Unborn means who is not born, as dim-witted as anyone could have outlined this intelligence. This word has eternally been a moot theme in the cosmos. Perhaps, this is because of the safeguard granted to them by law- national or international. This word is affiliated to a legal maxim en ventre sa mere which influence - in the mother's womb. Here the question is whether an unborn can be considered as a person in the eyes of law and can claim the rights as other living human beings, The rights and status of unborn are likewise given in different statutes with different rights according to the statutes.

This paper will specifically revolve around the legal aspect of unborn under different statutes such as the constitution of India, transfer of property act, Hindu succession act Indian penal code and many more, refer international convention and the rights of the child, before as well as after, birth are protected by numerous treaties, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child would also emphasize on the landmark cases across the globe. And this study interprets the ambiguous laws and Convention on Human Rights, which establishes that life, shall be protected in general, from the significance of conception.

The interrogation region of this paper would be the comparative study between India, UK, and USA regarding laws for unborn and their rights and status. The research is based on the doctrinal method of research in which we positively depended on the existent fact and conception of different intellectuals, accordingly, we can affirm that the research utterly depends on the existing facts.

Introduction
Unborn means who is not born, as simple as anyone could have defined this word. Many different but similar, to nature of the above explanation and that is easiness, definitions are present for this word. This word has always been a debatable topic in the world. Perhaps, this is because of the protection granted to them by law- national or international. This protection is also associated with the rights given to them. This word is connected to a legal maxim en ventre sa mere which means - in mother's womb.

These unborn can also be classified based on movement in the mother's womb. Under Indian Penal Code, there are states of being for unborn child: the unborn child simpliciter (so to speak); the unborn child of a woman who is quick with child; and finally, the unborn child capable of being born alive. Presumably, it is possible for the last two states to overlap at least in part. While the limits of the state of capable of being born alive is lent certainty by the statutory presumption in s 315(2), the state of being quick with child is open to interpretation, for there is no juridical definition of what is meant by quick with child in the Penal Code.[1]

Besides classifying them, giving rights to them, and protecting them, the law has a duty of deciding many other issues relating to them. These issues can be of morality or just the issues of legal field structured for these prenatal humans. Whether they can be considered as person in eyes of law, whether they have an inherent right to life and whether they can be granted constitutional personhood. This study deals with questions, which are similar to the above written questions.

Protection - to them and from them
Constitution gives each one equal protection against the crime, which can cause trouble to them, because this is a duty of a state. Here we find that protection has also granted to those who are still not a citizen of a state. However, they can be a citizen of a state after taking birth. This protection has granted by way of protecting mothers. For India, section 312 of Indian Penal Code says causing miscarriage is an offense and section 313 of same code deals with the situation where the abortion has carried out against the will of the pregnant woman.

Sections 312 and 313 of the Penal Code[2] provide as follows:

Causing miscarriage
Section-312. Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:
A woman who causes herself to miscarry is, within the meaning of this section.

Causing miscarriage without a woman's consent

Section-313. Whoever commits the offense defined in section 312, without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with a child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 10 years, and shall be liable to fine.

We can interpret from both sections that these two are aimed towards the protection of mothers against physical interference, hurt or the violation of her bodily integrity and the child in their womb. [3] And if the same interpretation would not be there, there was no need for particular provision stating such a crime against such unwanted physical interference and violation of her body because:
Such an act would be covered under the provisions in the Penal Code [4]relating to causing hurt among others if the woman survives the attack, and specifically under s 314 if the woman does not. (At the Beginning of Life, p. 889, 2010).

As defined in section 312 of Indian Penal Code, causing a miscarriage is an offense that includes pregnant women. Moreover, in Indian laws relating to pregnancy, women are granted a right to terminate their pregnancy under section 3, which explains that a termination of pregnancy is possible when it is necessary for the safeguard of the health of the mother, with the help of a registered medical practitioner.

