Save the planet- why?

The cheapest and easiest way to combat climate change, according to a report by the London School of Economics and Political Science, is by sterilisation and abortion. Humans, they say, is the planet’s worst enemy: We are destroying our earth.

Which brings me to a question:

Are we trying to save the planet for our children?

Or are we trying to save the planet from our children?

Yep- Sharing the Christian faith with your children is not child abuse

I already wrote a pair of articles (here) about the (unscientific) Dawkinsian notion that religious instruction to children amounts to child abuse. But there are more evidence than I mentioned, from larger test groups. Here, Tom Gilson points out what a large study concluded. He believes this should “cast serious doubts” upon the credibility of Dawkins’s best seller, “The God Delusion.” (Another author who casts serious doubt upon Dawkins etc. is Vox Day, who’s book “The Irrational Atheist” is downloadable free of charge here.) Gilson also asks, here, why no scientist took the Oxford “Professor for the public understanding of science” to task for his anti-science conclusion. Are scientists being consistent?

Abortions to underage girls protects sex criminals, America studies found. What about SA?

This is “16 days of activism for no violence againt woman and children” , right?Right.

We want this nation’s (and all other nation’s) children to be safer, right?


Sadly, there is a part of SA’s new child act which works against child safety. Let us not start with my opinion, but with an article in a recent Huisgenoot and You:

The article starts with a scene of a 13-year-old girl, who is molested daily by her mother’s boyfriend. At least, the girl thinks, she now got birth control. At least she can’t get pregnant. Then the article goes on to describe that as one of the reasons why new laws hand out birth control even to 12-year-olds (and why even 11-year olds can get an abortion without parental consent).

The story was probably supposed to make me feel that the health worker who gave the birth control pills did a good thing. Instead, it made me angry: How dare anyone hand out birth control pills to a 13-year-old without even trying to finding out if she is molested? That is criminal negligence! You may assume that someone who asks for birth control is sexually active. To have sex with a girl younger than 16 is a crime. Studies in America show that 60%-80% of sexually active girls under 16 have an adult (predator) as a partner. (As far as I know, no similar studies have been conducted here, so I am using the American numbers.) A health worker who encounters an under-16 girl asking for birth control thus has good reason to suspect molestation. The law says that anyone who has reason to suspect molestation must report it.

Therefore, if some clinic reports that it prescribed birth control to 6 girls under 16 in a given week, they should also have documentation showing that they reported 6 cases of possible child molestation to social workers that week. And if an abortion clinic reports 3 girls under 16 appearing for abortions in a given week, they should have a paper trail showing that they reported 3 cases of possible child molestation to authorities that week. Does anybody really think that the clinics do that? (Are there any auditors out there who dislike the state provision of birth control and abortions to kids? Following this paper trail from S.A. clinics may be something you can do about it. With such evidence, clinics might be legally prosecuted for not complying.) Mark Crutcher, the chief of Life Dynamics, found out that in America, the abortion industry “services” provided to underage girls outnumber the “reports” of suspicion of assault on a child by 11-1 – at best. And even then, it was usually not reported by the abortion clinics, but by paediatricians.

Which brings me to the point at the beginning of this article: People who dish out birth control to underage girls, or perform abortions on them, and do not report it to the authorities, help child molesters hide their crime and continue the abuse. Helping child molesters is bad for children. I want to protect children from violence against them.


There is something else that greatly protects woman and children, which hardly ever gets a mention: The nuclear family! Children who live with both biological parents are, on average, a lot safer than children who have a mother that often has a new sexual partner. The mothers themselves are also safer. Therefore, any promotion of pro-family values is the promotion of safety for woman and children. (You may say: “But you should not judge cohabiting women!” I am not judging them. But I don’t judge people who judge cohabiting mothers- mothers who make life more dangerous for their children- either.)

SA’s new Children’s act worries me

I sent this letter to several South African publications some months ago, for publishing on their letter page. Some published it, some did not. Here it is unchanged:


New Children’s Act worrying 

Government is implementing a new Child act. One of the provisions in said law is that children, from the age of 12 can get contraceptives without their parent’s knowledge. It is already true that children from 11 can get abortions without parental consent.

According to our government, the new laws are “…. for promoting and monitoring the sound physical, psychological, intellectual, emotional and social development of children;” and to “promote the preservation and strengthening of families.” I don’t see it like that.

In the first place, this country has a law that states that sex with 12-year old girl or younger is rape – whether she gives permission or not. Sex with a girl between 13 and 15 years, you have her permission, is statutory rape.

It is also illegal for a woman to have sex with a boy in that age group. (As far as I know, the age limit for homosexual intercourse is even higher.)

With that, the principle is clearly that children of 12 and 13 cannot take emotional responsibility for their own sexual choices. The regulation that anyone who has reason to suspect an underage child is being molested has to report it, also contradicts this new law. These law makers claim to know that a sexually active child may be a child in need of care. (I’d say all sexually active 12 and 13 year olds need better care.) Yet, this law makes the mere giving out of contraceptives standard practice and the provision of care an afterthought. In fact, it makes it hard for parents to even know their kids need better care!

In the second place we have to remember that many teens get sexually active because they want to be loved. To get contraceptives and even abortions without your parents’ knowledge enlarges the gap between parent and child even further. A child who feel neglected and not understood would search for love somewhere else. And what kind of uhm…, love, do many of these youths find? You know the answer. This kind of government policy will only enlarge the problem of teenage promiscuity.

Tell me: What can we do to get government to change this provision?


Retha Faurie