Jack Fonseca

,

Sorry, Canada’s abortion regime is no ‘role model to the world’

Jack Fonseca
Jack Fonseca

I never knew there was a “responsible” way to kill babies. That is, until I read Joyce Arthur’s recent article where she gushes over the upcoming 25-year anniversary of the Morgentaler ruling when the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s laws on abortion.  She is the Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Yup. She schooled me good. Thanks to Joyce, I now realize that Canada’s mass killing of millions of children in-utero is actually “responsible abortion care”.  Golly gee, if all it takes to ascribe a positive meaning to an ugly act is changing the words we use, I suppose a child pornographer should likewise be able to call himself a “responsible sex educator”.

Joyce explained that the January 28, 1988 ruling has made Canada “a role model to the world”. Her article laid out reasons for that honour, including the following claims:

1. In Canada, “doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.”
2. Canada permits “abortion-on-request” for any reason at all, no questions asked.
3. Our abortion status quo respects a woman’s right to “bodily integrity.”
4. “Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are fairly low.”
5. Abortion-on-request is the “moral high road”—it “saves lives, raises women’s status, and…  benefits everyone.”

Hmm. Do Joyce’s high-sounding claims hold up to scrutiny as reasons for Canada to be a role model for the world? Let’s examine each one.

Reason #1: In Canada “doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly

Let’s set aside the small detail that killing innocent people is never responsible, and look only at the technical veracity of this statement.

First, the term “responsibly” suggests there is a significant measure of self-restraint involved in the decision to abort.  To use the famous Clinton cliché, it implies that abortion should be “rare” and committed only in dire circumstances.  With easily over 100,000 abortions committed in Canada every year (Stats Canada figures under-report because provinces withhold data), this statement collapses under the weight of that massive number.  If our nation annually aborts a population the size of the City of Kamloops, we’re not describing “responsible” behavior. We’re not talking about a “rare” situation. We’re describing a situation that’s out of control, without any restraint at all. Add to this, the statistic that 1/3 are repeat abortions and we can safely say that “willy nilly” is a more accurate description of our abortion regime than “responsible”.

Secondly, the assertion that “doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly” suggests that women are jointly discussing this decision with their family doctor, and that it’s arrived at with the thoughtful counsel and support of the woman’s family doctor.  The statement harkens to a favourite line of pro-abortion politicians: “It’s a decision between a woman and her doctor.”  The problem is that it’s a near-total lie.  Much, if not almost all of the time, women never discuss abortion-choice with their family doctor. Women, oftentimes coerced by a boyfriend or husband, simply call the abortion facility or a “sexual health office” and book an appointment. There’s no involvement with the woman’s doctor at all. The first doctor she encounters is the abortionist whom she gets to meet for the first time on the operating table. By that point, the decision to abort has been made. The abortionist isn’t here to counsel her. He’ll spend about 20 minutes with her to dismember and decapitate her baby. The woman is not even likely to see much of the abortionist’s face. 

Sorry Joyce, but no cigar on this one.

Reason #2: We permit “abortion-on-request” for any reason at all, no questions asked

Is abortion-on-demand, as it’s often called, something to make Canadians proud? According to figures from the abortion industry’s own research division, The Guttmacher Institute, plus independent statistics gathered by seven U.S. state governments, abortion is used today as a back-up birth control method more than 96% of the time.

The majority of people I speak to who identify as “pro-choice” tell me they are disgusted to learn that abortion is being used as a form of birth control. Once again, Joyce got it wrong.  Our regime of abortion-on-request is a source of national shame, not national pride.

For historical clarity, I’ll mention that even prior to the 1988 court ruling, in practice, Canada already had abortion-on-demand. The law passed by Pierre Trudeau in 1969 created “Therapeutic Abortion Committees” (TACs) in hospitals, which were panels of 3 doctors who had discretion to approve the killings.  Already, between 1969 and 1987, abortion rates had shot up dramatically under the TAC regime because the doctors rubber-stamped virtually all applications. For example, we’ve seen from the therapeutic abortion records of an Ontario hospital between 1971 (when they started) until 1988 (when the committee was disbanded), that no request was refused. The committee never saw the woman and indeed, they signed the papers in the hallways. 99% of abortions were committed for “mental health and psycho-social reasons”, and this means they were approved on request.  The records show this hospital had many repeat abortions and one year, a woman had her fourth abortion. The procedure was definitely being used as a form of birth control.

