REFLECTIONS ON ISSUES THROUGH FIVE ELEMENTS

Abortion: Abortion regulated under conditions are based on; time-period of fetus growth, risk to life or grave physical or mental injury to pregnant mother or child, pregnancy of unmarried and mentally ill persons and failed sterilization processes. Now, does this mean that life does not begin the moment conception takes place recognizing that an evolving baby is only a blob of tissue till it reaches time-period of abortion? Does this mean that it is only human mind through scientific knowledge that decides when biological life is to be treated or converted into legal personhood? Does not pregnant woman’s right to body include right to protect another-body conceived inside no matter what law fixes as pre or post abortion stage? Is it not a duty of State to protect rights of fetus in the same way it protects rights of every-body in society? Should not planned parenthood a conscious self-responsibility of partners out of mutual consent? Or is it that men decide the necessity of pregnancy for women as well as their sexual and reproductive rights? In what way can fetus be subjected to verdict of law?

Euthanasia: Death of human life is explained differently as per medical science, psychology, spiritual dimensions of religion etc., like cessation of brain activity, decomposition of human body and permanent suspension of consciousness. However, between life and death an element of suffering of pain in human body gives a twist to human life – the right to die without any need to undergo suffering of pain, generally discussed under euthanasia. In technical sense death with dignity that euthanasia activists’ claim absolves sui-cide. Now, why death does not take place or happen when a person decides to die when it is claimed as right under self-determining autonomy that a person has over one’s body? Why is body not dying when mind decides to die? Does this not show a lack of connection between mind and body? Does this not show human nature has no control over life and death? Should State then be forced to assist one to die by avoiding its duty of compassion through pain-management and contribution to scientific development in revivifying life and reducing painful diseases? Can a doctor refuse to assist one to die by claiming it as professional right? What happens when death takes place by mistake, as exclusion of error is not always absolute? How do we obtain consent (legally) from one who is in vegetative state and cannot consciously give consent to death? Is it that being legally related to a suffering person gives one the right to decide other’s death in the name of removing suffering? Whose suffering is ended in this game of pain and suffering – a person suffering pain or the inability of legal relatives to withstand other’s suffering of pain? How do we guarantee to regulate suicide-syndrome? How do we prevent intentional or indirect refusal to give care for sick and elderly who suffer pain, cannot help themselves but want to live? All organisms of life from mineral to plant to animal to man struggle automatically by an inherent spirit and urge of life-force to survive for life. Life remains till it stops at all levels.

Such is the case with animal sports or animal testing for health benefits. How can human beings restrict or violate rights and liberties of animals for human benefits? Is it because human genus is special, superior and more moral in thought, feeling and conduct than the being of animals? Does this not reduce scope and value of justice as a determinant of human mind alone? With increasing role of sustainable development, biodiversity, global warming, climate change and planetary ecology in collective life, law has something to learn from religious beliefs or their inner dimensional spirituality on these issues which recognizes equality of treatment to all animate and inanimate things and beings of life. How far we all are ready to accept this deeper truth and awareness of all forms and types of life is to be decided collectively by all of us if we want ultimate (integral) justice for every aspect of existence.

As long as thought, feeling and conduct of human nature impacts only one’s own and individual sense of fulfilment and develops one’s own awareness of self by voluntary, conscious and free choice of decision, law must not only protect it but proactively provide conducive circumstances for its development. And such self-fulfillment, or growing self-awareness must be positive in out-growing from one limitation to another towards constant progress, expansion and perfection of energies and, certainly not negative, life-denying. However, problems come when commission and omission of thought, feeling and conduct encroaches into liberties and rights of others leaving law to regulate immediately no matter what religious beliefs command. Same-sex marriage, drug-use, surrogacy and morality must be seen through this perspective as to where they aid one’s self-fulfillment or not and law shall act only in positive manner. However, it must be understood that such perspective in the current nature of things in society is bound unfortunately by existing unequal social conditions, which in turn brings competing claims and power-struggle leading finally to instability and disorder. This is where integral dimensions of law and religion with five elements serve normative functions of law. It makes law reformative, therapeutic and preventive by foresight and integral knowledge and not just retributive or punitive that punishes ignorance of law or intentional guilt. State must support this through legal systems upon which society must gradually contribute to integral knowledge in the development of values that law shall encapsulate as norms of order and development for society. This brings justice through law.