If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

[aupmanyav]

The discussion started with my comment: "Did he indulge in sex with any such obligation?"

Either everyone does, or no one does.

Aup.: That is incorrect in tradition as well as in law.

Is that so

Aup.: In tradition, why sex without marriage?
In law, he never made such a promise. Why were you not more careful?

Yeah. That is so. The woman has no right to burden the man post-act with a responsibility that he never took up.
(That is my reading of the Indian law. The judges know better. I am not a know-all)

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, to summarize, your position is that it is the woman’s responsibility to take care of contraception if she wants to have sex. If she gets pregnant then it is her responsibility (and legal obligation), and only hers, to carry the child to term. If she doesn’t want to risk having a baby she shouldn’t have sex, even if there exists a way to abort an unwanted clump of cells in a medically safe manner.

The man, on the other hand, has no such obligations and he can partake in as much sex as he wants, need not take any responsibility about birth control, or bear any legal or financial burden without his consent.

Is this a correct summary of your stance?

Now, in the case of rape, if it can actually be proven, you are ok with the woman having the abortion because having a baby she didn’t want would be impractical for her lifestyle.

Am I reading you right?

 

[Toni]

More importantly: Is the father held responsible for the death of the mother?

If they were married, then the Court will check why the necessary help was not provided by the husband.
If it was deliberate, then it is murder.

So, if the mother dies from complications of pregnancy or delivery—the father pays no penalty? Her life was forfeit because of the husband’s actions? What if she did not want to get pregnant and he sabotaged her birth control, she got pregnant and died giving birth? Does it matter if the infant survived? If the infant is male or female?

 

[Elixir]

 

[Shadowy Man]

What if she did not want to get pregnant and he sabotaged her birth control, she got pregnant and died giving birth?

apparently, if she doesn’t want the consequences of sex she should not be having it. She shouldn’t trust her husband to be responsible with birth control since he won’t face any responsibility if she gets pregnant. Therefore if she gets pregnant it will be all her fault and she’ll have to suffer all the burdens and risk.

 

[Millrat]

The discussion started with my comment: "Did he indulge in sex with any such obligation?"

Either everyone does, or no one does.

Aup.: That is incorrect in tradition as well as in law.

Is that so

Aup.: In tradition, why sex without marriage?
In law, he never made such a promise. Why were you not more careful?

Yeah. That is so. The woman has no right to burden the man post-act with a responsibility that he never took up.
(That is my reading of the Indian law. The judges know better. I am not a know-all)

This thread isn’t about Indian law or your reading of it.

Those views are abhorrent to any rational adult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the woman bears the only responsibility of having the irresponsible sex... again. Almost like the male was a victim.

The male did what he was asked for. Why blame him?

I'm not blaming anyone. You stated:

Indian law wants couples to be more responsible or bear the consequences of careless sex

The critical words there are "couples" and "consequences". Couples mean a male and female. Your sentence implied that Law was intended to be aimed at the Couples, male and female. However, there appears to be no consequence for the male at all. So either Indian law feels women should be held accountable for getting pregnant or Indian law feels couples should be held accountable for having sex that leads to pregnancy. You claim the latter, but have demonstrated the prior.

 

[Elixir]

So the woman bears the only responsibility of having the irresponsible sex... again. Almost like the male was a victim.

The male did what he was asked for. Why blame him?

I'm not blaming anyone. You stated:

Indian law wants couples to be more responsible or bear the consequences of careless sex

The critical words there are "couples" and "consequences". Couples mean a male and female. Your sentence implied that Law was intended to be aimed at the Couples, male and female. However, there appears to be no consequence for the male at all. So either Indian law feels women should be held accountable for getting pregnant or Indian law feels couples should be held accountable for having sex that leads to pregnancy. You claim the latter, but have demonstrated the prior.

Sounds to me like those high magistrates or whatever just don’t want their wimmens forkin around so they did the next best thing to outlawing it.

 

[aupmanyav]

So, if the mother dies from complications of pregnancy or delivery—the father pays no penalty? Her life was forfeit because of the husband’s actions? What if she did not want to get pregnant and he sabotaged her birth control, she got pregnant and died giving birth? Does it matter if the infant survived? If the infant is male or female?

Yes, pregnancy deaths happen in spite of all medical aid. Why should the father be blamed if he provided all possible medical aid? If she did not want pregnancy, she could used or have asked the husband to use contraceptives. If the contraceptives failed, she could have approached the courts for termination of pregnancy. If the husband sabotaged her birth control, then it will be a case of marital rape and the husband liable to prosecution. Survival of the child matters but less than the life of mother. Abortion in such cases in legal. Male or female child does not make any difference, a child is a child. I do not know where do you find a problem.

 

[aupmanyav]

apparently, if she doesn’t want the consequences of sex she should not be having it. She shouldn’t trust her husband to be responsible with birth control since he won’t face any responsibility if she gets pregnant. Therefore if she gets pregnant it will be all her fault and she’ll have to suffer all the burdens and risk.

If she allowed sex without contraceptives, then it means she was not against pregnancy. If the husband forced sex, then it is marital rape where abortion is permissible. If the contraceptives failed, then again abortion is permissible. Where does Indian law makes it all a woman's fault?

It seems some of my friends here do not have a legal mind. But I am the grandfather of a future lawyer, so I know.

 

[Elixir]

Are there a lot of prosecutions pending in India for illegal abortion?
That would be the only metric by which i would measure the value of the laws.
I don’t object to illegalizing things that don’t happen, if it amuses them.
If there are more than a few such cases, it is a virtual certainty that the laws hurt more people than they help.

 

[aupmanyav]

This thread isn’t about Indian law or your reading of it.
Those views are abhorrent to any rational adult.

