Qur’anic (Dynamic) Paradigm of Health: — 28
Life Expectancy at Birth vs. Life Expectancy at Conception
It is clear from the statistics and their analysis that life expectancy is being defined in a specific way to present a false image of “development”. It can be argued that high abortion rate is helping the cause of the “developed” countries in two ways:
(1) manoeuvring of statistics; and
(2) Pressuring the Nature.
(1) Manoeuvring and manipulating the statistics
It has been shown above that the differences in the life expectancies of different countries and regions undergoes a sea change if the starting point of life is changed from birth to conception. The change of course will not be acceptable to the feminists for whom the reproductive rights of women are more important than the right of human foetuses to live and get born. This will also not be acceptable to the corporate world in general for which the importance of young women is much more than their foetuses. Pregnancies are big impediments in the use of women in all types of industries in general and sex, glamour and entertainment industry in particular. Through the selection of a specific definition of life expectancy, the developed world and their socioeconomic forces achieve several objectives:
First, they are able to give a false notion of high life expectancy in their countries, and show to the world the success of heir socio-economic model; this helps their rankings not only in the lists of the life expectancy but also in the overall Human Development Index.
Second, it helps them in diverting the attention from high abortion rates and the issues of humanity attached to them;
Third, it helps their socio-economic model based on economic fundamentalism and market economics. Low life expectancies on the basis of a definition of LE at conception (TLE) would create an enormous pressure on social institutions to fight the menace of abortion. This is bound to have a direct depressing effect on almost all the industries, as women of the reproductive age group play a highly important role in the growth of these industries.
Fourth, medical fraternity and health organisations also maintain a criminal silence on the issue because induced abortions form a significant part of the turnover in the health industry, which has willy-nilly become a big supporter of the current socioeconomic model.
2. Pressurising the Nature: Theory of Nature’s ever increasing preference for humans
Abortion is not only being used to statistically create a mirage of high development and life expectancy but is also being used to pressurise the Nature to increase the age of those who survive the pills or knives in the wombs. We all know the biological principles of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest. These principles can be extended further to conclude that Nature has not only helped in the evolution of more advanced living beings from the less advanced ones but also prefers to have an increasingly bigger population of the most advanced living being, the Homo sapiens, with the march of time. The total organic matter that forms or can form living beings is to remain almost constant. Nature of course tries to convert dead organic matter into living matter as soon as possible. So if the total weight of a certain species goes up, the total weight of the rest will tend to go low, which will be reflected either in the decrease of the population of that species or the decrease in average weight or in the lowering of the average age. If a large population of humans of any age is killed, Nature can react in several ways:
First, its first preference will be to decrease the number of other animals and their total weights and to transfer that weight to human beings so that the growth of the human population can be maintained;
Second, if there is a hurdle in the expanding of the population by way of new births, the life expectancy of the remaining population will increase;
Third, it can also increase the average weight of human beings.
Fourth, if it has no option left, ultimately the population/average weight of animals will increase.
What we are witnessing in the “developed” countries is the result of the second and third phenomena. The average age as well as weight of those who survive abortions is increasing. This is being helped by their better nutritional standards and better medical care. If these two were missing, the transfer of the phenomena would have occurred in other parts of the world.
The fact that Nature shows a distinct and growing preference for human beings and their population is evident from the following table:
Human Population since the beginning of the modern international calendar
This shows that the population of human beings has grown from 200 million in 1 AD to 6.1 billion in 2000, an increase of about 30 times. It is expected to get past 9-billion-mark by 2050. The life expectancy at birth has also increased considerably. Before the advent of Modern Era, life expectancy is said to have been in between 20 and 30. Now, even if TLE is taken into account, life expectancy is much better. This is the table showing life expectancies in the previous eras of human history:
The current world average will come to about 50 if TLE is taken into account. The average weight can also be assumed to be much higher. The net conclusion is that much greater percentage of organic matter is owned by human beings now than at any time in the past; this transition of the organic matter from other living beings to human beings has been steadily taking place since the evolution of human beings. This proves the Nature’s ever increasing preference for human beings.
Need of the hour
We have seen in this paper that
1.True Life Expectancy (at conception) is much lower than the Life expectancy at birth. The difference is more marked in the so-called developed than the developing countries.
2.Increase in abortion ratios increases life expectancy at birth both statistically as well as in reality;
3.Nature shows a clear preference for human beings; not only the total population of human beings but their average life expectancy and average weight too have been steadily growing.
Now, the questions arise:
1. Should we work against this Natural Preference for Human beings, and should we use violent means to reverse this preference?
2. Should we use abortion as a method to increase human life expectancy? If we are doing this, nothing can be crueller than this.
What should we do to stop this large scale genocide of unborn human children?
First, we must change the definition of life expectancy from one at birth to one at conception (True Life Expectancy) without delay.
Second, we must introduce the term “foetal mortality rate” to calculate the loss of human lives.
Third, we must use “foeticide” for all induced abortions, male or female, except where it is done for purely a medical purpose.
Fourth, foeticide should be declared a big human rights issue and human rights organisations should start a full-fledged campaign against it.
Fifth, True Life Expectancies of the countries of the world should be regularly published and duly publicised.
Sixth, induced abortions should be effectively banned except for purely medical reasons.