Niketa Mehta - The choice of Women ? Really ?

Most of us might have been aware of the Niketa Mehta abortion case. For the unknown here is a small snippet, Niketa Mehta and Harshad are a couple from Mumbai, Niketa got pregnant after her marriage and after 4 months discovered that the child in her womb was not in a healthy condition, the doctors had advised her that the child when born could have some disabilities and heart related issues. The couple feared that the child when born would go thru a lot of hardships and when they realized this they thought of aborting the child. But as per Indian Law a medical termination of pregnancy (abortion thru medical means) should be done within 20 weeks of getting pregnant. But Niketa was already the carrying the child for 22 weeks and hence they moved to the Mumbai High Court to get the courts order to allow abortion in their case. The court immediately sought the advice of medical fraternity, though divided in their opinion the medical fraternity believed that there was a high chance for the baby to have disabilities after it is born but never the less, the child might be lucky and may not have such issues as well. Since there was at least a glimmer of hope that the new born could live without any major disability the verdict of the court was that Niketa should not abort her child.

Once the court verdict was out there was a huge debate on this , some of the opinions which were flying across in the media (mostly in the visual media) were

a) Niketa as the mother of the unborn baby and as the carrier of the baby has all the rights to decide whether she can abort the baby or not , no body even her husband nor the government can force her to have or not have this baby.
b) The number of weeks to allow abortion should be raised from 20 weeks to something like 25 weeks, since the rule pertaining to 20 weeks was an old one and because of the advancement in the medical field in the last two decades it is considered that it is safe to carry out abortions even by the 25th week.
c) A silent group mostly of the disabled and the physically challenged people though were of the opinion that the child had the right to leave in this world and therefore Niketa should not be allowed to abort.

Until today I was a strong supporter of (a) above , but only till I read the following article in the Hindu. From now on I support only C .
Here is the link Alive to the joys of life which change me.

Most of us are not disabled at least in the physical sense , but as one writer put it across "you can become a disable any time .. on the road ..in your home .. any where , so If you have the right to live in this world then, then so does Niketa's child" .

PS: Niketa subsequently had a miscarriage.