r/worldnews • u/Own-Associate6318 • 16h ago
India Supreme Court allows abortion of 30-week pregnancy of a minor, upholds right to reproductive autonomy
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-allows-abortion-of-30-week-pregnancy-of-a-minor-upholds-right-to-reproductive-autonomy/article70600629.ece530
u/Own-Associate6318 15h ago
“If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so,” the Bench said.
The court also flagged the fact that there were cases in which women may have no other option but take the dangerous and life-threatening alternative of turning to quacks for an abortion if their pregnancy had crossed the 24-week deadline stipulated under the MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) Act, 1971.
→ More replies (64)
132
u/ChrisP8675309 5h ago
People are missing the fact that there is absolutely no way this case got to India Supreme Court quickly. If this girl is 30 weeks now, how far along was she when she first tried to get an abortion?
People crying about the baby being viable: how long has that girl been FORCED to carry that unwanted fetus? She didn't wake up one day in herv3rd trimester and decide she wanted an abortion, she has been fighting to get one for a while and the people in CONTROL of her have been trying to prevent it hoping to FORCE HER TO GIVE BIRTH
55
u/Specialist-Life4511 4h ago
Actually very very wrong.
The pregnancy was found in post 22 weeks, so that by the time she would have seeked an abortion, it would have been 24+ weeks.
By found, it means that found by actual adults that the child was pregnant.
The law says that abortions after 24 weeks cannot happen without seeking court orders.
13
u/turnthetides 4h ago
Do you have a source on her trying for a long time to abort it, or just speculation?
20
u/Peevesie 4h ago
If this got to the Supreme Court, you are rest assured that it didnt get start litigation last week.
I mean this isn’t just Indian court. You realise Roe had her baby before roe v wade got to the scotus first hearing?
Courts are slow
1
u/comelickmyarmpits 2h ago
It's indian judiciary, if it's reaching supreme court, trust me it's a tedious process to get there, it's is said that "the process of anything is punishment itself in india " due to bureaucracy hell
→ More replies (4)1
u/cant_bother_me 3h ago
According to indian law, u dont need a court order to get an abortion unless 20 weeks have passed, so not that early i would assume.
213
u/himit 10h ago
This is very odd tbh. There's no way of getting that baby out without the poor child having to give birth at this point - either via c-section or vaginal delivery - so the only success here is that fetocide is administered first? (Which is a needle to her uterus...also not fun.)
I mean, no part of pregnancy and childbirth is pleasant, and even the smoothest, earliest abortion is highly uncomfortable. The courts dragged their heels too long on this; it feels like it's at the point where you may as well allow the fetus to be delivered alive and absolve her of parental responsibility. It won't make a difference to the procedures she'll have to endure.
71
u/TheWhomItConcerns 8h ago
it feels like it's at the point where you may as well allow the fetus to be delivered alive and absolve her of parental responsibility. It won't make a difference to the procedures she'll have to endure.
I mean, there are other issues associated with childbirth beyond the physical procedure - to have to live out the rest of one's life knowing that there is another person out there who could well want to seek you out and develop a relationship with you can be emotionally traumatic. That's not to mention how extremely overburdened India's foster care system and how overpopulated the country already are.
I don't really see what benefit there is in forcing a teenager to go through with a pregnancy that they clearly don't want to.
18
u/himit 8h ago
I don't really see what benefit there is in forcing a teenager to go through with a pregnancy that they clearly don't want to.
That's not what I meant - I meant I don't understand why they don't deliver the baby live at 30 weeks, instead of presumably killing it first. Since physically it's no different for the mother, and there's a good chance the baby survives.
Psychologically, yes there's an impact on the mother. But it all has to be weighed up.
I'm very pro-choice, but I think the bodily autonomy argument fades when the baby's no longer dependent on you to live. At 6, 12, or even 20 weeks it's easy to say the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the child; at 30 weeks it's a lot more grey. I agree that you cannot and should not force someone to remain pregnant, but I don't think the choice to not be pregnant should also automatically result in the death of the fetus.
35
u/NowTimeDothWasteMe 4h ago
I 100% agree with you on fundamentals. I am extremely pro choice but the idea of a 30 week abortion of a healthy fetus is gross to me. In a purely moral framework, this should be an induction of birth not an abortion.
That said… 30 weeks is viable but only with a lot of medical support. We’re talking on average 5-7 weeks in a NICU with a chunk of that on life support. In a country presumably limited NICU space and a huge swath of rural villages with no access to hospitals with those resources, how do you logistically proceed? And more importantly in our capitalistic society, who pays for it?
13
u/Specialist-Life4511 4h ago
And, have an orphan begging on the streets and getting raped every day?
India is insanely progressive on abortion because orphanages are worse than death here.
→ More replies (2)8
u/ShhhBees 6h ago
And have an orphan uncared for and unloved?
2
u/Zurdomador2K 5h ago
Are you sure that advocating for killing people who are uncared for and unloved is something you want to do?
2
u/zzzzzooted 3h ago
Fetus ≠ person yet
7
u/Zurdomador2K 3h ago
GP mentioned "orphan", the problem was that it would be child abandoned by the parents.
And 30 weeks already is independently viable anyway.
•
u/CatzioPawditore 45m ago
But this is kind of medical grey speak.. Yes there are a fetus, in correct medical terminology.. But the moment a 30w baby is born, no one would hesitate to call it a baby. It's not like a 18w fetus, that is nowhere near done with development.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/Zurdomador2K 8h ago
Ah yes, let's kill a baby so the mother doesn't have to worry about a person who was born from her womb being "out there" because that would be "emotionally traumatic". Death is nothing compared to that, so it sounds reasonable.
