Is the defect in the foetus a sufficient

ground to terminate the pregnancy

irrespective of the gestation period

The Petitioner quote section of ------------ herein below :-

SECTION(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a

pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,-
(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve
weeks if such medical practitioner is, or (b) where the length of the
pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty
weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are.

Of opinion, formed in good faith, that,-

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life
of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental health ;
or (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would
suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously
handicapped.

The MTP Act allows abortions up to 20 weeks gestation if the mother's life is at risk, if the
foetus suffers severe abnormalities or, if the contraceptive method used fails to prevent
pregnancy. Governmental facilities may provide abortions given that the medical
practitioner is trained in abortion care. Private clinics can only provide abortion care after
a governmental approval (2). In an effort to increase access to safe abortion services in
India, the latest MTP amendments of 2002 and MTP rules of 2003 enabled
decentralization of the certification system of private providers and facilities to district
level and allowed for use of medical abortion pills outside of certified facilities, however,
provided by certified providers (3). In spite of these efforts, the six states (Assam, Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal) with highest incidence of
abortions have the least amount of facilities per population, indication a persisting lack of
access (3)

A common utilitarian argument in favour of abortion for fetal defects rests on some
controversial assumptions about what counts as a life worth living. Yet critics of
abortion for fetal defects are also in need of an argument free from controversial
assumptions about the future child's quality of life.

Termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality (TOPFA) is currently one

of a few clinical practices that persistently lack international recognition
in terms of its indications and medico legal aspects. Some countries
have strict laws that forbid TOPFA
Abortion because of birth defects is at least understandable, especially if the
child is not expected to live. Try to imagine for just for a moment the
heartbreak of a young couple discovering that their unborn child faces a
serious or fatal birth defect, such as ________ . After the initial shock,
they quickly realize that many tough obstacles lay ahead, problems that
other parents just don’t have to face. But as there were chances that the
child can live a life with a help of artificial pacemaker later on with the
advancement & wonders in science & technology, the child would’ve live a
happy life.

One young husband and wife we know faced this tragedy last year. In
addition to hearing that their preborn baby had _____ , the mother was
immediately put on full bed rest. Her husband worked himself to near-
exhaustion cooking all of their meals, cleaning the house, caring for their
very active toddler, commuting, and working a full-time job. They did
everything they could to make sure their baby would be born large enough
so that she could survive the surgeries needed to heal her “tiny broken
heart.”

The majority of women are strongly motivated to maximise the wellbeing of

their foetus and to accept treatment that has that intention.

The probable quality of life may be assessed from the extent to which the
affected child would be:

 Able to communicate.
 Self-aware.
 Dependent on medical support.
 Self-sufficient in the future.
  Expected to suffer.

It is clear that these criteria were interpreted quite narrowly when the
gestational age was greater than 24 weeks

For a child with the most severe of disabilities, we must ask

ourselves which is the most loving way to deal with the
situation: To allow the child to die in the loving arms of his
parents or in agony at the hands of the abortionist’s merciless,
razor-sharp surgical instruments?

Why Does Society Reject the “Imperfect”?

While our world celebrates beauty and perfection, many of us are losing our
ability to see the loveliness in the face of a disabled child who may not meet
our standards of beauty. To kill someone because he or she is less than
perfect is to reject the battered and marred face as well. Truly, just as
parents are most beautiful when they suffer and sacrifice for the sake of
their disabled child.

To judge a person by his or her disabilities is to see that person as a

material good, not as a person with intrinsic worth. Our Lord embraced
and healed the poor, the disabled, the deformed, the diseased. If we are to
follow His example, we must do the same. Abortion because of birth defects
rejects the worth of the child as loved by God.

Society in general is finding it easier and easier to dispose of the

disabled. Thirty years ago, we cared for those weaker than ourselves. Now,
genetic testing is leading to more and more eugenic abortion for smaller
and less important disabilities, such as deafness or cleft palate. In fact,
more than a million babies worldwide are aborted each year because of the
dreaded “disability” of being female!
No matter how strictly lawmakers draw up exceptions, the abortionists will
always construct elaborate and dishonest rationales to bypass them.
Parents who abort their defective child are thinking only of
themselves. After all, our greatest hope should be that our children are
happy, and as anyone who has lived with or worked with children like them
knows, they tend to be happier. Abortion because of birth defects often kills
a child who would be very happy.

A child with a birth defect is still a child — no matter how serious his
disability. We poor human beings, with our limited intelligence and vision,
cannot even begin to perceive the intricacies of God’s plans for our own
lives, let alone His intentions for a child who has not even been born yet.

God tells us , “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;

before you came to birth I consecrated you.”

A disability — even a serious one — does not make a person any

less human. This means that abortion because of birth defects
can never be justified.

Disabled children present us with a difficult problem. Society’s answer to

this problem will decide whether we truly reflect the glory of God in our
families and in our society. If we welcome the child who is “less than
perfect,” in either his appearance or his abilities, then we are more truly a
human — and Godly — people. Abortion because of birth defects rejects the
child in our midst, God’s gift to us — therefore rejecting God Himself.
 ,1 whereas other countries provide almost total freedom for both families
and clinicians when the procedure is preferred.2

The only published scholarly guide related to TOPFA is a study by the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologist (RCOG), which was revised in May 2010.3 This unique
resource includes the first attempts to conceptualize the arguments that are used to reach a
termination of pregnancy (TOP) decision. The most commonly mentioned ‘ground’ for
TOPFA is ‘serious handicap’; however, instead of providing a definitive list of conditions, the
report advises that the argument should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.

