Tania Fiolleau

As a former Madam and woman who was prostituted, I know why prostitution must be made illegal

Tania Fiolleau
By Tania Fiolleau
Image

Editor’s note: Tania Fiolleau, a former victim of prostitution and former Madam who employed over five hundred women, warns Canadians that they are “headed for a catastrophe” with last week’s ruling in Ontario that legalized brothels. Special to LifeSiteNews.

April 2, 2012 (savethewomen.ca) – There are many reasons why prostitution and brothels should be made illegal in Canada.

First, it cruelly subjugates vulnerable migrant women into the dreadful darkness of sex-slavery. Migrant trafficking is an estimated $32 billion business, annually exceeding the sales of Google, Starbucks and Nike combined. Prostitution in Vancouver, B.C. accounts for roughly 16,000 people arriving illegally through Vancouver ports per year, making the city a major hub for human trafficking. This goes a lot deeper than your typical prostitute on the street corner soliciting drivers. People from all different nationalities are trafficked into Canada each week under the guise of being a ‘visitor’ or having a ‘work permit’ and then are sold into prostitution for the profit of criminal organizations. Many of these women are ‘tricked’ into coming on work visas under false pretenses and then forced into prostitution. These women are forced to work in brothels disguised as therapeutic massage centers, nail pedicure places, karaoke clubs, etc. These women do not want to become prostituted. They did not grow up with dreams of one day becoming a sex slave or being pimped.

Another reason why prostitution should be illegal in Canada is that sex consumers demand the flesh of young naive girls. The average age of entry into prostitution in Canada is 13 to 14 years old. Customers prefer the services of adolescents for their own sick reasons. This preference is partially formed by the perception that younger prostitutes are more clean and less likely to harbor sexually transmissible diseases. Young vulnerable teens are unwittingly recruited into prostitution by friends who are already part of the ‘human flesh trade’ or by pimps who target youths who have run away from broken or abusive homes. Young unsuspecting girls are preyed upon by prostitution recruiters at malls or even on Facebook. Teens from broken homes are especially susceptible to a pimp’s offer of shelter, food, and emotional support. While young girls are usually tricked into prostitution, it is not uncommon for them to be forced into the practice through brutal beatings.

A further reason to make prostitution illegal is that it utterly destroys the mental and even physical integrity of the prostituted woman. Approximately 80% of women entering into prostitution have been victims of rape. Prostituted persons, however, are literally raped multiple times daily, as much as 8 to 10 times per day. They are the most raped class of women in human history. One study found that prostituted women exhibited many of the same characteristics as soldiers returning traumatized from war. More than 75% of prostitutes surveyed in the study met the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The average number of prostitutes suffering PTSD from sex slavery was seen to be 14% higher than the average number of soldiers suffering PTSD after returning from intense combat on the front lines.

As a forward-moving nation, we Canadians should make prostitution illegal. We should not, however, make the laws as tough for women caught prostituting as we should for the pimps, Johns, and recruiters, since most women caught in prostitution did not choose that lifestyle nor can they easily escape from it. Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply. To reduce the demand for the prostitutes, we need to throw the book at the Johns, recruiters and the pimps. Making stiff laws for the Johns, recruiters and pimps will greatly lower the number of prostitutes.

Canada should follow the Nordic model, which proved very effective in cutting down prostitution in Sweden by approximately 45%, with hardly any of the trade going underground. The buyer was one who was criminalized. As prostitution dropped in Sweden, so did the accompanying social ills of human trafficking, drug use, and organized crime.

The recent ruling in Ontario legalizing brothels really makes our cities and our government into pimps. Brothels in Canada are charged roughly $4400 annually for business licenses, money that fills the treasury of the city and the government. Most other businesses are charged approximately $176 per year. The city and the government knows that there is big money in prostitution and they want their slice of the pie. Legalizing brothels just puts more tax money in the government’s pocket, which really makes the government the biggest pimp of all. Of course to make Canadian’s swallow the legalization of brothels, the new business title for a pimp will be entrepreneur, body-guard, or driver. Canada needs to wake up about how the government with its laws is not only sanctioning, but benefitting, from the sexual slavery of vulnerable women in legalized brothels.

Some people think that legalizing brothels will make the prostituted women safer and allow them to lead better lives. This is far from the truth. Many of the women working in brothels have already been abused by human trafficking, enslavement to pimps, or by being controlled by criminal organizations through fear and oppression.

