The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 08, 2021, 02:48:15 pm
-
Republicans Who Can’t Oppose Child Mutilation Should Get Out Of Office
Protecting people from murder, assault, battery, and mutilation by criminals and predators is the first and most basic government function. A state that cannot do this has no moral legitimacy to do anything else.
By Joy Pullmann
April 8, 2021
To explain his veto of a bill that would have protected children from transgender genital mutilation, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson claimed it would be “a vast government overreach.â€
Using language similar to North Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s in vetoing a bill to protect girls’ sports from unfair and irrational transgender male competition, Hutchinson further claimed:
I don’t shy away from the battle when it is necessary and defensible. But the most recent action of the general assembly, while well intended, is off course. And I must veto House Bill 1570.
House Bill 1570 would put the state as the definitive oracle of medical care overriding parents, patients, and healthcare experts. While in some instances the state must act to protect life, the state should not presume to jump into the middle of every medical, human, and ethical issue. This would be, and is, a vast government overreach.
Hutchinson’s excuses prove him to be an empty suit who understands nothing about the proper uses and abuses of government, a fool who can only parrot slogans without understanding one word that comes out of his own mouth. It is not “government overreach†for government to do its first and most basic job.
-
I will have to revisit Noem if her reasoning is the same as Hutchinson.
Because Hutchinson is right. Imposing the will of the state upon a parent in the determination of a child's xexual preference is a very bad mistake. And that without recourse for the parents. A very bad idea.
At least make it criminal so that the state has a burden of proof, and the parents have the benefit of mounting a defense and a decision by their peers.
I agree absolutely - this is a mutilation and a bad way to handle a delusion - In fact, proven so. But do this and the precedent will come back to bite you.
Hutchinson is right - regulate the industry not the family. It does the same thing, and does not breach the authority of the parent.
-
I guess we should eliminate all laws against child abuse, because that's the state getting between a parent and his victi...child.
Hutchinson is angling for a spot on the board of some woke company, perhaps.
Noemi was just too gutless to fight, because she discovered "Principles".
-
I guess we should eliminate all laws against child abuse, because that's the state getting between a parent and his victi...child.
Hutchinson is angling for a spot on the board of some woke company, perhaps.
Noemi was just too gutless to fight, because she discovered "Principles".
Exactly wrong. Asa Hutchison has been a Reaganite stalwart all the way along. If he says it's overbroad you better listen. Giving the homo crowd license on a silver platter is exactly the wrong thing to do. And that is what giving the state authority over a child's sexual disposition over his parents objection is going to do. This will come back, reverse, and bite y'all right in the butt.
-
Hutchinson is wrong because the states have always had the right and duty to regulate the practice of medicine in the public interest. Doing so is not overreach. It is not in the public interest to allow children to demand and receive medical modification their bodies (whether by chemical modification of their endocrine functions or surgery) in such a way that they will be rendered sterile before they reach the age of majority, or even the age of consent (in states where that is lower than 18).
I would suggest as a general rule, if one is incapable of giving legal consent to have sexual intercourse, one is incapable of giving consent to have a sex change.
-
Hutchinson is wrong because the states have always had the right and duty to regulate the practice of medicine in the public interest. Doing so is not overreach. It is not in the public interest to allow children to demand and receive medical modification their bodies (whether by chemical modification of their endocrine functions or surgery) in such a way that they will be rendered sterile before they reach the age of majority, or even the age of consent (in states where that is lower than 18).
I would suggest as a general rule, if one is incapable of giving legal consent to have sexual intercourse, one is incapable of giving consent to have a sex change.
This is not the practice of medicine - That is precisely Hutchinson's point If you will listen to what he said, he said he would have signed that in an instant.
This is authority of the state imposing and usurping the authority of the parents.
Shall the state impose the same stricture against male circumcision, regardless of religious belief? That will be next. Goose/gander.
-
@roamer_1 --- Please explain why Hutchinson saw no problem with this:
Jewish Deplorable
@TrumpJew2
In 2019, Asa Hutchinson signed a bill banning female genital mutilation of minors. His “limited government†defense is BS
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1378042420185694215/cNJk0Sqw?format=png&name=120x120) Arkansas SB318 | 2019 | 92nd General Assembly
Summary (2019-03-26) To Prohibit Unlawful Female Genital Mutilation Of A Minor; To Create Awareness Programs Concerning And Statistical Tracking Of Unlawful Female Genital Mutilation; And To Declare...
https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/SB318/2019
8:45 PM · Apr 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/TrumpJew2/status/1379596208231055360
-
Amber Athey
@amber_athey
Hutchinson and Noem thought they could get away with the “you just don’t get it†defense. But people aren’t listening. Nor should they — underneath their posturing about limited govt and constitutional scholars, they were really protecting biz interests
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1379935773403738112/X2MhJ9by?format=jpg&name=small)
Asa Hutchinson commits cable news seppuku - The Spectator
Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson lit himself on fire by going on Tucker Carlson's show to explain a transgender bill veto
https://spectator.us/topic/arkansas-asa-hutchinson-tucker-carlson-transgender-bill-kristi-noem/
10:37 PM · Apr 7, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1379986739368976386
-
@roamer_1 --- Please explain why Hutchinson saw no problem with this:
8:45 PM · Apr 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/TrumpJew2/status/1379596208231055360
@Right_in_Virginia - That is banning a procedure. He specifically said if it was a medical procedure he'd have signed the bill - It is not the procedure that he objected to. He said the bill is broader than that.
-
As a nation, the USA has been practicing mass genocide now for almost 50 years. And worse, we are now exporting that genocide to other countries with taxpayer dollars. This country was lost to evil forces long ago.