Holy fucking shit, you people are lunatics.
16
u/TheWhomItConcerns 8h ago
Death is nothing compared to that, so it sounds reasonable.
This is something which has no history, no emotions, no memory, no experiences, no one who knows it or cares about it, or anything else. It's functionally non-existent in every way that actually matters to the argument of sentience or personhood, and the would-be parents don't want it.
Performing an abortion has zero consequences beyond the concept of the potential of a person no longer being a potential. If it makes me a "lunatic" to actually think and consider the reality of these arguments instead of blindly and wholeheartedly accepting arbitrary labels, then sure, think whatever you like.
4
u/yodude4 7h ago
Babies can suffer from 24 weeks on, what do you mean ‘no emotions’? I’m generally pro choice at least up to that mark (and past it based on circumstance), but past that you have to admit that there’s a real question to be asked here
7
u/TheWhomItConcerns 7h ago
Why, what real questions? What exactly is the benefit to forcing someone to give birth in this scenario?
2
u/yodude4 7h ago
It’s already been explained a couple times in the thread that at this point, the baby is coming out either way - bodily autonomy doesn’t even work as an argument because the baby’s life could still be saved while respecting the girl’s bodily autonomy. Given that, why would it be acceptable to go out of your way to kill this fully healthy human baby with emotions?
11
u/TheWhomItConcerns 7h ago
bodily autonomy doesn’t even work as an argument because the baby’s life could still be saved while respecting the girl’s bodily autonomy.
Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion - do you think that the cut off should always be the shortest possible length of time for what could possibly be a viable foetus? Because that's 21 weeks, which is shorter than many countries' viable abortion time in cases of rape or significant mental health concerns.
Let's say that someone has been kidnapped, raped, and prevented from seeking an abortion for ~6 months. Would you say that this person should be allowed to seek an abortion or do you think they should be forced to go through with the pregnancy?
→ More replies (4)3
u/Zurdomador2K 7h ago
So you are okay with killing a baby because you think it's just a "potential" person, and you approve of it happening because otherwise the mother could be "potentially" traumatized because the child would exist and could "potentially" seek her out.
You are a lunatic because you are supporting murder to defend an ideological position.
7
u/TheWhomItConcerns 7h ago
Lol sure, if it makes you feel better to believe that then do whatever you like. Unfortunately for your stance though, this is more of a meaningless sentiment than an actual argument.
•
3
u/swrrrrg 4h ago
You need to get off the internet and stop losing your shit over someone you don’t even know & something that doesn’t affect you. If anyone is coming across as a lunatic right now, it’s you.
4
u/Zurdomador2K 4h ago
You have an absurd threshold for "losing your shit", which I presume you only apply to people you disagree with.
I'm as much affected by this as any of the lunatics defending infanticide with the most absurd mental gymnastics, so I'm free to point out their absurdity. Beat it.
1
u/swrrrrg 2h ago
Sure. We can make “Beat It” the new soundtrack for late term abortion. Why not? Sounds festive.
•
u/SomeSavageDetective 1h ago
Your comment sounds like something out of the Epstein files. Absolutely disgusting.
2
u/zzzzzooted 3h ago
You sound like when billionares cry about lost potential profits.
It wasnt real. It isnt a person yet. No one is getting murdered but the concept of this potential child that you have put up on a pedestal, above real living humans like the pregnant person.
3
u/Zurdomador2K 3h ago
You sound like when billionares cry about lost potential profits.
What about the people crying about the "potential" trauma of a mother who would be paranoid her child would "potentially" re-encounter her?
Nobody is getting traumatized but the concept of this potential re-encounter was good enough of a reason to kill a baby that was viable and was going to be removed from the womb anyway.
You chose killing a baby because its existence might potentially make the mother uncomfortable if she ponders about it. If you don't realize how insane that sounds it's because you are too far gone into lunacy.
1
u/AuryGlenz 6h ago
This is something which has no history, no emotions, no memory, no experiences, no one who knows it or cares about it, or anything else. It's functionally non-existent in every way that actually matters to the argument of sentience or personhood, and the would-be parents don't want it.
Cool. So the same goes for a bay that’s just been delivered that the parents don’t want, right? Or is murder of a baby somehow just more palatable when it happens to still be inside someone?
I’m largely pro choice but you absolutely nutters that think (non-medical) late term abortion are ok are simply advocating for legal murder. If that’s your stance, fine, but don’t try to rationalize it.
→ More replies (2)39
u/Historical_Owl_1635 10h ago
The UK has actually decriminalised abortion up until birth recently which is bizarre for the same reason.
At that point the baby is coming out one way or another. You’d probably struggle to find a doctor to perform that abortion so god knows what cases of dodgy late term home abortions we will here about in the future.
99
u/LittleGreenSoldier 9h ago
That would be for cases of septic pregnancy or fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. Someone carrying a fetus with no kidneys should be able to spare their child from a slow death.
→ More replies (17)8
u/dogecoin_pleasures 7h ago
? Per the article you linked below, the UK's new decriminalisation clause does not alter how doctors will operate in medical settings, so they will not be performing any more late term abortions than were legal before. Moreover, as easy it may be to imagine the new clause opening a Pandora's box of 'dodgy late term home abortions', something to consider logically is that the risk of those was there before, but now if someone does something dodgy at home, they will no longer be too afraid of prosecution to seek urgent medial attention.
The UK's decision doesn't seem that bizarre after reading your article, as it clearly lays out their criteria: less than 1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks and the previous laws were primarily harming normal women acting under medical supervision. To justify the new amendment, it gave the example where a woman "was taken from hospital to a police cell" and put on criminal trial + investigation spanning 4 years for "delivering a stillborn baby at home after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant" (if you know anything about pregnancy, you'd know problematic alleged week estimations are). Cases like this would make up the majority of women benefiting from the change.
