on Rs. 2500 a month? Are the screening tests government subsidised? These are not a rhetorical questions; I actually do not know how widespread access to these kinds of tests are, island-wide, and would appreciate a response from someone who does.
3. Two specialist doctors will conduct medical
tests and the reports will be sent to the courts. The court will make the
decision within three months after examining the reports. 3 months?? If
ever I saw something that needed a 'put a rush on it' tag, this is it. Who has
access to these specialists and the medical tests? Will this be available
island wide? Who will pay for the medical tests? What if you don't find out
you're pregnant until a couple weeks into the pregnancy? (
Given our
resoundingly successful sex education programmes, what are the chances
children below 18 will even know what's happening inside them?) 3 months in,
and you've entered the embryonic period. Brain, heart, spine, arms and legs are
forming; facial features are appearing. It is much much harder to abort
something resembling a baby, than a mass of cells. Why would you make a woman
wait that long and have to make that choice, especially if she has been
subjected to rape trauma?
and my personal favourite, which is not so much a gap as that kind of patriarchal, we-are-family bullshit that I can't stand:
Yet, this is
still under the process and we do consider the side effects and attitudes of
people and religious leaders on the proposed amendment. I must emphasize that
this is not an open license to abort unborn embryos. We thought of allowing
this under strict conditions giving consideration to the well being of the
women concerned. Thank you, kind Minister and your panel of men, for
considering the well being of women. Let's try to forget that you have no idea
what it's like push a baby out of your vagina, let alone what it's like to be
raped or even molested. We are so glad that the attitudes of people and
religious leaders are being considered, who, after all the anti-abortion hue
and cry is over will disappear back into their man caves while the woman is
left with a baby she didn't want in the first place. Thank you for
making it so easy for rapists to get off scott free while
providing the meanest allowance possible for their victims to alleviate their
horror. Thank you for putting so many loopholes in your amendment that by the
time the
woman child of 17 can have her abortion the baby will probably
be 5 years old.
My point is, while this amendment is forward thinking (RELATIVELY) and paves the way for other amendments (HOPEFULLY), with the long term goal of legalising abortion completely, (No, you don't have to be raped to have an abortion. You can have it because, what's that, you just don't want a baby?), it doesn't address the fact that still, here in the 21st century, men are still making rules for women about what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Women are still being treated like fucking babies who can't think for themselves, who can't take responsibility for their actions.
The fact is, abortions are occurring, and at an alarming rate nonetheless.
This article from 2007 on the Beyond Borders blog quotes 1000 abortions a day, which is the number I've heard most frequently in other fora as well. (The comments on that post are also very interesting). That this number is known, and known widely, and "permission" for abortion is still confined to "rape" and "genetic abnormalities" is foolish and dangerous. Without proper access to qualified medical care, women are dying through unsafe and unhygienic last resort methods, and the government is still twiddling their thumbs saying yes, well, maybe, we might have a problem.
The problem with pro-life debate is that you think pro-choice = pro-death, which is so false and so unfair. The decision to abort a foetus is huge. The social, economic and religious factors that are considered before coming to that decision are huge. I know because I know people who've had to make that very same choice. But sometimes, it's just as simple as 'I don't want a baby'. And for a woman, that should be her decision to make. Her life, her choice. And for men, and society at large, to put her in a position where she cannot make that choice for herself is unconscionable.
