
When reproductive choice becomes a family’s burden—and a woman’s sacrifice
I often wonder why, in some economically disadvantaged families in India, people continue having children even after a doctor has warned them that there is a significant risk of passing on a serious genetic condition.
This isn't about blaming people for being poor or suggesting that disabled people shouldn't be born. Every person, regardless of disability or economic status, deserves dignity and a life free from discrimination.
What concerns me is what happens when a family knowingly keeps having children despite medical advice without having the resources to provide adequate care for the children they already have.
And there is often a gendered dimension to this. In many families, the woman is expected to keep getting pregnant until they have the "right" number of sons or until a healthy child is born. Her body becomes the mechanism through which the family keeps trying again and again.
Where is her choice in all of this?
People talk about reproductive rights primarily in terms of a woman's right not to have children. But reproductive autonomy also means having access to contraception, genetic counselling, accurate medical information, and the genuine ability to decide whether and when to have another child.
At the same time, we need to be careful about the language we use. Saying "these people shouldn't have children" easily slips into classism or eugenics. The better question is:
Why are women being denied the education, healthcare, contraception, counselling, and autonomy necessary to make informed reproductive decisions?
If a doctor advises a couple about a serious hereditary risk, they should have access to counselling and reproductive choices—not social pressure to keep "trying" until they get the outcome their family wants.
Reproductive freedom means the freedom to choose, not the expectation to reproduce indefinitely.