This blog may not offer you anything great, nor anything for your intellectual and academic pursuit. However, this blog is keenly focusing on the current happenings and some existential crises in and around us. It is just the reflections of the ‘reasoning I’ within me. Please make your sincere comments on the articles that are posted and let it be a platform to make our views and comments.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Lesser evil is always permissible



Scholastic schools of ethics and morality always give us consent to go for lesser evil when we have to choose between the two evils. When we are forced to choose between the supposedly two evils the lesser evil is always permissible in order to justify greater evil that we would be forced to commit otherwise. 

In the wake of Savita Halappanavar’s death that was caused she was denied the legal permission by the Irish government to go for an abortion and the end result was fatal that she lost her life and left her husband and family mourning. The untimely death of the Indian woman Savita posed so many ethical and moral questions that whether the fetus growing in her child should have been saved letting her die or she should have been saved letting the fetus die.

The law of the land where she has been living in, did not let her to go for an abortion that in any circumstance the fetus is given predominant consideration than the mother herself who is the caused cause of the fetus in her womb. So what happened in Savita’s case, both fetus and mother died eventually. Fetus could have been saved only if the mother was winning her battle for life and life of fetus is solely depending on the wellbeing of the mother.  

In this particular circumstance, killing the child which was growing in the womb of Savita is a lesser evil compared with letting the mother die if she has to give birth to the child. In the process of saving the child letting the mother die is a grater evil. So in any such given scenario, the lesser evil is always permissible that is to kill the child in order to save the mother. Now a few might raise their eye brows that what about the right of the child in womb to be born but who knows if the child would be born could be physically and mentally sound.

Even if the child is saved letting the mother die, the certainty of the survival of the child is always at stake and the biological mother is the best one to bring up the child. Mother being a grown up citizen of the society she has certain duties towards the society and social responsibility. The mother has her duties towards her husband, in-laws, her own parents and siblings in particular.

The probability of a child becoming anti-social and not becoming a good human being in the absence of mother’s love, care and affection is very high so it is better that the child die and if God permits she shall give birth to another child and bring up the child as a responsible citizen. In this either or choice game, the decision of mother (if she is in a position to decide) should be given due consideration as well as her husband’s.

Of course, the land should have its own laws and regulations, however, the authority should listen to what the husband-wife got to tell and the same should be given the due consideration before implementing the law of the land because at the end of the these are the two individuals deeply getting affected in the either or choice game.                  
      

No comments:

Post a Comment