Killings of newborn babies on the rise in Pakistan

scribblet · January 30, 2011

I think that's because you can't or won't grasp the concept of arrested development due to interference or...diddling in a word.

I don't understand... I agree there is 'arrested development' in the Muslim world, but that would be because of lack of education and too much of the Koran and repressive regimes who's treatment of women is less than stellar.

eyeball · January 30, 2011

Treating them as a pariah nation would put substantial pressure on them to stop acting in such a manner. When and if they do begin to act in a more civilized manner BY OUR VALUES then we can remove the pariah designation!

The fact that not all their population may support such medieval attitudes is a red herring. We can only deal with them as a country and it is up to their government to address such concerns. Refusing to deal with them would put pressure on their government to change.

I don't think this is how it will work. As I see it the populations in these places are torn between the clerics and dictators so removing the props and oxygen outsiders provide will leave the clerics and dictators nothing at all to win their people's hearts and minds with but their own devices.

In the meantime, we would sit on our side of the wall and they on theirs. If they come over the wall then we would simply throw them back, without any need to be gentle about it.
Where is it written that we should deal with those we don't or can't respect? What gives a country the RIGHT to have everyone else deal with them?

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, how far would Hitler have gotten if old Joe Kennedy and his friends had refused to sell him machinery and arms?

There's a damn good chance no one would have ever heard of Hitler had Europe been left to it's own devices when WW1 started.

It's the presumed Machiavellian right of nations to venally interfere in the internal affairs of other countries that is the real issue. It seems that it just about always makes things worse. When are we ever going to learn?

Edited January 30, 2011 by eyeball

eyeball · January 30, 2011

I don't understand... I agree there is 'arrested development' in the Muslim world, but that would be because of lack of education and too much of the Koran and repressive regimes who's treatment of women is less than stellar.

Like I said leave the regimes to their own devices and they will quickly be seen for what they are, which is completely empty.

I expect and hope that if allowed to develop naturally on their own, human right's in these places will build on and coalesce around the development of women's and children's rights. That's how it worked with our ancestors. I certainly don't expect this to be a rapid or painless process because I expect things still have to get worse before they'll get better.

Like Buddha said, the path to enlightenment is painful. Our own culture's development is littered with the bones and blood of the smallest weakest members among us, but it was upon them that our humanity was eventually born.

Edited January 30, 2011 by eyeball

Bonam · January 30, 2011

I hope the day never comes when we just ignore such wrongs simply because "we don't need them." Killing babies/purposely leaving them to die, which is tantamount to torture, in this instance mostly simply because they are female, is not something the world should just ignore. I can't begin to understand why anyone would agree that we should "simply let it be and leave them alone."

And what do you propose instead? Yeah, we can report on it and people in the West can rant about the wrongness of such actions... but that has little/no effect, as we have seen. The only way we could change things there would be through force, as we have attempted to do in Afghanistan, though with very limited success. Do we really need to take it upon ourselves to right every wrong in the world, to invade every country which we cannot sway to "civilization" by words alone, to put the lives of our own people on the line to lift barbarians out of the stone age?

Our own nations rose out of barbarism by their own slow and painful effort and progress, fraught with violence and horror. What makes you think we have the power to speed or ease this transition for others?

January 30, 2011

And what do you propose instead? Yeah, we can report on it and people in the West can rant about the wrongness of such actions... but that has little/no effect, as we have seen. The only way we could change things there would be through force, as we have attempted to do in Afghanistan, though with very limited success.

That's where you're wrong. "Force" isn't the only way to change things. Education is a really good beginning. Being there to help care for the abandoned babies is another way. If you haven't read the books "Three Cups of Tea" or "Stones Into Schools," you might want to pick one or both up. The only way things will likely change in some of these nations is by educating the girls.

Do we really need to take it upon ourselves to right every wrong in the world, to invade every country which we cannot sway to "civilization" by words alone, to put the lives of our own people on the line to lift barbarians out of the stone age?

No, I don't think we do have to take it upon ourselves to right every wrong in the world, but to see "leaving them alone" as somehow the right thing to do is what I don't understand. We aren't obligated to help everyone, nor would we be able to, but that doesn't make not doing so "the right thing to do."

Our own nations rose out of barbarism by their own slow and painful effort and progress, fraught with violence and horror. What makes you think we have the power to speed or ease this transition for others?

