A news story from almost forty years ago:
A lesbian-couple in California wanted to have a child. This was before gay/lesbians could marry and the chances of them adopting were approximately zero.
Being resourceful, they found a gay man in New Orleans who was willing to contribute his DNA to the project as long as the couple signed an iron-clad quit-claim against pursuing child-support payments in the future.
The man provided the semen. One of the women conceived and gave birth to a child. After all the attention died away, the child was a lot of work and cut into the discretionary income. The non-childbearing half of the lesbian couple bailed out.
The now partner-less mother filed for child-support payments from the semen donor. The semen donor fought the request. He had a signed quit-claim.
The judge ruled that the semen donor was legally obliged to provide child-support payments in spite of both women signing agreements that they would not pursue such payments.
Was the judge right?
The judge based their ruling on the very simple legal principle that you cannot give away what is not yours. Seen through that lens, the judge was 100% in-the-right.
The child-support payments belongs to the child and the mother does not have the authority to give it away. She can sign a thousand legal documents drafted by the best legal minds at Harvard and Yale and it means NOTHING because it is not hers to give away.
So? That happened 40 years ago. What does that have to do with today?
If a parent does not have the authority to make binding decisions about temporary states-of-being, like child-support, because it is not his/hers to give away; then how can they have authority to authorize permanent changes like chopping off their child's penis or removing their child's ovaries or the irreversible administration of sex hormones?
And if the parent does not have the authority to do it, then how can a teacher or "medical professional" have that authority.
But, you might argue, the young human WANTS it
Allow me to point out that Saint Barack Obama himself determined that children less than the age of 26-years-old are not responsible. It is enshrined in the Affordable Care Act, the keystone achievement of his administration. If children under the age of 26 cannot be held responsible for trivial details like PAYING for their insurance, then they cannot be considered responsible enough to make life-altering decisions like having their tallywhacker removed or their ovaries excised.
You cannot have it both ways. Either they are "responsible" or they are "not responsible".
It is a criminal-act to subject any US citizen under the age of 26 to a permanent "trans-gender" procedure.
Well, if ya put it That way.. It's just pretty damn hard to fail to see it. I'm sure there are some who would choose to fail to get it, but they vote democrat and will probably never read it.
ReplyDeleteIf you look a little deeper (read Baskerville, Devlin, many others) you'll discover that child support is in reality the thinly-disguised face of single-mom support. It can only be accomplished via kids without a biological father in the home.
ReplyDeleteThat is how it works where the rubber hits the road, but it is not the theoretical foundation for the practice. Actualities get implemented in the lower courts. Theory gets argued in higher courts.
DeleteIn ten years, there are going to be a lot of angry, pissed-off young-adults in court seeking recompense from hospitals and insurance companies enabling this mutilation.
I was just talking to my buddy Greg L about this and he asked "Would that apply to abortion also?" Can you kill someone without their consent?---ken
ReplyDeleteThis has always been my question. How come killing a pregnant woman is a double murder charge but abortion is ok?
DeleteCoyoteken, that's part of what makes it murder.
DeleteDragonslayer, because the law is not apolitical, because the writers cavort with subjective emotion. By intention, not happenstance.
Sticking my long Canadian nose into this unsavoury Yank business, maybe… but to quote one your own founding fathers, “we’ve given you a republic - IF you can keep it…”
ReplyDeleteAccording to the New Anointed Noble Classes (Queers, vibrants, women, pedos, etc)…you are now a democracy of some sort. The law is whatever ‘they’ say it is, and if there is no popular support for their legal revisions, they will manufacture it through the media, the courts, and the other institutions they’ve hijacked. We are not innocent; we sat on our hands and let them do it.
In the real world… this is what comes of sinful behaviour and consorting with the cretins that engage in it. The end result is always the same: misery for everyone.
I warned of exactly this kind of crap (and got banned hither and yon off the internet forums) 25 years ago. “STFU, Filthie,” they explained, “straight people have the right to eff up their marriages and families, so why deprive the queers of it?” That noise came from supposed conservatives.
Welp… now contract and tort law, your constitution and your rights are no longer valid, and everything up to and including child sacrifice are on the table.
My personal take now is to just shrug at such doings. The only guys that can fix these people are God, Darwin and Murphy… and I’d rather not be in their vicinity of The New Annointed Classes when reality finally reckons with them. The only defence against these people (other than lead, steel and shot) - is distance.
I would suggest the left can have their cake and eat it too. They can abort a viable child because it is not a human till birth. But if the fetus is damaged at anytime they can sue for damages and the state can pursue criminal charges as it it was alive.
ReplyDeleteThanks ERJ, that was brilliant.
ReplyDeletethe very simple legal principle that you cannot give away what is not yours
You captured this idea wonderfully. It applies to Life, and it also applies to the defense of life. Gun rights could never have been delegated to the various governments, if we the people did not already possess them.
You tickled my liberty bone. Milton