By Dieter Lubbe, Founding Director of the Pinion Project

The value of consent is sometimes overlooked by adults, generally speaking. We sign consent forms, agree to terms and conditions with everything from App’s to cell phone contracts and so on (as mere formalities). For many, this day to day public understanding of consent is altogether different from the way we think about our agreement in private relationships (this is particularly true of our intimate choices). Tacit to this notion of intimate choice, is the idea that the state has no business interfering with what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults. But of course, some situations, even in private, do have public interest. If, for example, a professional couple shares insider trading information in bed (behind closed doors) they are guilty of a crime. The private nature of the location will be understood as irrelevant in such cases.

Recently, the topic of consent has gained media attention in cases involving gender based violence. The disconnect between entitlement and consent calls for a deeper understanding of the subject. In this article, we will touch on a few of the important themes pertaining to this significant subject. We will specifically be considering ideas surrounding a legal understanding of consent, with particular reference to children.

It is important at the outset to take a moment to consider the extent of sexual exploitation of children in South Africa. Behind the statistics are young people, deserving of our empathy. Both teen pregnancy and HIV statistics help frame the magnitude of this challenge. According to South Africa’s National Strategic Plan for HIV, TB and STIs 2017-2022.

‘Young women (aged between 15 and 24 years) in South Africa have the highest HIV incidence of any age or sex cohort… One third of teenage girls become pregnant before the age of 20. Responding to the social and structural drivers of this vulnerability (which leads young women towards having sexual relationships – many of which are transactional in nature – with men who are five to 10 years older than they are) is key to controlling the epidemic.’

To be clear, in terms of the sugar daddy or so-called ‘blessers,’ this behavior must be condemned irrespective of ‘social and structural drivers’. SA Criminal Law Section 17 leaves no doubt that any child involved in ‘transactional sex’ is being sexually exploited. Adults who take advantage of children in this manner must face the punitive force of the law. The call to protect and help young girls whose lives are impacted by such abuse requires a multidisciplinary response. Furthermore, a social driver like exposing children to sexually-explicit materials also constitutes a form of child sexual abuse, more appropriately described as the non-contact abuse. In certain circumstances this abuse constitute the offence of indecent assault. Sexual touching is not the only kind of child sexual abuse.  It is abuse to intentionally expose a child to pornography.

So, in the light of this information, the word ‘consent’ takes on a deeper ethical commitment in which it should be informed, age appropriate and in the best interests of the child. Empowering people to avoid exploitation before it happens is ultimately the high road to take.

Getting “informed” about CONSENT?

According to the South African Sexual Offences Act definition, ‘consent’ means voluntary or uncoerced agreement. The idea of an unforced smile is sometimes given as an example of uncoerced. But as anyone who has worked with children knows, children do not always behave from the vantage point of the better angels of our human nature. Furthermore, not everything legally allowed is beneficial. The court in SA has contended that the law is not always the best instrument for shaping children’s consensual peer group behaviour. Sex education then becomes a significant focus in the fight to empower families and communities. We cannot overemphasize this point. Consent, if it is anything, is an act of reason and deliberation. The mind weighs in on the balance between good and evil. Children, in particular, cannot be expected to carry this burden alone. Bruce C. Hafen, Professor of Law, Brigham Young University, points out:

“…‘protection rights’ rather than ‘choice rights’ for children… Giving children choices that they are not prepared to make can actually undermine the fulfilment of their most essential needs—which, in effect, abandons them to their rights. By their very nature as developing persons, children are dependent on parents and other adults to help them meet their needs.”

Family Education – Dignity

Parents and guardians need to live and teach a culture of respect. This starts when little children first begin to learn about sharing toys etc. Respect, permission and empathy must be part of everyday living and not only our most intimate interactions. We affirm that the grounding of human rights and values starts with the recognition of the dignity of every person. Human dignity, in our international covenants, affirms the fundamental worth of people. This worth includes the body, which is not merely organic, it is to be protected and respected. Dignity in this frame of worth, also makes a relational claim. We are to recognise the dignity in others.