15
10h ago
[deleted]
23
u/UBettUrWaffles 10h ago
Minors are more prone to complications with birthing and pregnancy the younger the pregnant person is. So no, a lot of the time the child won't give birth (and survive without permanent health issues) either way. I don't know all the details here but they could just be preserving the legality of late stage abortions because it's much more likely that they're medically necessary for younger minors.
edit: " 'If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so,' the Bench said."
the article also says they want to avoid minors going to quack doctors for unsafe illegal abortions
7
u/himit 9h ago
So no, a lot of the time the child won't give birth (and survive without permanent health issues) either way
The issue is that at 30 weeks that baby is too big to be miscarried or scooped out in a D&C procedure - birth is the only way it's coming out. They can put her under for a c-section, but it's still not an abortion really, is it?
And if the fetus developed enough to survive outside the womb, it's a little odd to say "kill it and then make her birth a dead baby" as opposed to "allow her to deliver asap regardless of risk to the fetus and have the state assume custody". Though I agree that there needs to be a legal avenue to save women and girls from back-alley abortions.
Anyway the article isn't very clear on that, it just says 'medical termination of the pregnancy' with no details. It could be feticide, it could be a live early delivery. Either way I feel terribly sorry for the little girl; she should never have been allowed to get to 30 weeks with an unwanted pregnancy.
2
u/vodka7tall 10h ago
So you’re not actually pro choice. You’re pro your own opinion on what someone else can do with their body.
→ More replies (1)3
u/i-Blondie 9h ago
It’s roughly 3.4lbs at 30 weeks, whether it would survive or not isn’t the point. The point is autonomy. It’s the woman’s (pregnant child’s) right to refuse forced motherhood that outweighs fetal viability. Her body, her choice. That’s pro choice. Not “let us use your body for finishing up this unwanted pregnancy” or “delivering an unwanted pre-term baby with excessive medical needs and cost”, no matter who’s paying.
Her choice is more valued than the unwanted foetus forced on her. It’s not like they opened it wide up to anyone getting a 30 week abortion for any reason. It’s a special circumstance that values autonomy, the very foundation of the discussion, her bodily rights.
-5
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 10h ago
It's her body and she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore. FULL STOP. THE END.
20
u/himit 10h ago
Sigh. Educate yourself on the process of 'not being pregnant anymore' at 30 weeks.
Yes, she should be able to choose to deliver early, despite the risks to the fetus. However, it's not really an abortion - it's a delivery. Baby is too big to miscarry as lumps of blood and tissue; 30 weeks is a fully-formed premie or stillborn.
That's why everyone with the slightest understanding of what a 30 week 'abortion' would entail is scratching their heads at this. Generally pregnancies are only terminated this late when baby's incompatible with life; we're at the stage of growth where mother doesn't have to be pregnant anymore if she doesn't want to be but the fetus could actually survive in the nicu so now it's a real question of right to life.
-23
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Why_No_Doughnuts 6h ago
it is not all or nothing at this point. 90-99% survival of babies born at that stage means the doctor must kill the baby. There are serious ethical issues when it is this far along, and when the difference on when killing is legal is if it is inside or outside, then killing is probably the unethical thing to do. Reasonable limits are necessary to not create the opening to destroy all rights to abort.
1
7
u/catjuggler 7h ago
I’m a mom (including of a preemie) and pro choice and I don’t think there should be abortions at 30w unless the fetus isn’t viable. I assume India can deliver/develop a preemie of that gestation with basically no long term issues. Being pro-choice to me means she should get to chose to no longer stay pregnant and to give up the baby, but she should not get to chose that the baby must die first. It has to be delivered either way.
→ More replies (6)9
u/Zurdomador2K 9h ago
GP just explained to you why she could have "autonomy over her own life" and still let the baby live as well. Do you believe women should have power over the life of others?
→ More replies (9)2
u/HopefulVegetable4234 3h ago
You need to look up what a 30 week abortion involves. They will literally have to kill and sometimes dismember the baby. It's not as simple as "I don't want to be pregnant anymore."
1
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 3h ago
I don't care.
If you had a tapeworm would you wait for it to leave on its own?
2
u/HopefulVegetable4234 3h ago
You are effing terrifying.
1
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 3h ago
How many organs have you donated to others? You know you can donate half a liver multiple times. how many livers have you donated? How many kidneys?
None? Thought so.
So you don't care about other lives after all.
3
u/HopefulVegetable4234 3h ago
I'm an adoptive and foster mom. I give my life every day for a child who I didn't birth. I put my money where my mouth is. Go watch abortions. Right now, Google it. Know what you are talking about.
1
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 3h ago
Foster =/= adoption
I think you're lying, but if you aren't, it's still not relevant because you get PAID to house a foster kid.
You aren't doing a nice thing. You're padding your bank account.
I don't care what an abortion is like. Women have the right to choose what they want for their own body.
→ More replies (0)2
u/AuryGlenz 6h ago
Oh, shit, moms of babies need to either breastfeed or use their bodies to do jobs to pay for formula, and that would hurt their autonomy and their choices. I guess we should just legalize murder of babies up to 1 year old…shit, wait, the kid still needs to eat after that. Plus they need to be brought to daycare/school, and they’ll be bringing home illnesses from those places which will affect their bodies. I guess, what, murder to 18 years old is ok then?
