Mr Farooq said: 'I am a doctor at the same hospital where this child was born. This man came to me yesterday with a request that I should do something to dispose of his child, but I snubbed him and said get out.
'No one has the right to kill anyone because of his or her physical deformity.'
July 15, 2012
"Pakistani police have arrested a man accused of burying his newborn daughter alive because she was physically deformed."
"Mohammed Farooq, a doctor at al-Shifa hospital, says he saw the child after her birth on Thursday and that she was healthy and alive but had a fairly large head and 'abnormal' features."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
If he buried a puppy alive more people would respond. Having worked child abuse cases early in my career I detest that PETA dynamic.
Well, too bad he lives in Pakistan. Because here he could have had an ultrasound and popped that ugly thing on the spot. Abortion!! It is the core belief of Democrats. They would forfeit any liberty, any, for this.
'No one has the right to kill anyone because of his or her physical deformity.'
Did you hear that, Justice Ginsburg?
Pakistan. That says it all.
Jake...it's...Pakistan.
Should we apply the standard that it's murder, but still must respect the father's decision to deal with these personal issues in a matter that he sees fit without intrusion from govt or the state?
The apparent problem is that it was the father who made the choice.
Pakistan's war on women's choice continues.
In this country, we let them kill the child before it is born, whether it has a deformity or not.
Nice to see someplace maintains the old pagan traditions.
Oh, that's right, they're "Peoples of the Book" and all cultures have the same merit.
Right?
I suppose it's OK if the law says it's OK. It's really up to the guy knowing he committed murder.
I suppose it's OK if the law says it's OK. It's really up to the guy knowing he committed murder.
WE know it's murder, but it's up to him to come to that conclusion on a personal level through his own reasoning and without state interference. Otherwise he'll get mad.
The sad truth is that until cultures have lots of disposable wealth, they will practice infanticide. That is true of most Christian and Muslim cultures at a subsistance standard of living.
The social contract is different for children and adults that survive infancy. Evidence is that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man, that far back...cared for the injured and lame and the elderly..probably an understanding that if you contribute and take risks and get your leg broke by a Mastadon or spend a lifetime sewing hides and gathering roots and rearing children and got infirm with age, the tribe would take care of you. (Until resources got too tight to save the dependent and still have the contributors survive)
But not deformed infants. Not part of the social contract.
There was lots of infanticide in Christian Europe, famine-struck Mideast Muslim nations, even in early America where settlers fought to grow and hunt enough for the healthy to live on. (And an early American tradition was infants were not even named until the parents had confidence they would be healthy and normal and not a burden that had to be accidentally smothered...)
Concepts of Jesus-endowed Blessed LIfe! Life! - rights even the most deformed or genetically doomed and unfit baby had to all the money needed for heroic care and livetime rearing at family or society expense - only came into being when industrialization created so much surplus wealth that philosophies like "Right to Life!" were considered practically and morally sustainable.
The Paki out in the tribelands erred in burying it alive...something that is abhorred even in the Muslim culture as an unacceptably cruel way to dispatch lives that need dispatching.
Probably never got on the radar screen if the deformed infant had "died a natural death from 'accidental'smothering or unfortunately, had been accidentaly left exposed in cold weather.
Only with real surplus wealth can nations indulge themselves with the luxury of "revering life, all life, at any cost". As nations decline, real wealth evaporates and hard choices have to be made...there has out of necessity be less "reverence at any cost". And it is hardly a core Christian or Islamic value, given history..to say nothing about what Eastern religions have reflected in what happens in great famines and hard times.
In 20 years, if the US decline continues, all surplus wealth evaporates - you may have a small city with only 3 million left available to either pay for essential services or pick up the tab for 5 years of care of a doomed Blessed Baby Bella Santorum.
Then we would be back to the choices that had to be made before Western Prosperity created the notion of "life at ant cost". The future Baby Bella will lose - on resource constraints and Christians will revert back to values they had for most of the history of Christianity where the cost of certain lives had to be balanced against other critical needs.
Did not the Spartans do the same thing? the infant would be examined by the ephors, and if deemed to be unsuitable, the infant would be abandoned on a mountain top--
The Spartans were great fighters; the Pakis, not so much.
