Debate.

org
Yes. Yes it does.
Let's look at the facts. A fetus cannot take care of itself. It is dependent upon the mother to do
that. And putting the fetus first marginalizes the mother, making her nothing more than a baby
factory.

To say that a fetus is more important than a woman is to say that a woman is a second class
citizen

If the child is to grow up in an unstable environment, best to not allow the child to live at all as
opposed to damning him/her to a live of misery. If the government was to provide a program that
would ensure that every child would have a sufficient amount of parental support, financial
support, and opportunity then the child's life trumps the mother's right. There is clearly no
program in the United States- therefore, we must allow the mother to decide.

WWW.LAWTEACHER.NET https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/rights-of-fetus-
and-mother-law-essays.php

When confronted with the question of legal regulation of abortion, some argue that law should not
compel an individual to carry an unwanted pregnancy and that "the State has no business in the
bedrooms of the nation". [2] On the contrary, most of the religious heads and some others argue that
"the child in the womb has the right to life, to the life he already possesses and no one has authority to
deny it"; [3] and hence law should regulate abortion with iron hands. Even within the medical profession
itself, there is a great divergence of views. Some are of the opinion that the woman’s desire is a
sufficient justification. [4] On the other hand, there are doctors who for purely religious reasons object
abortion in toto.

While replying the pro-lifers argument that fetus have the same right to life as that of his/her mother,
she contended that right to life means right not to be killed unjustly. Thus abortions for just
reasons [37] do not violate the right to life. [3

“Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory
maternity: a form of rape by the State."

Edward Abbey [44]

Any law relating abolition of abortion is nothing but a clear violation of a woman. It violates
women’s rights to health, right to dignity, right liberty, right to privacy and in general, her right
to life. Abortion must be legally permitted in order to protect these most basic rights of women.
Unless making such provisions, it will be a heinous crime against a woman, as like rape, by the
government.
Reproductive choice, as a general rule, should not be subject to government regulation. The
decisions of whether, when, how, and with whom to bear or begat a child are personal choices
made well within the protected zone of privacy doctrine. Therefore, the fundamental right of
reproductive choice must be free of unwanted governmental intrusion except in very limited
circumstances where there is an unreasonable risk to maternal heath, fetal viability, or both.

The paper came into a conclusion that, a fetus does not get a position of legal person till it has
some interests of its own. The government has no obligation to preserve all human life despite
their viability. The woman has ultimate autonomy to decide her reproductive rights and
government should not impede her rights.

John Rawls critically analyzed the abortion right and equal status of women in the political
systems and held that any reasonable balance of [the values of due respect for human life,
ordered reproduction of political society over time, and the equality of women as equal citizens]
will give a woman a duly qualified right to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy during
the first trimester. The reason for this is that at this early stage of pregnancy the political value of
the equality of women is overriding, and this right is required to give it substance and force [39]

Ronald Dworkin has been aware of this controversy and he made a detailed study on this issue.
Dworkin has bore in mind the issues, the right of fetus to live and the right of mother to choose.
He did not accept the extreme position taken by the derivative claimers of prohibition of abortion
that, the fetus is a complete moral person from the moment of conception. Hence the unborn has
the right to live and abortion is a murder or nearly a wrong as murder. Dworkin argued that
everything that can be destroyed has an interest in not being destroyed.

Dworkin further argue that a fetus has no interest before the third trimester [40] .According to
him; nothing can have interest without having some form of consciousness. A fetus cannot feel
pain until late in pregnancy, because its brain is not sufficiently developed before then. The
scientists have agreed that fetal brain will be sufficiently developed to feel pain from
approximately the twenty sixth week [41] .

Thus, whether abortion is against the interest of a fetus must depend on whether the fetus itself
has interests, not on whether interests will develop if no abortion takes place [42] . Something
that is not alive does not have interests. Also, just because something can develop into a person
does not mean it has interests either. Once a fetus can live on its own it may have interests. This
is only after the third trimester. [43]

LEGALSERVICESINDIA.COMhttp://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/adp_tion.htm

International Instruments Relating Right To Abortion

Article 1 of the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man and the Inter American
Commission of Human Rights say that abortion is legalized until the end of Firat trimester Right
to life is protected from the moment of its conception by Articles 6(1) of the ICCPR, Article 2 of
the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 4 of the African Charter of Human
Human and People's right. But they are silent on the issue of when does life begin. But the
interpretations have forced us to believe that the child is not to be protected from the time of its
inception. The right to life of the fetus has to be balanced with the rights of the mother.