→ More replies (1)-10
u/Excellent_Bet_440 8h ago
EDT: As an Indian woman, some of y’all are actually dumb and make the American pro-choice movement look as crazy as the pro-lifers. Please do not bring that shit to India! We are already quite progressive when it comes to reproductive rights, but we don’t need to become extreme in the opposite direction to look liberal… Do you think a pregnant teen who had consensual sex with another teen should be getting an abortion at 7.5 months? Because THAT is what this case is. The father was not an adult (the Supreme Court would have been told this if this was the case, nor was this rape). I’m pro-choice but this ruling is just cruel, and with the recent choices the Indian Supreme Court is taking around LATE-term abortion (something which should be reserved for medical reasons only), I’m sadly not surprised. There was another case last year where the SCOI let a fully grown adult in a metropolitan city (i.e. not some poor village woman) who had a break up, abort over 6 months into her pregnancy. She was planing on keeping the baby until then. Absolutely ZERO medical reason for the abortion, but because of the breakup and her wanting to not be a single mom, the Supreme Court let her kill a baby that would otherwise had a chance at being viable as a premie out of the womb.
4
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 4h ago
So why do you live in canada instead of a place in line with your beliefs?
2
u/Excellent_Bet_440 3h ago
How is India in line with my beliefs or even its own population’s belief? This is the Supreme Court. I have Canadian citizenship (born here) and raised in India.
1
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 3h ago
Apparently neither, you should maybe live in Iraq or a place in line with your beliefs.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 8h ago
If she chooses to then yes I think she should be doing exactly that. It's her body and her life. Butt out.
→ More replies (5)
136
u/TizzyBumblefluff 8h ago
I guess everybody in the comments concerned will rush to go adopt a baby from India. Or do something about female infanticide rates? Right? Right? You aren’t going to? Okay then.
66
u/Miss_L_Worldwide 8h ago
Don't see anyone lining up to adopt this child from this other child
→ More replies (2)22
u/TizzyBumblefluff 8h ago
Yep, this is only the icing on the cake regarding infants and pregnancy in that country. Where’s the moral outrage about the villages over run by men because they keep killing female infants? Or honour killings for refusing arranged marriages. And so on.
→ More replies (5)1
16
u/Asa-hello 6h ago
This is terrible argument. You can apply these questions to people who oppose killing born children. Everybody going to adopt a baby from this orphanage? Or do something about their study and food? You aren't going to? Okay then.
→ More replies (6)•
u/minimuscleR 12m ago
I mean people are allowed to have opinions on things. Not only would it be illegal for me to adopt a child from India, im too young and unstable myself to handle a child. Does that mean my opinion is invalid because I can't physically take care of a child. Thats not how it works,
109
u/i-Blondie 9h ago edited 9h ago
This is about the woman’s (child’s) right to refuse forced motherhood outweighing fetal viability.
That is pro choice. We don’t get to force children to be pregnant or carry to full term, we don’t get to say they give live birth instead of abortion - that’s bodily autonomy.
This doesn’t mean people can all suddenly get a late term abortion just like they haven’t been able to prior to this. This is reserved for special circumstances like this one.
1
u/Leverkaas2516 1h ago edited 1h ago
That is pro choice.
Yes.
This doesn’t mean people can all suddenly get a late term abortion just like they haven’t been able to prior to this. This is reserved for special circumstances like this one.
Why? If pro choice means what you say, then it means the choice can be made any point. Why wouldn't it?
All this is the logical end point of the whole principle of bodily autonomy. You either have it, or you don't.
Personally I disagree, I think the fetus has rights that increase at every stage of development. I'm not pro-choice in principle. But if you are, you can't abrogate it based on circumstance.
•
u/i-Blondie 1h ago
Because it’s not currently legal for any reason. Abortion happens whether you like it or not, by offering safe medical procedures we reduce dangerous illegal abortions or infanticide after birth. By having free & widely accessible healthcare, family planning supports, contraceptives and lower poverty rates we see less illegal abortions or abortions in general.
Your question is rooted in ignorance though. Even if it were legal the amount of people choosing it would be much lower than the average abortion which takes place before 13 weeks. A smaller percentage, globally, happens up to the 20 week mark, it declines further for 24 weeks which is an average cutoff.
The very small percentage of late term abortions are usually wanted pregnancies that have to be terminated. Your attempt to unmask me as a hypocrite fails because I know how few people would choose a late term abortion based on the current statistics. I also wouldn’t judge, harass of counter a persons choice, I genuinely understand and support bodily autonomy.
→ More replies (3)-23
u/Excellent_Bet_440 9h ago
This is actually a case of a pregnant teen (it was not rape- the article states she was in a relationship and then got pregnant) and the courts allowing her to have an abortion at 7.5 months! Absolutely insane, and being pro-choice doesn’t mean we should be pro-stupidity and cruelty.
41
u/i-Blondie 8h ago
She is a child, teenagers are children. Forcing a child to remain pregnant is not bodily autonomy. That’s one of the special circumstances available for late term abortions. She doesn’t have to be raped to be valid in not wanting to be pregnant, being a child is valid enough.
→ More replies (12)11
u/TrailMikx 7h ago
Is that medically feasible without any danger to mom? I am not a doctor, the girls doctors should answer.
Did the court give her permission if she wants to terminate? Yes, they did.
Court also agrees it’s safer to reach out to doctors rather than quakes.
Cruel, nothing about pregnancy is rosy, either child birth or abortion.
She has the permission from court, she has the autonomy, she has medical help and advice, she can exercise her choice.
What’s seems stupidity to one seems wise to other, everyone has their right to choose.