Whether brothels are legal or not, a prostituted woman will always be the one who loses out in the end. The vast majority of prostituted women that work in brothels eventually end up working on the street. This happens once the signs of a woman’s sex slavery start to show on the outside of her body. She become too worn out and haggard-looking to appeal to the Johns that frequent the brothels. Not being able to keep up with the younger sexier recruits, she is eventually cast out on the street like garbage. Many brothel managers will throw out a prostitute when her drug addiction becomes too much for her to handle. Legalizing brothels does nothing for the problems faced by street prostitutes as virtually no brothels will hire drug addicted street walkers. Research shows that less than 3% of prostituted women ever get out of the sex industry.

A staggering two-thirds of children born to prostituted women end up imitating their mother’s lifestyle or entering into a life of crime. For the sake of protecting children alone, brothels and prostitution should be made illegal.

Approximately 80% of all prostitutes murdered are killed by their Johns, pimps, or through the abuse of drugs. Most prostitute homicides are never resolved and the Johns and pimps are never brought to justice.

By legalizing brothels, we are only enabling a serious social problem to fester and grow worse for our future generations and entire nation. Making brothels legal will only act as an incentive for women who are lured by the prospect of easy money. The number of women entering the so-called ‘sex trade’ will climb higher every day. Once they enter the trade, it become almost impossible to exit. The prostituted woman becomes addicted to the fast money, the comfort provided by the pimp, and to the drugs. The younger ones who lack education hardly stand a chance of ever getting out. I know this first hand as an ex-prostitute who works tirelessly to rescue these poor abused women from their dire situations.

In a 1998 report of prostituted persons across five countries, 92% of women said they wanted to escape prostitution immediately if they had the resources. Women who sell themselves are often coerced, forced or drugged into it—sometimes even at gunpoint. They feel they have no other skills or abilities to succeed in life. The thought of trying to escape is often not a reality when fears of being caught and killed or severely beaten start to kick in. Many times the exploited and demoralized women simply lack the self confidence or education to think and act for themselves.

Many of these girls that come on working visas, and then are forced into sex slavery, can’t go to the police for help for fear that their families will be murdered back home. It is very hard to escape the industry, since most girls have no sense of purpose other than what they do. They are ashamed. Without resources or knowing where to go, these women become society’s lost women.

We live in a country where women are very important. Many women are honourable doctors, chief executives, lawyers and judges. Legalizing brothels and calling prostitution a ‘trade’ has done nothing to elevate the status of women in this country. It has only demeaned them and turned them into expendable chattel that can be bought and sold.

In reality, prostitution is not a trade. It is a criminal enterprise. We need to keep our young women in school and encourage and empower them to strive towards good careers instead of taking the fast, easy approach of prostitution whereby they become uneducated and spiral down in a dehumanizing pattern that can only end in their ultimate desolation. Sadly, most women are liberated from the slavery of prostitution through death.

The diseases that are spread through prostitution are vast. Although the law will make the prostituted women undergo testing for diseases, this will only keep the Johns safe, not the prostitutes. Our Pharmacare system, which is also government run, stands to make a large profit from the medications used by prostitutes that become ill from their sex-slavery as they develop drug habits, succumb to AIDS, STDs, depression, or other mental illnesses. Legalizing prostitution only fosters the growth of sex slavery rather than doing anything to eliminate it.

Shame on you Justice Susan Himel and your entire court of appeal. You are the real criminals for authorizing the sexual slavery of women and children who are at many times forced into their abject situation of misery and suffering through no fault of their own.

We don’t need laws permitting brothels. We need laws that instill the fear of long jail sentences and stiff penalties into the pimps and brothel owners who are making dirty money off of vulnerable women and children. Many brothels lure unsuspecting women through advertisements such as: “Female owned and operated. Earn up to $2000.00 daily. Fun friendly, safe environment”. This is how I got lured into it. It is all a lie that conceals the horror of the trade in human flesh for sexual exploitation.

Let us not forget that prostitution includes young girls and boys being sold for sex to pedophiles, something that we rarely hear in the mainstream media.

In conclusion, it is a tragedy for any young girl or women to enter into the hell of prostitution. They become our nation’s lost women. They become victims of a dark and sinister sex enslavement. Their life is one of agony and horror. Jail-time and social humiliation is too little of a punishment for those who engage in or perpetrate the crime against women that is now to be legally sanctioned in brothels by Justice Susan Himel.

What we need is more organizations to help women exit prostitution. As a society, we need to drastically focus on prevention. We need serious legal deterrents for the Johns and pimps. We need to raise awareness on the effects prostitution has on society. We need to get into the high schools and colleges to do preventative work with our nation’s children before it is too late.

