I want to discuss this particular case of abortion relating to a family (which was in news some years back)

The mother is pregnant with a child of greater than 6 months (say). She undergoes for some tests and the results say that the baby growing there is unhealthy. He will be born paralyzed and blind (assume). Hearing this news the mother asks for an abortion, which is illegal. Should she be given the right to abort the child?

Yes! A rational and considerate decision! The risks involved at this advanced stage tackled properly with all the medical advancement we find today.

Isn't this killing of an innocent life just because he/she is not strong as others and he/she may not be as beautiful as others and he/she may not be as smart as others?

What can be more heinous crime than this ideology to eliminate the weak and let only the powerful survive?

It is as old as Spartan culture who rolled down the newborns down the hill and only those who passed this survival test were reared! That is an extremely rigid policy. But bringing up a hopelessly invalid/handicapped child is no joy to either the parent or the child. Instead of being practical and judicious we rather prefer to be hypocritical and hide behind false ethics about preciousness of life!

@ ppmani mam,

Yes, point well taken but our present society cant be compared with the old spartan culture. They may have some intention behind their practice (say being warrior) which are irrelevant as of today. Today our society hinges on the survivability of the fittest mentally and looks.

I have two cases which always puzzle me

CASE 1. May be some years ahead due to technological advance, we can be successful to determine the IQ (say mental sharpness) and looks of the unborn child. Shall we proceed to abort the growing wombs who cannot be stronger mentally to face this world or say the child who are not so beautiful?

CASE 2. Assume that we are in the era of 1800's and there is no technology to determine the condition of the unborn womb. The parents are unaware and give birth to the baby. Should they go ahead and kill the new born because of his physical handicap and inability to face this competitive world.

CASE 3. Your statement false ethics about preciousness of life! implicates me to think, its more or less true for the grand old ailing parents who are unable to take care of themselves and are constant burden for their next generation and they have nothing productive to offer. Its pragmatic on our part to terminate their lives too.

I guess this ruthless attitude fittest of survival will make this world into a hell soon before we realize instead there should be equality and dignity for every lives that arrives here.

In my opinion, the Case 1 is a dreary, wretched prospect of 'uniform' IQ and 'looks'(?). Something like clones! Variety is the spice of life, isn't it? What sort of 'levelling' will it be? Life will be more dull, less interesting! Everybody brilliant and beautiful(beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I thought, and not in set standards/dimensions)gives little scope for motive/meaning for aspirations! A bore!

In Case 2 in the eras of 1800's when there was no medical knowledge/facilities like now mortality rate was high and life span was relatively short. In my grandma's generation every woman bore about a dozen children and about 3 or 4 died at birth or in infancy. (With preventive measures we have now almost eradicated many of the risks of childbirth.)And in such conditions the misfortune of a disabled/invalid child was also shortlived- it didn't survive to full term; lifestyles prevalent then made the burden comparitively a little more tolerable then than it will be now.

In Case 3 I'm not an admirer of Spartan standards. When we have the option to choose our child's healthy growth why not avail it? I do not want to be misunderstood as crazy about 'beauty' or 'brain' standards. Physical beauty is a very variable concept. What I am concerned is physical ability which must be normal, at least near normal. Who can deny a paralytic child is a burden? Is it not wronging the child to bring it to this world to live a wretched life?

Longevity has its own problems, people are coming to realise- including myself. A vernacular writer, a very famous and intelligent one has written a story about terminating old people!!! I've repeatedly advocated euthanasia in all forums; I am cent percent for it. Today's medical ethics with its Hippocrates oath is bent on prolonging life on machines indefinitely which is not at all acceptable to me. Live and die with dignity is my desire. Aversion for a life of infirmity, comatose, invalid condition is not equal to emphasis on 'survival of the fittest'(Nature itself has a way of determining it!)- which allows only the fully able people to live. There are various levels of 'fitness'. It is enough to be fit; no need to be the fittest. Intolerance for the mediocre is not my weakness!

Sorry if I still sound ruthless! To me it is reasonable and fair!!! It is saddening to see advanced medical knowledge and techniques being used for wrong/unethical/useless research and practices. Aborting an unhealthy, invalid embryo is not one of those!!!