Abortion and costs: The point being evaluated is that Cost (in essence, whatever form it takes) is often

the basis/reason for having an abortion (killing of a live baby in essence, where ever the little one is in the womb or outside healthy or not). Obviously the Cost will differ but the fact that a live baby is being killed does not. This is the same line of logic that drives the very basis of our defense of rights to participate regardless. The question is whether this logic of deciding on the rights of a defenseless human life based on Costs is valid or not. Interestingly, while we are counting our costs, the Cost to the baby is its life. So how come someone has the right to decide that because the costs are to high for him/her, the baby must pay the ultimate cost - with his/her life? What kind of social structures do we live among that the voiceless and the weak do not get the time and the space to speak up? Or is the baby to pay the ultimate cost BECAUSE it cannot speak up? Are we to become "decision makers" over everyone who is not yet in a position to make decisions? Shouldn't we possess a sense of responsibility to the weaker "other" to give him/her a voice? Does the age of subjects in a contestation of rights dominate the relevant discourse by brute strength and positions of power? How come we fight these power agendas across the board, but exhibit similar tendencies without missing a heartbeat when it comes to babies? Call me an anti abortionist but we are all well aware of the commitments that we have in defending the turfs for the underprivileged / voiceless / marginalized and we should wear this tag with joy in our defense of the voiceless be it the baby or the parent, who in this debate could be parallely (if not similarly) voiceless. Does Morality substitute the need for rationality or reasoning? There is no reason to believe that my entire rationale rests on morality or that morality is being invoked at the expense of reason. Moral right, moral value, moral status etc are words being thrown around but we have to first discuss what morality is and how it can be relevant in public. Does social or political logic or rational discourse displace the need for moral frameworks or foundations? I believe that it is these frameworks and foundations, which make rational discourse, social or political or cultural or whatever, even possible. If this is so, can I make an assumption that rationality exists within a world that prepares people to be moral adults? Where the morality of protecting the person exists before the rationality of calculating its costs. Where the morality of standing up for a child precedes the rationality that will lead to his success. And in all this the will, the action and the space to enable a non-judgmental and accepting ambience for the women who often are at the receiving ends of such a debate be of paramount significance.