Let's not use the term "Paki." It's considered offensive.
Yes, you're right. We wouldn't want to offend any muslims. Oh that's right! We already do just by existing. Or maybe it's the baby smootherer's we're trying to avoid antagonizing? Or is it the rioters who kill their own people when an "infidel" threatens their holy book?
Or maybe, Pakistan gets the level of respect it has earned?
Excuse me...Pahk ee stahn, not Pakistan.
Did not the Spartans do the same thing? the infant would be examined by the ephors, and if deemed to be unsuitable, the infant would be abandoned on a mountain top
Plato and Aristotle openly discuss infanticide in their writings. Harry Blackmun cites Plato and Aristotle in Roe v. Wade. It's mind-boggling incompetence to cite pagan baby-killers in an abortion opinion. And yet he does.
"Most Greek thinkers...commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25."
And if you check those quotes, you find Aristotle saying this:
As to the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live...
Way to put pagan infanticide into our Constitutional law, Harry.
And note that there was no modern concept of "viability" in ancient Greece. They had no incubators, no neonatal care units, no sonograms. And yet Blackmun is citing them for the viability doctrine? What is "viability," anyway?
Viability is survivability. Plato and Aristotle are referencing the non-viable status of newborns. They are weak and unable to survive on their own. Can't feed themselves, can't shelter themselves, can't defend themselves.
Babies are not viable. Babies are not autonomous. Not in the way the Ancient Greeks used these words. And these are ancient Greek words reflecting the ancient Greek belief that it is appropriate to kill a newborn infant.
Viability doctrine--pagan doctrine--leads to the logic of Carhart. Suddenly it doesn't matter if the baby is born or unborn. She's been marked for termination. So go ahead and kill her outside the womb.
And we are a modern society! We're inducing labor and delivering the baby. Why not put her in an incubator? After all, birth terminates the pregnancy. Why not try to keep the baby alive?
Of course a baby is only viable if the adults in the room are making efforts to keep her alive. If not, she's not viable. And this newborn is not loved. She's not wanted. She's a sub-human, marked for termination, outside the womb, and we inject poison in her neck. And dispose of her as medical waste.
Nice, clean, efficient, high-tech. We're so superior to Pakistan!
Althouse = The term Paki is fairly unavoidable. I know the Left in the UK started a PC war about it in the 1980s because the Yobs that clashed with radicalized Pakistani immigrants in the UK Midlands used that term...
But if not Paki, then what? You cant call them Punjabis because most aren't Punjabis. Or Sindhs or Balauchs or Pashtuns for that matter.
When grovelling Brits asked "How about "Paks" ?" - that was angrily rejected as demeaning as the first "offensive term" by various PC Leftists and Islamists well.
And you can hardly call them "Stanis" because there are 14 countries that use the 'stan ending..which means "nation".
The Left and now the Islamoids full well understand the flow of power and control to them that comes from commanding the language - and the delicious delight that they get when they force society to obediently kow-tow to their demands that certain words be used or not used, lest they be offended.
Now we have some Latino activists that are demanding the "Anglos" in Norte America begin pronouncing Mexico and Mexicans as they are pronounced south of the Border. No more "X"
pronunciation, 'Meh-hee-Ko' instead. "X" must be banned as un-PC. It is highly offensive...and the same far Left latino activists and their supporting "Anglo" choris - also believe it is now the responsibility of non-hispanics to become bilingual so spanish language speakers are not persecuted and discriminated against.
(BTW, the term "Paki" is reported to be about as widely used within Paki immigrant communities in English speaking lands as "nigger" is in the black community.)
Cedarford, Althouse wants "to have lunch in this town" so she has to put disclaimers like "Paki" is offensive. This is the Mecca of pc. Hopefully using "Mecca" in this context is ok.
A tiny percentage of abortions are in the third trimester--1%. It's a small percentage, but we're working off a really big number (50,000,000), so the actual numbers of babies aborted at that stage is quite a large number--500,000.
Since viability happens in the second trimester, one would assume all of these third trimester babies are viable in the modern sense (i.e. could live in a neonatal care unit).