Then why are people persisting in asking me questions on Indian law?
You find them abhorrent. But these are laws created by due process by the representatives of people of a democratic country and accepted by its independent judiciary as not being against the Constitution of the country. Do you want to impose the laws of your country on Indian people? Where the laws face a problem we correct them in due course. Nothing is written on stone. There are processes in which Constitution or law can be changed (Amendments, remember?).

 

[Elixir]

I find the above perversely comforting. Indian people are just as Stoopid as Americans.

 

[aupmanyav]

However, there appears to be no consequence for the male at all. So either Indian law feels women should be held accountable for getting pregnant or Indian law feels couples should be held accountable for having sex that leads to pregnancy. You claim the latter, but have demonstrated the prior.

The consequence will be that the father will bear the expenses of the child for upward of 18 years. That is the Indian system, joint family. It is not like that in Western countries where the son or daughter goes away as soon as he/she can. My son and myself have lived together for 52 years and will live together till I die. I supported my son for 29 years till his marriage and never asked for a penny out of his salary. Now he is supporting me, I do not have to worry about anything. Of course, he gets part of what I own, the other part goes to my daughter. I have already handed over the management of my property and investments to him. Who else is responsible for the pregnancy apart from the couple. Where have I demonstrated any thing else?

 

[aupmanyav]

Sounds to me like those high magistrates or whatever just don’t want their wimmens forkin around so they did the next best thing to outlawing it.

Kindly mention clearly as to what the magistrates have outlawed? Magistrates have no power to outlaw anything. They have to go by the law of the land. The mens and wimmens are free to fork around, but they should not come later to the courts weeping and blaming others for their own actions.

 

[aupmanyav]

I find the above perversely comforting. Indian people are just as Stoopid as Americans.

No problem with that, I agree. People are people. The Americans prooved it by selecting Trump, Senate and the Congress, to lead them for the next four years.
At least, Indian people gave a fright to Modi by not giving him an absolute majority.

 

[Toni]

So, if the mother dies from complications of pregnancy or delivery—the father pays no penalty? Her life was forfeit because of the husband’s actions? What if she did not want to get pregnant and he sabotaged her birth control, she got pregnant and died giving birth? Does it matter if the infant survived? If the infant is male or female?

Yes, pregnancy deaths happen in spite of all medical aid. Why should the father be blamed if he provided all possible medical aid? If she did not want pregnancy, she could used or have asked the husband to use contraceptives. If the contraceptives failed, she could have approached the courts for termination of pregnancy. If the husband sabotaged her birth control, then it will be a case of marital rape and the husband liable to prosecution. Survival of the child matters but less than the life of mother. Abortion in such cases in legal. Male or female child does not make any difference, a child is a child. I do not know where do you find a problem.

I’m quite aware that in some parts of the world, abortions are selectively performed based upon the sex of the fetus. I’m also quite aware that there is a long history of abandoning or selling female babies, and even if ‘accidental’ kitchen fires that cause the deaths of young brides whose husband’s families are unhappy with the dowry…

 

[aupmanyav]

I’m quite aware that in some parts of the world, abortions are selectively performed based upon the sex of the fetus. I’m also quite aware that there is a long history of abandoning or selling female babies, and even if ‘accidental’ kitchen fires that cause the deaths of young brides whose husband’s families are unhappy with the dowry…

Determination of fetal sex is not permissible in India and carries heavy punishment, same for illegal abortions, abandoning and selling any child, male or female. If a women dies within 7 years of marriage and her people suspect any criminality, then they are free to file a case and it will be investigated.

"In 1961, the government of India passed the Dowry Prohibition Act, making the dowry demands in wedding arrangements illegal.

In 1986, the Indian Parliament added dowry deaths as a new domestic violence crime. According to the new section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, where a bride "within 7 years of her marriage is killed and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or any relative of her husband, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death."

The offenders can be sentenced for any period, from a minimum of seven years in prison to a maximum of life."

Bride burning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

India is moving with times. Do not think that we are still in the feudal age.

 

[Millrat]

This thread isn’t about Indian law or your reading of it.
Those views are abhorrent to any rational adult.

Then why are people persisting in asking me questions on Indian law?
You find them abhorrent. But these are laws created by due process by the representatives of people of a democratic country and accepted by its independent judiciary as not being against the Constitution of the country. Do you want to impose the laws of your country on Indian people? Where the laws face a problem we correct them in due course. Nothing is written on stone. There are processes in which Constitution or law can be changed (Amendments, remember?).

I don’t see people doing that. I see people trying to clarify your position on this subject. That is, you seem to endorse what appears to be a double standard under Indian law as it pertains to sexual intercourse between men and women.

 

[Shadowy Man]

apparently, if she doesn’t want the consequences of sex she should not be having it. She shouldn’t trust her husband to be responsible with birth control since he won’t face any responsibility if she gets pregnant. Therefore if she gets pregnant it will be all her fault and she’ll have to suffer all the burdens and risk.

If she allowed sex without contraceptives, then it means she was not against pregnancy.

That’s not the scenario I proposed. Read it again.

If the husband forced sex, then it is marital rape where abortion is permissible.

Marital rape (and any rape) can be very difficult to prove.

If the contraceptives failed, then again abortion is permissible.

Contraceptives are known to fail so wouldn’t that be part of the risk that the woman takes and thus should not absolve her of her responsibility? Its ok to murder a baby if a condom breaks?

Where does Indian law makes it all a woman's fault?

I don’t know the law, I’m only going by what you are saying.

It seems some of my friends here do not have a legal mind. But I am the grandfather of a future lawyer, so I know.

Good for you. I am the son of a lawyer, so one generation closer to a lawyer than you. And if professional knowledge of a field is hereditary I don’t think that it would go up the family tree.