With this said, recognition of the natural family and community has been significantly challenged by a narrative of sexual entitlement (which gained momentum in the 1960s). The problem is that, without a sense of a true good in relationships, we don’t know to what we should consent. It is uncontroversial to assert that monogamous relationships, like marriage, have significant benefits to the couple, their children and society at large in terms of health outcomes. If people think that human rights are about the pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence (hedonism), they are more likely to indulge in sexual vice. The central tenet of hedonism—that the good consists in the experiential—is incorrect. This, in turn, impacts everybody, as Professor Robert P George put it:

“…private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests. This fact embarrasses philosophical efforts to draw a sharp line that distinguishes a realm of “private” morality that is not subject to law from a domain of public actions that may rightly be subjected to legal regulation.”

It is the case that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV among our youth. This claim is often challenged via the educational outcomes of something called ‘abstinence based sexual education’ vs ‘comprehensive sexuality education’. The evidence, we are told, indicates that children who are taught they should ‘abstain’, are statistically more at risk than children who are fully informed on every sexual proclivity. In formal logic, a false dichotomy sets up two alternative points of view as if they were the only options, argues against one of them, and thereby concludes that the other must be true. We should not be so easily distracted by this myopic view when we are faced with very difficult ethical questions. We must dispel the myth that ‘the worst manifestation of authoritarianism is – self imposed control’.

This fiction was skilfully introduced as ‘anti-fascism’ in the sixties by thinkers like Theodor W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. In short, they inverted ideas around sexual self-control to undermine the natural family in an effort to advance a political agenda of state control. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics philosophy also had a significant impact as it opened the way to ever increasing government control of the private sphere. We cannot afford to indulge such mistaken ideologies any longer.

Conclusion

The sexual entitlement narrative and the permission-giving beliefs that result in gender based violence are forcing us to reassess our collective responsibilities and reasoning. We believe both parents and children are being influence by a sexualised cultural narrative. The sexualised cultural narrative tells a deceptive story about child-autonomy in the frame of consensual sex rights. Hedonism is mistaken, and therefore, when it is illegitimately connected with ‘new sexual rights’, it is mistaken (biology is not bigotry as some have said). These ideas must buttress our efforts and policy vision in the defence of human dignity and the right to be safe, empowered, and free from sexual exploitation.

The post Empowering Children appeared first on Pinion Project.

by Dieter Lubbe

In this article, we are going to take an introductory look at child marriage in South Africa. The idea is to orientate ourselves with a few key ideas regarding the law and the number of children involved. We will also show that consent is not an isolated action that is independent of the larger context(and its complexities).

The South African Context of the Debate

By way of background information, Section 28(3) of the South African Constitution defines a child as a person under the age of 18 years. Most of the provisions in the South African (SA) sexual offences law keep within this definition of ‘child’. It is important to note, however, that in the case of statutory rape or statutory sexual assault, the crime can only be perpetrated against a child 12 years and older and younger than 16 years of age. Furthermore, the minimum legal age for marriage is 18 years for boys and 15 years for girls in SA. Subsection 12(2) of the Children’s Act protects children from being forced into marriage, ‘A child …. may not be given out in marriage or engagement without his or her consent.’ The SA Constitution recognises ‘marriage’ observances concluded under any system – as long as those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities. The Minister of Home Affairs can grant an exception to the ‘15 years old’ minimum age for girls with a written permission. The Minister may also ‘authorise any officer in the public service to give written permission on his behalf’ to permit the marriage of a girl as young as 12 years old (See Ilizna Esterhuyse’s helpful summary here). The consent of child and parents or guardian is critical to this process. In cases of human trafficking (forced marriage), the Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act 7 of 2013 points out that, consent of the child is a necessary prerequisite that makes a child marriage legal. Section 36 of the Bill of Rights points out that the rights, referred to in the Bill of Rights, may be limited only in terms of the law of general application to the extent that such limitations are ‘…reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom…’ The rights of children are restricted in this sense when it comes, for example, to alcohol, driving a car and marriage. In simplistic terms, Section 36 is justified because of the ‘relevant immaturity’ of a child. It is also an effort to support and assist what is necessary for the positive growth and development of children.