But abortion clinics don't have neonatal care units.
And the "health" doctrine provides a right to kill viable babies if you get a note from your doctor.
And handicapped babies get the pagan definition of viability, anyway.
It sounds like the baby in Pakistan might have had Down's syndrome. The murder described in Carhart II was a baby with Down's.
Justice Ginsburg, in footnote three, describes these handicapped babies as "anomalies," and claims almost all of them are terminated in our country. Wikipedia agrees.
NO wonder the left made so much of Trig Palin. That kid needed to be put down and there is no reason that kid should still be breathing.Sarah did the world a disservice by letting that anomaly out into the universe.
If he'd just stuck her in a closet until she stopped breathing before he had her buried, he'd have a bright future as an obstetrician in Chicago.
Cedarford,
The term Paki is fairly unavoidable.
The hell it is. You seem perfectly capable of typing "Pakistani," as you do it in the very same comment.
Grow up, already.
"Yes, you're right. We wouldn't want to offend any muslims. Oh that's right! We already do just by existing. Or maybe it's the baby smootherer's we're trying to avoid antagonizing? Or is it the rioters who kill their own people when an "infidel" threatens their holy book?"
Ridiculous attitude. The man was arrested. What he did was regarded as a crime. Look what the doctor said.
"No one has the right to kill anyone because of his or her physical deformity."
There are many Westerners who would decriminalize euthanasia of deformed newborns. And certainly we have many abortions that take place in the West which are done because there is medical technology that allows the deformity to be seen before the child is born.
Look at your own country. Falling into stereotyping Muslims is just plain stupid.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Cedarford,
The term Paki is fairly unavoidable.
The hell it is. You seem perfectly capable of typing "Pakistani," as you do it in the very same comment.
Grow up, already.
====================
People tend to shorten things like descriptors of other people up - especially when Leftists and radical Islamists INSIST that the PROPER term is "United Kingdom/British Citizen of Pakistani or Part-Pakistani Origin".
Wrap your mouth or typewriter around THAT pile of PC!
Unfortunately, the well-meaning liberals always inclined to bend over to please minority demands and endless grievances are too stupid to see it's all about controlling the language and words of others and seizing a little bit more power and control..pushing a little more cultural and religious imperialism.
Some of the more radical British Muslims have demanded that if the name of the Prophet comes up in texts or news, the traditional Muslim phrase "Blessed by his name" must also be used.
Care to grovel and kow-tow to that as well, Michelle??
I mean, if you don't, and also acknowledge by doing so the religious correctness of the Prophet......why you just outrage and offend the same people puffing up and making demands to end use of "Paki/Pak/Punjabi.Sindhi..etc, or 'Stani" as a grave , grave offense that might force Muslims to kill infidels...
"Of course a baby is only viable if the adults in the room are making efforts to keep her alive. If not, she's not viable. And this newborn is not loved. She's not wanted. She's a sub-human, marked for termination, outside the womb, and we inject poison in her neck. And dispose of her as medical waste."
Obama voted for that "Born Alive" act. Don't forget.
"Althouse = The term Paki is fairly unavoidable."
Oh, bullshit.
Don't use it. It's not that hard.
See also footnote 22 in Roe v. Wade:
Aristotle's thinking derived from his three-stage theory of life: vegetable, animal, rational. The vegetable stage was reached at conception, the animal at "animation," and the rational soon after live birth.
Note that under Aristotle's rule, this Pakistani man did nothing wrong. This baby was not rational yet, and so there's nothing wrong about this.
And Harry Blackmun likes Aristotle's rule so much, he puts it in Roe v. Wade.
So go ahead, doctors, kill the newborns. Footnote 22 says it's okay!
Obama voted for that "Born Alive" act. Don't forget.
He did? I don't think that's right. Do you have a link? I believe he voted "present." But he voted against it in conference and gave many speeches against the bill.
See this, for instance.
He seems to be arguing that a preemie (premature born infant) is a non-person. And of course this comports with the rhetoric of the entire Supreme Court in Carhart. None of them argue that a baby outside the womb is a person under the Constitution.
It's insanity, truly. She's a citizen but she's not a person?