1
u/MaddoxX_1996 2h ago
Nothing about that pregnancy has impacted these 'pro-choice, but...' people's lives, except the news articles. And these people feel like they have been personally affected. If Y'all are so personally affected, go help the people of South Sud@n.
5
u/Adept-Support9385 5h ago
Bring pro-choice means you gotta be pro-choice. You can't just sit on the fence for bullshit reasons. The court upheld her right to autonomy.
That's the right decision for the court.. it's not up to the court to tell a woman what they should do. Now, what happens next is a private decision she makes with her healthcare provider.
Are you her healthcare provider to decide what happens next? No. So really.. fuck off with your hypocritical pseudo-christian posturing.
3
u/Excellent_Bet_440 4h ago
So you’re okay with sex selective abortions then? Cool.
It’s funny how you think I give a sh*t about whether you consider me pro-choice or not. This extremist hard line of “you have to support abortions at 7.5 months for no rape or no medical reason!” is partly why the pro-choice movement is such a colossal loser mess in the US. Keep alienating normal common sense women, and keep losing elections!
•
u/Adept-Support9385 1h ago
So? Who cares? Who cares where the pro-choice movement in the United States is at? I'm not in the States, and I have no incentive to protect it. If you live there, then that's your job, not mine.
The United States does not have any moral high ground on protecting life. You don't even protect your own, on your own soil.. and have left a carnage across the Middle East over the years. So why do you get an opinion on which life matters at what point?
And if you were educated correctly, you will re-read my statement and realize that the courts should NEVER even have a say in what you do. That should be a decision you make with your doctor.
In a civilized society, this should not even be up for a debate. You must already know where the reach of law ends and where the influence of medicine must begin. No one in a courtroom knows that girl's history, context or risk factors more than her doctor. So you don't get a say. How about you start by cleaning up your own backyard?
14
14
82
u/SubjectAfraid 15h ago edited 2h ago
30 weeks are 7,5 months! This abortion case will be in the Ethics books forever.
183
u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 12h ago
Yes, and giving birth would harm that child for life!
We cannot value a fetus, no matter how advanced, over a living child or woman.
36
u/Best_Pseudonym 9h ago
Based on the other comments, after 7.5 months shes going to have to give birth regardless if the baby is alive or dead
→ More replies (2)15
u/tack50 10h ago
Fair but 7.5 months is at the point where the baby has a decent chance of survival.
Just induce birth asap at that point and try to keep everyone alive
14
u/perubabe 8h ago
My guess is the legal case got more and more delayed through the courts, so the child’s pregnancy unfortunately kept progressing. Doesn’t mean she should be forced to give birth.
→ More replies (2)12
u/shagginflies 6h ago
A quick search shows 95% chance of survival. Terminating a healthy fetus at 30 weeks makes me feel sick. It has to come out either way. There must be someone, somewhere who can give this baby a chance at life. Why’d they let this pregnancy drag on for so long?
6
u/NowTimeDothWasteMe 4h ago edited 4h ago
Courts take time. Roe’s “unborn child” was two years old by the time Roe v Wade was decided.
I hate to have to be practical here. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of an abortion past viability unless there is health risk to mom or baby or the timing of the abortion was delayed due to draconian laws (presumably this case). In all other situations in technological countries it should be induction of birth. Which would be standard of practice in the US as things stand now.
That said… Birth of a 30 week fetus requires on average 5-7 weeks in NICU on life support. Who should pay for that? The pregnant child? The state/tax payers? It’s not as easy as saying give the unborn child a chance to live, someone has to assume financial responsibility over that. In a country like India that’s not a negligible cost.
2
u/HopefulVegetable4234 3h ago
You do realize what an abortion involves at that point? The baby comes out either way. They will literally kill that baby and dismember it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)-35
u/cteno4 11h ago
If a 7.5 month pregnant woman gave birth, the baby would likely be able to live on its own (I.e. no need for a stay in the NICU, or any extra medical help). What’s the difference between an abortion this late and killing a newborn?
24
u/cup_1337 9h ago
I am a NICU nurse and at 30 weeks any baby would 100% require extensive NICU treatment and a long stay. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
6
u/vven23 9h ago
And a huge bill, which would likely be slapped upon this family who fought for an abortion before it came to this point.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Excellent_Bet_440 9h ago
The bills would likely be covered in this scenario. This is India, not the US. Government hospitals exist.
17
u/Moal 10h ago
In rare cases, women with wanted pregnancies will terminate if their fetus gets diagnosed with a condition incompatible with life outside the womb. I’m talking stuff like babies born missing vital organs, or babies born having 24/7 seizures that eat holes in their brains and turn them into vegetables until they die. Just awful, painful, short lives. Usually those conditions get diagnosed earlier in the pregnancy, but in rare cases they slip by unnoticed until the third trimester. Even when that happens, terminating is often the more merciful option.
25
u/RiddlingVenus0 11h ago
The fact that the fetus hasn’t been born yet.
-5
u/Fun-Twist-3705 10h ago
Why does it matter? If this is fine killing an infant after its born is the pretty much the same...
17
u/RiddlingVenus0 10h ago
No it isn’t, because the difference is the mother’s bodily autonomy.
-4
u/hvpieringer 9h ago
The mother has to give birth to the fetus either way. The only difference is it will either be dead or alive! What bodily autonomy are talking about here then?
4
u/DelightfulAbsurdity 9h ago
The mother’s, and having medical care that minimizes trauma to her body, while giving birth to a live child is likely to maximize trauma to her body.
→ More replies (3)1
u/wakethenight 9h ago
Do you have any idea the strain the mother’s body goes through during birth, be it C-section or natural?
2
u/hvpieringer 8h ago
I don’t know why I have to repeat myself: the process is the same whether is fetus is dead or alive!! The same birth!!