The world, via the internet/plane travel/ease of exchange of information, is much 'smaller' than it used to be, so I think we do have the "power" now, although I would refer to it as the ability, to help speed and/or ease things along -- and to help make things better for some in the interim.

Bonam · January 31, 2011

That's where you're wrong. "Force" isn't the only way to change things. Education is a really good beginning. Being there to help care for the abandoned babies is another way. If you haven't read the books "Three Cups of Tea" or "Stones Into Schools," you might want to pick one or both up. The only way things will likely change in some of these nations is by educating the girls.

Our "education" may not be welcome in nations like this, where it clashes with native ideologies, cultures, or religions. Being there to help care for people involves great personal risk for those that are there, as the many instances of the killings and abductions of aid workers in crappy parts of the world illustrate.

No, I don't think we do have to take it upon ourselves to right every wrong in the world, but to see "leaving them alone" as somehow the right thing to do is what I don't understand. We aren't obligated to help everyone, nor would we be able to, but that doesn't make not doing so "the right thing to do."

From my perspective, morality should not be defined as something outside the realms of possibility. If it was truly the "right thing to do" to take it upon ourselves to help everyone, and we failed to do so, then we would be immoral people. I don't see it as the right thing to do. Why not? In many places, where Western cultures have interfered with less advanced ones, even with what appeared to be the best intentions to the Westerners of that time period, we have caused far more harm than good. I say the right thing to do is avoid further interference of this nature, and thus avoid causing more harm. Leaving people to develop on their own is not an immoral action.

The world, via the internet/plane travel/ease of exchange of information, is much 'smaller' than it used to be, so I think we do have the "power" now, although I would refer to it as the ability, to help speed and/or ease things along -- and to help make things better for some in the interim.

We also have the ability to cause far greater harm as a result of this. How much more deadly and painful are tribal conflicts because, through the exchange of information, they have learned of modern weaponry and made it a point to acquire some or produce some?

Shwa · January 31, 2011

I shouldn't even bother but here goes!

You built the straw man, not me! First off, if there were 1200 REPORTED cases it's a certainty there were far more. Governments want those types of figures to be reported as low as possible.

Oh sorry, I must have misread your words, I thought you said:

Those people are simply barbarians. It's high time the rest of the world started treating them as such.

based on the OP which showed that 1200 known infant murders condemns 170 million to barbarism?

However, that's not the main issue. Every country has problems. However, certain cultures seem to have values, or lack of them, that conflicts with our own. The question is not if you have a problem but what you try to do about it. If Pakistan shows little or no inclination to address such cases then other cultures and countries have a perfect right to place a value judgement on them.

And you know - for certain - that "Pakistan shows little or no inclination to adddress such cases" by way of what information? Did you miss this phrase in the quote article in the OP? Let me help you out: "...infanticide is a crime on the rise."

Do you get that? Infanticide, in Pakistan, is a crime. So it's against the law.

If a country like Pakistan admitted they have such a problem AND they showed concrete and realistic attempts to address it then there would be no need to brand them 'pariah'.

And you are familiar with the Pakistani response to infanticide how? Wait, I get it. What you are saying is that it is not enough that infanticide in Pakistan is a crime, against the law - which they put there to address the infanticide problems, but not they have to police everyone to prevent such deaths ahead of time. Like they should have done with Kermit Gosnell. Remember him? He is the guy in Philadelphia who was caught murdering all those babies by severing their spines with scissors.

Of course, what does this have to do with the USA and Canada?

A Brief History of Infanticide

Statistically, the United States ranks high on the list of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States.
The 1980's followed similar trends. Whereby overall homicide rates were decreasing in the United States, the rate at which parents were killing their children was increasing, In 1983, over six hundred children were reported killed by their parents, and from 1982-1987, approximately 1.1% of all homicides were children under the age of one year of age. When the homicide of a child was committed by a parent, it was the younger age child who was in the greater danger of being killed, while if the killer was a non-parent, then the victim was generally older.

Judging by their tepid, lukewarm attempts to deal with Islamic terrorists, along with these instances of infanticide, they show no signs of admitting such problems. Obviously, they don't think these ARE problems!

Infanticide is a crime in Pakistan, as it is in the US and Canada.

Treating them as a pariah nation would put substantial pressure on them to stop acting in such a manner. When and if they do begin to act in a more civilized manner BY OUR VALUES then we can remove the pariah designation!

Children are murdered by their parents in the US and Canada. What "OUR VALUES" are you talking about?