The women of our country are worth it. Our young girls are worth it. The future of our nation — which now stands at a cross road — is worth it. Legalized Brothels and prostitution cannot be an option.

Tania Fiolleau, foundress of Save The Women, is looking for financial support to continue her important work in helping women leave prostitution. You can find out more about her work and her ministry at www.savethewomen.ca.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:

Donate to LifeSiteNews

Give the gift of Truth.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Professor fails student because she won’t denounce Christian faith and morality

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

Polk County, FL, May 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A sixteen-year-old, dual-enrolled student, “G.L.,” is the subject of religious intolerance by humanities professor Lance "L.J." Russum at Polk State College in Lakeland, Florida. Liberty Counsel has asked the dean to investigate the professor and his curriculum.

G.L. and her parents reached out to Liberty Counsel when Russum gave her four (4) straight zeros because she refused to conform to his personal worldviews of Marxism, Atheism, Feminism, and homosexuality. Professor Russum expressed blatant and pervasive anti-Christian bias throughout the class, such as the following essay question: “Why did Christianity, and its male gods, seek to silence these women [the nuns]?”

In other essays where G.L. refused to concede that Christianity was false, violent, or oppressive to women; that Martin Luther’s motivations for the Reformation were wholly secular; and that Michaelangelo’s sculptures and paintings communicated that “same-sex relationship is NOT A SIN,” Mr. Russum gave her a total of four straight zeros.

Russum’s classroom behavior is a reflection of his personal biases. Mr. Russum's Facebook profile pictures include Fidel Castro and Jesus Christ making an obscene gesture. The website “Rate my Professor” shows that G.L. is not the first student to be subjected to the professor’s viewpoint discrimination. His college email signature line includes a quote from a Marxist who praises Lenin, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and Adolf Hitler. These, along with the inappropriate course content, show that Professor Russum is seeking to impose his own values on students, in violation of the Constitution.

Liberty Counsel has demanded (1) a full and independent review of Mr. Russum’s behavior and course content; (2) appropriate grading of G.L’s four “zero” assignments by a different professor; (3) a written apology; and (4) assurances that future courses taught by Mr. Russum, if any, will be free from such unlawful discrimination.

“Mr. Russum should not be permitted to use his position to punish students who do not conform to his anti-Christian views,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “G.L.’s parents asked Polk State College to review this matter, but it refused, so Liberty Counsel is stepping in to help. According to its website, the college’s core values are service, integrity, knowledge, diversity, and leadership. No student should be subjected to such outrageous bias and outright hostility to their values by a professor. Being a professor is not open season to belittle and punish students merely because they do not subscribe to the professor's radical opinions.” 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Carl H. Esbeck

, , ,

How forcing gay ‘marriage’ on America would provoke hostility to religion and limit free speech

Carl H. Esbeck
By

May 6, 2015 (ThePublicDiscourse.com) -- Among the many friends-of-the-court briefs in support of the states in the current same-sex marriage litigation, three especially noteworthy briefs have been filed by religious organizations, public speakers, and scholars concerned about religious liberty and free speech. The ecumenical breadth and numerical strength they represent is impressive. One expresses the combined views of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons” or LDS), the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, the Christian Legal Society, and several denominations affiliated with Evangelical Protestantism. A second brief was filed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Together, these groups represent the religious affiliations of more than 130 million Americans—approximately 40 percent of the country.

The Protestant/LDS brief (which I worked on) and the Catholic bishops’ brief raise similar themes. The signers of both briefs reject the notion that support for man-woman marriage is founded on animus and that the marriage laws can be struck down on that basis. They also warn that elevating sexual orientation to a protected class or same-sex marriage to a fundamental right would impede religious liberty.

third brief, filed by religious organizations, public speakers, and scholars concerned about free speech, explains the ways in which those who do not agree with same-sex marriage have been actively silenced or chilled in speaking their views. Given the importance of the freedom of speech to political and religious minorities, this is especially disturbing.

Religious Support for Man-Woman Marriage Is Not Based on Animus

Support for marriage is not founded on bigotry, hatred, or irrational prejudice.

The Protestant/LDS brief explains that their support for man-woman marriage is based on affirming the importance of traditional marriage (as opposed to vilifying homosexuals), combined with centuries of practical experience counseling with and ministering to intact and broken families, single mothers, and functionally fatherless children. Man-woman marriage is central to the history of the church, personal identity, and lived faith of millions of religious Americans.

