Who'll Give the Life and Who'll Take it Away?

Not just another philosophical treatise

In one of the episodes of popular American drama series, Boston Legal, a Democrat lawyer (Alan Shore) takes a dig at his Republican colleague (Denny Crane) for his stand on capital punishment, "On one hand, you Republicans favour capital punishment and on the other hand, you call yourselves pro-life."

For those who are unable to comprehend this amusing statement, pro-life campaigners are the ones who favour criminalisation of abortion, as against the pro-choice campaigners who argue for the reproductive rights of the woman, i.e. her right to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

Curiously, while the Republicans view the foetuses and embryos as a person, hence argue for their right to life, they also argue for the continuance of capital punishment, which the Democrats find violative of the right to life of a person.

This is the paradoxy that I'll try to understand here and see where do I stand in these two debates.

If I try to see from the Republican perspective, somehow I can reconcile this paradoxy. The embryo and the foetus form the initial stages in the evolution of a human being, the starting point of the life. Embryo comes into the existence due to the act of someone else. So why should it be deprived of the opportunity to come out of the womb, into the world because of no fault of his/her! On the other hand, capital punishment is granted for an act committed by a person which has resulted in some serious loss to someone else. So, the culprit is liable for his/her grievous action.

I am a liberal, so how come I am upholding the conservative stand of Republicans! The truth is, there are no strict divisions on the two questions. The different viewpoints lie somewhere on an axis, where the so-called Republican and Democratic stands are the two ends. The question is of the degree.

I remember taking part in an extempore some years back where I had to speak in favour of the capital punishment. Luckily, my personal stand was in coherence to the task at stake and I emphatically declared, "If a person can take away someone's life, the State has the right to take away his/her life". Even today, I am pro-capital punishment but as it exists in India. According to the Indian Supreme Court ruling, capital punishment is reserved for the rarest of the rare cases.

On the other hand, I am against the use of capital pinishment as it exists in countries like China and Saudi Arabia where it has been employed as an instrument in the hands of the Communist Party and the Monarchy, respectively to quell any kind of resistance, hence leading to major human rights violations.

However, even in India, a lot of ambiguity lies in the usage of the term 'rarest of the rare', hence leading to different interpretations at different times. There is a need to form a stronger concensus on the types of cases that might fall under it and the types of safeguards that need to be employed to ensure consistency as well as prevent any innocent from being deprived of his/her right to life.

I can understand to some extent, the argument of those against capital punishment that a life-long imprisonment in jail is a harsher punishment for repenting a heinous crime like say, rape and murder of a minor, committed by someone than an instant punishment of death.

However, in Indian scenario, capital punishment is a must to handle issues like terrorism. Keeping the dreaded terrorists in jail for longer periods can act as an incentive for their accomplices to re-enact Kandahar like hijackings or other such operations.

While the issue of capital punishment has been there in debates in India for long, the abortion rights came into limelight just a year ago with the Niketa Mehta case in the Mumbai High Court.

Again the question is of degree. While the Indian law permits an abortion of a foetus upto 20 weeks old; in some western countries, its allowed upto 26 weeks. This upper limit has been decided keeping in mind the concern for the health of both the pregnant woman and the foetus. So, here one of the conflict is based upon deciding this upper limit.

In the immediate case, the foetus was 25 weeks old but had been diagnosed with congenital heart problem. Niketa Mehta moved the court for termination of her pregnancy. However, the court ruled against it exactly an year ago on Aug 4, 2008. Incidentally, she had a miscarriage soon after.

In such a case, where it is known, the child once born will be forced to lead a painful life, one may argue for the right of the mother to decide upon carrying the foetus or not, but in the Indian context, abortion is related to a major social problem of female foeticide too. Today states like Punjab and Haryana are having skewed sex ratios due to the misuse of ultrasound tests and selective gender abortions. Though such tests have been outlawed for long but still the misuse is on.

Hence, it is not easy to take any particular stand without looking at all these aspects. One cannot blindly adhere to pro-life or pro-choice perspective, nor can one totally discard or accept the capital punishment.

As, I say so often, things are not always black or white. Its important to identify the different shades of grey that lie within. However, a person must strive to recognise his distinct shade of grey rather than hopping from one blurry grey to another all the time. This post was an attempt to find my distinct shade of grey. Though I failed in this endeavour, I find myself closer to it. So while I keep trying, you too give it a thought!