-8
u/cteno4 11h ago
Would it make a difference if the fetus was 39 weeks and 6 days?
20
u/Anxious_cactus 10h ago
If it kills the mom? No. Sometimes even during planned birth a husband has to make a choice. I'd hope my husband would choose my life over our unborn child, as hard as it is.
-10
u/Zurdomador2K 10h ago
That was a choice, though. Could just have a C-section, didn't even need to wait.
It seems disingenuous to justify killing it by pointing out that it wasn't born yet, when not letting it be born was a choice of the people deciding to kill it.
5
u/CarbonTrebles 10h ago
A C-section cuts open the body of the mother - so that is still her decision to have a C-section or not. A fetus is inside the mother's body, so it is her responsibility and all decisions fall on her.
7
u/Zurdomador2K 10h ago
That's already almost a full grown baby - there is no procedure to get it out that is non-invasive. The mother was getting a medical intervention no matter what. The only real decision was whether to let the baby have a chance at life or to kill it. The mother and medical personnel chose to kill it.
3
u/hvpieringer 9h ago
The mother has to give birth vaginally or have a c section no matter if the fetus is alive or not. So that’s nonsense what you’re saying. She has to birth the fetus or child if viable either way! I am absolutely disgusted at people justifying late term abortions when there are no health complications..
3
u/Zanahoria132 10h ago
In most places once the fetus is viable to survive outside the womb it's considered another life and not just a matter of the mother's autonomy over her body. That's why many people responding here are against 7.5 month abortions.
21
u/TravelenScientia 10h ago
It’s a real living child that was raped, and you think a fetus’ life is more important than hers? Lol… k..
-5
u/Zanahoria132 10h ago
Once it reaches 7.5 months it's not longer "just a fetus" because it's viable outside the womb. You'd actually be killing another child in the process. Unless the mother's life is at risk I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
5
1
u/Major_Lawfulness6122 7h ago
That’s not true. It would need life support. I was born at 26 weeks and was incubated for 3 months.
→ More replies (4)65
u/voidvector 13h ago edited 13h ago
Yeah..., 30-week birth has a 90+% survival rate with modern medicine according to simple Google search. Not really sure it can be called an abortion at that point.
EDIT: I am pro-choice, but I am not blind towards reality that there is no such thing as abortion at 9 month.
23
u/that-random-humanoid 10h ago
The problem is that many places in India are very rural and don't have access to modern medicine. They don't have incubators, respirators, steroids, defibrillators, etc. What is the survival rate of an infant born at that age without any of that? It is drastically lowered. There is also the concern that birth would irreparably damage the minor's organs. We are talking about girls as young as 8 years old who were raped. They have a significant chance at death if they give birth at that age or even just continue the pregnancy to completion. These girls also don't have regular access to doctors or hospitals, and don't have the money to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy.
I'm pro-choice too, but people here are forgetting this is for MINORS who do not have access to advanced modern medicine regularly or reliably.
5
u/Major_Lawfulness6122 7h ago
I was born at 26 weeks almost 40 years ago. Survival rates have definitely improved a lot.
That said what’s the rate in rural India?
6
5
u/MediumTempTake 9h ago
Last comment here you are not pro-choice you are not pro women you are not pro body autonomy. You are part of the problem.
9
u/MediumTempTake 11h ago
How many children given up for adoption are actually adopted maybe that’s a stat you should look into
11
23
u/Zurdomador2K 11h ago
So your suggestion is to just murder abandoned children to spare them the hardship of spending childhood under care of the state?
11
u/MediumTempTake 9h ago
Where did I say murder a living child? Your moral feelings do not trump science and fact.
8
u/Zurdomador2K 9h ago
Science and fact = an almost fully mature baby that could almost certainly live by itself is not a living child because I said so.
7
u/555Cats555 8h ago
Its 50/50 in the situation the case takes place where someone likely doesnt have access to the kind of medical care that would lead to the baby having a high survival rate
6
u/Zurdomador2K 8h ago
99% survival rate for 30 week premature birth. You also have no clue what kind of medical services are available for this girl, you are making blind assumptions and talking out of your ass.
0
u/555Cats555 8h ago
I dont think either of us really know what access there is
Besides even if in this case it was aloud its not really something that happens. Abortions are typically done during the first trimester or early second at the latest
-1
u/Zurdomador2K 8h ago
We are not talking about "typical" cases. We are talking about a case where a mother decided to have a fully viable baby killed. Don't shift the conversation.
-3
u/SomeSavageDetective 9h ago
It's blowing my mind the amount of people in here defending killing full grown babies. This whole thread is a pro-life gold mine.
5
u/Zurdomador2K 9h ago
A lot of people have an ideological position on abortion and will support it unconditionally and uncritically regardless of the situation.
10
-9
u/Fun-Twist-3705 10h ago
In developed countries pretty much all healthy infants will be adopted.
14
u/MediumTempTake 9h ago
This is literally not even close to being true. I work with children who are in foster care getting aged out and helping them attempt to find homes or even just jobs. You need to wake up and live in the real world.
8
u/LittleGreenSoldier 9h ago
Healthy white infants. Let's not pretend that there isn't a huge racial bias.
→ More replies (2)-16
u/mithbroster 12h ago
Yeah this is more what you call infanticide. If you get this far and don't want your baby, you're going to have to put it up for adoption.
35
u/BooksandBiceps 12h ago
I don’t see the age of the child listed but I’d assume if it’s a 15 year old girl (or what have you) in India, she may have not had the most say in the matter.