Prof Deirdre Byrne noted some time ago that, ‘Although the South African stats are lower compared to the rest of Africa, which represents 125 million of the 700 million world-wide child-brides (or 17 percent), the fact that child brides are a reality in South Africa, a country with one of the world’s best constitutions, is frightening.’ Indeed, it was Prof Deirdre Byrne that highlighted The Community Survey 2016 results released by Statistics SA, that ‘…more than 91000 girls in South Africa between the ages of 12 and 17 are married, divorced, separated, widowed, or living with a partner as husband and wife, with the latter forming the majority of the group’. This alleged ‘majority’ of children ‘living with a person as if married’ seems to me to be highly problematic. The room for abuse, human trafficking or even statutory rape is something that cannot be resolved with mere anecdotal assurances from parliament like, for example, that customary procedures have been followed.

Non-Harmful Cultural Practice

With this said, in the insightful article, Contextualizing the practice of Ukuthwala within South Africa By Marcel van der Watt and Michelle Ovens, a distinction is made between the ‘Ukuthwala’ in its traditional form and the harmful and somewhat distorted practice currently taking place in South African society.’ ‘Ukuthwala’, for those new to this subject, is the cultural practice of Xhosa marriage custom. It involves the ‘pretend abduction’ of the bride-to-be (12 years old in some cases) as part of the negotiation between the two families. What Van der Watt and Ovens explore, is the different expressions or practices of Ukuthwala with respect to the compatibility of such customs with the SA constitutional provision for customary law Section 29(3) of the Bill of Rights. Van der Watt and Ovens charitably imagine a practice of Ukuthwala that could possibly be constitutional, in contrast to what is actually the case in South Africa, more often than not. Van der Watt and Ovens suggest that the ‘non-harmful’ cultural practice cannot be outlawed on grounds of the SA constitution. The criteria for this, ‘ non-harmful’ relationship, as they imagine it, is based on considerations of the role players’ consent and willingness. It seems at least cogent to argue, as Van der Watt and Ovens do, that adults may be given such concessions in law, if such a thing as a “non-harmful” cultural practice exists. Yet, when it comes to children under 18, the growing consensus is that it should be illegal.

Missing Consent

Consent and willingness, as it applies to the child, is not always straightforward. Still, what Van der Watt and Ovens call ‘a distorted practice’ certainly applies to cases where the child did not give consent. For example, the Court held in Nvumeleni Jezile v. The State, the Appellant could not rely on the traditional practice of Ukuthwala to justify his criminal conduct and was duly found guilty of human trafficking.

‘Private’ Acts and Consent

With the challenge of poverty in mind, I cannot help but think at this point of SA Criminal Law Section 17, which leaves no doubt that any child involved in ‘transactional sex’ is being sexually exploited, irrespective of consent. It is therefore not a private matter between consenting persons. In S v Jordan and Others, the minority judgment found that there are a range of factors relevant to distinguishing the core of privacy from its penumbra: ‘One of the considerations is the nature of the relationship concerned: an invasion of the relationship between partners, or parent and child, or other intimate, meaningful and intensely personal relationships will be a strong indication of a violation close to the core of privacy.’ Following this reasoning, the commercial nature of prostitution removed it from the inner sanctum of privacy. Furthermore, in the Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children and Another v Minister of Justice judgement, the court took note of the ‘age gap’ between the participants in sexual conduct, precisely because of the potential for undue influence of the older person over the younger child. Yet, in the case of child marriages, the power imbalance between adults and children rests on a government official’s judgment of what is legal ‘culture’ in terms of the marriage act. The potential for children being unduly influenced seems to be very relevant in the case of child brides, given both the age of the child and the quasi-commercial nature of the proceedings. Even if this sense of the quasi-commercial nature could be overlooked somehow, in Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act we see that ‘a person who commits an act of sexual penetration with a child who is 12 years of age or older but under the age of 16 years is, despite the consent to the commission of such an act, is guilty of the offense of having committed an act of nonconsensual sexual penetration with a child.’ It is then difficult to see how a child’s consent is sufficient in child marriage law.

The Demand for Child Prostitution

The demand for child prostitution (transactional sex), which is known as the ‘new’ sugar daddy or so-called ‘blessers’ behavior, is hard to overlook. Again, for those new to the subject, in SA ‘blessers’ buy sex from children via gifts etc. The economic vulnerability of girls cannot, we believe, be used as justification for preserving the status quo in cases of transactional sex or child brides. The same drivers that lead young women towards having sexual relationships – many of which are transactional in nature – with men much older than they are, is an abuse of human dignity The body of the child is ultimately being used for merely instrumental purposes. It is also of great concern that this trend in transactional sex exposes girls to a multitude of health issues. Also, it exposes their vulnerability to being coerced into accepting the dangerous social narrative that sexual abuse is legitimate work (blessing).

