( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 161    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

ABORTION: AGAINST COMPELLED MOTHERHOOD

    2 Author(s):  DR. SANJAY SOLANKI,MS. DEVERSHE BHATT

Vol -  10, Issue- 5 ,         Page(s) : 352 - 360  (2019 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

There are very few subject matters which have been discussed comprehensively at both national and international level, abortion is one of them. Whether women have absolute right over her body or whether foetus has right to life, whether decision of abortion is taken up by women only all these things had made situation convoluted. This wrangle can be summarizing in two words – Pro-choice and Pro-life. Abortion is very diverse as a subject matter because it is the peak of many aspects which includes religion, ethics, medicine and law. It is a social issue which imparts not only liberation but also the power to make the decision on their own. But the debate would be futile if it did not reckon the pivotal problem of female feticide. Liberation of women needs to be in parity against rights of the unborn child. In the 21st century, women are moving ahead shoulder to shoulder with men sharing all responsibilities, paying due respect and taking to high all professions in aspects. For the woman she still does not have any right to take decisions regarding her own body and her own life. She has taken every decision of her life depending upon the male counterpart, it may be father, brother, husband or son. The decisions like her marriage, bearing a child, pregnancy or abortion, where the vast Human Rights, Right to life and liberty contains all the variety of rights which everyone needs to enjoys the life.

  1.   section 3 of MTP act 1971
  2.   Section 3 (4) (a)
  3.   http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/123356/10/10_chapter4.pdf
  4.   (2005) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2005 SCC 3280
  5.   http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/123356/10/10_chapter4.pdf
  6.   Section 3 (2), explanation- I
  7.   (1994)1 mad LW (Cri) 16
  8.   Section 5
  9.   Section 5 (2)
  10.   Section 5 explanation -I
  11.   http://www.safeabortionwomensright.org/
  12.   http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=5&do_pdf=1&id=24507
  13.   410 U.S. 133 (1973)
      381 U.S. 479 (1965)
      136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)
      (14234/88) [1992] ECHR 68 (29 October 1992)
      (Application no. 5410/03) , case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2007.
      (Application no. 57375/08)
      1996 CriLJ 3795
       2000CriLJ671
      (2004) 3 CALLT 609 HC
      2001 (4) MPHT 20 CG
       (2009) 14 SCR 989
      civil smpil 1-16.doc
      1993 (0) MPLJ 361

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details