In response to Roe v. Wade, several states enacted laws limiting abortion, including laws requiring
parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal consent laws,
spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws
barring state funding for abortions, laws banning most very late term abortions. The Supreme Court
struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-
1970s to the late 1980s.

In the Supreme Court of Canada, interpreting Article 7 of the Canadian Charter which guarantees an
individual's right to life, liberty and freedom and security of a person. In the leading case of Morgentalor
Smoling and Scott vs. R (1988) 44 DLR (4th ) 385, the Court focused on the bodily security of the
pregnant women. The Criminal Code of the country required a pregnant woman who wanted an
abortion to submit an application to a therapeutic committee, which resulted in delays. The Supreme
Court found that this procedure infringed the guarantee of security of a person. This subjected the
pregnant woman to psychological stress.

Also the Abortion Act,1967 of the UK in its Article 2 does not confer an absolute right to life to the
unborn. It was held in Paton Vs. United Kingdom(1980) 3 EHRR 408. Abortion is permitted if the
continuance of the pregnancy involves risk. The right to life of fetus is subject to an implied limitation
allowing pregnancy to be terminated in order to protect the life of a mother. The same was upheld in H
Vs. Norway.( (1992) 73 DR 155)
Also, it is was also held in 1992 by the Supreme Court that a women has the same exclusive right to
abortion as to any to any other medical treatment. The prospective fathers have no right to be
consulted for the same.

INDIAN CONTEXT

It is submitted that a decision as to abortion may be entirely left with woman provided she is sane and
attained majority. Only in cases where an abortion may affect her life, her freedom may be curtailed. All
other restrictions on the right to abortion are unwelcome. True, a woman's decision as to abortion may
depend upon her physical and mental health or the potential threat to the health of the child. Apart
from these reasons, there are also various important factors. She or the family may not be financially
sound to welcome an addition. It may be a time when she wants to change her profession, which
requires free time and hard work. Her relationship with the husband may virtually be on the verge of
collapse and she may prefer not to have a child from him, for it may possibly affect a future marriage. All
these factors are quite relevant and the Indian statute on abortion does not pay any respect to them.
The law thus is unreasonable and could well be found to be violative of the principles of equality
provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. Is it desirable to pay compensation to woman for all her
physical and mental inconveniences and liabilities, which arises in that context. Finally it may be noted
that the M.T.P. Act does not protect the unborn child. Any indirect protection it gains under the Act is
only a by-product resulting from the protection of the woman. The rights provided as well as the
restrictions imposed under the statute show that the very purpose of the state is to protect a living
woman from dangers which may arise during an abortion process. It is the protection to the mother that
protects the unborn.

The MTP (Amendment) Bill 2014 that, along with other amendments, talks of removing the word
‘married’ and substituting ‘husband’ with ‘partner’, should be pulled up from under the pile and
enforced at the earliest. A progressive law cannot be suppressed with the excuse that sex-selection
abortions will happen more often. Preventing the misuse of law cannot happen with the suppression of
another’s right.

Medical termination of pregnancy has been a time-honored practice. Approximately 26 million

pregnancies are terminated legally throughout the world, and 20 million are terminated illegally, with
more than 68,000 deaths. In India alone 10-12 million abortions take place annually, resulting in 15-20
thousand maternal deaths, mainly due to illegal abortions. So these abortions don’t just take away the
innocent infant’s life but also pose a threat to the mothers’ lives insinuating one of the most major social
problems.

So, the law in India differed from similar laws abroad like in US, which had a more feminist approach,
associated with giving women equal status in the society.

These qualified doctors are available only in urban areas and there is a dearth of such doctors in the
rural areas. The National Level Facility Service revealed that out of all the primary health centres, only
15% have MTP trained doctors. Moreover, so many women in rural areas still think that abortion is
illegal. Due to these reasons, women in the rural areas approach midwives or untrained doctors and
undergo illegal abortion posing serious risks to their lives.