The fact that not all their population may support such medieval attitudes is a red herring. We can only deal with them as a country and it is up to their government to address such concerns. Refusing to deal with them would put pressure on their government to change.

Bullshit. Selective morality. Here, have a review: Infanticide in Canada

In the meantime, we would sit on our side of the wall and they on theirs. If they come over the wall then we would simply throw them back, without any need to be gentle about it.
Where is it written that we should deal with those we don't or can't respect? What gives a country the RIGHT to have everyone else deal with them?

We? Whose this "we" you speak of? Is it some club you belong to? Is it ia trade club? How about an immigration club?

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, how far would Hitler have gotten if old Joe Kennedy and his friends had refused to sell him machinery and arms?

Now that's some final moralizing right there. Say it ain't so... :blink:

Edited January 31, 2011 by Shwa

Sir Bandelot · January 31, 2011

How many die in Canada each year? From murder, neglect, abortion. How many in the United States? Is it the same number per capita?

What percentage would you "civilized" people find acceptable.

You who vote in the murderers. Who do nothing when sanctions are imposed, that killed thousands or hundreds of thousands of children. Who's leaders deemed it "acceptable losses"...

Edited January 31, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

January 31, 2011

Our "education" may not be welcome in nations like this, where it clashes with native ideologies, cultures, or religions. Being there to help care for people involves great personal risk for those that are there, as the many instances of the killings and abductions of aid workers in crappy parts of the world illustrate.

Greg Mortenson, the author I referred to, has been building schools in Pakistan. Not surprisingly, he's had to deal with some risks/threats, but most of the 'ordinary' people love what he is doing and are so appreciative. The girls are encouraged to attend and love it. He now is also building schools in Afghanistan. He's but one example. The charity mentioned in the article, the people taking in the babies that are found abandoned, is another example. So some people are willing to take the risk, and to them I don't say "we should just leave them alone."

I've always thought it would be nice if our nations had a humanitarian service along with the military for people who would like to volunteer for that type of service.

From my perspective, morality should not be defined as something outside the realms of possibility. If it was truly the "right thing to do" to take it upon ourselves to help everyone, and we failed to do so, then we would be immoral people.

No we wouldn't: we'd be just what we are -- human. We're not perfect and never will be, but just because we can't help everyone doesn't mean "we should just leave them alone." It's that mentality that I don't understand, as if doing something automatically is the wrong thing to do.

I don't see it as the right thing to do. Why not? In many places, where Western cultures have interfered with less advanced ones, even with what appeared to be the best intentions to the Westerners of that time period, we have caused far more harm than good. I say the right thing to do is avoid further interference of this nature, and thus avoid causing more harm. Leaving people to develop on their own is not an immoral action.

I'm not sure turning a blind eye to genocide/infanticide/et al can be perceived as simply leaving people to develop on their own. I'm not sure why people need to be left to develop on their own; I think we could, and should, all learn and benefit from others' experiences and insight and caring. We've certainly "interfered" where good has resulted, and in some instances we don't know if things would have been better or worse, we can only speculate.

We also have the ability to cause far greater harm as a result of this. How much more deadly and painful are tribal conflicts because, through the exchange of information, they have learned of modern weaponry and made it a point to acquire some or produce some?

People have been building, modernizing, producing, and acquiring more sophisticated weaponry since the beginning of time. If we possess the weapons, it stands to reason others are going to find a way to get them too. Otherwise, they are at the mercy of those who have them, and I don't think they'd see that as a positive thing.

Scotty · February 1, 2011

I think that's because you can't or won't grasp the concept of arrested development due to interference or...diddling in a word.

I am far from an expert in the history of that part of the world. But insofar as I'm aware, the British colonialism was, if anything, a civilizing influence on India (which included Pakistan at that time).

Scotty · February 1, 2011

What is wrong with using the word 'Barbarians' to describe a section of the world which is culturally backward and extremely violent, brutal and intollerent?

Sir Bandelot · February 1, 2011

What is wrong with using the word 'Barbarians' to describe a section of the world which is culturally backward and extremely violent, brutal and intollerent?

Culturally backward- we have degenerated from what was a far more refined culture.

Extremely violent, brutal and intolerant- Our armies sent from this part of the world have easily killed more than anything they have done, ten times over. Whether that be done through sanctions, carpet bombing or use of nuclear weapons. Really if this is to be the scale we use for barbarism, the west wins the prize. Add to that the the hypocritical judgment of others as evil, barbarous and inferior, you get the picture.

