As far as your views on the Niketa Mehta case go, based on your argument “If we continue to take the position that the foetus is an independent legal entity”, it becomes a question of who decides who lives and dies. If we take the case of a born child (an independent legal entity), does the mother have the right to kill the child because it is has some terminal disease and everyone involved is going through immense physical and/or emotional pain? Probably not. I am not sure how this case would be different than the arguments you have mentioned.

In this case, it becomes more of a philosophical question as to who decides as to who lives and who dies. Should we allow the mother to kill a child with a terminal disease? Why is this case different, if we consider the born child as a legal independent entity? Isn’t it a question as to when do we think a human form becomes a legal independent entity rather than whether it is a foetus (inside the mother’s body) or a born child (or outside the mother’s body)?

It is easy for a majority of us to be intellectual and argue things from the comfort of our homes, without realizing exactly what we are talking about. The suffering is someone ELSE’s and in reality, what locus standee do we have to say it is “wrong”?

That said, my gut feel says that this couple took the decision into their own hands, which is fine. I have no qualms in admitting that I might have done the same, had I been in their unenviable position of knowing about carrying a foetus that had a heart defect and being forced to carry it to term.

Lekhni: That’s a heart-rending story. You are right, people can sit around and share their opinions, but they don’t have any stake in the issue. If one starts to make the assumption that parents, who are going to be responsible for their kids all their lives, are not the best judge, then who really is?

There are no easy answers, but the mother should at least have the right to make the final decison..

State cannot take away the right of a person on her body.period.

In my opinion,even state do not take responsibility of a foetus. It is not counted as part of population, not issued any ration card/id/passport, do not have any certificate like birth/death etc etc etc……..in short it is not considered as a citizen/individual. When state itself do not consider foetus as a LIFE/individual, what right does it has to dictate terms for/againt it….Knowingly or not, state has left the responsibility entirely to the parents, so it should be their call on the matter. Who are we/state to act as moral police..??

Lekhni: You are right. I deplore this tendency of the State to insinuate itself into the private life of a woman on specious moral grounds “Moral police” sums it up perfectly

You all would have been horified if the same treatment was given to a convicted criminal, but you can happily endorse the killing of an unborn baby from the comfort of your home. If you don’t like my attitude that’s your problem right. Just as if a mother doesnt want her baby, its her baby’s problem to face death. go figure it out in your heads, you people are endorsing a violent killing of a baby while you whine that you are being good to think of the mother.

Lekhni: This post must be popular! I’ve already received my first comment on it from an anonymous troll ! I was wondering if all the trolls had disappeared – thanks for keeping my faith in trolls alive

Lekhni: I agree, it is not easy for a mother to do this knowing the baby would feel pain

Thanks
Subhashani

Lekhni: Thanks, Subhashani Yes, I hope Niketa finds the strength to do whatever she thinks is right!