And note that the U.S. Senate vote for a similar bill was 99-0. There's not a liberal in the world that wants to go on record supporting live birth infanticide. At least not one that can be voted out of office!
Ann Althouse said...
"Althouse = The term Paki is fairly unavoidable."
Oh, bullshit.
Don't use it. It's not that hard.
==============
Bullshit back. I assume if a few Talibani and their leftist sympathizers start insisting Godless infidels immediately stop using the term "Afghans" and order all PC worried people to use "Afghanistanis" instead..
you will do so!
After all that isn't THAT hard.
And you have not addressed the outrage and concern in the UK about calling them Pakistanis instead of Pakis or Paks.
They believe that calling a UK citizen of Pakistani origin a Pakistani is also highly offensive and another grievance. It implies they are not real citizens of the UK, but de facto citizens of another country.
The PROPER term they want others to use, or who knows, bombs might go off....is "United Kingdom/British Citizen of Pakistani or Part Pakistani origin".
BTW - How is the PC drive going in Madison to stop calling Mexicans "MeX-i-cans" by pronounciation and "Meh-hee-cano" as hispanic activists demand?
'I am a doctor at the same hospital where this child was born. This man came to me yesterday with a request that I should do something to dispose of his child, but I snubbed him and said get out.
'No one has the right to kill anyone because of his or her physical deformity.'
I'm glad to hear that there are still some people left in my profession who value life.
Re the notion that the term "Paki" is offensive:
I see no reason for it to be. It hardy has the history that the "N" word has. Many groups try to elevate their status by piggybacking on the proper revulsion toward the "N" word. The controversy over "Paki" is a classic example.
Not wanting to be un-PC, I suggest they be universally referred to as "Persons of Pakistan."
The FactCheck.org post that is referenced at the end of Jill Stanek's post is http://bit.ly/njUXba.
I'm not going to call Mr Obama an enabler of infanticide to his face but he is clearly willing to defend the so-called right to abortion in any circumstances whatsoever.
Re the term "pakis" and other offensive terms. Perhaps the good professor would publish a lexicon of appropriate terminology for ethnic groups--how about, for example, redneck and cracker?
Your PC roots are showing professor.
Saint Croix,
Here's a link.
http://www.humanevents.com/2006/12/26/obama-more-prochoice-than-naral/
It actually shows that he voted against the bill, meaning for infanticide.
Let's not use the term "Paki." It's considered offensive.
There are many anti-gay terms that are considered offensive used in your comments section, yet I never see any attempt to get people to stop using them.
What, are the sensibilities of Pakis more delicate and in need of protection than those of gay people?
Is this some sort of "white woman's burden" thing?
Are thefollowing OK (and apologies if theyare not): ,
Swede, Dane, Brit, Afgani, Pole?
Wow; an article about infanticide and people are arguing whether "Paki" is an offensive term.
In this case, even if truly offensive (versus everyone pretending it's offensive), I'd say that it's still too kind. "Fucking Assholes" might be more applicable.
Joe said...
Wow; an article about infanticide and people are arguing whether "Paki" is an offensive term.
============
True.
I started with a post that said that historically, infanticide of genetic defectives even healthy but "one mouth too many" babies was common, eve morally acceptable in most past tribes & civilizations. Even Christian and Muslim ones. Infanticide was common in hardscrabble Russia, medieval Europe, Morocco....and became prevalent when famine hit Asian nations.
The social contract, even in Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon times extended to cover people who HAD contributed to the tribe in some way...but a "precious gift of life" baby born without legs or such was essentially out of luck.
It was only when civilizations created real excess wealth that the once-luxury or threat of killing healthy and productive people from diversion of resources of supporting genetically defective infants was ended - because the resources existed.
Morphed into "revering life, all life, each blessed life" no matter if it was a 3 million dollar heroic medical care needed to just get the defective child to last to die at age 5 type....or the moral obligation we now have to either bring in millions of excess Haitians or send hundreds of millions of bags of grain to Haiti over the years. (because we are so rich we can afford to "revere" each new bit of overpopulation there with as much of our excess food as they want)
Palladian makes an excellent point. Of perhaps we can conclude that, unlike Pakistanis and African Americans,gay people can fend for themselves and are capable of receiviing verbal slights without fainting.
