Virender Sehwag

Its high time i wrote an article on this special batsman. First up, hats off to his performance in the 2nd test at Galle. His single handed batting display where he scored 201 of the 329 runs in the first innings is the prime reason for our victory!

I hate calling myself a "fan" of anybody. Maybe its because fans are often narrow minded and non-critical when it comes to their respective "idols". And maybe its also because fans know a lot of info and trivia about their idols, which i certainly don't have. Hence I'd rather call myself an Admirer. Until a year ago, it has been only Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble from our Indian Cricket Team that i call myself an admirer of. Now, Viru too!

He is one of the most exciting cricketers to me. When he is out on the field to bat I'm always on my heels! ( not literally! :-D ) You'll never know what he does next. I tell you, i cannot imagine many players who would hit a sixer to get to their triple century.

Such is the courage and attitude of this guy. And that's what i like most about him. His attitude to the game. The way he approaches his batting is unique. The naivety he possesses with regards to his batting is a joy to watch. I remember Ravi Shastri quoting him from an interview saying that "When i go out on the field to bat, all i think of as an opener is to whack the ball all over the park. Because thats only way i can make the new ball old and remove its shine and swing!!" :-D

His chirpiness on the field whether batting, bowling or fielding is another thing i like. I hope Viru never changes and he is the same always. He is an asset to the team and i think he should never be dropped from it. Because when Sehwag clicks, he can demolish the opposition like none else! He is a real match-winner!

The Abortion Issue

This has always been a hotly debated topic as Rationalism and Religion take different stances on this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, i think religious views should be altered based on circumstances which warrant an abortion.

A possible case might be that of a rape victim. In the rare case that she is unable to recieve medical treatment immediately following rape, and, in the rarer case that she becomes pregnant, is it then justified to perform an abortion on the unborn foetus?

What we should consider in this case is that the bearer of the consequences of rape i.e. the pregnant woman has not made the Choice to become pregnant. But there lies a Choice whether to perform an abortion on the foetus. Why should the woman bear a child which can cause her mental agony, because of the nature of events leading to its birth. Besides it is not a Choice she made. It was an act of violence.

Pro-ethicists and theologians may argue that this is just as bad as a career-oriented abortion from the point of view of the unborn foetus. But the comparison is ridiculous as the situation and reasons are different. They may also say that that the attitude of these pregnant women towards their unborn child, may progressively change from repulsive to that of something innocent. That is however a subjective view and varies from person to person. It is easy for them to pose such arguments than placing themselves in the woman's position.

Today you have the Mehtas' case making news on all channels throughout the country. As per the law, according to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, abortions are permitted up to the 12th week of pregnancy. Between the 12th and the 20th week, an abortion can be permitted with the consent of two doctors only if the mother or the child faces a fatal risk. However, beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, an abortion can be conducted only if the mother’s life is in danger and not the child’s. A doctor, who conducts an abortion beyond the 20th week for any reason apart from a fatal risk to the mother, can be sentenced to imprisonment of up to seven years. Unfortunately the mother (Mrs. Mehta) is in her 25th week of pregnancy and has found out that her child has a congenital heart problem. Should the law be amended?

I firmly believe so. The law cannot make exceptions. And hence has to be amended. The law exists to make lives better and safer. It is not the mother's or the child's fault that only a
diagnosis after 20 weeks revealed the defects. Besides, the fundamental question which arises is, Is it necessary to give birth to a child whose life is at a fatal risk from the moment it is out of the womb? Is it necessary to give birth to a child who cannot lead a normal life like others, when the birth itself can be avoided? Why does the child and the mother have to undergo suffering and agony for no mistake of theirs?