Roe v Wade - Half a century of efforts drained

I am terribly sad; that is the only word I can think of that describes all the emotions I am going through. I also know that my sadness, in this case, will impact no one and is not of consequence as such. Yet as a woman, as someone who believes everyone should have the right to self preservation and privacy, I am saddened by the overturning of Roe v Wade. What is far more flummoxing is that this decision comes from the highest court of a country that is a self declared champion and moral authority of human rights. 

Motherhood, the word itself evokes smile, joy and nurturing instincts. But that is when it is a cherished desire or a choice. Anything forced is a burden and motherhood even as an elected choice is a life altering experience, so the forced option probably is more chaotic than one can even imagine. 

In the most extreme cases I am thinking of women like Norma McCorvey (who got Roe v. Wade in place) whose pregnancy is the result of an assault. A victim of a crime, forced to give birth to the consequence of the attack, can have multiple physical and mental health issues; her chronological, economic and aspirational circumstances not withstanding. Then there is the debate on nurture vs nature that has claims on both sides of whether genes pre dispose individuals to a life of aggression and crime or not. Even if nurture was to be the winner, who is to say that a tormented individual would be able to nurture a young life ably...

Reality could be completely anti a life born to a poor, socially isolated and traumatised rape victim. So at the end of the day are we saying that it's ok roll a dice to decide the fate of a new life? Of course there is the argument that a roll of a dice gives the life a chance vs abortion that takes away any chance at all. However, who are we to play the game of probability when the person who will be responsible for changing the odds potentially is an unwilling participant? Denial of self preservation in these instances is a crime in itself in my view. 

There are those who will say rape pregnancies are a small percentage. Reluctantly, but still let me accept that data point without having any facts to support or deny this claim. The thoughts steer towards to young couples not ready for a child, couples who do not want children ever and single women not wanting (yet or ever) children. This is a subset that does not want children and no contraceptive is a 100% foolproof. So what happens when they conceive? We take away their right to lead lives as they would like to? And who is the state, in a democracy,  to dictate how a couple should structure their family or to a woman or her life choices? The counter argument to this thought is that the state is speaking on behalf of a life that cannot speak for itself. Well that is why there is the so desired separation between the church and the state! What about atheists? How can the state impose religious beliefs on those who have none? Once again this set of citizens is forced into a life that is not theirs by their choice and a choice that is not creating harm, injustice or unrest to the society in any way at all! 

As I am writing this, I am reminded of a story. Before I pen that down I will state clearly that I am spiritual, I believe in life, after life and rebirth, and I am also a moderate Hindu. The story is from the Hindu epic Mahabharata and talks about the decision of nurturing a life resting with the mother. Santanu was a Kuru king who fell in love with Ganga, the river goddess. When he asked for her hand in marriage she hesitated and then before she accepted she only requested that he trust her a hundred percent and not question any of her decisions. If he did question her, she would leave him. Drastic condition by today's standards and by my own belief in transparent communication! That not withstanding and given that love is blind, Santanu crazy about Ganga accepted her only condition. Soon after marriage, Ganga conceived. But as soon as she delivered she took the infant to the river and drowned it. A shocked Santanu could merely watch. This happened seven times over and each time a devastated Santanu became a tormented bystander but did not break his vow. The eighth time he saw Ganga walking with the infant towards the river he could not contain himself and questioned her ghastly actions. Patiently she explained to him that she had promised these souls salvation and hence agreed to be their mother. Given that Santanu had questioned her motives, the vow to the last such soul was broken and the last child would live. Also as per their prenup she would leave him. The legend has it that this was the seed that planted the tree that bore the fruit of the epic battle of Mahabharata between the Kauravas and Pandavas. 

The reason I narrated the story above is because if we were to turn a blind eye to the absence of separation of the church and the state, church being used symbolically for religion, then there is merit in looking across the spectrum and we will find there to be enough advocates of mothers' rights and the saying that mother knows the best. 

Steering back to a fact based discussion, my attention is also drawn to the disabled. What happens to those women who are either physically disabled and conceive by force or those who soon after conceiving become physically challenged. How can someone unable to take care of themselves, a hundred percent independently, be forced to take care of an infant who needs to be attended to day and night! Will state provide means for these mothers and if yes who will fund that? 

Of course, at the moment it's twenty six states that will rejoice in the acceptance of this ruling. Which means there are twenty four options for the thirty six million women impacted. But to access these and the international options they will need to have adequate financing or else they will need to go to courts where their right to privacy will be shred into rags. For a capitalist country this works I think, if one has the money one has the solution. And yet it seems so inhuman and unfair. 

As a woman I love children and I believe that their innocence brings hope and learning in the crazy times we live in. I believe that we should bring children in the world but also that the world should be a safe and happy place for them. As a woman I also know the challenges that a female mind and body goes through to be able to bear children. It is not a journey that everyone may want to undertake. As a woman I do feel for the victims and the disabled and what their mental makeup could be due to their own agony. How can we force a way of life on them ! As a woman I feel that this is a pre-conceived judgement that is not just unfair and reeking of inequality, I also feel while women have silently and patiently nurtured, loved and sustained life for generations this is just putting them through a fire test they did not sign up for.

I do hope a constitutional amendment at some point will come through and on that optimistic note I sign off for this time.