Ann Althouse said...
Obama voted for that "Born Alive" act. Don't forget.
Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act
All of these "offensive terms for ethnicity" must be tweaking the professor's squishy liberal center.
As a proud Florida Cracker I have no problem with being called a cracker--dont mind being called a redneck but I do object to being called a hillbilly--there are no hills to speak of in Florida. And as Palladian notes, the use of the term "fag" seems to be relatively commonplace on the blog. And I have referred to my friend Nick Spinelli as a dago/wop and other delightful terms for those of the Italian persuasion. Nick and Palladian and I seem to take it in stride. So I am not seeing the "offensive" nature of these terms--perhaps the professor can explicate.
Now it is her blog and I am a guest and I will abide by her rules
Addendum--good to see my friend AllenS commenting--now I have always felt that AllenS is an extraterrestial, but we both share the thrill of watching the sun come up every morning, knowing we have made it thru another day. Whats not to like about that, even if Allens is actually from Mars.
You're close, Roger. I was born in Detroit.
Ann,
Obama voted for that "Born Alive" act. Don't forget.
Which one? Not the Illinois State one, he didn't.
That it's remotely controversial that a live newborn child should get immediate medical attention still staggers me. Hey, you may be a "physician" who was doing your best to snuff the fetus when it was a fetus, but if it accidentally gets born alive, it's not a fetus; it's a patient.
Geirge Will said long ago, on this subject, that "'a fetus born alive' is, in the vernacular, a 'baby.'"
Don't see what is the problem with paki, it is just a short form of pakistani. It isn't racist or some nasty word. I believe the reason that pakistanis don't like paki is because that is what indians call them. The pakistanis are using identity grievance extortion politics to manipulate dumb ass gullible western lefties into pressuring indians to change their terminolgy for pakistanis. I sincerely hope the indians keep calling pakistanis paki.
Cedarford,
People tend to shorten things like descriptors of other people up - especially when Leftists and radical Islamists INSIST that the PROPER term is "United Kingdom/British Citizen of Pakistani or Part-Pakistani Origin".
Wrap your mouth or typewriter around THAT pile of PC!
Alas, Cedarford, I confess that no longer possess a typewriter.
Britain doesn't have citizens; it has subjects. So "UK subject of Pakistani descent" is the closest full descriptor I can think of. What the British ordinarily use is "Asian," which for them doesn't mostly mean Far Eastern, but "from the area of the former British Raj," i.e., Indian or Pakistani.
But "Paki" is along the lines of "jap." (And "chink," and, for that matter, "jerry." "Kike" and "gook" are a little different, being etymologically obscure at first glance.) The point is that the abbreviation is designed to be insulting.
And if you're going to use "Paki" to mean anyone of Pakistani descent, whether a Pakistani national or a subject or citizen of the UK, the US, or any other country, how do you propose to convey the citizenship information without using the pile of words you say you're avoiding?
Steve Koch,
Don't see what is the problem with paki, it is just a short form of pakistani. It isn't racist or some nasty word. I believe the reason that pakistanis don't like paki is because that is what indians call them. The pakistanis are using identity grievance extortion politics to manipulate dumb ass gullible western lefties into pressuring indians to change their terminolgy for pakistanis. I sincerely hope the indians keep calling pakistanis paki.
You think so? I doubt, just for starters, that the manner of referring to Pakistani nationals is uniform over a country with several hundred languages and about a billion people. The only country about which it's more ridiculous to say "X" do this or that than the US is India.
My apologies to Cedarford. In my 5:58 p.m. comment the first paragraph is his, not mine. I forgot to italicize.
I thought that Hillary, who by the way is the smartest person in the world, made a joke about Pakistanis, but she didn't. She made a joke about Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."
Cairo (CNN) -- Egyptian protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade Sunday and shouted, "Monica, Monica, Monica" as she left the newly reopened U.S. Consulate in Alexandria.
Do you think that she'll tell Bill?
"You think so? I doubt, just for starters, that the manner of referring to Pakistani nationals is uniform over a country with several hundred languages and about a billion people. The only country about which it's more ridiculous to say "X" do this or that than the US is India."