YESSSSSSSSSS……..!!!!!!!!!!!!

When is abortion legal?

It is submitted that Some societies ban abortion almost completely while others permit it
in certain cases.

Such societies usually lay down a maximum age after which the foetus must not be
aborted, regardless of the circumstances.

At various times some of the following have been allowed in some societies:

 abortion for the sake of the mother's health

 including her mental health

 abortion where a pregnancy is the result of a crime

 such as crimes like rape, incest, or child abuse

 abortion where the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life'
such as cases where the child would have

 serious physical handicaps,

 serious genetic problems,

 serious mental defects

 abortion for social reasons, including:

 poverty,

 mother unable to cope with a child (or another child),

 mother being too young to cope with a child

 abortion as a matter of government policy

 as a way of regulating population size

 as a way of regulating groups within a population

 as a way of improving the population

The Section3(2) is offensive to many people; it reinforces negative stereotypes of
disability and there is substantial support for the view that to permit terminations at any
point during a pregnancy on the ground of risk of disability, while time limits apply to
other grounds set out in the Abortion Act, is incompatible with valuing disability and non-
disability equally.
In common with a wide range of disability and other organisations, it believes the
context in which parents choose whether to have a child should be one in which disability
and non-disability are valued equally.

Women can refuse to have their foetus treated, even if this

would result in its death in utero or early in life.
Abortion is also legal in other countries (Great Britain) at any gestation when there is a substantial
risk that if the child would born it would suffer from such mental or physical abnormalities as to be
seriously handicapped or with serious disability as such in our case.

Once abortion following prenatal diagnosis of foetal abnormalities is legal, a gestational age limit is
meaningless. And if we start from the premise that it is a woman`s right to terminate a pregnancy that
she does not want, even a planned pregnancy can become unwanted once foetal abnormalities are
detected, regardless of how far the pregnancy has progressed. Further, a logical consequence of the
provision for abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities is that each development in pre-natal
diagnostics will necessarily be followed by revisions in the law that the development necessitates.
Also, there may be a social context to the choice to undergo an abortion rather than carry a
pregnancy to term.

The family of the disabled child bears almost all the burden of care, support and even financial costs.
Unlike other countries, no comprehensive social support system for people with special needs exists
in India. As a result, disability is looked upon with a sense of fear and a lack of understanding, which
is perpetuated through images in the popular media.

However, removing the social barriers to care, stigma and discrimination would not automatically
make disability a “non-issue”. The decision to give birth to a child who is disabled can never be easy,
even in the best of circumstances, though several women choose to continue a pregnancy even when
they know that they will give birth to a disabled child, and many willingly adopt a disabled child.

I believe that no law or person can ethically compel a woman to carry on a pregnancy that she does
not want. However, when the pregnancy has progressed to a point where the foetus has become
viable, one is compelled to view the situation from the point of the woman as well as the potential
child. Thus, while a woman`s choice not to continue a pregnancy which harms her sense of well-being
remains at any point in the pregnancy, it may be impossible to fulfil her choice when a late abortion
could amount to a prematurely induced birth of a child. The only exception is when the pregnancy
poses a grave danger to the woman`s life her interests take precedence over all other considerations.

The problem arises when the reason for abortion is not the risk posed by the pregnancy but the
perceived consequences of giving birth to that child. These risks are not physical but social. It would
be incorrect to posit this as a conflict between woman and foetus. One would have to explore the
woman`s reasons for wanting an abortion. In this case, Mrs.Joshi was as concerned about the
possible suffering of the future child as her own suffering.

Does the right to abortion threaten disability rights?

The question remains: does one`s endorsement of the right to abortion on grounds of disability at any
point in the pregnancy weaken one`s commitment to the rights of the disabled? I argue that the value
of living persons cannot be equated with the foetus which is not a person. Thus, the right of a woman
to decide on the fate of her pregnancy does not conflict with, or interfere with, the human rights of the
disabled.

The decision to abort a foetus for no other reason but congenital defects is largely based on the
parents` prediction of the quality of life that such a child would have, and their own emotional
response to it. These in turn are mostly determined by the existing condition of the disabled. There is
little acceptance of the rights of the disabled in society, and scant attention paid to their needs,
making disability appear to be a greater tragedy than it needs to be. There is a role for society and the
state to minimise the disadvantages that the disabled face due to institutional rules and infrastructural
arrangements. This is a question of not merely providing services and resources for rehabilitation, but
also of acknowledging the right of the disabled to be part of society, and accepting different definitions
of success and fulfilment in life.

It is submitted that the response of parents, and their experiences, after the child is born can be
different; at least some parents of disabled children note that the experience of parenthood with that
child was as rewarding as with any other child. However, their experiences have still failed to
challenge the dominant image of disability, which is also shared by a large part of the medical
profession.

In this case, one is inclined to vote in favour of Mrs.Joshi , as an endorsement of her right as a
woman to choose whether to give birth or not. There was speculation and there were unsubtle hints
that she had eventually induced the abortion on failing to obtain a favourable judgment.

Despite of the development of diagnostic technology which enables better detection of foetal
abnormalities it was came to know after the 22 nd week of her visit, which left the parents and other
family members at shock & later decided to abort. While each family finds its own way of coping with
the burden of care, in the search for individual solutions to seemingly personal tragedies, the larger
struggle may be lost even before it is begun.