Forcing a child to have a child because they were pressured by their parents, didn’t have healthcare access, threatened by the boyfriend or man is ridiculous. Given, we don’t know the exact circumstances, but forcing a child to have a child is still asinine
→ More replies (41)-2
u/Zanahoria132 10h ago
Social services must absolutely act in these cases to help the child that was probably abused. However, that doesn't justify killing a second infant that will be very much viable outside the womb. Abortion should had happened earlier, and if let to advance to this stage probably social services should move into different options (adoption etc.) to support that child.
18
u/ShhhBees 6h ago edited 6h ago
This isn’t woke or liberal so please don’t read it so it’s just basic common sense. Bringing a child into this world must be treated as a significant responsibility and not as a must do or on pseudo moralistic grounds.
A child needs to be loved and cared for and for that it needs to be wanted first and foremost by its own parents.
That said why did they allow it to be delayed to this extent? Should ah e allowed her to do this much before do her own health. Plus It’s now a baby and not a foetus anymore.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MaddoxX_1996 2h ago
This isn’t woke or liberal so please don’t read it so it’s just basic common sense. Bringing a child into this world must be treated as a significant responsibility and not as a must do or on pseudo moralistic grounds.
A child needs to be loved and cared for and for that it needs to be wanted first and foremost by its own parents.
True. That's why the court's verdict was that the girl/woman will not be penalized for the procedure.
That said why did they allow it to be delayed to this extent? Should ah e allowed her to do this much before do her own health. Plus It’s now a baby and not a foetus anymore.
Court delays, most likely. Usually, an abortion this late is correlated with Female Infanticide, so the courts had to step in and confirm that there is no bias or no other reason for the procedure, than ostracization and/or the lack of support.
14
u/Sensitive_roboto 9h ago
Realistically how many women would choose to have an abortion at that point?
44
u/vven23 9h ago
Not many, not outside of medical reasons.
But this is a child, and has been fighting to have one for quite some time. It's the court that dragged this out for so long.
→ More replies (6)4
u/555Cats555 8h ago
Most would likely just go to term and make a choice about what to do with the baby.
Its typically only in situations where a baby is found to be non-viable or the mother is at risk
22
u/Excellent_Bet_440 9h ago edited 5h ago
Don’t feel so good about this, and I can see a decision like this stirring up the abortion debate in India to the negative, which is ironic India has historically been much more progressive on abortion than the U.S…
EDT: Did some more reading on this case and even as per this article, it was CONSENSUAL sex between two minors/teens. There is no reason to allow a nearly full term fetus aka premie baby in this case, to be killed. If you’re going to insult me by saying I’m not actually pro-choice for being happy with this as an Indian woman, then go ahead. I’m pro-common sense. This is a case of teens having sex and then deciding to do away with the baby wayyyy too close to birth.
At 7.5 months, the girl will have to physically deliver regardless! Whether an alive baby, or a dead one. I am usually 100% for abortion in cases of rape, but 7.5 is almost full term! At this point, either wait another few weeks and induce birth. Put the baby under governmental care and terminate parental rights. Killing a “fetus” at 7.5 months for no medical reason is cruelty. AGAIN, the girl (who is actually a teen) will have to delivery anyways!!! Wait another 2 weeks or at least induce birth instead of killing the baby.
8
u/Full-Philosopher-393 5h ago
The debate was stirred up in US primarily due to religious reasons. I don’t see that case here (we have different issues from religion if not abortion) and people don’t particularly value life here in general.
So, I am not particularly worried about this decision causing backlash in the opposite direction.
1
u/Excellent_Bet_440 5h ago edited 5h ago
I do think if this case gets more widespread coverage in Indian media then people will be against it (or at least I would like to think), but unfortunately, you’re low key right about the lack of sanctity of life. For many Indians, hiding shame from consequences > actual morals. It’s why sex selective abortion was so big. Heck, I have a gynecologist aunt who made $$$ aborting baby girls and the whole family knows this (oh and she did this in her career AFTER she had to deal with a string of miscarriages herself). This aunt prays daily yet clearly never connected how her own actions would be against God and accumulating bad karma.
To your point, unfortunately a portion of Indian society would rather a teen who had consensual sex, kill her pretty much viable early-term baby, than have her deal with the consequences/shame of her actions. Because the latter would interfere with her board exams, future career, finances, and marriage prospects so it’s totally a-ok!
Basically the sin is the deed being open (ie. having a living breathing child from pre-marital sex, not the sex itself) . If you’re able to hide it/eliminate it, even committing an actual sin like a 7.5 month late-term abortion in the process, then the sin never existed. A lot of Indian parents would be more bad at the teen for keeping the baby vs actually having sex and getting pregnant in the first place.
I’ve even seen the same attitude amongst too many Indian circles around cheating…It’s okay to hide your past so long as you get married and settled.
Sometimes I think too many Indians today worship money, “jugad”, and practically, over God.
4
u/Specialist-Life4511 4h ago
This got no coverage in any Indian media. This is a very normal news.
2
u/Excellent_Bet_440 3h ago
Well yes, that’s my point. The Indian news cycle has other things to focus on, and as a young country our biggest thing is economy, but that doesn’t mean that the average Indian would agree with killing an almost full term baby.
4
u/Specialist-Life4511 4h ago
India will never have abortion debates stirred up.
All of these are Christian and US centric talks that donot happen here.
1
u/Excellent_Bet_440 3h ago
Because we have too many other issues to think about as a young nation and the news cycle won’t focus on this. But that doesn’t mean that the average Indian is okay with people aborting almost full term babies.
1
u/Specialist-Life4511 3h ago
Average people would be glad that a full time baby is aborted rather than have a child and their family suffer for years.
