Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Deutsche Welle reports a frightening and disturbing practice within Pakistan where newborn children are murdered due to the stigma of illegitimacy.
Warning: This article contains explicit information.
Adultery is often punished by vigilantism where family exact revenge against couples, often murderously. The children and mothers more often are targeted.
Nurse Razia Zulfikar of a maternity hospital in Gujranwala, Pakistan states that hundreds of children are killed simply by reason of the status of having unwed parents; a social taboo of society. The law provides a potential capital criminal offense stemming from pre-marital intercourse.
An eight-month pregnant girl came to us just a few days ago. We didn’t want to admit her to our hospital. After repeated requests from her family, we finally agreed to treat her. But we told the family explicitly that we would not kill the child,” Zulfikar told DW. “We gave the baby to the girl’s family. Only she and her family know what they did to the newborn, and how they killed him,” she added
A Pakistani welfare organization known as the Edhi Foundation estimated that 1,100 children were murdered and dumped into garbage bins last year. The figure is likely much higher as cases were tabulated only within large cities and not rural areas. Anwar Kazmi, a manager within the organization, describes the atrocities he and members of his charity have witnessed:
“A six-day-old child was burnt to death. We also found the corpses of babies who had been hanged, or who had been partly eaten by animals,” Anwar Kazmi, a manager at the Edhi Foundation, told DW.
“I can never forget one incident. A woman left a child in front of a mosque hoping that somebody would adopt him. But the cleric of the mosque ordered the people to stone the child to death. I saw the mutilated and torn body of the child myself,” he recalled
To address this painful issue, the Edhi Foundation began the Jhoola Project (meaning Cradle in Urdu) which encourages individuals to bring unwanted children and place them within cradles at foundation offices. This happens more often during the late hours and promises anonymous placement without fear of retribution against the mother or the child.
Edhi Foundation maintains over three hundred branches throughout the country.
Abortions are illegal in Pakistan with the exception of medical necessity to prevent harm to the mother. However this exception does not apply to unmarried women, leaving the mother to face persecution and perhaps the ultimately the murder of her child.
The murder of an infant in Pakistan is still a crime, but this unfortunately is not a deterrent to some who place their morals above the law.
By Darren Smith
Source:
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
DBQ,
This recent Docmadison link to a 2012 WaPo story is a case in point. I recall when this was trotted out back then that it only took a couple of minutes to discover what it was really about. I would have had the same skepticism had this been a story about the Democratic Party. Sadly, some people have their own “truth” and all they are looking for is any source to back it up.
Karen
I try to never post from a source that is well known for a left political bias. I try to post more mainstream and respected journalism. Often, even I’m skeptical of Kos and it’s silly to post that which will be automatically rejected by those who you hope to convince.
And I focus on the idea of ‘reputation’ – not what source is ‘allowed’. When you post Breitbart, John Birch and extreme right wing stuff, that’s how I get to “know” you. Karen, you are hard right – my opinion – and I found it shocking that you would be so heedless of your reputation in you use of Breitbart and John Birch. They have been a joke for years. Further, using them is sort of like giving me the finger. . Do you think I’m so dumb that you can honestly support your position with such trash? Do you expect me to read a Breitbart link for twenty minutes and then have to take another twenty minutes to research links that refute that craziness?
I won’t play that game. I’ll respect those on the right with what I hope are reasonable journalists. I expect the same respect from those on the right.
“Do you only converse with people who share your views, and post from sources you approve?”
@ Karen…..evidently. The echo chamber impulse is strong in these ones.
On a serious note, there is really not much purchase in trying to interact with someone who has a closed mind and refuses to even look at other sources of information or other views of an idea. This is the mindset of those who refused to consider that Darwin’s theory of evolution might be worth considering. The “approved” source at that time….the Bible…said no such thing as evolution could exist. So…… Fingers in the ears and going la la la la I can’t hear you. The liberal mind wants to think that it is so advanced and open, when it is anything BUT open.
Those who refuse to even consider or look at other references leave themselves unarmed in a debate situation as well. The skill of debating is not to just know your side’s points but to be able to, in depth, understand what the opponent is thinking, what facts and sources they might be using so that you can rebut their arguments. If you have a mind closed to both sides of the argument and ONLY know yours….you are going to lose.
One of the best exercises in logic and in debating (I was on my college debate team) is to be assigned to defend the argument that you do NOT really believe in. For instance if you are pro abortion, you should be assigned to debate the anti side of the equation and WIN the debate, whether you personally believe in the anti abortion stance or not. If you refuse to know the arguments of the other side, you are certain to lose.