Reason #3: Our abortion status quo respects a woman’s right to “bodily integrity

I’m really baffled by this one Joyce. How are we helping women achieve bodily integrity when abortion chops up the tiny bodies of baby girls and dismembers them? What about the “bodily integrity” of the girl-child in the womb?  If you have the stomach for it, look at this photo of an actual aborted baby, and ask yourself if she has “bodily integrity”.

Reason #4: “Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are fairly low

Fairly low compared to what? A 100% correlation? The studies I’ve read show a dramatic relationship between women who abort and subsequent maternal death, suicide and complications.

An authoritative 1997 study funded by the government of Finland established that women who undergo induced abortion experience a death rate nearly 4 times greater than women who give birth. This excludes death from suicide, which another Finnish study found to be 6 times higher for women who abort than women who give birth.

A study sponsored by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that women who underwent abortion experienced a 4 times higher rate of hospitalization for infections vs. childbirth. In 2000, the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists established that the immediate physical complication rate of induced abortion is at least 11%. A similar U.S. study found a higher complication rate of 17%.

Reason #5: Abortion-on-request is the “moral high road”—it “saves lives, raises women’s status, and…  benefits everyone

Wrong, wrong, and triple wrong.  First, abortion doesn’t save lives, it takes them. Not only the babies’ lives, but also those of the women who abort, as evidenced by the much higher maternal death and suicide rates.  The abortion industry would likely counter with the tired, old spectre of the “thousands of women” who would die by “back alley coat hanger” abortions, if they were made illegal. That was a lie in 1969 and it would still be a lie in 2013. Former abortionist, the late Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson admitted after his pro-life conversion that he and other abortion industry leaders invented out of thin air the figure of “tens of thousands of women dying from illegal abortions”. This was to gain public sympathy for legalization.  Those high numbers were never true.  The fact is that for decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys, as Randy Alcorn shows in his book ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. If abortion became illegal in 2013, doctors who choose to break the law would still do them with medical equipment, not with coat hangers. The suction tube equipment used by abortuaries is inexpensive and easy to obtain.

Secondly, legal abortion doesn’t raise women’s status.  On the contrary, it makes it easier for men to keep treating woman as purely sexual objects whom they can simply pressure or coerce into abortion should they ever become pregnant.  The sexual revolution has not liberated women. It has liberated men to objectify and abuse women.

Finally – does abortion really “benefit everyone” as Joyce claims?  A root cause of the impending bankruptcy of Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is the decline in Canada’s birth rate since the 1960’s.  Naturally, abortion contributes to that problem. For example, the CPP was enacted by legislation in 1965 during a time when each woman had approximately 3.5 children (see chart). The CPP funding model made economic sense at a time when the birth rate predicted a sufficient number of future workers would exist to pay taxes in support of the benefits to be received by pensioners.

The funding model no longer works however, because the numbers have changed dramatically and the worker-to-pensioner ratio has plummeted. After the legalization of abortion and widespread contraception, Canada’s birth rate fell dramatically to just 1.58 children per woman as of 2011. Combined with longer average life-spans in old age, this resulted in a precipitous decline in the ratio of Canadian workers (who pay taxes) to pensioners (who receive CPP benefits). That ratio has been decimated since 1965.  In 1985 for example, Canada had almost 5-1/2 workers per pensioner. Currently there are barely more than 3 workers per pensioner.  By 2025 that is projected to be approximately 2.5 workers per pensioner. See this chart for example. That’s unsustainable.

Rather than “benefiting everyone” abortion is contributing to national bankruptcy and tearing a gaping hole in our social safety nets, including our imploding health care system. So, wrong again Joyce. Abortion hurts everyone!

Conclusion - I’m sorry to disagree

This January 28th, instead of celebrating 25 years of “responsible abortion care” in Canada, I’ll be lamenting the 2.5 million lost children since 1988 and the profound poverty visited upon our country by abortion since decriminalization in 1969.

Jack Fonseca is project manager for Campaign Life Coalition. Follow him on Twitter @JackFonsec. This piece is reprinted from CampaignLifeCoalition.com with permission.

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.


Share this article

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