In addition, the termination is possible before twelve weeks and twenty weeks if registered medical practitioner (or practitioners as this applies to the case where pregnancy is exceeded twelve weeks but not twenty weeks) in their opinion think that continuance of pregnancy can cause physical and mental health problems to mother. [5]

However, the law is protecting unborn and the reasons behind it can be different. In countries like India, perhaps the main reason is to prevent abortion of sexually determined girl children. In addition, off course, if they are not granted these protections there can be heavy fall in the number of girls, which can cause a trouble to social structure of any country. This protection is granted because he/she can be an asset to society in near future or for the preservation and protection of maternal health. Despite of all reasons it can be assumed that they are getting protection because there is a potential life present in mother's womb.

Moreover, the existence of potential life arises a question in our mind that whether he is a natural person or a legal person.
Here law makes a balancing situation in above two cases [6]which are, protecting unborn child from the act of mother and others and protection of mother from state of unborn child. [7]This balancing situation must have come through a collision. A collision where the women must have demanded for choosing whether she want to get that baby or not while others must have demanded the security of unborn child, as he/she can be an asset to society in near future by taking sanctity of life into consideration.

A fetus's right to life

Now days, the pattern in the direction of perceiving the who is not yet born as both a human and as an individual managed legitimate security. Current logical advances in the comprehension of human improvement demonstrate that the baby is to be sure an individual from her first day of presence.

The logical and therapeutic network has generally perceived the presence of human life from the exact second of origination. Numerous contemporary human embryologists keep up that another person (unborn) to be at preparation, which is the time when the maternal and fatherly chromosomes converge to frame a baby.

By the moment a woman winds up to be pregnant, she is conveying another being. Study has demonstrated that the woman is conveying another person as of the snapshot of the preparation. Study has demonstrated that the baby's heart start beat begin to beat as of from within 18 to 25 days and as of from the 43rd day the electronically mind wave start to begin working. The nonappearance of the mind signal means to demonstrate demise.

Therefore, at the time of the being fetus removals, the infant as of now have a thumping sensitivity and recognized mind impression. Therefore, the child inside mom's worm is being a particular and exceptional individual or being person.

Advanced comprehension of scholars is of the opinion that the disclosure of human 'DNA' later only a couple of long stretches of treatment undeniably shows that the kid, regardless of how little, "is human life; it isn't potential life or potential human life." Thus, "It is deductively right to state that an individual human life starts at origination when egg and sperm join." This is no hypothesis: logical evidence of a different embryonic personhood is an unquestionable and major truth - a person exists from origination.

"In intertwining, the male and female gametes produce a treated single cell, the zygote, which is the beginning of another person." So the embryo is completely grown even before the mother's pregnancy gets took note.

Abortion Is Violation of Fetus's Right to Life

Medicinal and scientific research has demonstrated that life starts at origination. In this way, premature birth is like to kill, as it is the demonstration of taking human life. Fetus removal is an immediate noncompliance of the ordinarily acknowledged thought of the holiness of human life. No acculturated social orders the world over license an individual to purposefully damage or end the life of someone else. Such a demonstration is offense all over the place and is culpable.

Premature birth is not a special case or not quite the same as this general guideline. The procedure of premature birth is only ending the life of an individual. Therefore, such a demonstration of ending the life of an individual ought not to be allowed.

A mother cannot guarantee:

It is my body and completely my decision". Instead that the fact that fetus is an individual, he/she has the privilege to life. As per master life advocates, Mother's activity ought not to be an encroached the privilege of the embryo because, the privilege to life is the preeminent ideal for a person. Feasibility, nevertheless, is anything but a helpful idea in the feticide setting. Practicality happens at various focuses in various pregnancies and requires therapeutic ability to analyze.

With the exception of in the absolute last phases of pregnancy, nobody other than a doctor could be relied upon to realize the baby is feasible. The hatchling's life intrigue still warrants the state's security under these conditions, and the undesirable end of the pregnancy must be independently perceived and vindicated.

A criminal act, which leads to the demise of a fetus, paying little mind to the particular information of the on-screen character, is impartially more horrendous and chargeable than brutality submitted against a non-pregnant individual since two separate damages result.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has tended to the issue of fetus removal and fetus right in 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade. In the judgment, the court held that regard for human pride requires the criminalization of premature birth. The court has thought about the full scope of contentions for premature birth, and afterward it explicitly dismissed the primary concerns of thinking in Roe v. Wade just as its "term arrangement" as conflicting with the sacred assurance of the privilege to life.