Similarly, the Catholic bishops’ brief declares that their support for the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is based upon love, justice, and concern for the common good. No other institution joins together persons with the natural ability to have children and unite any children of the union with their own mother and father.

Ultimately, the briefs argue that convictions supporting traditional marriage express truths that religious believers and faith communities have held for centuries about the positive value of man-woman marriage. These beliefs predate any conception of homosexuals as a discrete and insular minority, much less same-sex marriage. The notion that traditional marriage laws exist for the purpose of harming gays and lesbians is empirically false.

Further, state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman are not invalid simply because they overlap with, or are informed by, religious or moral viewpoints. Many of the most significant social and political movements in our nation’s history were motivated by religious and moral considerations. Indeed, advocacy to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex is itself motivated by arguments that, however flawed in our view, have religious and moral roots.

Traditional Marriage Laws Cannot Be Struck Down on the Basis of Animus

Marriage laws cannot be held invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment, and particularly not on the basis of animus.

As the Protestant/LDS brief explains, the animus doctrine is extremely limited in scope. It is applicable only when the sole purpose of a statute is to harm a group, as evinced by an unprecedented departure from ordinary governing standards. Marriage amendments and statutes—which merely codify the definition of marriage that until a decade ago existed continuously and ubiquitously since before the Founding, and which advance many governmental interests unrelated to anti-gay animus—do not qualify as such a departure under Supreme Court precedent.

The definition of marriage distinguishes and specially supports certain forms of conduct that further society’s interests. Both briefs affirm, based on long experience, that a home with a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising children, an ideal that state law properly encourages and promotes. Given the unique capacity for reproduction of the male-female couple and the unique value of homes with a mother and a father, it is reasonable and just for a state to treat the union of one man and one woman as having a public value that is absent from other intimate sexual relationships.

The Catholic bishops’ brief points out that more than a quarter of the nation’s children currently live with only one birth parent. Government support for a marital bond between the biological mother and father of a child reduces, or prevents further increases in, the incidence of single parenthood and the consequent burdens it places on the custodial parent (usually the mother) and government welfare programs.

While the law may not draw classifications based on mere thoughts, beliefs, or inclinations, it can and routinely does distinguish between types of conduct and aids those it finds most in need of protection and support. Confining marriage to man-woman unions does not imply hatred toward the many other intimate arrangements that the law permits but does not endorse. The right to be left alone does not entail a right to public affirmation and support for one’s intimate relationships.

Recognizing a Right to Same-Sex Marriage Would Impede Religious Liberty

A Supreme Court ruling declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would have a disastrous impact on religious liberty.

As the Protestant/LDS brief explains, a decision declaring state marriage laws void for animus would disparage those religious organizations and persons who believe deeply in marriage. Such a decision would stigmatize them as bigots akin to racists. That stigma would impede their full participation in democratic life, as their beliefs concerning marriage, family, and sexuality are placed beyond the constitutional pale. Because religious people cannot renounce their scriptural beliefs, a finding of animus would consign believers to second-class status as citizens whose doctrines about vital aspects of society are deemed presumptively illegitimate. The misattribution of animus would deprive believers and faith communities of their rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and democratic participation. Assaults on religious liberty, already under pressure, would intensify.

Likewise, a ruling that sexual orientation is a suspect class entitled to heightened scrutiny would harm religious liberty. Judicial suspicion would quickly follow, directed at laws but also at the religious beliefs and practices of religious organizations and believers themselves. If the Court were to declare sexual orientation a suspect class, claims soon would arise urging that the government has a compelling interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination so as to justify the suppression of religious practices in the private sector concerning employment and charitable services. Because scriptural beliefs regarding marriage, family, and sexuality are central to religious institutions and the religious way of life, recognizing sexual orientation as a suspect class would generate countless new conflicts.

Indeed, a constitutional right to same-sex marriage under any theory would generate tensions with religious freedom and related interests across a wide array of religious, educational, charitable, and cultural fronts. As the Catholic bishops’ brief warns, because marriage so pervades civil and social life, redefining marriage as a matter of constitutional law would soon create extensive church-state conflicts. Where states have redefined marriage, conflicts between new claims of equal treatment with claims of religious liberty have already arisen. A Supreme Court ruling imposing same-sex marriage on the country would needlessly embroil the judiciary in conflicts between church and state for generations to come.