The Families Consent

Cultural adaptation and urbanisation are likewise challenges to consider in the light of globalization. The idea, that all communities in question are ‘positive agents’ in such negotiations, seems problematic. Furthermore, one might for example think of how many children have lost both parents and hence may be very vulnerable. A Situation Analysis of Children in South Africa April 2009 estimated, ‘…a total number of children with one or both dead parents in 2006 was almost 3.8 million, or 21% of the child population. While the majority are, in all likelihood, receiving the support of a surviving parent, grandparent or other family member, the impact on families and communities that care for such a huge number of orphans should not be underestimated’. The best interest of the child cannot be decided and based on the mere cost benefit to these families.

In conclusion, we would do well to note that The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child echoes this sentiment in, Article 21: ‘Governments should do what they can to stop harmful social and cultural practices, such as child marriage, that affect the welfare and dignity of children’. In the Context of Africa, UNICEF found in a study in 2015, ‘…that more than one in three of these African women and girls (over 40 million) entered into marriage or union before age 15. If current trends continue, almost half of the world’s child brides in 2050 will be African.’ We believe that SA, as a gateway nation to Africa, should take the lead in putting our children first by criminalising this behaviour.

The post Child Marriage in South Africa appeared first on Pinion Project.

By Dieter Lubbe

The following headline appeared in the Sowetan Newspaper recently. 1000 Schoolgirls Fall Pregnant in One Year in Ekurhuleni.  These types of reports and other research evidence, highlighting sexual abuse, is becoming overwhelmingly commonplace in South Africa. This should give us pause as we consider each young life is more than a mere number. This tragic abuse of youth vulnerability highlights the ongoing struggle to uphold the rule of law in the area of gender based violence in our country. We all need to consider how we can position ourselves to support the efforts of law enforcement as we join with the movement to end sexual exploitation. The Times Live reporting on the same case noted:

Hlomela Bucwa‚ MP and Democratic Alliance member of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training‚ highlighted social ills and education failures during a youth day address in Parliament last month. She cited statistics showing that between 2014 and 2016‚ a total of 42‚253 pupils from Grades 3 to 12 fell pregnant – noting that 193 of these pupils were in Grades 3‚ 4 and 5. The DA commented on the pre-teen and teenager pregnancies in a previous release‚ stating: “This information should shock every South African. Young girls‚ most under the legal age of 16‚ are having their futures undermined‚ likely through being taken advantage of or abused.”

Getting “informed” about CONSENT?

The last sentence in the quote above, ‘Young girls‚ most under the legal age of 16‚ are having their futures undermined‚ likely through being taken advantage of or abused.” strikes a nerve for us at Pinion Project. Our vision is to defend human dignity and the right to be safe, empowered, and free from sexual exploitation. With this in mind, this article looks at the notion of consent within the context of the sexulisation of children (with reference to South Africa).

To be clear, in terms of the sugar daddy or so-called ‘blessers,’ this behavior must be condemned. SA Criminal Law Section 17 leaves no doubt that any child involved in ‘transactional sex’ is being sexually exploited. Hence, consensual sexual relations do not include a right to prostitution and cannot be interpreted to include adult/child sexual relations. We need to guard against being distracted from this point.

By way of background information to our understanding, we need to make an effort to grasp some the basic concepts in South African law before we get going in this article. According to the South African Sexual Offences Act definition, ‘consent’ means voluntary or uncoerced agreement. The South African Criminal Law (Sexual offences and Related Matters) was signed into law in 2007. This law criminalised sexual activity between children under the age of 16. However, in 2013, the Constitutional Court agreed that Section 15 (which criminalised sexual activity between adolescents) was unconstitutional. Government subsequently amended Section 15, which now reads:

A person (‘A’) who commits an act of sexual penetration with a child (‘B’) who is 12 years of age or older but under the age of 16 years is, despite the consent of B to the commission of such an act, is guilty of the offence of having committed an act of unconsensual sexual penetration with a child, unless A, at the time of the alleged commission of such an act, was— (a) 12 years of age or older but under the age of 16 years; or (b) either 16 or 17 years of age and the age difference between A and B was not more than two years.