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany ensures that "Everybody has the privilege to life" and it ought to stretch out to the life of the unborn. In 1993, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that "life starts, as per the built up organic physiological information, on the fourteenth day after origination" and the Constitution ensures the privilege to life to an embryo and remembers him/her as a legitimate individual from origination itself.

Numerous lawmaking measures been taken to allocate a fetus's right to life yet from the instance of being fertilization. Such a manner of legislation intends to give the fetus the similar status as of each associate of the human beings get.

American Convention on Human Rights[8], 1978 Article 4.1 states that, "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception."

In 1983, the 80th Amendment in the Constitution of Ireland, which is, also known as the "Pro-Life Amendment," that has been added by popular amendment procedure by referendum. The amendment has recognized "the right to life of the unborn".[9]

A natural person or a legal person

An unborn child is a natural person or a legal person is the question of concern, which is mainly depending on the answer of question, from an outside view, namely, whether unborn child has life, or not? There is one more question attached to it, i.e.; when life actually begins in the womb? We have ample of provisions related to life and death in our countries law but from inside view; law is not concerned about when actually life begins.

Justice A.M Bhattacharjee has written an article[10] mentioning, It has been said that life beyond death might still be a philosophical enigma, life before birth in the mother's womb is a physiological phenomenon. The American supreme court in Roe v. Wade, even though denying a fetus or unborn child a natural personality and excluding it life/liberty clause on that ground, did not, as it obviously could not, deny the existence of life in it.

In the words of Justice A.M Bhattacharjee, the same article[11] also admits the existence of a century old Madras Division Bench decision, that under the Indian Criminal Law, a women is with child during the entire period of her pregnancy and lexically and as well as legally a child is a person having life.

In the above-mentioned case, Justice Blackmun delivered the decision mentioning:
The unborn are not included within the definition of 'person' as used in the fourteenth amendment. [12]

This landmark decision was passed when a woman reaches court, in America, trying to procure a legal abortion by challenging the constitutionality of Texas Criminal Abortion Laws and demanded that an experienced practitioner under safe clinical conditions should perform the abortion. The judgement of the case included that both life are legitimate interest of state and state will interfere in pregnancy second trimester. Apex court recognize the women's right to whether or not to abort the child as fundamental and stated that state can prohibit this right of mother when fetus reaches the stage of viability.

Judgment also had an exception as for the safeguard of maternal health; one can terminate her pregnancy even when the fetus has reached the stage of viability.
However, can stage of viability considered as the moment/time when life commences? The question is exactly same as when actually life begins in mother's womb. The mentioned case has not anywhere ruled that stage of viability is the time when life begins. In case of Nand Kishore Sharma, court refused to enter on the debate as to when fetus comes to life[13] but recent medical researches shows us that in early stages of development less than seven to fourteen days of fertilization, unborn has life.

Therefore, an unborn is not a person or natural personality but a well-proven fact is that it has life, which both medical and legal fields are accepted. But, this non-natural person has some statutory rights provided by law such as right to inherit, to bring an action when born, for damage caused to the child in womb. Granting these statutory rights concludes that Indian law has a particular belief of the existence of unborn life.

For example, sec 99(i) of The Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides:
all words expressive of relationship apply to a child in the womb who is afterwards born alive. Here, one can conclude the unborn child as non-natural but legal person and hence, it is a well-existing legal person like corporations or companies.

Distinctive Legal Rights and Duties – The Interest Principle

Christopher Stone projected three criterions that an implementation of legal personality should satisfy[14]. These criteria's correspondingly are, the individual can institute lawful proceedings at its will; the courts consider that the individual's grievance for legal assistance; and legal assistance ought to run to the individuals[15]. These feature the principal precondition of a powerful legitimate right to serve the finish of its holder.

