By: Gurbakhash Singh & K.S.Nijjar
Euthanasia and abortion have emerged to be the most important and controversial questions of our modem society. They have split the American Nation into prolife and prochoice groups. Sometimes physical demonstrations to prove Appoint result in violence and death. People who want to Know correct answers 10 these questions tum to their religion. Many interfaith meetings/seminars/radio talks have been held to sort out these issues and obtain a religious mandate to solve this dilemma. It is hoped that the stand supported by the scriptures can be sold to the people as the right answer to settle the issue perfectly.
Sikhism is regarded as a major living world religion. We Sikhs therefore are often invited to interfaith meetings social gatherings to explain the teachings of our faith regarding these two topics. During informal house gatherings foo, we may be required to present the Sikh solutions to these questions.
We, who have read the scriptures, know that there are no direct answers to these questions. We have to make our own decision under the light of the directions of our faith. This write up is intended to provide suitable answers to these complex questions, Scholars are requested to critically examine it and come out with better answers. We may not be able to arrive at one perfect decision acceptable to all the Sikhs; however analysis of these issues can help the Sikhs to crystallize their thought to be able to contribute their ideas in local and national meetings, Euthanasia or Mercy killing:
It is an act of causing death painlessly so as to end sufferings, particularly in case of incurable diseases.
Helping an individual to overcome suffering/pain is a religious dictum. Therefore, the words “end suffering” are considered by some to justify euthanasia, Because of this, it is advocated to be morally night and religiously permissible. The analysis, however, does not show it to be that simple an act Principle of “Sewa” (service to humanity) should be our guide eyen for the terminally sick patients. It should be provided to an individual without looking for the end result. Pingalwara, the organizations solely involved in the “Sewa” of the helpless, the destitute, the severely handicapped, the poor, and the terminally sick, is a good role model for us to follow. An insane or unconscious person cannot take correct decision. Our decision should be to help them and serve them till they reach the natural end of their life. Once that stage has reached, the person has a night to die with dignity and should be allowed to do that, keeping such person artificially alive through gadgets is nothing but delaying their death or in other words prolonging their sufferings, hence an undesirable act. However if a person who is conscious and wished to live longer with all the sufferings, it is justified to keep him alive by all the means available to the medical sciences. The case becomes complicated when a person is conscious and wants to end his/her life. It needs to be looked from a wider perspective. There are many situations where one wants to end one’s life; one may not be able to bear the death of a beloved one, financial problem, continuous body pain without relief etc., these problems sometimes lead persons to end their life. All of us would have read some such cases and felt sorry for these people. In such cases, instead of encouragement to terminate life counseling to overcome depression is considered the right answers if the sickness is detected in time. Physical pain can be treated with medicine; ending life consciously to give relief from suffering is a murder, both a sin and a crime.
Sikhism guilds we to obey the Will of God (Bhana Mannana) during pain and pleasure, The Gurus disapproved the custom of Sati… Also there are cases of many people who wanted to end their lives in moments of despair and depression, but later lived a very productive life, useful for others and rewarding to themselves.
We may conclude that giving a fatal injection to end a conscious person’s pain and sorrow is a murder whereas keeping a terminally sick and unconscious person artificially alive is prolonging suffering, hence not right.
ABORTION:
The issues involved are more complex in this case, while trying to reduce this problem; sociologists have enlarged it and intensified it. Their suggestions have gone awry, to avoid unwanted pregnancies; they advocated “sex education” to the school students. Although on paper it seems to be the most logical approach to be taken, but in practicality looking at the results one cannot escape the conclusion that these sensitive teachings were and are misunderstood by majority of the youth, from these lessons they rather got a green signal to motivation to start sexual activity too early. The stigma of immorality attached to the unwedded sex has also slowly faded. As a consequence, we find today that sex in school, earlier an exception, has become almost a norm with the unwary students. They got sexually triggered by discussions of sex in class approved by the teachers. We know about numerous cases of those young girls who have delivered more than one babies while still in school, and of those who have had as many as four abortions. Thus, while trying to protect a few disoriented youth, the policy of “sex education” has lead millions of youth to ruin their lives.
“Prevention is better than cure”, as the proverb goes. To solve these problems of pregnancy, instead of looking for easy abortion let the youth are clearly and emphatically told about the old maxim “No wedding, No sex””. Even when both the partners are willing, premarital sex should be considered a legal and moral offence instead of being an accepted social behavior. The persons found to be in violation of this may be required to perform community service or even some legal financial punishment.