Simply put, an adult who has consensual sex with a child between the ages of 12 and 16, is guilty of statutory rape, despite consent. However, if children between the ages of 12 and 16 engage in consensual penetrative sex acts with each other, it is not considered a crime. Similarly, a 17 year old can legally engage in consensual penetrative sex with a younger child, provided there is no more than a two year age gap between them. This is not to imply that  everything legally allowed is beneficial to be sure. The court contended that the law was not the best instrument for shaping children’s consensual behaviour. Sex education then becomes a significant focus in the fight to empower families and communities. We cannot overemphasize this point. Our concern ethically speaking, is that we always ensure that consent is sufficiently informed. After all, consent, if it is anything, is an act of reason and deliberation. The mind weighs in on the balance between good and evil. Children, in particular, cannot be expected to carry this burden alone (I will argue this point in some detail later in this essay).

According to South Africa’s National Strategic Plan for HIV, TB and STIs 2017-2022.

‘Young women (aged between 15 and 24 years) in South Africa have the highest HIV incidence of any age or sex cohort… One third of teenage girls become pregnant before the age of 20. Responding to the social and structural drivers of this vulnerability (which leads young women towards having sexual relationships – many of which are transactional in nature – with men who are five to 10 years older than they are) is key to controlling the epidemic.’

In this light of the HIV and STIs epidemic, using the word, ‘consent’, takes on a deeper ethical commitment. Consent in this frame should be informed. By way of example, the permission a patient gives to a doctor for treatment is based on the information that the doctor communicated to the patient regarding the possible risks and benefits of the treatment. Now due to the health risks in this public health crisis, this legal usage of ‘informed consent’ is relevant in public sex education policy.  As seen above, the need for information on Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) is important for anyone who is evaluating the risks of consensual sex acts (also see footnote on abortion). The conversation takes an important turn at this point as we consider ‘child sexual rights’. Again for context we note with Carmen Barroso, Western Hemisphere Regional Director for Planned Parenthood Federation, stated, ‘Traditional human rights, they were civil and political. Rights, they were not referring to the sexuality of anybody.’ The inclusion of ‘sexual rights’ language under the umbrella of human rights was never the intent of original human rights declarations or agreements.

Child Rights Public Education?

It is generally agreed upon that it is parent’s job to teach children how to be happy, healthy adults. Children need to learn the social rules about how and when to interact with others and with whom they should interact. Parents and guardians need to live and teach a culture of respect. This starts when little children first start learning about sharing toys etc. Respect and permission must be part of everyday living and not only our most intimate interactions. We believe that the grounding of human rights and values starts with the recognition of the dignity of every person. Human dignity says that people are amazing. Dignity in this frame also makes a relational claim, we are to recognise the dignity in others. Collectively, this Dignity calls for a limitation of state authority when it comes to matters of indifference. Dignity in this rough and ready sense then needs to be honored by humanity.

The need to educate parents and guardians is very important. However, this family and community view has been significantly challenged by a sexual entitlement narrative (which gained momentum in the 1960’s). Foundational to this view is the belief that any sex with anybody is probably a good thing; it is not about marriage or having children or the building of healthy societies. Non-procreative sexual expression is a simple necessity intrinsically tied to human fulfillment and personal identity (according to United States of America’s Supreme Court). Sex then is ultimately subject to one’s own desires (to obtain sexual pleasure).

With this ideological undercurrent in mind, it is easier to see why so many believe that sexual rights  – split the value of sex from the facts of biology. This is particularly relevant when it comes to public sex education. Family Watch International (a nonprofit international educational organisation in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations) states that most of the United Nation ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ programs contain many of the following components:

• Teach children to advocate for “sexual rights.”
• Denigrate the religious and cultural values of their parents or community.
• Teach children various ways to obtain sexual pleasure.
• Promote condoms to children without informing them of their failure rates.
• Teach children to masturbate.
• Encourage children to experiment sexually with individuals of their own sex or the opposite sex.
• Promote anal or oral sex to children or teach them these behaviours are safe.
• Promote promiscuity to children as a ‘right’.
• Provide sexual counselling, information or services to minors without parental consent.
• Avoid unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions;

These UN comprehensive sexuality education ‘components’ suggest a negative individualism that is not helpful.  The distinction here is as Bruce C. Hafen, Professor of Law, Brigham Young University points out,

“…‘protection rights’ rather than ‘choice rights’ for children… Giving children choices that they are not prepared to make can actually undermine the fulfilment of their most essential needs—which, in effect, abandons them to their rights. By their very nature as developing persons, children are dependent on parents and other adults to help them meet their needs.”

