Abortion Rights: Who Decides — Country, Religion or Society?
Questioner: Greetings, sir. It's an honor and privilege to be here, and my question is regarding abortion. There is a recent debate going on in the US and worldwide. Recently, the US and Poland have passed laws restricting abortion access. On the contrary, if we see, there are women activists and feminists, and women like us support that abortion should be a legal right, and it should be accessible to women considering their health and their rights also.
While there is this Texas Senate Bill 8, there was in the US which banned abortion like up to 6 weeks of pregnancy. Also, there are pro-life people who say that, they quote from the Bible — there's this Psalm 139:13 – 16 reference which they give, and they say that, it's a murder because life is some form of God or something like that. I don't have a clear idea, but I have some references to that.
So what's your stance on this, and how should we navigate through it? Because in a progressive society, and basically especially in India when developing nations see developed countries and they pass such regressive laws, how should we see that, and how should we move forward?
Thank you.
Acharya Prashant: First of all, you have to understand the philosophy the whole thing is coming from. So there is this woman, the woman is also a life form. If you are pro-life, then the woman carrying the baby in the womb. The woman is life, and a bigger form of life.
Questioner: Yes.
Acharaya Prashant: Then there is the baby in the womb and somehow it has come to this, that the woman does not want the baby. So, now it's no longer a harmonious situation, where the woman wants to carry the baby, and the woman and the baby are one, and their interests are aligned. They are no more aligned. The woman is saying, “I don't want to carry the baby.” So, a choice has to be made between the two.
This life form (the mothers life) and that life form (the child's life), ideally in the best of cases, we would want both to be saved. Both to live and prosper in the best way possible. Correct? That's the ideal situation. Nobody wants anybody to be killed. Be it a grown-up human being or a little fetus, nobody wants anybody to be killed. That's the first thing.
But if a choice has to be made, then let's say I am the one choosing in favor of the little one. I am making that choice. I'm the state, I'm the church, and I'm saying the life of that little thing is precious.
The woman is saying to me — not precious, for some reason best known to me. The church or the state is saying — no, it is precious. It is very precious.
Then my question is: to whom is it precious?
It is precious now to the state and the church. So then they should take ownership.
The woman is saying, “no more my baby, I want to get rid of this.” And the state and the church are saying, “we are full of compassion, we want that little thing to survive.” Which is a noble thought. Agreed. But if you are the one who wants that little thing to survive, then you should take ownership and relieve the woman of that.
You cannot say, “We are the ones greatly interested in the survival of the fetus, but you should be the one taking responsibility for carrying the baby, and then nursing it, and then raising it.” That's unfair, right? That's unfair.
We had a case, they were goats. Somebody wanted to slaughter them in our neighborhood. So we said, "Fine, we take ownership." We paid a heavy amount, and we took those goats. Right? And that sounds fair. So, if you are so interested in the baby, you take ownership of the baby right now. But we can't take ownership of the baby then it's a woman's baby, and let her do what she wants to do. Let her do what she wants to do.
Or at least when the kid takes birth, you must have state systems capable of adopting the kid, raising it without the mother, giving it the kind of nutrition and care and upbringing that ideally any baby deserves. Because now you are deciding to become the parent, the foster parent. And if you have taken over parenting upon yourself, that's what you have taken up, then you act like a parent. Why are you forcing the mother to act like a parent? She doesn't want to.
We too want that both should have the best, because both are living beings. We understand. We too want that the little kid should be saved and take birth. But if I want that, then this being my want, the responsibility is also mine. And I'm the state. If that's the kind of anti-abortion stance I want to take, then, being the state, I should have raised institutions first.
All right, you please just give birth.
This much favor you do to the state: please give birth and then hand over the baby. And we'll raise the baby beautifully. We will not allow the baby to feel the absence of parents. Right kind of care, nutrition, emotional warmth, whatever a kid needs we will provide. The right education? Yes, we will provide. We are the state.
Now instead you are saying: no, you give birth and then you carry it. Even if you have five kids, you still give birth to the sixth one. Even if you are saying you are frail and weak of body, you still give birth. Even if you are not in the right emotional state, you still give birth. Even if you feel you have been impregnated by deception, you still give birth.
That's not fair.
Yes, we all want the baby to survive. But for that little thing, the welfare of this big thing cannot be compromised. When it comes to choosing between life forms, don't we all have to make choices? Life is life, but not all life forms we take as equal, do we?
Certain forms of life are more important and valuable than other forms of life. Similarly, between the mother and the little thing in the womb, it is the mother that holds importance. And it is the mother's opinion that counts. Being the state, one thing I said, we should have had institutions. If I want to take an anti-abortion stand, then I should have had institutions, first of all, for taking care of babies saved from abortion. That is the first thing.
Second thing, if you are complaining that too many women are opting for abortion, then you have to ask yourself: what kind of education have you provided your girls?
And providing education to the girls, isn't that the responsibility of the state? The responsibility of the state and that's enshrined in our Constitution as well, the Indian Constitution. The responsibility of the state is to provide great education, raise capable human adults, and leave it at that.
"I have educated you well. I have raised you well. And now I'll respect your decisions." That's what education is all about.
In fact, now if I forced my decision on you, that's an insult to the education I have provided you. What is the point of education if even at the age of 25 I have to command you? The very output of education is a human being capable of taking her own decisions. And when that human being takes her own decisions, the onus is on the society and the state to accept those decisions, honor those decisions.
First of all, we should have boys and girls, men and women who have been made capable of taking wise, mature, deep decisions in life. Right? That should be the quality of upbringing, parenting, education. No?
And once they reach the decision-age, everybody should step back and let them be.
"Now you are mature. Now you are a capable adult. You decide for yourself. I'm not going to come and dictate terms to you. Abortion or no abortion, that's going to be your decision. And I trust that I have raised you really wisely into a mature woman. So if you decide this way, fine with me. That way? That too, fine with me."
Are you getting it?
You cannot have a weak foundation and then try to cover up by using colorful, glittery paint or through legislation.
The building is raised on a weak foundation, and now you want to penalize everybody who comes and shakes it up even a little? You don't do this.
Sir, the first question is to you: why did you allow this building to stand on such a weak foundation, and now you are trying to protect it through legislation? What kind of stupidity is this?
Getting it?
Do you see the ugly kind of interference of organized religion here? You can have abortion till so many weeks or months, and after that you cannot have. Why? Because this particular month the soul enters the womb. What nonsense?
If it's a living being, it's living from the outset. How can, at some intermediate point, the being suddenly magically gain life? If it is life, it is life always.
If you have to decide on a cutoff point, it may be the point where the male cell mated with the female cell. Maybe that's the point when you can say life has begun. But you cannot say fourth month, sixth month — that's the point when jivaatma gets into the womb. Either it was always conscious, or it is never going to be conscious at all.
Again, bad philosophy.
"At such a point in time the being gained life."
How, sir? How exactly?
Neither science nor spirituality supports this. Only your random beliefs support this.