Perceived rights under the steady gaze of an official courtroom are a legitimate character's insurance, case and effect against the outside world. It is acknowledged that non-people, for example, the Pyramids, are recipients of lawful assurance and obligations.

There exist restricting obligations on the general population to cease from mutilating authentic tourist spots. While people are beneficiaries of defensive laws, there is a critical qualification between laws precluding damage to people and laws disallowing vandalism of the Pyramids. Obligations owed to a negligible thing, for example, the Pyramids are not owed for 'the Pyramids' purpose or sake[16]. Coming back to Stone's criteria, such obligations do not really give legitimate help to the Pyramids, in this manner, it is strange to express that the Pyramids have lawful rights against its defacers.

Joel Feinberg provides the helpful analysis of the character of privileges, which were based on the 'Interest Principle'[17], which is essential to the theme of this paper. The Pyramids, while being recipients of lawful obligations, do not have rights correlative to them. The Pyramids do not have a 'directly against vandalism'. Feinberg fights that lawful rights are portrayals of interests, which 'cannot be genuinely predicated' on memorable milestones, as they are unequipped for having interests. Rights provide their holder's benefit and ends, and an efficient lawful parenting be based upon such rights[18].

Life v. Liberty
Stating unborn as non-natural but legal person is not the end of issues related to them. Constitution grants every person right to property and right to life and personal liberty. Like companies and corporations, any non-natural but legal person has right to equality before law and right to have equal protection of law. Here the question is, does unborn has right to life because we have seen that there is a potential life and in any case, law is not refusing to accept the existence of that form of life.

Well the answer is it has right to life. However, this right is been provided to them in a different manner. This right is Right to full development which is similar to rights, like right to have pollution free water and air and right to have reasonable residence, which are recognized under right to life.

Right to full development and right to have safeguard are well-recognized rights under international law yet right to life to fetus and human embryo is well denied by international law. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man has excluded fetus from right to life. [19]Third paragraph of preamble to the 1959 UN Declaration on Rights of the Child is a proof of right to have protection before and as well as after birth. The declaration is not binding in nature as well as it is a soft international law.[20]

'The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth'.

In an Indian landmark case, where petitioner who was a married couple, was challenging the constitutionality of Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act of 1994 because of the violation of article 21 of Constitution of India. The petitioner's challenge was to gain personal liberty of choosing sex of offspring for determining the nature of family. Mentioning that every child has right to full development under article 21, Bombay High court dismissed their challenge[21].

Justice V. G. Palshikar in his words, for the same landmark case, said, The enactment namely Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is factually enacted to further right under Article 21, which gives to every child right to full development. A child conceived is therefore entitled to under Article 21, as held by the Supreme Court, to full development whatever be the sex of that child.

The determination whether at preconception stage or otherwise is the denial of a child, the right to expansion, or if it can be so expanded right to come into existence. The enactment proposes to control and ban the use of sex selection technique both prior to conception as well as its misuse after conception and it does not totally ban these procedures or tests. The conception is a physical phenomena. It need not take place on copulation of every capable male and female. Even if both are competent and healthy to give birth to a child, conception need not necessarily follow.

That being a factual medical position claiming of right to choose the sex of a child which is come into existence as a right to do or not to do something which cannot be called a right. The right to personal liberty cannot expand by any stretch of imagination to liberty to prohibit coming into existence of a female fetus or male fetus, which shall be for the Nature to decide. Right to bring into existence a life in future with a choice to determine the sex of that life cannot in itself to be a right. The petition does not make even a prima facie case for violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, an unborn being has right to full development, which is equivalent to right to life. After the passed judgement, Bombay High court had to face a case where petitioner claimed that couples, having children of one sex, should be allowed to have child with opposite sex by use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques at pre-conception stage.

The petitioner also claimed the violation of article 14 of Constitution of India by not placing a woman who conceived a child because of the failure of devices, which she or her husband must have used in order to limit the number of children, with another woman who is conceiving her second or third child with the same sex as both situations amount to cause injuries to mental health of mother.[22] These claims were rejected in court of law on the grounds of unconstitutionality of sex selection proving that any statute is not violating the soul of our law i.e. Constitution of India.

