Protection and human nature

Another mixed bag as usual. There is a new ad nowadays on the FM channels for a pill that prevents 'unwanted' pregnancy. The woman in the ad says that she took a pill post-intercourse that prevented her from getting pregnant. Now, imagine that some day in the future the couple decides to have children and the woman gives birth. She holds the new-born in her hands for the first time and is overcome with emotion at the sight of her child. Now what would her reaction be if somebody tells her that she once killed a life-form which would have taken the same form as the baby in her hand? Well, I do not wish to enter a discourse on the ethics of abortion, but still, is it ethical?

The Roman Catholic Church forbids abortion under any circumstance. A similar, if occasionally slightly more flexible stand is taken by other religions. A few popes were of the opinion that the foetus does not possess a soul till it starts kicking inside the womb. If I remember right, according to Hindu belief the soul enters the embryo as soon as fertilization takes place. So well, an abortionist would be guilty of what is called sisuhatya paatakam or sin incurred through child-murder. So should we say, that prevention is better than abortion? This opens up a further debate (which issue in today's world doesn't?) . Islam forbids birth control as does the Roman Catholic Church. I personally feel the prevention route is always better.

There is another interesting thing that I would like to discuss here. This point was once raised in the Andhra Pradesh assembly after Chandrababu Naidu's campaign about AIDS which promoted the use of condoms. A BJP member asked whether the government was encouraging infidelity by asking people to use condoms. His question was why would a guy contract AIDS if he was faithful to his wife? A point to be noted! Is this a general assumption that men are always likely to cheat on their spouses? Is this justified?

(Written with some help from Wikipedia).

Coming to the other topic. In Kolkata there are these private vehicles on certain routes that offer you rides for a small amount. It is better than getting on to a bus but less expensive than hiring a taxi. There is one thing I have observed. Let us say that the vehicle is going from A to B. The driver stops frequently at bus stops asking people if they would come. Let's say a prospective passenger wants to go to D. Though the car does not go there per se, it passes through a location C from where the passenger can take another vehicle. In many if not most cases, the passengers refuse to get on to the car unless it is going specifically to where they want to go. In my opinion they want 'value for their money'. So I am curious as to whether this is a local phenomenon or is this the case anywhere in India or for that matter the world? The passengers don't get on to it probably because they know they will get another vehicle which actually will go directly to D. Well, see what man becomes when he has choice. This is probably one of the disadvantages of having a lot of options, in any aspect of life, people become extremely choosy!