Have you commenced the second phase of your career after a career break? Share your story & get featured at Women in Corporate Allies 2022.
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are both misleading terms, for there are no pros to a situation calling for an abortion.
Those of you who have read, Freakonomics, will know why I am bringing it up. This fascinating and entertaining book encourages us to look for hidden and unexpected causes of unfolding events.
The fourth chapter simply blew my mind! Could it really be that a supreme court ruling on abortions could dramatically affect the crime rate in a major metropolis a couple of decades later?
If you haven’t read Freakonomics, you probably read the previous sentence a couple of times and then scrunched up your face and said, ‘Wait! What?’
Yet, the book presents a compelling argument that this could indeed be the case. Roe v. Wade, and not Rudy Giuliani, was responsible for the dramatic drop in crime in New York in the nineties, the book claims.
Fascinating how the ruling, apart from liberating generations of women, had such far-reaching and unexpectedly pleasant outcomes.
And now the ruling has been overturned.
Few women would lightly undertake an abortion. It is by no means pleasant, and most go into it with a heavy heart and troubled mind. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are both misleading terms, for there are no pros to a situation calling for an abortion.
It’s like asking; are you pro-amputation, or pro-walking. Almost everyone would obviously like to retain their legs, unless there was an overriding reason not to. Now who gets to decide what’s an overriding cause? The one who is attached to the leg, of course.
No, I am not deliberately trivializing the issue. Research shows that pregnancy alters the maternal brain to aid bonding between mother and child.
While many women may cope well with abortions in the long term, no one enjoys it.
While for some women it is a tough choice and for others a no-brainer, it still is almost never pleasant. Yet, it is absolutely essential, in my opinion, and there is no justification whatsoever to deprive even a single person, let alone nearly half the population, control over their body and life.
Pregnancy itself is no small commitment, but it doesn’t end after nine months, now, does it? Especially if the maternal brain undergoes changes to aid bonding with the baby, thereby almost forcing a significantly longer commitment.
It should be a fundamental right of the person bearing all the consequences of a decision, to also have the power to make that very decision. How ill-conceived (pun-intended) must a law be, that can enforce the execution of responsibility, in the absence of the freedom to choose to undertake it?
As disturbing as this idea is for anyone, it is far more abhorring for rape victims. Inflicting on them, the trauma of carrying to term, the off-spring of their tormentor, whilst risking their health and lives, is a sadistic and cruel manifestation of patriarchy.
Yet exactly such frightening state laws are now flooding various parts of the USA after the Dobbs v. Jackson verdict.
The argument against abortion is the termination of the life of the zygote. But what exactly is meant by the life of the zygote?
If it cannot survive independent of the mother’s body, even when assisted by the most advanced machines available today, then is it acceptable to force a human being at great cost to themselves to be the life support system of another? Because that is effectively what the Dobbs v. Jackson verdict claims.
And what will be the quality of this unwanted, yet sacred zygote’s future life? After separation from its life support system, can it be independent? How many fetuses will take their unwilling mother’s life, depriving their older siblings of maternal love and care?
A significant number of these unwanted children will be brought up in resource poor environments. Many will know resentment and be despised. Several will suffer abuse.
Some will grow up to be criminals, and then perhaps face the death penalty, imposed by the very people who championed and cheered for their life in their zygote stage.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Image Source: Still from the Trailer of the film Sara’s, edited on Canva Pro
Kanika G, a physicist by training and a mother of 2 girls, started writing to entertain her older daughter with stories, thus opening the flood gates on a suppressed passion. Today she has written over read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
No matter where one’s fandom lies, if one saw the clip of you visiting your son in jail, the sheer dignity would have one converted to 'being yours'!
I have done enough stuff in my journey making my son and husband often exclaim vexedly, ‘Aap Zara Sa Tham Jao Ji!’
But never in my dreams did I imagine that I would be writing an open crush-puff-piece at this stage of my life!
The female condom is the most empowering invention ever made for women who finally do not have to depend upon careless male partners.
Forget the female condom, the topic of the male condom itself is a taboo. Men find all kinds of ridiculous reasons to not use one. “I like it natural”, “I am not a baby, I know when to withdraw”, “Relax, nothing will happen!” “But when is your period?” are some of the excuses at the tip of their tongues.
With half (read dangerous) knowledge of the female body, all of them suddenly turn into biology experts!
This immature thought process coupled with the loss of erection at the time of application or even the mere mention of the condom makes a lot of men averse to the idea of safe sex. Of course, everything comes at a cost. And unfortunately, this so-called ‘natural’, intimate, no barrier sex comes at the cost of women’s physical and mental health.