When it was raised as questions of law whether to allow for the termination of pregnancy of a rape victim when she has not given her consent for the same act and whether it is in the best interest of victim to terminate the pregnancy, as she was a mentally retarded person. Supreme after reversing the decision of High court denied to legally permitting the act of termination of pregnancy of the woman because lack of consent was found in the case. [23]

Constitutional Personhood
An unborn fetus, even after, having right to full development does not have constitutional personhood. Constitutional personhood is for the natural person and in American jurisdiction; a child is not entitled as person. This, as earlier mentioned, was a finding of case of Roe where Justice Blackmun wrote this. A natural person, who has rights, also has duty to discharge – a simple tort concept.

This debate of constitutionalism of unborn child acknowledges the demerits of providing constitutional personhood to an unborn child. One of the major demerits is that state cannot provide rights to a potential life on the expanses of rights given to a life, which is a well-stated and recognized person in eyes of law and constitution of any country.

Every woman has its personal liberty for keeping a fetus in her womb but with the exceptions given for the same right. After considering unborn children as constitutional person, woman will lose their autonomy and they will be a mere baby-making machine for a period of pregnancy. [24]

Secondly, presence of a person in another person's womb cannot make any decrease in constitutional status of anybody.[25] Thirdly, there will not be any distinction, while it cannot be possible, between an unborn child and a born child.[26]

Many of the international declarations are not supporting this expense and with that, these declarations are not ready to consider an unborn as a child. In the words of M Nöthling Slabbert, the 1989, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is also silent on whether the embryo and fetus are protected under its provisions. Article 1 of the Convention defines a child as every human being below the age of eighteen years within a state's jurisdiction, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. It therefore provides no indication of whether a fetus is included within its scope. [27]

International Scenario
This part centers on the on-going and potential impacts of worldwide law in England regarding hatchling personhood. The universal discussion on privileges of the unborn is commanded by the disputable issue of an unborn's entitlement to life concerning premature birth and fetus research.

There is no unitary international scenario on the lawful class of fetus. UN instruments such as the UDHR[28] and the ICCPR[29] insist on a fundamental right to life for every individuals or 'everyone', while parting the class of persons falling under 'everyone' undefined. The Council of Europe has spearheaded the assurance of fetus at the European level, quite by means of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and a few proposals made to its part states or federal nations[30].

The previously mentioned Convention tends to the furthest reaches of incipient organism explore, restricting making of human developing lives for research purposes. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has given proposals throughout the years, which focus on the regard for human nobility from the snapshot of origination over the span of fetus research[31].

These on the other hand have no obligatory consequence on national law, and it is conventional that the English licensing framework of fetus research is at odds with some of the Conventions and Recommended provisions. Moreover, it was contended over that the target of fetus research laws is not to serve the interests of unborn, and is inconsequential to child personhood. Difficulties on premature birth enactment (abortion) in the ECTHR have offered open access for the ECHR to embrace a position on child personhood. In any case, the Strasbourg court has evaded head-on encounter of this issue by finding a few cases unacceptable or confrontation of this issue by finding several cases inadmissible[32].

On instances of Art.8 challenges, the court has recognized that restrictions on abortions are permitted[33]. In a case alleging that the Abortion Act 1969 was in breach of a fetus's Art.2 rights, the court excluded the possibility of an absolute right to life for fetuses, permitting abortions undergone on grounds of necessity[34]. In Vo v France[35], the Court offered a more illuminating judgment, acknowledging that while fetuses do not receive rights of all Convention Articles, Art.2 may specifically apply to them. There exists two limitations to the courts proclamation, firstly that this right is not absolute, derogations such as abortion are allowed; secondly, the court did not pinpoint the exact time when a fetus receives such a right, as there is no scientific or legal consensus on the definition of life[36].

