Listen up, all ye faithful

This is being written primarily in response to a statement made by a former member of the Nazi youth, who goes around nowadays using an alias called Benedict XVI and a title called Pope. That's right, Sri Joseph Ratzinger aka The Pope, recently reiterated his stand on life, and emphasized the sanctity of life "from conceptualisation to its natural end" while speaking against abortion and euthanasia. The usual stuff against abortion and how we ought to respect life was present and the Pope then warned the faithful against legitimising euthanasia "by masking it with the veil of human compassion".

Right Papa Ratzi (or paparazzi), I catch your drift there, but I have trouble understanding one thing: if you're so interested in things reaching their 'natural end', would you be interested to know that there are millions of Christians (among millions of others of other faiths) who visit hospitals to get cured of various ailments and treated for various injuries? After all, using modern medicine to treat diseases and injuries too should constitute being 'unnatural', wouldn't it? I mean when's the last time you heard of or saw a wildebeest going to the hospital to treat a torn leg which was a result of a close encounter with a jaws of a crocodile? Now that certainly would have been unnatural, but humans going in to get treated for anything and everything is fine, ignoring the fact that hospitals are man made and hence not natural. Sorry pappy, haven't understood that one yet.

I'm sure when his predecessor Pope John Paul II was shot at by a young Palestinian, and doctors were operating on him, Ratzinger was cursing under his breath, hoping the Pope was left to reach his 'natural end' so he could then assume the title of Pope and get to wear the funny hats we see him in. What say pappy, did that bring in an extra few lines on your forehead, knowing that your shot at the top post in Christianity was scuttled because of some doctors doing something unnatural? Tch tch, that's too bad. What's more, the Pope has also given us his two cents on why certain food should be banned. I'm talking about the ban on foie gras, which came into effect in 2006 in Chicago because animal rights groups thought it was supposedly "cruel". Yes, I agree force feeding an animal is indeed cruel, but listen to what old Ratz had to say as to why it needs to be banned: "If it weren’t cruel or painful, you wouldn’t have so many countries that banned it". Jawohl, mein Fuhrer! Just in case your senility made you forget, we also have countries where women are stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights, and others are stoned to death for adultery, children are beaten with paddles, all because it says so in the Old Testament and in the sharia of the koran, and yet we see no ban on this. And I'm not even counting the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's well known that in countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, laws are framed in strict accordance to the sharia, and so, unless the Pope thinks that these punishments aren't cruel and brutal, I'd like him to comment on it when he can find the time in the midst of preaching that using condoms leads to AIDS! You didn't know that? The Vatican has for ages been against contraception because when Moses and Jesus and Mohammad lived, they didn't have any condoms, and back then if someone got a little frisky with a woman, voila! along came a baby. This probably explains the hatred Christians have towards Mary Magdalene.

Now, whatever I questioned above doesn't hold good only for Christians, but also for Muslims, Jews, and of late, even Hindus. Gone are the days when we could look at Hinduism as one of those cool, hip, and liberal philosophies, which didn't say a word against abortion or euthanasia or same sex marriages. Sadly, it too has been overrun by a bunch of zealots influenced by the kinds we are all too familiar with from the other monotheistic religions. How can the god these people pray to, be against giving a person a decent death? What sort of a god would it be that feels angered at the prospect of mortals giving their fellow mortals a decent end, one that even this great(?) god couldn't give? And doesn't it put an obligation on those worshipping such a god to question the motives of this so called divine and holy being?

Coming to another serious question, what gives only theologians the right to comment on life and how it ought to be lived and all the 'rules' of how to live? I don't remember there being a vote on this, so how it all come about? Did everyone else just accept it and move on? Although I'm not too keen on give this exclusive right to any one group, I think there ought to at least be a more diverse group involved in deciding what is the 'right' thing to do. We need to have those romantics of life, better known as philosophers, ans we most certainly need to have those well versed with the advances of modern science.

Why should there be a law against something based on the religious teachings of one (or a few) religion(s) that prohibits those of other religions from doing? Unlike murder, rape, or robbery, where the person getting affected is someone else, in case of euthanasia, it's only the person who wants to get eauthanised who gets affected directly. How about just having a rule that allows those who want to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) can go ahead and do so, and those who don't want to, don't worry, there's no pressure on you. I don't know about you, but I think that sometimes, the simplest solution is the best solution. So whichever mullah or imam or priest or pandit or rabbi or granthi is out there, maybe, just maybe, you guys would want to have a rethink on this one.

Abort! Abort! Abort!

Once again the debate about who should have the final say about the continuation of a pregnancy has shown it's ugly face. The question faced by the Mehta couple is that if their child is indeed born with a heart defect that could eventually lead to, at best, being on a ventilator, or at worst the child losing it's life due to heart failure (maybe dying would be the better option and being on the ventilator the worse option... I don't know), then would it be worth it. If the parents know that they cannot afford the costs to keep their child on a ventilator, what's wrong in them opting for an abortion of the pregnancy and try for another child, hopefully which wouldn't have any threatening defects?

The law here is based purely on medical science, which is that a pregnancy can be terminated only before 20 weeks and not after, for two important reasons: 1) A termination after 20 weeks increases the chances of risk to the mother's life. 2) After 20 weeks, technically, the foetus starts to show signs of life i.e. if it were to be delivered before the 20th week, it would be born as a still born (meaning without life), but if it were to be be born after the 20th week, it could technically survive because it would be born 'alive', and so in the most technical sense, you would be killing something (someone) that (who) has signs of 'life'.

Agreed, in the case of the Mehta's, the pregnancy is in it's 26th week, and so there could be risk to Mrs. Mehta's life. But if that is the sole reason to deny an abortion (because the mother is at risk), then why don't we have laws that check for risks involved in other day-to-day actions: like we've been taught in school to look right and then left while crossing the roads or we could end up in an accident, but we don't have laws that mandate we do this. Why not? After all, it could lead to death if not followed carefully. Hospitals are supposed to use disposable syringes, but a person reusing a syringe is not punished for putting his or her life in danger. There are several examples that can be cited to counter the argument that the mother's life may be at risk and hence the abortion shouldn't be performed.

For the Mehta's sake, I hope their child is born without any defects and can lead a normal life. What the heck am I saying: normal? How the hell can the child live a normal life even if he or she is born without any defects? The child's entire life will be enveloped in the fact that it's parents never wanted it to be born for fear of losing it, and all this because in the 21st century, we like to watch everything in technicolour. This story has been in all the news channels and papers and I'm certain that even if the child is insulated from this fact, he or she will eventually get to know about it. What then? Who should bear the responsibility for the child's trauma? The parents? No, not at all. Since it is primarily societal pressure that is preventing the couple from doing what they feel is best for their child, the blame has to be put squarely on our society. I certainly hope to live to see the day when we stop making decisions based on societal pressures (the first one that comes to mind apart from abortion is marriage of the girl child, where everyone's opinion but the girl's is taken).

Pro-life, pro-choice, the debate isn't new, not in India, not anywhere else in the world. It's been a cause for the religious loonies to lose their marbles every now and then, and it's also been the catalyst for a lot of political strife. I for one know that I am very consistent with my views on death. I'm pro death penalty, I'm pro choice (pro abortion), I'm pro suicide, I'm pro assisted suicide (euthanasia)... in short, I'm pro death if a person wishes it for himself or herself, and in the case of abortion, if they wish it for a foetus (because it isn't born yet, and only the parents get to decide if it's a 'person' or not, and if it should be 'born' or not). At least I'm not a hypocrite, which can't be said about most of those who are on the other side.