Directly or not, a Court ruling creating a right to same-sex marriage would convey what Justice Kennedy has decried as “hostility toward religion . . . inconsistent with our history and our precedents.”

Constitutionalizing Same-Sex Marriage Would Weaken Free Speech

Religious freedom aside, the ability to speak freely is fundamental to both personal dignity and the strength of a self-governing republic. As Justice Kennedy has observed:

At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.

Often, speech, religion, and political issues are intertwined. Where would the nation be if the abolitionists, deeply convicted by their faith, had been silenced in their quest to change hearts and minds over slavery? Where would we be if the Reverend Martin Luther King, and others like him, had not been able to speak freely from Black Church heritage on human dignity and liberty?

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

It is commonplace for there to be a moral dimension to issues in the public square. To countenance politically correct moral views but to dismiss less popular moral views as being driven by animus simply because they stem from religious principles is a double standard. Free speech protections are all the more crucial for those willing to dissent from the views most dominant in our culture.

This concern is not just abstract worry. It stems from real-life events:

  • 19-year Marine Corps and Navy veteran chaplain was removed from the promotion list and detached for cause (essentially terminated) for privately expressing support for traditional marriage.
  • An Atlanta Fire Chief authored a book in which he briefly stated his religious view that marriage should only be between one man and woman, for which he was suspended and then terminated despite no evidence of discrimination by him while at work.
  • District Health Director for the State of Georgia was fired after state officials reviewed his sermons as a lay pastor that marriage should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman.
  • A Missouri university student who refused on religious grounds to complete a class assignment requiring her to write a letter to her state legislator lobbying for same-sex adoption rights was charged by the university with misconduct, questioned by the Departmental Ethics Committee at length, and informed that her degree may be withheld.

And there are more such stories. Thus, it is not surprising that fifty-eight supporters of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy released a public statement expressing their concern for the free speech rights of those opposed to same-sex marriage. A ruling that same-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution will exponentially magnify the current pressure by federal agencies through policies, manuals, and training materials that will impose speech codes on employees, silencing or chilling those who are out of step.

The Constitution marks a wiser course—that is, leaving the people free to decide the great marriage debate through their state democratic institutions. Allowing all citizens an equal voice in shaping their common destiny is the only way the diverse views of a highly diverse people can be respected on this matter of political, social, and religious importance. Respect for the principle of equal citizenship and equal participation in the democratic process is the only way that the contemporary controversy over same-sex marriage can be resolved without inflicting harm on millions of religious believers and their institutions.

Carl H. Esbeck is the R.B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Missouri. Reprinted with permission from The Witherspoon Institute

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Andrea Rodil

,

Activists exploit 10-year-old pregnant rape victim to legalize abortion in Paraguay

Andrea Rodil
By Andrea Rodil

ASUNCION, Paraguay, May 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- "10 Year Old Paraguayan Girl Pregnant by Rape": A headline like this will undoubtedly shock and paralyze most people. As the mother of a girl of 12 who lives in Paraguay I cannot even begin to imagine what I would feel in my heart if something like this happened to my daughter.

A few days ago, the media in Paraguay reported headlines just like this.  A 10 year old girl had been taken to the emergency room of a hospital in Asuncion complaining of abdominal pain and an unexplained increase in the size of her belly.  After several tests, the doctors came to a conclusion: the girl was pregnant.

In 2014, the girl's mother had reported the man she lived with to the police, accusing him of 'groping' her daughter who was then only nine years old. Police began investigating the case, but soon the mother withdrew the accusation, assuring the police that it was all a misunderstanding. The mother continued to live with the man, and now a year later, her little daughter is 23 weeks pregnant. It is now believed that the girl was subjected to constant abuse and that her mother knew, or at least suspected what was happening.

In this terrible case there are two victims and many culprits.  Obviously, the victims are the young girl and her baby.  I have mixed feelings about the mother of the little girl.  As a woman, I would not put all the blame upon the girl's mother, for I am convinced that the violence experienced by the girl was probably also suffered and feared by the girl's mother.  However, as a mother myself, I also know that I would fight tooth and nail against anyone who tried to hurt one of my children. I would in fact gladly give my life to defend them.

One cannot forgive the actions -- or in this case -- the inaction of the mother who failed to protect her daughter - and the mother is currently imprisoned for her complicity in the abuse.  The police stated that for more than a year the girl's mother knew her daughter was abused by her partner and she let it continue. 

Meanwhile, the principal perpetrator, the man who raped and impregnated the 10-year-old girl, is on the run, having absconded the moment the case became public.