Suggestions by Eminent Persons
Abortion might be characterized into three general classes relying on nature and conditions under which it happens. Like,

1. Natural abortion- It is an extremely basic phenomenon and this may happen because of numerous reasons for example bad health, deformity in generative organs of the mother, stun, dread, bliss, and so forth.
2. Accidental abortion- fetus removal all the time happens as a result of neurotic reasons where pregnancy can't be finished and the uterus exhausts before the development of embryo.
3. Artificial or incited premature birth – this type of abortion are denied in law as a troublesome conveyance intentionally obtained with aim to demolish the embryo. It is the most dubious sort of premature birth. In these premature births, a physical assault on the embryo is regularly required. It is anything but an only inability to help the baby.

Abortion falling under the initial two classes cannot be culpable. This convention is followed by practically almost by the majority of the states. The contradiction is in regards to the physical-rate class of fetus removal.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: In her Paper A defense of abortion analyzed the controversy. As indicated by her, if the baby undermines its mother with death; two people are included, one whose life is compromised and one who compromises it. These two are innocent. One who is compromised is not undermined in view of any shortcoming.

Thus, the person who compromises does not undermine because of any deficiency. Therefore, the spectators have no job in this issue, however the individual undermined just can. That is, a woman without a doubt can safeguard her life against the danger presented by the unborn, regardless of whether doing so includes its demise.

While answering the genius expert's contention that fetus has a similar right to life as that of his/her mother, she battled that privilege to life means right not to slaughter shamefully. Along these lines premature births for just reasons don't disregard the privilege to life.

John Rawls:
That he basically, examined the abortions right and status of women in the political frameworks and held that any sensible equalization of the estimations of due regard for human life, requested proliferation of political society after some time, and the correspondence of ladies as equivalent citizens will give a woman an appropriately qualified right to choose whether or not to end her pregnancy during the principal trimester. The purpose behind this is at this beginning time of pregnancy the political estimation of the balance of women is abrogating, and this privilege is required to give it substance and power.

Rawls and Jarvis Thomson:
Rawls and Jarvis Thomson are calling attention to something very similar yet in various words. The synopsis of their contentions is, a woman has an intrinsically ensured right to control the utilization of her own body. A choice to have youngsters is central to women's physical, mental and social wellbeing. They are in a manner maintaining the choice in Roe.

The paper advancing the recommendation that Artificial or prompted premature birth ought to be permitted in the initial two trimesters because baby has not achieved reasonability. Despite the fact that the baby achieves kind of reasonability in the third semester, it has its very own few interests. Along these lines, the fetus removal will add up to the infringement of its privileges. The premature births in these periods ought to be controlled. Premature birth in the last trimester ought to be culpable with certain exemptions:

1. Abortion of pregnancies caused because of violations like assault, rapes or interbreeding
2. Abortion based on health (physical and state of mind) of mother and strength and health of fetus in the worm of mother.
3. Family management and planning.
4. Pregnancy abortion of minors

Winding up
The English expression pregnant means to be with child and the Indian equivalent 'Antaswatta' unmistakably means to have life within.[37]

Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Paragraph one of article 6 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as provided above, is the only international law declaration, which has inherent right to life. Right to life is a fundamental human right that should not get its violation for any purpose. Most of the human rights are transformed as recognized national and international laws but nowhere these rights are formed for a fetus, making a meaning as if fetus is not a human being. One can easily find laws protecting fetus because it is one of the most concerned issue of society.

All religious texts recognize the life in fetus and our legal field also do so but the legal field is denying life in fetus from the very beginning, that is not true as well as unscientific to claim but true from the religious perspective, and legal field is not ready to resolve this issue of when fetus comes to life. Leaving this question as unsolved one, law has created a dilemma of time, when it is right to abort an unborn child. Judiciary has faced many questions on the stage of viability or abortion before 20 weeks.

If law follows the principle, under one skin, only one can get the right to life, it allow a woman for the entitlement of constitutional personhood while giving right to full development to an unborn child. Law cannot allow a woman to terminate its pregnancy at any time. Demand of choosing whether to have a child even after stage of viability is a question, prevailing much before from the time of Roe v. Wade but this demand is not valid in eyes of law.

