Supreme Court of India Authorizes Killing 30-Week-Old Unborn Baby in Abortion

Referring to the Supreme Court of India, the headline boasts “SC’s Landmark Ruling Allows 30-Week Abortion For Minor”.

The Times of India matter of factly explains

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the key issue was the minor’s right to decide whether she wanted to continue the pregnancy. They observed that the girl was a minor facing an unfortunate situation and did not wish to give birth.

Amit Anand Choudhary describes the decision to authorize aborting a child who weighs about 3 pounds, whose eyes can open and close, whose hands are fully formed, who may respond to voices or music, and whose “lungs are not fully mature but the baby is practicing breathing motions” even more sympathetically [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/minor-has-right-over-reproductive-choice-supreme-court/articleshow/128008025.cms]:

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

NEW DELHI: It was difficult for Supreme Court to decide – protect the interests of a 30-week pregnant minor girl who did not want an illegitimate child and seek termination of pregnancy or save the unborn child who, as a 30-week fetus, has a beating heart. But the scale of justice tilted in favour of the girl and SC allowed termination of pregnancy, saying she can’t be compelled to give birth to a child.

[“Scale of Justice”?!]

Finding itself in the tricky situation as it was asked to prioritise the competing interests, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan admitted it was not easy for it to decide the case. The court finally allowed the plea of the pregnant girl’s mother.

Put another way, we read

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl, observing that courts could not force a woman, especially a minor, to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to.

So, what else to justify exterminating a huge unborn child who will experience excruciating pain? The Hindu Times tell us

The court highlighted the right to reproductive autonomy of a woman. In the present case, the Bench noted that the minor had shown a clear and consistent unwillingness to continue the pregnancy

Unmentioned in most stories is that The Supreme Court of India “cancelled an earlier order from the Bombay High Court which had directed that the teenager be given comprehensive medical and psychological support until delivery and then send the baby to an orphanage for adoption,” according to Angel Rabiya Bhanushali whose story celebrated the cancellation.

In all of its demented wisdom, the Court said

“The appellant’s daughter is presently at J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai. We direct the J.J.Group of Hospitals, Mumbai to conduct the procedure of Medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the appellant herein by bearing in mind all medical safeguards.”

“All medical safeguards” for sure. For aborting a baby that far along holds the potential for serious complications for the mother—and, oh, by the way, the brutal death of a defenseless human being.

The post Supreme Court of India Authorizes Killing 30-Week-Old Unborn Baby in Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.