Not that I hate our society, or think that its inferior to others but if we're going to pass some sort of judgment on who is "right" or "wrong", lets do it in fairness and honesty. Whoops, forgot, this is "politics"

Bonam · February 1, 2011

Culturally backward- we have degenerated from what was a far more refined culture.

Extremely violent, brutal and intolerant- Our armies sent from this part of the world have easily killed more than anything they have done, ten times over. Whether that be done through sanctions, carpet bombing or use of nuclear weapons. Really if this is to be the scale we use for barbarism, the west wins the prize. Add to that the the hypocritical judgment of others as evil, barbarous and inferior, you get the picture.

Not that I hate our society, or think that its inferior to others but if we're going to pass some sort of judgment on who is "right" or "wrong", lets do it in fairness and honesty. Whoops, forgot, this is "politics"

Civilization does not equate to pacifism.

eyeball · February 1, 2011

I am far from an expert in the history of that part of the world. But insofar as I'm aware, the British colonialism was, if anything, a civilizing influence on India (which included Pakistan at that time).

I'm sure colonialism had it's moments here and there but it's always been a very fickle bitch and more often than not resulted in disaster for the colonized.

bloodyminded · February 2, 2011

Oh sorry, I must have misread your words, I thought you said:

based on the OP which showed that 1200 known infant murders condemns 170 million to barbarism?

And you know - for certain - that "Pakistan shows little or no inclination to adddress such cases" by way of what information? Did you miss this phrase in the quote article in the OP? Let me help you out: "...infanticide is a crime on the rise."

Do you get that? Infanticide, in Pakistan, is a crime. So it's against the law.

And you are familiar with the Pakistani response to infanticide how? Wait, I get it. What you are saying is that it is not enough that infanticide in Pakistan is a crime, against the law - which they put there to address the infanticide problems, but not they have to police everyone to prevent such deaths ahead of time. Like they should have done with Kermit Gosnell. Remember him? He is the guy in Philadelphia who was caught murdering all those babies by severing their spines with scissors.

Of course, what does this have to do with the USA and Canada?

A Brief History of Infanticide

Infanticide is a crime in Pakistan, as it is in the US and Canada.

Children are murdered by their parents in the US and Canada. What "OUR VALUES" are you talking about?

Bullshit. Selective morality. Here, have a review: Infanticide in Canada

We? Whose this "we" you speak of? Is it some club you belong to? Is it ia trade club? How about an immigration club?

Now that's some final moralizing right there. Say it ain't so...

Bravo.

I can even understand the knee-jerk responses that generates threads such as this--I truly can.

But using evidence, reason, and level-headedness seems somehow preferable! Go figure.

bloodyminded · February 2, 2011

Greg Mortenson, the author I referred to, has been building schools in Pakistan. Not surprisingly, he's had to deal with some risks/threats, but most of the 'ordinary' people love what he is doing and are so appreciative. The girls are encouraged to attend and love it.

Yes, this idea that the "clash of values" means that Pakistanis (or Afghans, or etc) "won't accept" such things is patently false. There are reactionaries, sometimes dangerously violent ones, but that shouldn't condemn entire cultures and peoples.

If there was no desire for such things as women's rights, minority rights, children's rights, social justice, education, and liberal values, then MPs like Malalai Joya couldn't be expected to get elected, could they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malalai_Joya

Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

bloodyminded · February 2, 2011

I am far from an expert in the history of that part of the world. But insofar as I'm aware, the British colonialism was, if anything, a civilizing influence on India (which included Pakistan at that time).

Like every incursion by anybody, there are going to be some benefits.

But British behaviour in Africa, India, the West Indies, and so on, was certainly, and frequently, "barbaric."

(For just one example, by no means the biggest, think of the Amritsar massacre in India.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Now, why would such barbarous incidents of mass murder and oppression and rapacity be (as the apologists tend to claim) anomalies, whereas the "barbarity" of people from those countries is seen as endemic, cultural, and indictable?

Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

Bonam · February 2, 2011

(For just one example, by no means the biggest, think of the Amritsar massacre in India.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Now, why would such barbarous incidents of mass murder and oppression and rapacity be (as the apologists tend to claim) anomalies, whereas the "barbarity" of people from those countries is seen as endemic, cultural, and indictable?

Because those incidents were in the past, whereas this thread is about something happening now. Judging the actions of previous generations by the actions of today is a fool's exercise. And, condemning current generations for the actions of their ancestors is invalid.