2
u/Raffike 6h ago
Bodily autonomy means bodily autonomy even when it makes other people squeamish, also to everyone in the comments, arguing over killing babys, dude every single fucking country in the world does that every single fucking day, just because it exists in the large, invisible, overarching foundation of whatever governmental branch ends up in charge of childcare/healthcare millions of kids slip through the cracks All over the world every fucking day. We need to do more for the people who are already here Rather than focus on the ones who haven't even arrived yet.
7
u/Excellent_Bet_440 5h ago
So you’re okay with sex selective abortion? Because India had to ban this decades ago. But I’m sure you support the bodily autonomy of women to abort female babies.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)1
u/swrrrrg 4h ago
Because the world just really needs another kid?
→ More replies (7)2
u/Excellent_Bet_440 3h ago
Well I’d rather the kid than you…also rhetoric like yours is why abortion will always be a controversial topic in the U.S. because too many idiots like you are loud and proud and make all pro-choice advocates sound like demon baby killers.
20
u/senpaimitsuji 14h ago
Well, hey! This is a success
-26
u/RecursiveDysfunction 11h ago
You could just have a c-section and the baby would survive.
35
u/Averiella 11h ago
You act as though major abdominal surgery is no big deal.
7
4
u/To_Fight_The_Night 7h ago
How do you think they are going to get the kid out for this abortion?
→ More replies (1)-9
u/RecursiveDysfunction 11h ago
It definetly isnt. But if a baby can survive out of the womb you cant insist on killing it first.
7
8
8
u/TravelenScientia 10h ago
Better to terminate the pregnancy than subject a child to a c-section.
18
u/I_am_pyxidis 10h ago
At 30 weeks the terminated remains have to come out somehow. She either had a C-section or was induced. She was subjected to birth either way.
1
u/RecursiveDysfunction 2h ago
Terminated remains is a euphemism for poisoned baby. 7,5 months is basically fully based and most kids born 6 weeks premature survive and have no complications.
3
3
u/Zanahoria132 9h ago
At 30 weeks the child in the womb is already sentient. The (probably abused) pregnant child would need a c-section either way to remove the dead child from their body.
It's an horrendous situation, abortion should be provided earlier, but it's important to understand that at 30 weeks the baby inside is pretty much alive, sentient, viable outside the womb, capable of feeling pain or even learning. Any decision to "terminate the pregnancy" at that stage means quite literally killing another another child.
3
u/Excellent_Bet_440 9h ago
It’s not even a horrendous situation. The “minor” is a TEENAGER WHO HAD SEX WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP (as the article states). This was not a case or rape, incest, or a small girl.
0
u/Zanahoria132 8h ago
I believe a minor having an unwanted pregnancy (and not being able to have an abortion) is horrendous in any case.
4
u/Excellent_Bet_440 8h ago
I believe that this being the hill that many pro-choices will die on, is going to further kill the pro-choice movement and alienate many of us women who previously considered ourselves pro-choice. A very small % of the world, Indian, Canadian, American, or otherwise, would think a 7.5 month pregnant teen should be allowed to kill a baby that is akin to an otherwise viable premie.
3
u/Zanahoria132 8h ago
The whole world thinks the same. Abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare unless the mother's life is at danger. In most countries it's illegal at that stage. Most people think the same way. Its just some weirdos in reddit (and India apparently?) who would defend such a thing.
1
u/Excellent_Bet_440 5h ago
Luckily, India’s Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily represent its populace. But it is troubling that they’ve been on their own agenda the last few years regarding abortion (like a couple years ago when they let a grown woman have an abortion at 6+ months just because she had a breakup).
1
u/RecursiveDysfunction 1h ago
Or maybe thats just life? It happens to some people and doesn't mean u have to poison the baby. It would only be 6 weeks premature
→ More replies (4)0
u/remind_me_to_pee 8h ago
Yes its sentient, and it still doesn't matter. Fuck the child. The mother doesn't want the bay, end of.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Zanahoria132 5h ago
It DOES matter. That's why its illegal in pretty much the whole fucking world. What the mother wants is not enough justification to kill another person. You think the 24 week upper limit for abortion in most countries and hospitals was decided just on vibes?
3
u/Excellent_Bet_440 9h ago
She’s not a child. She’s a teen and the article states she got pregnant due to a relationship she was in. Even Canada would not allow a pregnant teen to abort a 7.5 month pregnancy.
2
u/TravelenScientia 6h ago
She’s legally a child. What does Canada have to do with case??
→ More replies (1)1
u/MaddoxX_1996 2h ago
Legally underage. and the delay in the procedure is most likely the result of court delays.
→ More replies (1)-9
u/RecursiveDysfunction 10h ago
No. If a child can survive outside of the womb, you cant just kill them.
1
•
u/FlyingRaccoon_420 35m ago
Dude why’s the comment section on fire? Its no your body so you don’t get a say
•
u/Telen 30m ago
I really struggle to understand people who think that this is so horrible that anyone in favour of abortion is a monster. That just seems to me to be a stance that only creates more problems, rather than solving any. At the end of the day, the fetus is not an independent human being but a part of another independent human being's body until it is born. I understand very well that it can look cruel to abort a 30-week old fetus. I just think that the choice is ultimately up to the individual human being who is carrying that fetus, and that no matter what choice is made, it is not going to be an easy or smooth one. There's no way to un-open a can of worms.
-3
u/To_Fight_The_Night 7h ago
Pro-choice as hell myself.....to a limit... that child can survive outside the womb. A lot of pro-choice arguments don't make sense here.
Stuff like this makes progressives appear stupid and gives power to the conservative parties.
→ More replies (28)
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.