P.S.
The image relating to abortion might look insensitive to some of the readers. I'll like to apologise to them for the same.

Don't miss my latest review and recommendation of Frost/Nixon

Image Courtesy:
http://ash1973.files.wordpress.com and http://hyerstandard.com (edited)

Let the Gay be Gay!

Saurav	How shameful!
Gaurav	Why? What happened?
Saurav	These people. All these homos.
Gaurav	Homos? You mean LGBT right?
Saurav	What LG.. TD..?
Gaurav	I said LGBT, i.e. lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders.
Saurav	Yeah, whatever. Just see them hugging each other, making merry after the Delhi High Court verdict. How could H.C. legalise their preposterous acts.
Gaurav	Preposterous acts? Why preposterous?
Saurav	Because they are against the order of the nature, against the Will of God.
Gaurav	Well, I believe in that case we are acting preposterously 24X7.
Saurav	What do you mean?
Gaurav	God sent us on this earth naked, you see. Don't you think He must be willing to see us in that condition only. By wearing clothes, my dear friend, aren't you going against his Will?
Saurav	What rubbish. Don't draw stupid comparisons for God's sake.
Gaurav	Ohkey! For God's sake let it be. But how do you know what was the God's Will?
Saurav	Well, he made a man and he made a woman. He gave them the power to recreate. Hence, in a sense, he delegated them, 'not' him, 'not' her, he delegated 'them', his power to create a new life. That was the God's Will. And that shall remain his Will.
Gaurav	Well said Dude. I agree. Even if I am not clear with this whole concept of God and his Will, I agree that life can be generated by only a Man and a Woman in unison. And that is a beautiful power the two possess, meaningless without the other.
Saurav	So you see, these gays and lesbians are making a mockery of this power they possess. They are abdicating from their duty.
Gaurav	Well, they can adopt if they want. That will solve a big social problem. Give a family and a home to so many orphans.
Saurav	Yeah, sure. And these poor orphans will be made fun of when they grow up, right. For they won't have a mother and a father but just one of them but in a pair.
Gaurav	Who'll make fun? At least I won't. The ignorant might. That's why there is need to remove this ignorance and bring the LGBT's from the periphery to the core of society.
Saurav	Which core? You know, actually there are very few such queer people. Its all this media hype and movies that make normal people try the preposterous stuff.
Gaurav	C'mon man. Now don't pull media into this. The reality is that such people exist in our society but we are not ready to accept it. There are so many who are leading the life of heterosexual out of the fear of this very society.
Saurav	So it is good, right. Everyone should be afraid of society.
Gaurav	Where does this fear go, my dear friend when you watch that porno stuff on your lappie or talk dirty to girls on your cell?
Saurav	That is just harmless stuff man. And that is my personal life. Again you are drawing irrelevant comparisons.
Gaurav	Personal Life? These stupid conventions of society are destroying the personal lives of so many LGBT's, you know. They have disastrous married life, putting up with a falsehood everyday of their life. Their partner can not reveal it out of associated taboo and both keep on carrying their daily chores without any zeal, without any love.
Saurav	Whatever!
Gaurav	No wait. And harmless you said. What harm have they done to you or society.
Saurav	AIDS, my dear friend AIDS. Do you know, how high is the prevalence of AIDS amongst gays? They carry out their preposterous acts using no protection whatsoever. To top it, they maintain multiple relationships unlike heterosexuals. All this breed AIDS and that is the biggest possible harm they are doing, you see.
Gaurav	Ohkey! I agree. That is a valid point you have made though only in parts. But remember, there is need to educate them about this harm. After all, the biggest harm is theirs, don't you think.
Saurav	Yeah, that's what i said. Educate them, tell them to lead a normal, healthy life of a heterosexual.
Gaurav	No, you are taking me wrong. I mean, educate them about AIDS and ways to protect themselves against it. It will be possible if medical professionals and relevant organisations clearly know what and where their target group is. And they will know it only if, homosexuality is legalised.
Saurav	What crap. All of them are so well organised carrying out stupid rallies every other day. How can you say it is difficult to target them.
Gaurav	I agree. And I believe, people must be making efforts through such mediums but still there are many who do not reveal their sexual orientation. Such cases must be far higher than those who openly lead the life of LGBT.
Saurav	But legalising won't remove the social taboo. The covert one's will continue to lead their lives as they do right now.