Let me guess, this is the point where you bring up Suharto?

bloodyminded · February 2, 2011

Because those incidents were in the past, whereas this thread is about something happening now. Judging the actions of previous generations by the actions of today is a fool's exercise. And, condemning current generations for the actions of their ancestors is invalid.

Let me guess, this is the point where you bring up Suharto?

Since I was directly responding to remarks about the awesome, civilizing effects of British colonialism in India, my post is by definition a propos.

Unlike your rebuttal, which is out of place.

Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

Scotty · February 4, 2011

Culturally backward- we have degenerated from what was a far more refined culture.

I disagree completely. We are far more culturally enlightened today than we were even a few generations ago.

Extremely violent, brutal and intolerant- Our armies sent from this part of the world have easily killed more than anything they have done, ten times over

.

We're not talking about history, but if you did want to look into the history of the Indian subcontinent I think you'd find as much blood and slaughter as you could ever hope for.

]Not that I hate our society, or think that its inferior to others but if we're going to pass some sort of judgment on who is "right" or "wrong", lets do it in fairness and honesty. Whoops, forgot, this is "politics"

It has nothing to do with politics. If I read that some very high percentage of the population, say 80% in one recent posting, support stoning people to death for adultery, support death for changing religions, support dismembering people for stealing, and other such ridiculously primitive, barbaric notions, then I feel safe in suggesting that perhaps the term 'barbarism' is not being entirely misapplied.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Scotty

Scotty · February 4, 2011

Yes, this idea that the "clash of values" means that Pakistanis (or Afghans, or etc) "won't accept" such things is patently false. There are reactionaries, sometimes dangerously violent ones, but that shouldn't condemn entire cultures and peoples.

The problem is that when the violent reactionaries can intimidate the rest of a society they basically get to set the agenda, the goals, the laws, and to guide the culture where they want it. Thus when Salman Taseer was murdered by one of his own bodyguards almost everyone else fled from even discussing the issue which got him killed - reforming the blasphemy law. Pakistan appears to be degenerating into chaos not because the majority of the population are violent fanatics, but because the violent fanatics are willing to do anything to push their agenda and the rest of the country - isn't.

Sir Bandelot · February 4, 2011

If I read that some very high percentage of the population, say 80% in one recent posting, support stoning people to death for adultery, support death for changing religions, support dismembering people for stealing, and other such ridiculously primitive, barbaric notions, then I feel safe in suggesting that perhaps the term 'barbarism' is not being entirely misapplied.

That is a moot point, because no one in their right mind would deny such things are barbaric.

Scotty · February 4, 2011

Now, why would such barbarous incidents of mass murder and oppression and rapacity be (as the apologists tend to claim) anomalies, whereas the "barbarity" of people from those countries is seen as endemic, cultural, and indictable?

Perhaps because these are deliberate efforts with a political goal carried out by a functionary, as opposed to the masses of hysterical bloodshed and slaughter in the streets by ordinary people purely out of hate or becaues they heard a rumor that someone had dishonred the Koran or thrown a pig into a hindu temple or just out of hate. What was it, a hundred thousand or so died during independance, attacked by mobs and gunmen as they tried to make their way north out of what was to become modern India into what is now Pakistan?

I recall reading an article about a riot in India a few years back. I believe it was an anti sikh riot, but it oculd have been anti-muslim, and the tale involved screaming men with swords and torches burning whole neighborhoods, throwing sikhs into fires, throwing babies into the air and beheading them with swords, etc. etc. How can you describe that as anything but barbarism?

Scotty · February 4, 2011

That is a moot point, because no one in their right mind would deny such things are barbaric.

But if the people of a nation or culture believe these things, believe them strongly, should we not call them barbarians?

Sir Bandelot · February 4, 2011

But if the people of a nation or culture believe these things, believe them strongly, should we not call them barbarians?

Yes we should.

And if a people elects leaders who advocate preemptive wars of aggression, and ignore the plight of a nation put under sanctions for 20 years, resulting in the death of innumerable, some say up to 500,00 children, they should be called barbaric as well.

So knowing this I ask, what are you going to do about it? Bomb them into the stone age? Cause I got news for you pal, they're already there.

But that should hardly be the response of a civilized (non-barbaric) society. The objective would be to find a way to get them to stop being barbarians, without becoming barbarians ourselves. I know, that is a very very tall order. It's far easier and quicker to go down the ladder, than it is to go up.