ETHICAL ATROCITIES THAT PERMIT THE TAKING OF LIFE

This article is based on a Malayalam original by Fr. Dr. Michael Pulikkal CMI. It has been translated and adapted for clarity, style, and context; the wording is not a literal translation. The present version has been prepared solely for the use of my (non-Malayalee) students in the bioethics course.

The order of the Supreme Court of India dated April 24, 2026, is a recent example of how contemporary legal interpretations of motherhood and the right to life of the unborn are eroding the moral conscience of humanity. The observations made by the bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagaratna, while permitting the termination of the pregnancy of a 15-year-old survivor at 28 weeks (seven months), are not merely an emotional response to a particular case; they also set a precedent that may influence future legal frameworks.

The Court’s rejection of the humane and life affirming proposal of adoption, suggested by the Central Government, demands serious scrutiny. The Court clarified that the government’s argument, why a life should be terminated when mechanisms for adoption exist, cannot compel a woman to continue her pregnancy against her will. The use of the term “woman” in this context signals a broader legal trajectory, where motherhood may increasingly be treated as a purely personal choice, not only in the case of minors but for adults as well.

This judgment reflects a legal approach that prioritizes the physical autonomy of the woman while largely disregarding the rights of the unborn child. Such decisions suggest that humanity is paralyzed by the technicalities of the law. Choosing to end a life despite the real possibility of adoption raises serious ethical concerns.

When the Safety of Life in the Womb is Weakened

The amendments to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in 2021 have paved the way for such judgments. The original 20 - week limit under the 1971 Act was extended to 24 weeks. Since then, courts have frequently permitted termination even beyond this limit under exceptional circumstances.

The broad interpretation of “mental health” within the amended Act has made it easier to obtain permission for late - term abortions. However, in assessing such mental trauma, judicial reasoning often neglects the rights of the unborn child, as well as the possible psychological impact on the mother of terminating a life that is nearly fully developed.

A review of judicial decisions over the past five years reveals an increasingly lenient stance toward the right to life of the unborn. A landmark judgment in September 2022 extended the right to abortion up to 24 weeks to unmarried women, a provision previously limited to married women. While this was celebrated as a victory for individual freedom, it arguably weakened the protection afforded to life in the womb. The Catholic Church and prolife movements had already cautioned that such legal developments could lead to significant moral consequences.

“We Cannot Stop the Heartbeat of the Unborn”

In contrast, a judgment in October 2023 offered a more life affirming perspective. In a case involving a 26-week pregnancy, a three - judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that “we cannot stop the heartbeat of the baby” and ruled against termination after medical reports confirmed the viability of the fetus. However, the allowance of termination at 28 weeks in the present case highlights a troubling inconsistency in judicial reasoning. While some High Courts have recognized the identity and dignity of the unborn, often recommending adoption as a humane alternative, the Supreme Court has tended to prioritize individual liberty. This trend reinforces the concern that legal interpretations are increasingly guided by subjective considerations rather than consistent ethical and scientific principles.

The Right to Life: For the Born and the Unborn

The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution must extend not only to those already born but also to the unborn. The law cannot evade its responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. When courts dismiss meaningful possibilities such as adoption under the label of “forced motherhood,” the message it sends to the unborn child is terrifying. When the law implies that the interests of the mother outweigh the very existence of the child, it signals a dangerous shift in the foundations of justice. Adoption remains a noble and life-saving alternative; ignoring it reflects a collective moral failure.

Abortion is Murder!

The transformation of abortion from an exceptional measure into an asserted right has contributed to a moral desensitization within society. In the case of a 28-week-old fetus, one that is approaching viability, the ethical implications are profound. Sacrificing a life for the mistakes of adolescence cannot be justified in a civilized society. A society committed to justice must seek solutions that uphold both the dignity of the woman and the life of the unborn, rather than eliminating one in favour of the other. There is also a serious concern that such legal permissiveness may inadvertently protect perpetrators while further victimizing survivors. Justice cannot be served by silencing one life in response to another injustice.

Towards a Culture of Life

Many such cases arise from hidden pregnancies, often involving adolescents, shaped by fear, social stigma, and lack of guidance. By the time these situations come to light, the pregnancy has often advanced significantly. What such young individuals need is not the option to end life, but compassionate support, counselling, and protection. Society must develop structures that safeguard both the mother and the child, offering alternatives rooted in care, dignity, and responsibility. Addressing the deeper causes, lack of moral formation, distorted understandings of human relationships, and harmful influences mediated through digital culture, requires a coordinated effort among families, educational institutions, voluntary organizations, and the government.

The Church’s Stand on the Dignity of Life

The Church has consistently upheld the sanctity of life from the moment of conception. Life is a gift from God, and no human authority has the right to destroy it. Scientific understanding affirms that what exists in the womb is not merely a lump of flesh, but a distinct and developing human individual. The rhetoric of “my body, my choice” often overlooks this fundamental reality. The Church seeks to remind society that another life, independent and worthy of protection, exists within the mother, and that both the state and the legal system have a responsibility to defend it. Though often challenged by those who identify as progressive, the Church’s position remains grounded in its commitment to the most vulnerable. Its mission is to be a voice for those who cannot speak, the unborn.

The Law Must Protect Life

Even in a context where systems exist to support motherhood and adoption, it is morally untenable to justify the termination of an unborn child as a form of justice. The legal system must correct interpretations that deny the personhood of the unborn. The misuse of provisions within the MTP Amendment Act of 2021 must be addressed. When abortion is framed solely as a right, detached from ethical responsibility, society risks losing its moral foundation. The Constitution must remain a guardian of life. Laws should protect life, not facilitate its destruction.