Carolyn Bennett

After my post yesterday about Carolyn Bennett’s comments at the Status of Women committee, a reader sent me this link with Bennett’s views on the Morgentaler decision, back in January:

I remember my first abortion, as a med student in Barbados. She had red hair and braces, she was in grade nine, age 14 — the daughter of the local prostitute, who had been renting her out. I realized it was so important to get her back to grade nine. So many people had their educations interrupted.

So Bennett does the abortion on a 14-year old, who, in her own words has been “rented out” by her own mother–so she can get her right back to grade nine.

I’m sure Bennett dropped everything to remove the little girl from the abusive home, to ensure she would not be “rented out” again by her own mother. I’m sure also that Bennett ensured the mother was given enough money to stop being a prostitute, to care for her little girl adequately.

Remind me again how abortion helped this little girl? At least had she been pregnant the abuse would have been evident–Bennett, in a position of power, authority and responsibility, took a big problem and multiplied it one hundred fold. Congrats.

_____________________________________

Brigitte wonders: Why do we so often forget that abortions also “erase” evidence of abuse? And yet, and yet. There are cases where this is undoubtedly true. Obviously I don’t know the particulars of that one, but from the sound of it, I wonder whether keeping the baby would have helped that girl. I’m guessing not really. I’m also not sure the baby would have fared well – what if it was a girl? She might have ended up in the same situation as her mother. I know pro-lifers are meant to prefer life over abortion in all cases, and because we can never tell for sure what will happen I’m of the view that allowing that baby to live would have given him or her more of a chance than abortion ever did, but I do sometimes find it hard.

_____________________________________

Tanya is reminded of: This story.

The writer’s concluding thoughts:

Abortion defenders need to realize that while abortion may keep one of the results of incest and sexual abuse from seeing the light of day, it does absolutely nothing to protect a young girl from continued abuse, and in fact aids the abuser in his crime. Furthermore, birth control counseling and abortion often indirectly contribute to the victim’s sense of shame, guilt, and blame for what is happening, since she is told to “take control” and “be responsible” for her “sexual activity,” implying that this situation is, indeed, within her power to control. On the other hand, pro-lifers need to realize that incest, rape, and child abuse do happen, and often with devastating results. In the assembly-line process of abortion on demand, incest-related abortions are seriously underreported.

_______________________________

Andrea adds: Brigitte, I agree with you in some ways–certainly a pregnant 14-year-old who keeps the baby is no grand success, especially if she is left in the same horrific situation. My main point is that neither is aborting. We can’t pretend we are heroes in either situation.

_______________________________

Rebecca adds: So this was in Barbados – I’ve no idea what the laws are there. If a Canadian doctor failed to report to the authorities that a 14-year-old was being “rented out” by her mother, she would herself be committing a crime. But surely one’s conscience would dictate that one not passively let such abuse continue, regardless of the local laws, right? Someone needs to ask the honourable member what she did to ensure that the girl would be “rented out” no longer.

The Status of Women Standing Committee attempts to discuss Bill C-484 here. I say attempts because the proceedings are largely taken up with a discussion of how this bill is not their jurisdiction.

Yet, the transcript gives me opportunity to say something about Bill C-484 I have been thinking for a while. All along, those opposed to Bill C-484 have claimed Ken Epp has a hidden agenda–that the unborn child would receive rights through this law. The bill is too limited, and as Brigitte said here, may or may not do much at all. I will grant that many who are pro-life are hopeful that the unborn child would be recognized in even one, small, limited area.

But we never discuss the hidden agenda of the pro-abortion forces opposed to Bill C-484. And Carolyn Bennett makes those clear. They do not care about violence against women, but are fighting the bill strictly because even in a small and limited manner, a child may be recognized as such. Here is her quote now at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, June 5, 2008:

I think the issue for me has been that the substance of the bill doesn’t matter one bit, meaning if this was seatbelt legislation…this is a ploy used by the anti-choice, pro-life movement across the world to try to get the rights of the unborn child, encadré, put into any piece of legislation they can think up.

What this committee needs to look at is how, state by state by state, the pro-life movement has been using bills such as this to actually put their anti-choice, pro-life agenda into legislation. That’s what’s dangerous about this bill. I couldn’t give a whatever about the actual violence…. It’s the rights of the unborn child getting into any piece of legislation. There is a tracking that this committee could do of how this has been done in other jurisdictions. That is the danger of this bill.

Hidden agendas everywhere! (Just because I am paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get me.)

So this is helping?

Carolyn Bennett and the hidden agenda of pro-abortion folks

Meta