This is also a technique that a good trial lawyer would be using. Know what the opponent will be bringing to the table and be prepared to refute or rebut that argument. If you attorney refuses to look at all the possibilities and know the arguments because he/she finds the source icky……you have a really crappy attorney.
Docmadison,
My guess is you never actually used those critical-thinking skills and researched what HOTS or OBE programs are about. Had you done that you would have discovered this paragraph is not saying they oppose critical-thinking skills but rather these specific methods of teaching.
Paul, Sometimes you speak nonsense. It is not my role to come up w/ a solution. It is JT’s. BUT, I HAVE SUGGESTED A SOLUTION @ LEAST A DOZEN TIMES. BLOGGER, it exponentially better. Think before you write!! Or, read before you write.
Nick – have you written to JT and pleaded with him to move to Blogger, what ever that is. This is the only blog I am on, so this is all I am used to. This is the only devil I know.
Arabs seem to have little respect for life. The baby is the innocent; there are people who would gladly adopt these children. Then killing people born legitimately later in life over religion. And the Saudi’s still cut off body parts as punishment. The mindset is impossible to understand. I’d like to see the UN negotiate with Pakistan for the babies. Then find them homes. There’s a philosophy that understanding the neighbor you have problems with will bring peace between you. I will never be able to understand Arabs. Rather proud of that.
Olly,
I hope my link, posted at 5:31, will bring you up to date on where the Texas GOP stands with regard to critical thinking.
Olly – please read the whole article. You will see the GOP is NOT against critical thinking but unthinking liberals think so.
Olly – this isn’t the first time I’ve been scolded for posting unapproved sources. There are unfortunately people who won’t read any link that is not Liberal, or does not support their own opinion. There is no refreshing influx of ideas for them.
doc:
What you fail to realize is that I’ve posted from everywhere ranging from Al Jazeera, HuffPo, and Fox. I don’t recall End Times, unless that was where I got the Sharia Law quote.
When I’m discussing a conservative viewpoint, I have to use a conservative source. If I’m discussing a union’s viewpoint, I use their source. And I read the links shared here. I might comment if I found it biased, but I would not dismiss someone entirely, or refuse what they had to say, merely on the basis that they were a Liberal. What a barrier to discourse!
Dismissing what someone has to say because they have “an agenda” merely deflates all discussion. It’s not “an agenda” it’s an opinion.
Do you only converse with people who share your views, and post from sources you approve?
I must be reading or listening to “unapproved” sources to have missed that Doc.
Darren – thanks! You’ve gone fishing a lot recently! I appreciate it.
Sorry, Olly. It was the Texas GOP 2012 platform that objected to critical thinking skills.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html
The people who voted for that platform probably LOVE the Colorado school board that frowns on discussing dissent in AP History classes.
docmadison – you are aware that if you actually read the article, using actual critical thinking skills, you find they are not against critical thinking skills but a relabeling of Outcome Based Education as critical thinking skills. Did you read the article you posted?
The immorality of legalized morals. Why church & state should not be in bed with each other & why laws & governments should never have a clerical leaning. Kudos to the bravery, humanity & courage of the Edhi Foundation. I’d like to see clerics who order stonings of victims & innocents stoned themselves. That it is not happening shows how low some of these societies have sunk.
Olly
Had you heard? Critical thinking is frowned upon by the Right. I think it was someone in OK.
Paul,
I was telling a friend about you and tried to recall the story you told about JFK and his service in the Pacific. Can you refresh my memory? I think there was also something about Jackie’s sex life.
Maybe Nick could help with the archives?
docmadison – the story is about how JFK ended up in the Pacific and Jackie’s sex life is getting to be more of an open book every day. There is no problem googling either.
Olly
Reason and Logic are overcome by Disingenuous.
Paul
Why no, Paul, I can’t remember when any baby was stoned to death in the US. But there was one in the UK. He was three. Will that do? And just yesterday I read of one kicked to death in the US.
docmadison – nope, only examples I will take are newborns in the USA.
Karen,
Apparently you must limit your references to “approved” sources only. Just another symptom of a growing culture with the inability to do critical-thinking.
Our Mensa Scholar speaks. Is he also our 10th Justice?
Karen,
Sources help to establish your ‘reputation’.
One can’t post from Fox, WNN, Daily Caller, Breitbart, John Birch or End Times and expect to be taken as a person without an agenda, or at least being easily dismissed. Same thing for Kos, Sharpton, Alinsky, Zinn, or Olbermann. Or in Professor Turley’s case, The Daily Mail. I can’t fathom why a Professor would ever post from such a rag.
No doubt everyone has their own lists – I find HuffPo inoffensive – but it should be relatively easy to know what are the extremes.