This is because in countries like India, there is a problem of female feticides, which is a crime against women. To permit women for having abortion after 20 weeks or whenever they want to have termination of their pregnancy is indirectly giving power of suppression to husbands and in-laws of woman. Therefore, law and judiciary correctly balance the conflicts of interests of both mother and unborn child. This balance has, however, some holes like not allowing rape victims to terminate their pregnancy at any period of pregnancy.

Perhaps, this balance is good for the society as doing additional changes to the balance can make it more tilted to one side because of the reason of Pregnancy, like all relationships, is characterized by mutual dependency in a social and moral sense. For the pregnant woman, whether she wants the fetus or not, is caught irrevocably in a condition of intimacy with and perhaps longing for it as well. [38]

End-Notes:

1. KAAN Sheung-Hung Terry, at the Beginning of Life, 22 SAcLJ 891 (2010
2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860).
3. KAAN Sheung-Hung Terry, at the Beginning of Life, 22 SAcLJ 889 (2010)
4. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860).
5. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
6. Debadyuti Banerjee and Ujwala Uppaluri, From Roe v. Wade to Fetal Pain Legislation: A Reflection of American Jurisprudence on the Indian Milieu of Liberalised Abortion Policies, 2 NUJS L Rev 637 (2009).
7. Celia Wells and Derek Morgan, Whose Foetus Is It? 18 JL & Soc'y 431 (1991).
8. American Convention on Human Rights, 1978
9. Constitution of Ireland, amendment,1983
10. A.M Bhattacharjee, Liberty of Born v. Life of Unborn, 2 SCC J-10 (1985
11. A.M Bhattacharjee, Liberty of Born v. Life of Unborn, 2 SCC J-10 (1985)
12. A.M Bhattacharjee, Liberty of Born v. Life of Unborn, 2 SCC J-10 (1985)
13. Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2006 Raj 166
14. C.D Stone, Southern California Law Review 450
15. ibid
16. J Feinberg, 'rights' and environmental 'rights', Philosophy & Environmental Crisis, the University of Georgia Press 1974,p.45.
17. ibid
18. ibid
19. M Nöthling Slabbert, The position of the human embryo and foetus in international law and its relevance for the South African context, 32 CILSA 340 (1999).
20. M Nöthling Slabbert, The position of the human embryo and foetus in international law and its relevance for the South African context, 32 CILSA 339 (1999).
21. KAAN Sheung-Hung Terry, at the Beginning of Life, 22 SAcLJ 4 (2010).
22. Vijay Sharma & Anr v. Union of India & Anr. 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 806.
23. Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh administration (2009) 9 supreme court cases 1.
24. Debadyuti Banerjee and Ujwala Uppaluri, From Roe v. Wade to Fetal Pain Legislation: A Reflection of American Jurisprudence on the Indian Milieu of Liberalised Abortion Policies, 2 NUJS L Rev 657 (2009).
25. Debadyuti Banerjee and Ujwala Uppaluri, From Roe v. Wade to Fetal Pain Legislation: A Reflection of American Jurisprudence on the Indian Milieu of Liberalised Abortion Policies, 2 NUJS L Rev 657 (2009).
26. Debadyuti Banerjee and Ujwala Uppaluri, From Roe v. Wade to Fetal Pain Legislation: A Reflection of American Jurisprudence on the Indian Milieu of Liberalised Abortion Policies, 2 NUJS L Rev 658 (2009).
27. M Nöthling Slabbert, The position of the human embryo and foetus in international law and its relevance for the South African context, 32 CILSA 339 (1999).
28. UDHR, 1948; UN, art.3
29. ICCPR,1966, art.6
30. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation,1986
31. Ibid
32. X v. Norway (1961) 6 CD 34
33. Brifggemann and Scheuten v. Federal Republic of Germany (1977) 10 DR 100
34. X v. United Kingdom (1980) 19 DR 244
35. Vo v. France 2004
36. J.Pichon, Does the Unborn Child Have a Right to Life (2006) 7 German Law Journal 433
37. A.M Bhattacharjee, Liberty of Born v. Life of Unborn, 2 SCC J-10 (1985).
38. Celia Wells and Derek Morgan, Whose Fetus Is It? 18 JL & Soc'y 431 (1991).