Good legislation and policy are guiding principles of ‘In the best interests of the child’. Yet, as we see above, it has proved difficult to translate these rights and protections into the everyday lived experience of so many women and children. So what can be said? The problem is that, without a sense of a true good in relationships, we don’t know to what we should consent. It is uncontroversial to assert that monogamous relationships, like marriage, have significant benefits to the couple, their children and society at large in terms of health outcomes. However, negative individualism is eroding even this legitimate framing of relationships. If people think that human rights are about the pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence (hedonism), they are more likely to indulge in sexual vice. The central tenet of hedonism—that the good consists in the experiential—is incorrect. This intern impacts everybody as Professor Robert P George put it,

“…private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests. This fact embarrasses philosophical efforts to draw a sharp line that distinguishes a realm of “private” morality that is not subject to law from a domain of public actions that may rightly be subjected to legal regulation.”

The need for South Africans to speak out against negative individualism, as we reflect on our collective responsibility, is very important. Professor of Ethics at Brigham University, Karu, Nigeria Samuel Waje Kunhiyop notes;

“It is a shame that negative individualism is beginning to be imbibed by Africans. The breakdown of law and the emergence of many other moral crises can be attributed mainly to overemphasis on individual rights and freedom.”

It is the case that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV among our youth. This claim is often challenged via the educational outcomes of something called ‘abstinence based sexual education’ vs ‘comprehensive sexuality education’. The evidence, we are told, indicates that children who are taught to, ‘abstain only’, are statistically more at risk than children who are fully informed on every sexual proclivity. In formal logic, a false dichotomy sets up two alternative points of view as if they were the only options, argues against one of them, and thereby concludes that the other must be true. As I have argued above, we should not be so easily distracted by this myopic view when we are faced with very difficult ethical questions.

Conclusion

The sexual entitlement narrative and the permission-giving beliefs that result in gender based violence is forcing us to reassess our collective responsibilities and reasoning. We believe both parents and children are being influence by a sexulised cultural narrative. The sexulised cultural narrative tells a deceptive story about child-autonomy in the frame of consensual sex rights. Hedonism is mistaken and therefore when it is illegitimately connected with ‘new sexual rights’ it is mistaken (biology is not bigotry as some have said). This fact must buttress our efforts and policy vision in the defence of human dignity and the right to be safe, empowered, and free from sexual exploitation.  

Note:

Currently the political rhetoric tends to focus on the ‘unplanned babies’ with an eye on the overseas funding that this framing of the situation could motivate. When a teenager falls pregnant, we understand that it is not because her body manifests a pregnancy as the result of an illness. Hence, conflating of teen pregnancy with HIV and STIs illness is a common mistake in reason. What is in view are the issues around birth control, statutory rape and consent between children. The difficulty with birth control we suggest, is what often starts as a conversation about the right to be protected from the illegal practice in medicine, turns into an ideological duty to use abortion as birth control. This view is fraught with inconvenient facts. Planned Parenthood Federation, recently acknowledged an alarming “surge” in maternal deaths in South Africa even though that country, since 1996, has had some of the most permissive abortion laws on the African continent.’ Much more can be said about this as we put aside the myth that abortion on demand is the best use of the budget. Ethically, we are committed to point out that abortions have both short – and long-term adverse effects including:

• Accidental tearing of uterine artery, tearing of the cervix, or scarring of the uterine wall
• Heavy bleeding, requiring blood transfusions
• Abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and infection
• Allergic reaction to drugs or anesthesia, sometimes causing convulsions, or worse
• Heart attack, embolisms (caused by blood clots or other foreign matter in blood
• vessels)
• Perforation of the uterus and damage to other internal organs
• Miscarriage of future pregnancies, infertility or sterility
• Increased risk of subsequent tubal pregnancies
• Death (some estimates as high as 20 percent of maternal deaths are due to abortion)
• Guilt, anger, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts
• Anniversary grief, flashbacks of abortion, memory repression
• Sexual dysfunction, relationship problems

The post Protecting Children’s Vulnerability appeared first on Pinion Project.