Faced with such tragedies, our society is nevertheless left to deal with a situation that is more common than one can imagine.  According to the Paraguayan Ministry of Health, in 2014 there were 684 cases of pregnancies of girls between 10 and 14 years. This data reveals the magnitude of the problem.

Now, what is to be done with the pregnant young girl?

Amnesty International is using this case to call for the legalization of abortion and it has mounted an intense lobbying campaign with the Paraguayan government to pressure them into aborting the 27 week old child.  They are calling for "the legal interruption of pregnancy" in order to protect the health of the little girl.

The abortion advocates' campaign repeats the mantra that the state must act "as soon as possible to protect all human rights of girls, starting with the right to life, health and physical and psychological integrity, in the short, medium and long term.” They say that they defend the "right to choose".

I wonder if Amnesty International activists are really concerned with the little girl? For it seems that they what they are really doing is using her, using her tragic circumstance to advance their own agenda. 

Do they not realize what they propose as a solution is simply to commit a further injustice? Do they not perceive that two wrongs don't make a right? Do they not realize that the one they are punishing with death is the weakest and most innocent of the parties involved?

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay is clear in stating that the state must protect life from the moment of conception. In this case, both the 10-year-old girl who has been abused, and the baby she carries in her womb, have the right to demand that the State act to protect their lives.  Both should have access to all the necessary medical efforts needed to attend to them; both are victims and deserve all the support of society and the state. 

The value of a life is not defined by age, stage of development, or the circumstances under which one was conceived.  All life is valuable in itself. The authorities have a moral obligation and a constitutional duty to protect them and give them the care necessary to save both.

Although Amnesty international states that abortion is necessary in order to save the life and health of the little girl, at this moment, thankfully, her life is not in danger. The doctor who is monitoring the little girl, Dolores Castellanos, has confirmed that the pregnancy is developing without affecting the health of the infant or the little girl.  However, media propaganda unleashed around the case insists that the young girl will die if she is allowed to reach full term.

To their great credit, the government has been cautious and resilient, and Health Minister Antonio Barrios has not succumbed to the international abortion lobby's pressure. He has stated that the government has applied strict measures to protect the child and the baby.

Moreover, many Paraguayan non-profit organizations and other institutions have stepped up and offered to help with comprehensive care such as counseling, material and financial short and long-term support, continual support, but most importantly with support that takes into consideration the life of both children, the young mother and her baby.  Yet others, like Amnesty International, are not offering comprehensive care for the victims, and instead are just taking advantage of the situation to try to establish a precedent for the legalization of abortion in order to eventually enact laws that violate the right to life.

While comprehensive and compassionate care for the young girl and her baby are laudable, it is only putting out one fire which unfortunately will break out again. More must be done to address the roots of the tragedy that this girl and so many other children like her have to suffer.

Instead of abortion, it is time for the government to enact substantive solutions to child abuse. It should legislate to promote comprehensive educational programs to prevent child abuse in the first place; it should promote a culture of appreciation and care for children, not create an even more calloused society that tolerates the murder of children as a solution.  We have to protect all of our children, born and preborn, for they are the future face of society.

But above all, we must realize that the best answer we have to child abuse has always been right in front of our eyes.  It is such an obvious solution that it seems unbelievable that so many 'experts' would not see it: we must strengthen the family headed by a father and a mother.  The family is the most basic non-profit organization, and the one with the greatest public purposes.  It is focused on the health of the individual and is the only true foundation of society.

The little girl who is pregnant today comes from a family that is the picture of dysfunction. The mother, who had a low-income job, had three children by three different fathers: a 13 year old, the little girl of 10 who is pregnant, and an 8-year-old boy.  Let's tackle the underlying roots of the problem.

There is no better investment for the government than public policies that strengthen, protect, and promote marriage and the family as irreplaceable social capital, especially when there are young children involved.  Society at large must embrace a culture that recognizes and values the family and all its members as a treasure to be cared for and preserved.

What this little girl and others like her have experienced is impossible to erase. They were robbed of their childhood innocence.  The abuse to which she was subjected will leave an indelible imprint in her memory and on her soul.  It requires our support and care.  But thinking that killing the baby in her womb is somehow going to help her is a grave mistake.  It will not ease, but on the contrary, will increase the harmful aftermath of the experience.  Violence cannot be erased with more violence.

As my grandmother told me: "As much as it may anger me when a nice plate is chipped, I will never think that the solution is to smash the rest of the china."

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook