Why just female foeticide, every foetus killed is a human being, argues DR JAVED JAMIL
I have started feeling appalled why Islamic organisations and periodicals recurrently fall in the trap of the ideologues of the modern world, using their “concerns”, their “concepts” and their “definitions” to argue that Islam is also as much concerned about them, without highlighting the major differences in Islamic positions on those issues. I find many Islamic organisations regularly talking about human rights, women’s rights, interfaith dialogues, and similar issues, and trying to prove that they are very much a part of Islamic system without making a threadbare analysis of the philosophies behind these modern concepts. Now, female foeticide has been chosen by Radiance as the subject of its special issue instead of “Abortions” as a whole, which in itself is the most serious crime against humanity, and most colossal in its all dimensions. If abortion as a whole is fought against, female infanticide, which should be more correctly called foeticide, would automatically be taken care of.
ECONOMICS OF ABORTIONS
The most dangerous manifestation of economic fundamentalism, in terms of its impact on health as well as social peace, is growing commercialisation of human susceptibilities, particularly sex. Though the devastation caused by the commercialisation of sex and beauty has tormented the whole society, the most appalling is the case of children. They do not possess the voice that can be heard beyond the walls of their houses; they do only have yells that get buried within the din inside. They are not physically capable of organising and wrestling for their rights. Neither have they representation in parliaments and assemblies nor in the media. Their fate is entirely at the mercy of others. They are therefore more likely to be killed, neglected and assaulted than anyone else.
The new sexual morality espoused and promoted by the big businessmen, especially the global merchants of sex annihilated all the barricades in the way of free sex. Marriage or any other formality, age, gender, place, time and previous relation – all paled into insignificance for the purpose of a sexual encounter. The only restriction that the legal framework put, albeit without making it effective in practice, was the consent of the two individuals seeking sex. If both agree, nothing can stop them. They would be advised however to take precautions as far as possible not to let their ecstatic love drift to an unwanted fruition. This can devastate their own career, they would be told, and also the country’s economy. Never mind though. If despite precautions, a woman conceives, she need not unduly worry. The state is there to provide whatever she needs for a safe abortion: legal permission, social protection and free services. Private clinics, in their own way, are looking to provide the best.
And with abortion begins the sad story of children being killed and abused for none of their faults. An estimated number of about 70 million of children are caused to perish before their birth every year. Staggering figures from all accounts. Figures that must put the whole mankind to shame and must jolt from head to toe every person with conscience. But where is mankind? What we know of mankind today is that it is a kingdom of human beasts seeking pleasure and nothing but pleasure, whatever the consequences. And this is not just the pleasure of whole mankind at the cost of other creatures. It is for the gratification of the strong among men who have mastered the science of eradicating all that can directly or indirectly become impediments in their stupendous march towards an unstoppable fun and entertainment.
What then if for this majestic plan, few millions of partially formed human fleshes are to be discarded! They are of course just the humans-in-making, not humans themselves. And they are the weakest obstacles as well. Flowers must be protected, proponents of abortion seem to argue, but there is no plausible reason why tears should be shed if buds are nipped to “save mankind from undesirable consequences”.
Big movements are organised against the killing of animals and the extinction of rare species, against the uprooting of plants and deforestation, and also against the destruction of historical monuments and sites. These have the backing and support of one or the other elements of power. But a notable global campaign against the unceremonious killing of millions of humans-in-making cannot be allowed to gather momentum. The cronies of the Big Business are always there, fully armed with the arsenals of “sophisticated” logic and money to thwart any such development. Still, we are forced to believe that we are living in a civilised world that cares for the human rights. And those that shout at the top of their voice for the human rights happen to be those who silently preside over most of these killings.
The only voices audible in the all-pervading eerie silence are of those that are concerned merely and specifically with the killing of female foetuses, as if the killing of a male foetus is justifiable but not that of a female. Ironically, female foeticide, not foeticide in general, is regarded a genuine issue at the global level. It is agonisingly but amazingly true that an abortion not based on gender discrimination is normally not even labelled foeticide. To join the fray against female foeticide is considered a noble cause on account of it being part of the global movement against the gender-discrimination. But criminal silence on the abortion of male children is no discrimination in their eyes on the similar ground.
I do not purport to say that the sordid practice of female foeticide does not invite the concern it does. Female foeticide is outrageously abominable, and must be condemned in the strongest possible words. In India, the problem has become so acuminate that in some states like Punjab and Haryana it has already severely disturbed the male-female ratio in the population that has gone down to as low as 650 women per 1000 men in some areas. Demographic catastrophe of its own kind is staring at the country’s policymakers. Such has been the traditional revulsion towards a girl child, especially among Hindus, in which community dowry still remains a major issue, that the news of the birth of a girl is often welcomed with gloom writ large on the faces of the members of the family.
With ever increasing consciousness towards small family norms, it becomes even more compelling for the couples to get the sex of their babies determined early in the pregnancy. If a couple already has a girl, it is more likely to opt for abortion, in case the test proves the foetus to be a female. According to reports, out of the foetuses that are aborted in India after sex determination, around 99 per cent are females. That is absolutely unacceptable. But what I want to emphasise upon is that abortion on any non-medical ground with few exceptions like when pregnancy is the result of a rape must be unacceptable.
If a hue and cry is raised against female foeticide while abortion as such is accepted, it is largely because of the clashes of interests. Female foeticide is no product of globalisation and is of no assistance to global business. This can in fact be jeopardous, as it can lead to less availability of females for scores of business that need them. Every possible effort must therefore be made to stop this. Abortion as a whole, on the other hand, helps their cause because it helps young women overcoming a big hurdle in their work and it helps in stabilising the population.
Abortion is such an important chapter in the book of modern sexuality that it would be obnoxious to scrap it. The permissibility of abortion and the availability of medical services at the first door are essential prerequisites if the population is to be kept in check, and the commercial sex is to prosper. In fact, wherever women play a meaningful role, abortion always helps. Women in their young age are the best consumer items themselves or the best agents of promotion for other items. If a large number of them have to take leave from the bazaar recurrently to be confined to houses or maternity homes for months, industrial “development” would take a nosedive. Therefore, the problem of abortion would be taken care of in its finest details. The hullabaloo against the termination of pregnancies would have to be diplomatically quietened. Any overture that to avoid pregnancy women must avoid sex before marriage would be dismissed as the non-starter outright. This would generate insurmountable problems for several major industries. Their marshals would immediately rise on their feet to declare that this would be a death-blow to the very idea of “freedom” that has been espoused and developed with such concerted efforts all over the years.
Despite recognition in the inner corners of their hearts that it was the ideal solution, people would not press it because they have been made too addicted to the uninhibited sex to accept any restrictions on their activities. Those who talk of humanitarian grounds are confronted with the argument that it is better for children not to be born rather than being neglected. The argument may be grotesque, as it proposes to replace a smaller evil by a greater evil, substituting death for neglect. But the protagonists of abortion possess the intensity and lungpower that would effectively submerge any emerging voice of sense in the din. Right to live, which is used assiduously as the bullet to shoot the protagonists of death sentence, has been conveniently forgotten when it comes to abortion.
What can be a colossal, yet notorious tragedy than this that parents are being made to be a party in the cold-blooded murder of their own children. And still greater tragedy is that parents hardly feel any compunction or remorse. Even mothers have been reconditioned to believe that it would be a greater sin to bring their kids out of their wombs if they are not in a position to look after them than to finish them. Thus the most innocent human beings are slaughtered without tears falling anywhere for them, and without anyone caring to perform obsequies for them.
The ghastliness of this crime is unparalleled. No other crime can be anywhere near it in terms of cruelty and severity. If God had decided to punish the crime of abortion in the world itself, He would have perhaps doomed the whole earth without delay. I remember a woman coming to a doctor colleague of mine to seek abortion. He politely asked her: “What’s the hurry, lady? Let your child come out of your belly. It will then be easier for you to strangulate it.” The woman walked off in tears. But who would tell this to every woman who attends a clinic for abortion?
The interests of so many are at stake: those of the big business in general, particularly sex trade, hospitals and doctors, to name a few. Why should they unnecessarily bring morality into picture? Morality, in their view, is a needle in a haystack; it is futile to attempt a search for it. And when it also helps the common people to overcome the unwanted adverse effects of their desire to stroll freely without chains of morality, why should they raise voice against it even if in their minds and hearts they do not feel particularly comfortable about it? What a way to live the life! Immorality heaped on immorality. To get away with one immoral act, take the help of another even more immoral act. And if there is a danger of the people becoming unduly distressed on account of their immoralities, change the definition of immorality! So that moralities become immoralities and immoralities become moralities.
