Ethical Dilemma
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a mentally challenged orphan girl who was raped at a Nari Niketan in Chandigarh to continue her
pregnancy resulting from the sexual assault.
The apex court was initially reluctant to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court order directing medical termination of the pregnancy. But it changed its mind after counsel Tanu Bedi crafted her arguments based both on law and emotional grounds.
When the CJI expressed concern as to who would take care of the baby and what would be the health of the newborn, more so since the girl had no one to look after her, Bedi in her 40-minute long monologue repeatedly put these questions to the court — "Why would a girl, even if mentally retarded, be deprived of motherhood which is her right? If her mental age was a consideration for the judiciary to think that she could not take care of her baby, why should poor women, who are found lacking in bringing up their children, be allowed to become mothers?"
She said medical termination of pregnancy could not be done under law without the consent of the mother. "And here is a case where the girl wants to keep her pregnancy. She has no blood relation in the world. Should we not help her to get her first blood relation in the baby she is carrying now," Bedi asked.
The arguments not only touched the Bench but every one present in the court as Bedi went on, "She is already 20 weeks pregnant and termination could cause damage to her health and further deteriorate her mental state."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Raped-mentally-challenged-...
There is no mention of how challenged the said girl is in any of the news items. Does she understand pregnancy and child birth.
What I wonder is from when onwards did it become the judicial system's (or the law/govt in general) prerogative to decide who can become a mother and who cannot. It is indeed a dilemma if tehy have to decide on something(motherhood) that precedes any man made system.
IMHO,all the court should do here is to make sure she and her child is in safe hands(as in a shelter for women)
I think the key issue here is probably that she is already beyond the "safe" termination limit.
As for the argument that "She has no blood relation in the world. Should we not help her to get her first blood relation in the baby she is carrying now".. i believe it is totally preposterous.
I wouldn't know how to judge the above situation. But on a side note, I personally do not think parenthood is a basic right. I think it is a priviledge and I think a lot of people should not have children. A lot of people put their own selfish desires of having children over the needs of the child.
Yikes...That is a tough one....
Not just the rights of the mother , buty also the rights of the baby need to be taken into account.
If the mother can prove to the court that she is competent , both financialy and physicaly to take care of the baby, then the pregnancy should be allowed to continue.
She herself would be the result of such a decision made by her mother…....and probably left her in the orphanage. History repeats...
Tough one...
Maybe instead of worrying about her pregnancy they should let it happen and make sure this girl gets adopted or re-located to a place where she'll be taken care of like a Temple/Monastery
hmmm that's a tough one.
Good thing im not in their shoes.....