Legal genocide in full swing: let the world organisations focus more on Abortion Ratios rather than Abortion Rates!
All the great achievers in terms of Abortion Ratios are of course the “Most Civilized”, “Most Advanced” and “Most Developed” countries of the world. But nobody would listen to the fact that they are the biggest contributors to this ghastliest genocide. And they are also the countries which rise in one voice when some “barbaric” country gives death sentence to some murderer? Who is the real barbaric, they should better ask themselves. The tragedy is that even the religious forces including those of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are only watching this genocide and doing nothing to stop it. Will anybody rise now?
According to reports, roughly 121 million unintended pregnancies occurred each year between 2015 and 2019.* Out of these unintended pregnancies, 61% ended in abortion. This translates to 73 million abortions per year.
Despite these horrible figures, which are an open evidence of the daily recurring genocides and bigger than almost all the genocides of the history, the world organbisations keep mum and more often than not support it as “Freedom of Choice”. What is being deliberately and increasingly noticed is that the world organizations now mostly talk of Abortion Rates and hardly anywhere Abortion Ratio statistics are reproduced. This is aimed at giving a better image of “Developed” countries relative to “Developing” countries and to advance the case of higher and higher stage of legalization of abortions. Abortion Rates denote the number of abortions per 1000 women. The impression it gives is that of unintended pregnancies, which helps the argument in favour of legal and safe abortions as the right of women. Abortion Ratios on the other hand indicate the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies. Obviously abortion rates will be more in relatively less “advanced” countries where greater number of the abortions take place in married women. Abortions there are mainly aimed at limiting the size of the families. This is more a part of Population control drives stressing the need of better medical care and availability of contraceptives. In the “advanced” countries on the other hand, abortions are aimed at continuing to have sex outside marriage and without any obstructions. Pregnancies are therefore almost always terminated except where there are medical issues involved, or in some cases where women decide to have children even outside marriage.
Abortions: the biggest fallout of Market Sponsored Feminism
The most dangerous manifestation of what I call “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 or the placenta of their mothers; 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 most vulnerable of course are the children in the wombs whose voice if any cannot go beyond the skins of their mothers.
The new sexual morality espoused and promoted by the big business, 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 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 the mankind and where is the conscience? What we know of the mankind today is a kingdom of human beasts seeking pleasure and nothing but the pleasure, whatever the consequences. And this is not just the pleasure of the whole mankind at the cost of other creatures. It is for the gratification of the strong among human beings 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 every month! They are of course for them just the humans-in-making, not humans. 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” the mankind from “undesirable consequences” and to protect and promote the “Economy”.
Why call abortion, why not FOETICIDE?
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 are not humans but still have the backing and support of one or the other elements of power. A notable global campaign on the other hand 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 made to believe that we are living in a civilised world that cares for the human rights. Ironically, those who 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 feticide, not feticide 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 feticide. To join the fray against female feticide 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 feticide does not invite the concern it does. Female feticide is outrageously abominable, and must be condemned in the strongest possible words. In India, the problem has become so acuminate that in some Indian states like Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana it has already severely disturbed the male-female ratio in the population; it 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 has already 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.
How can FOETICIDE, the GENOCIDE of HUMAN FOETUSES be allowed?
What I want to emphasise however 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 feticide while abortion as such is accepted, it is largely because of the clashes of interests. Female feticide 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 businesses 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 the modern sexuality that it would be impossible for its authors 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 industry including commercial sex is to prosper. In fact wherever women play a meaningful role in the modern economic system, 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 recurrently take leave from the market 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 conveniently forgotten
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 the issue of abortion. What can be a more colossal, yet notorious tragedy than the fact that parents are being made to be a party in the cold-blooded murder of their own children? Still greater is the tragedy that parents hardly feel any compunction or remorse over their role. 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. In the process 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.
Immorality heaped on immorality!
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! Moreover, 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.
I quote here a report appearing in an American website about the horrendous nature of the enormity and brutality of abortions:
“Evidence of this is found in the recent conviction of Mr. Kermit Gosnell (who masquerades as a physician) for the first degree murder of three babies who survived his failed abortion attempts. The gruesome details of Gosnell’s abortion clinic, which he operated for years without government inspection, have shocked the conscience of a nation. Even many of those who proclaim to be pro-choice are now openly expressing doubts about the morality of abortion.
“The grisly evidence presented at Gosnell’s trial included details about babies born alive during the abortion procedure and subsequently killed by the snipping of their spines. Testimony from clinic workers included heartbreaking stories of babies surviving the brutal abortion assault and crying for help only to be viciously killed. Evidence included details of remains of infants aborted (and even tiny severed feet of infants) kept in refrigerators for storage. Gosnell was convicted of the first degree murder of three infants born alive, but the evidence showed that hundreds of such killings had occurred over the years at Gosnell’s bloody house of horrors.
“Pro-choice proponents of abortion, led by Planned Parenthood, have been quick to claim that Gosnell’s practices are the exception and not the rule as to how abortion clinics operate around the nation. However, further evidence coming from around the nation indicates that such claims are not well-founded. Indeed, it is becoming more apparent that Gosnell’s operations are the rule for abortion providers — not the exception……
“We must ask — what moral difference is there between snipping the spine of a baby born alive from a failed abortion procedure and killing her, and snipping the spine of a baby still in the womb and killing her? The first is now recognized as first degree murder.
“The second is what some refer to as “safe and legal” abortion. Since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade decriminalized the pro-life protective abortion laws of all fifty states there have been 55 million legal abortions. Abortion takes the lives of 1.3 million unborn children a year, 3,000 per day, and one every 25 seconds. Unless she turns away from these acts of brutality America seems to be bent on committing demographic suicide killing millions of its future leaders, citizens and tax-payers.
“Abortion is not an issue of liberals versus conservatives; of Democrats versus Republicans; … Rather, it is an issue of humanity versus barbarianism. It is an issue of right versus wrong. It is an issue of life versus death.”
(Thomas A. Glessner, Sanctity Of Life: The Gosnell Murder Trial and the Conscience of a Nation)
It can be seen that in most of the cases it is an uncivilised kind of sexual relationship with no restraints whatsoever that leads to pregnancies. As the couples are not ready to bear the responsibility of their actions and their desire of enjoyment in life without any kind of interruption, they simply kill the human being which has just started its life in the womb of his or her mother.
World Leaders in Abortion
See the following table giving both Abortion Ratios and Rates, which I could find after great labour:
Note the Abortion Ratios. All the great achievers in terms of Abortion Ratios are of course the “Most Civilized”, “Most Advanced” and “Most Developed” countries of the world. But nobody would listen to the fact that they are the biggest contributors to this ghastliest genocide. And they are also the countries which rise in one voice when some “barbaric” country gives death sentence to some murderer? Who is the real barbaric, they should better ask themselves. The tragedy is that even the religious forces including those of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are only watching this genocide and doing nothing to stop it. Will anybody rise now?
*Dr Javed Jamil is a thinker and writer with over twenty books including his latest, A Systematic Study of the Holy Qur’ān”. His other books include “Justice Imprisoned”. “Economics First or Health First?”, “Muslim Vision of Secular India: Destination & Road-map”, “Qur’ānic Paradigms of Sciences & Society” (First Vol: Health), “Muslims Most Civilised, Yet Not Enough”, “The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism”, “The Killer Sex”, “Islam means Peace” and “Rediscovering the Universe”. He iscurrently Chair in Yenepoya University Mangalore. His email address: doctorforu123@yahoo.com.