There have of course been several admirable efforts by some groups to challenge the crime of abortion. There is a sturdy anti-abortion lobby in the US that endeavours to maintain at least some pressure on the government to take appropriate measures to discourage abortion. This lobby deserves kudos for at least trying to get to the thin end of the wedge. The US government has stopped funding those agencies that promote abortion for family planning. Several countries have now explicitly excluded abortion as one of the contraceptive methods. But this effort is too little and too late to make any appreciable impact on the situation, which is going from bad to the worse.
Unwanted pregnancy still remains a legally justifiable reason for its termination. Unwanted pregnancies include not only pregnancies in the wedlock but also those outside it. Abortions are discouraged only as a method of family planning. There is no discernible move to ban them altogether (allowing only for medical and humanitarian reasons). And despite the declared policy not to promote abortion as a method of family planning, the “positive” impact it has on the population stabilisation would stall an aggressive campaign against it. Population stabilisation of course remains one of the major concerns for reasons that are many more than what are publicly counted.
LIFE EXPECTANCY VIS-À-VIS ABORTIONS
The latest research paper, “Abortion being used to improve life expectancy?” by this writer questions the very basis of the calculations of life expectancies in the world. In the process I have challenged the claims of the “developed” countries that they have highest life expectancies, even the very basis of their “development”. I have argued that the definition of life expectancy currently in vogue in the international circles is incomplete as it excludes the life of humans as foetus. I have introduced the term True Life Expectancy to replace life expectancy, which usually means life expectancy at birth.
The current definition of life expectancy is an attempt to justify intended abortions, to hide its extent in the world particularly the “developed” world and to give a false impression of the level of “development”. The paper asks: Are foetuses not human beings deserving the right to life; and if killed their deaths to be counted as human deaths? If their deaths are counted as deaths of human beings, the whole scenario changes, and the claims of “development” prove to be ridiculous. I have also given a theory, the theory of Nature’s ever increasing preference of humans.
The paper presents tables of countries based on the current definition of life expectancy as well as the table based on his idea of True Life Expectancy. Some of the results are eye openers for the champions of “development”:
1. The life expectancy of Japan, which is ranked 1 in the table (according to the current definitions), goes down from 82.6 to 54.51 and its rank goes down from first to 48th.
The life expectancy of the US goes down from 78.2 to 50.90, a slide from 38th rank to 74th.
The life expectancy of the UK goes down from 79.4 to 47.70, a slide from 22nd rank to 97th.
The life expectancy of Australia goes down from 81.2 to 47.09, a slide from 5th rank to 102nd.
The life expectancy of Sweden goes down from 80.9 to 25.24, a slide from 7th rank to 156th.
The life expectancy of Russia goes down from 65.5 to 22.92, a slide from 137th rank to 159th.
2. While the overall average of countries having dominant Christian population is not good, the Christian countries in Western Europe like Switzerland and Belgium, where the religious influence is strong, have highest life expectancy.
3. The overall True Life Expectancy of Muslims is very high. Even from the commonly followed definition of life expectancy it is on the higher side, but with the changed definition, they beat almost all the fancied nations of the world including the big powers and countries like Japan, Australia, Canada and Singapore. This is despite the fact that the health infrastructure in Muslim countries is not as good as in “developed” countries.
4. The True Life Expectancy of Israel, the only Jew country, ranking 31st, is also better than the other “developed” countries.
5. In India, it is 64.7 at birth and 53.05 at conception (TLE). However, it is not as high as it might have been, and apart from the poor management, low level of personal and social hygienic conditions causing life threatening infections, an important cause is the rising incidence of female foeticide. Due to the cultural influences among Hindus – dowry is still a big issue – where female foeticide is very high, the average life expectancy (TLE) of females is much lower than that of males.
This is high time Islamic organisations staged a big, concerted, worldwide campaign against all forms of abortions, except on medical grounds, and must take all other religions along.
[The author is Executive Chairman, International Centre for Applied Islamics; and Chief Editor, Islam, Muslims & the World]