Gaurav	Another valid point. See, legalising will have two-pronged effect. Firstly, it will stop the harassment of LGBT's at the hands of unscrupulous police officials. The Section 377 of IPC is against an unnatural sexual act. Unnatural in the sense we discussed earlier. However, all this is done behind doors. So how can a homosexual be arrested when there is no evidence or witness to this act, unless there is a valid complaint.
Saurav	So, you mean the police officials who take undue advantage of the knowledge of someone's queerness, won't be able to harass them for bribe.
Gaurav	Or maybe sexual gratification. Don't you have gays in the police department!
Saurav	Well, I think all of them are!
Gaurav	Hey, do not use the word 'gay' as an abuse.
Saurav	Whatever! Anyways, what is the second point.
Gaurav	That's coming to the point which you raised about law being ineffective in presence of social pressure. At least a start has to be made somewhere. Yesterday's editorial of 'Hindu' carried a beautiful thought. It said that in non-negotiable social issues, government must lead the public opinion and not tail its least enlightened strands or go for the lowest common denominator.
Saurav	Nice thought indeed.
Gaurav	Yup. So the verdict of H.C. is a welcome move on the part of judicial wing of the government. Now it is the time for the legislative and executive wings to act. I believe former Union Health Minister Ramadoss took a great initiative by bringing this issue into limelight.
Saurav	He was just a masquerading populist politician. Wasn't he? Went overboard with that ban on smoking issue of his, reducing the Health Ministry to a one-point agenda.
Gaurav	Yeah, I agree to some extent. But still, by initiating the discussion on Gay rights, he did what Bill Clinton did in USA back in 1992. Gay rights was a very important platform on which he fought and won that election against Bush Senior.
Saurav	But did he do anything after that?
Gaurav	No, just put it under the carpets after winning. Our government should not do so at this opportune moment. There is a need to welcome the High Court's verdict and as soon as possible amend or if need be repeal the Section as recommended by the judge. For time being, it shall be read down, i.e. will be applicable for cases like paedophilia or rape of a homosexual but will be ignored for cases of consensual intercourse between an adult couple of same sex.
Saurav	What other option do the Government have?
Gaurav	Nothing. So better do it. The H.C. has regarded the gay rights as falling under the Article 21 of Indian Constitution that guarantees that every citizen has equal protection of life and personal liberty. Moreover, H.C. finds Section 377 violative of Articles 14 and 15 which gaurantee equality before law and prohibits the State from discriminating against anyone on the grounds of sex.
Saurav	Article 21? Wow, that has been the most potent tool in the hands of judiciary, right? They have added so many provisions under it like those relating to ecology, education, police brutality, legal aid and so on.
Gaurav	Right. And even if the case goes further to Supreme Court, I have no doubt, the acme of justice in India will uphold the H.C.'s verdict. Moreover, this initiative has to be taken to its logical conclusion.
Saurav	And what is it?
Gaurav	Its legalising the same sex marriages.
Saurav	Wow! What's left anyway.
Gaurav	My friend, when the Constitution can guarantee everyone the right to choose one's religion, then why not, one's sexual orientation too? Everyone fail to understand this particular point, calling LGBT's by weird names, calling them psychologically imbalanced and what not. Such, so called believers of God don't realise that God has created this world with abundant marvels, human beings being one of them. We see perfection as the way we want to perceive it. Just because a large majority happen to be heterosexual does not make the others queer. They are normal human beings, not imperfect but just with a different taste.
Saurav	Yup, even I happened to be one such 'so called' God believer just few moments ago.
Gaurav	Its great, you finally understood. Having said all this, I must confess that even I sometimes wonder what a gay sees in another guy when such a beautiful creation of God is there to marvel.
Saurav	Right, the hot chicks!
Gaurav	Hmmm.. the girls, i mean. But that is their choice and i respect it.
Saurav	For us only a girl will do.
Gaurav	Not 'a' girl, but two girls my dear friend.
Saurav	Right. Lets get ready for the geri. Time to find those two!

Update (July 3, 2009)

Also read my discussion with Dhiman in the Comments section where he has raised some intelligent concerns. This discussion takes the Saurav-Gaurav discussion towards its logical conclusion.

Image Courtesy:

http://tarmojuristo.files.wordpress.com