‘This all may look orthodox but it will help the youth to lead their lives in the night and safe direction instead of being problem to themselves and to the nation. How sad it is to see school children giving birth to children. The label of immorality for unwedded sex must be revived and used to check the need of abortion. Unfortunately, antiabortionists have totally ignored this aspect. They spend more time and energy in confronting the abortionists than removing the cause of abortion, the unwanted pregnancies.
The above policy will sharply reduce the, ‘rate of ever-increasing unwanted pregnancies. Of course, it will not end them. They may still result from rape or simply from a stupid act or a chance failure to avoid it.
Abortion is an act of miscarrying or producing young before the natural time when the fetus is not perfectly formed to survive outside the womb of the mother.
Following stages before the birth may be identified for sake of this discussion egg, partially developed fetus, perfectly developed fetus and birth.
All of us agree that killing a child after birth is a: murder and illegal, The problem is related to the stages earlier than birth, when some people consider the artificial destruction of the fetus a “murder” while others regard it to be the “choice” of the mother to not to have the baby born.
It is generally agreed that a woman has a right to “not to have sex” or to have “protected sex” and to let the eggs die unfertilized. By some people even the act of “protected sex” may be considered to be a kind of “murder”, because in such a case the egg is prevented from getting fertilized which otherwise is capable of producing a baby if allowed to do so.
Many people on the other hand may not even object to an act in which a fertilized egg or an embryo is washed out of the womb and it is not allowed to get attached to the placenta to grow to be a fetus. Normally the embryo would have produced a child if allowed 10 stay in the womb.
Taking of anti-pregnancy “pills” therefore is considered by some a kind of “murder” while the majority of the people do not think so, some faiths, e.g. Catholic Christianity does not approve of it.
On the issues of “protected sex” or taking of anti-pregnancy “pills”\we agree with the choice of the mother who is to carry the baby and to nurse it after it is born. However it becomes a very difficult situation when in case of an actual pregnancy the decision is to be made between the right of “choice” of a very visible mother to let or not to let the baby continue developing in her body, and the right to “life” of the invisible baby.
Layman’s heart goes out for a perfect fetus which has grown, has got differentiated into limbs, has become “alive” and is on the path to be delivered as a baby, and all of a sudden is decided to be terminated. At this stage, it is very hard to accept the choice of the mother to not to let the fetus to grow and get delivered as a baby.
On can come up with many reasons to reconcile with the mother’s “choice to terminate at every Stage of the fetus, for example;
A woman might have been raped or she might have failed to protect herself in the heat of passion. While in a “dilemma” she might have failed to make the right decision. Therefore it will not sound right to prohibit her from correcting her misfortune, mistake or weakness.
There could be many physical health, financial position, personal values, social reasons, age (a teenager not competent to be a mother), All together or separately may be so demanding that she makes a “choice” to not to have a baby.
Under some special circumstances, her own life may be in Jeopardy.
Giving birth to the child and NOL providing a mother for the Child is to make the child suffer. Love of mother is as essential to a child as clothes and food. People can provide food but not 4 motherly loves. Termination of life may seem to be a better choice compared to a life devoid of love and caring.
Looking at both sides of the coin, i.e., the mother’s right of “choice” to terminate her pregnancy, and the unborn baby’s right to “life”, massive doze of “education”, and “support” in Situations of despair seem to be the logical approach.
Before a mother is allowed to terminate her unseen baby, she should be provided with information regarding all the avenues like adoption etc., which might be open to her. In addition she may be made to delay her decision by a few days so that she does not terminate a life in haste. She should be provided with all the physical and psychological support humanly possible.
Permission to a woman to have her “choice” should not be considered as a license to get involved in irresponsible sex for the fun of it, get pregnant and claim abortion. It should be considered a very serious matter. She should be given the understanding that, sex is an expression of a responsible love, and not something that could be used to cheapen human life.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a very hard decision for the mother. One cannot deny the fact that she does this in Situation of extreme despair, perceived or real. The psychological impact of such an act is heavy enough to last her whole life time. Therefore any legislative pressure is going to achieve nothing more than adding to her misery. Also, if she finds her to be so desperate then, she is bound to go for it legally or illegally. In case she happens to opt for the later choice, she may end up with an additional problem regarding her health because of a back alley abortion.
Therefore, if despite all the counseling, support, and education she decides to terminate her baby, she should not be denied this choice, no matter how hard it is on the conscious of the mother and the society.
Thus with maximum emphasis on “Prevention” of unwanted pregnancies through the application of every moral and societal pressures known (excepting legislative) and with the advocacy of maxims like “No wedding, no sex” etc., heavy mandatory “Education” and“ Support” must be the key techniques for tackling the post conception unwanted pregnancies. However when everything is said and done, the final choice still should rest with the mother.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 10, 1993
