An Advocacy Institute on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights was conducted by the Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP) in association with Youth Advocacy Network Sri Lanka (YANSL), in Colombo, Sri Lanka, this August. I was privileged and honored at being selected as a participant.

The extent to which it opened my eyes to new issues is beyond words. The concept of SRHR, the notion of being pro-choice and anti-choice, gender understanding and the role of patriarchy in shaping our societies were some of the subject matter. Obsolete and discriminatory laws, which criminalize abortion and the impact of unsafe abortion on women health and life, were few of the other themes under discussion.

During the workshop many premises in connection with SRHR were defended whereas others were warded off. While debating the legal statues of abortion, one of the obvious arguments was that “fetus is a human life and has right to live”. Which implies that abortion is literally the killing of a human being, which is not permissible, and thus it’s for the good that it should be outlawed. For the sake of argument let’s query ourselves. Does the right to life also mean the right to be kept alive by another person? Keeping this question in mind, consider the following thought experiment and then make your mind up.
“A married couple having a child got divorced. With the will and consent of the child and in accordance with the best interest of the child it was decided that he will reside with his father. The women got married to another person and living a happy life with her spouse, two sons and a daughter. Meanwhile her son from the previous marriage got some rare disease and going to die unless he gets a bone marrow transplant. Turns out that the only compatible match, who has to go through a series of painful invasive bone marrow extraction, is his mother. The mother feels sorry and bad, but is not willing to make this substantial sacrifice to keep him alive”

At this point let’s forget about factors like mother’s love, cultural values and norms etc, and ask ourselves two fundamental questions;
1. Would it be permissible and okay to extract bone marrow from the mother forcibly to keep the child alive?
2. Should the mother be subjected to court and law for not providing her body?
Although it’s the same biological mother to the son in the given case in point, but I assume, the answers would be NO to both questions. So in principle we can’t hold people accountable for not consenting to provide their body to others or for that matter to the fetus.

Preventing women from being able to control her own body is a violation of her basic right.

She should be able to choose, always, if and when to get pregnant and whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
As advocates for women’s right, it is our duty to speak up for this right, everywhere and every time that we encounter any barriers.