I did not claim that all indians uniformly call pakistanis paki. I will claim that among english speaking indians, it is common for them to call pakistanis paki.
Other than pakistanis not liking the term, what is wrong with the term paki?
Adding a new term to the vast set of terms that are deemed politically incorrect by lefties is rather simple and can be done by a very small number of very determined people. Politically correct speech is a mechanism the left uses to constrain the conversation and mold weak minds.
Just because you or Althouse think paki is a bad word means nothing if you can't explain why it is bad to use the term.
"But "Paki" is along the lines of "jap." (And "chink," and, for that matter, "jerry." "Kike" and "gook" are a little different"
Really? Kike and gook are completely different, since they are about race, not nationality. Don't pretend that calling a pakistani paki is close (i.e. just a little different) to calling a jew a kike.
"The point is that the abbreviation is designed to be insulting."
Really? It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable and natural to truncate pakistani, 4 syllables, to paki, 2 syllables. Some of the people calling pakistanis pakis hate them and some don't.
Yankee is routinely shortened to yank and it is fine with me.
The subhuman savages have zero regard for human life. Why aren't we eradicating them so we can get on with ours?
The silence from Althouse is tantamount to an admission of pleading guilty to being a PC Princess. But, at least she can still have lunch w/ fellow elitist PC Princes and Princesses in Madison. We all have our priorities.
Both terms 'Rednecks' and 'Hillbillies' comes from the conflict in Northern Ireland during the Glorious Revolution. Hillbillies were called that because they supported William of Orange as King, and they were from the hill country. Rednecks also supported the Protestant King and wore red kerchiefs. Many of these people and their descendants came to America. First they came to western Pennsylvania and then down the Great Wagon road and settled throughout the south. BTW, they were the ones who started the 'Whiskey Rebellion'. They are my ancestors.
Also BTW, Gook is not a made up term. It is the Korean (Hangul) word for people. They call themselves Hangook--people of the Han River. They call Americans Migook--brother people, I was told.
Well, it is in conformity with the old Roman law, terrible and inhumane though it seem to us:
Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto.
Actually that quote from the Twelve Tables seems to be based on an indirect quotation, not a direct quotation. Seems to come from Cicero's De Legibus, III.8.19:
Deinde quom esset cito necatus tamquam ex XII tabulis insignis ad deformitatem puer, brevi tempore nescio quo pacto recreatus multoque taetrior et foedior natus est.
Kind of an off-hand reference? My Latin is very bad, so I'm not even sure exactly what he's saying. Or having Quintus. Or whatever. But there's something in there about killing deformed children immediately.
Re: Koch
"But "Paki" is along the lines of "jap." (And "chink," and, for that matter, "jerry." "Kike" and "gook" are a little different"
Really? Kike and gook are completely different, since they are about race, not nationality. Don't pretend that calling a pakistani paki is close (i.e. just a little different) to calling a jew a kike.
. . . what? First, the dividing line between a race and nationality (as opposed to state/government) is pretty blurry -- in the US, yes, there's always that push to break things down into the five colour-coded races (Black, White, Yellow, Red, Brown) but I would say that both the Chinese (at least the Han Chinese) and the Japanese have an extremely strong racial identity.
I suppose Germans have become so utterly deracinated that they have no sense of racial identity beyond mere "White" anymore, but that certainly wasn't the case back when Kipling was deriding them as "lesser breeds without the law" or everyone was calling them Huns, or when Hitler used the unification of the German race into a single Wilsonian nation-state as his excuse for the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. At the time we were calling the Boche "Jerries", it was certainly a racial insult. Nowadays, we generally call Krauts "Germans," though. Because all these other terms are racist.
Balfegor,
Thanks for the "Huns" link. I remembered that the Germans had taken that label on themselves well before the British made it into an insult during the Great War, but I didn't remember the context.
"Obama voted for that "Born Alive" act. Don't forget."
Sorry, I meant voted against.
This is totally wrong and against the laws of Islam. Qur'an clearly warns people not to bury your kids for any fear. You may Visit this site.
Post a Comment