Arguing this nonsense makes no sense. And in all the arguments, not once did I hear it mentioned that John Hopkins Medical Center, renown at one time for doing gender reassignment surgery discontinued said surgery because they determined that folks seeking such were actually suffering from a mental disorder. If JH is right, and I believe they are, then doing anything to a minor is a criminal act.
Then there is the fact that many realize after going through puberty that they do not want to do the gender reassignment. Damaging a child with chemicals to affect that outcome is nothing less than criminal.
And someone up stream mentioned circumcision. Well, circumcision or male genital mutilation MGM, is one more needless act of mutilation we have been doing for one hundred years that is NOT necessary. It came about as standard practice in the USA because of what happened to men fighting trench warfare in World War I. The USA is the only nation that has it as a standard practice, other than Jews and Muslims, who do it for religious reasons.
We need to end liberalism in this nation and get back to being a sane country before it is too late. Sadly, we are no where near that goal, for the liberals are winning. And if they add PR and DC as states, and then pack the court, this nation as a republic is over. DEAD, with zero chance for revival!!!
-
And someone up stream mentioned circumcision. Well, circumcision or male genital mutilation MGM, is one more needless act of mutilation we have been doing for one hundred years that is NOT necessary. It came about as standard practice in the USA because of what happened to men fighting trench warfare in World War I. The USA is the only nation that has it as a standard practice, other than Jews and Muslims, who do it for religious reasons.
And just like that, we've moved from a psychological dysphoria to a direct intrusion on faith. Millions of Christians circumcise because Yah said to do it... It has never been physically necessary. It is a tradition or rite which has been maintained for millennia. But if you were the state - and many states are already hostile toward the Judeo-Christian religion - You would now have the authority to intercede, purportedly on the child's behalf, and curtail the religious practice and expression of faith it represents.
Thank you for making my point.
-
@Right_in_Virginia - That is banning a procedure. He specifically said if it was a medical procedure he'd have signed the bill - It is not the procedure that he objected to. He said the bill is broader than that.
Really? This excuse works for you?
The difference is with gender reassignment there isn't one procedure ... there's a whole host of hormone as well as multiple surgeries required to change a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy. The whole process should be put on hold until the patient reaches the age of consent.
So, really? Asa's excuse works for you?
-
As a nation, the USA has been practicing mass genocide now for almost 50 years. And worse, we are now exporting that genocide to other countries with taxpayer dollars.
Are you referring to gender reassignment with this statement? @jafo2010
Arguing this nonsense makes no sense. And in all the arguments, not once did I hear it mentioned that John Hopkins Medical Center, renown at one time for doing gender reassignment surgery discontinued said surgery because they determined that folks seeking such were actually suffering from a mental disorder. If JH is right, and I believe they are, then doing anything to a minor is a criminal act.
The medical care provided to minors (until now) is routinely for the treatment of accident or disease. Even cosmetic surgery (a girl thing) requires a psych evaluation and parental consent. Most surgeons won't perform any facial surgery until all bones and structure are set; so this pushes the minimum age for surgery to mid-teen.
Gender transitioning begins before puberty. Around the age of 10 (although this is now happening even earlier) doctors can prescribe hormone blockers, which are injections or implants that keep the body from releasing estrogen or testosterone. This is step one into the wonderful world of hormone manipulation that will last a lifetime. Next up: Multiple surgeries.
Then there is the fact that many realize after going through puberty that they do not want to do the gender reassignment. Damaging a child with chemicals to affect that outcome is nothing less than criminal.
Agree. This is why I agree with stopping the gender reassignment, including the period of transitioning, until the patient has reached the age of consent. If I had my druthers I'd also make a 3 visit psych evaluation mandatory (but this appears to be just me)
And someone up stream mentioned circumcision. Well, circumcision or male genital mutilation MGM, is one more needless act of mutilation we have been doing for one hundred years that is NOT necessary. It came about as standard practice in the USA because of what happened to men fighting trench warfare in World War I. The USA is the only nation that has it as a standard practice, other than Jews and Muslims, who do it for religious reasons.
Mostly true. The exception being "mutilation" -- the penis is not cut off, it is not maimed or mangled; nor is its function impaired. \
We need to end liberalism in this nation and get back to being a sane country before it is too late. Sadly, we are no where near that goal, for the liberals are winning. And if they add PR and DC as states, and then pack the court, this nation as a republic is over. DEAD, with zero chance for revival!!!
I agree. If we were a sane nation, "gender reassignment" would be laughed out of the medical arena because there would be two sexes as chosen by God.
The transvestite would be on display in the shadows of Greenwich Village --- not in our libraries reading to our young children.
We all know this, But at this moment for "gender reassignment" the question to answer is "how do we protect our young while we're still in satan's grip?". And the answer is: We find a way to stop it, even if it means legislation.
As for the rest, we pray the proverbial pendulum is ready to start swinging back to normal; and we make the wisest choices in our politics to help give it a shove. :0001:
-
Really? This excuse works for you?
The difference is with gender reassignment there isn't one procedure ... there's a whole host of hormone as well as multiple surgeries required to change a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy. The whole process should be put on hold until the patient reaches the age of consent.
So, really? Asa's excuse works for you?
Excuse, @Right_in_Virginia ? I don't see an excuse. His intent was not against you, with some exception for those already undergoing transformation... He said he was *FOR* all that.
What he balked at was an overbroad authority granted to the state - And if that is true, I AGREE with him. That is not an excuse. That is a reason. If the language of the bill makes the state the sole arbiter and authority over the children, exluding the parents and the doctors, without charge or trial, that is indeed an overreach. And one am not comfortable with either, as I have expressed upthread.
Turns out I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am certainly for limiting or abolishing the practice of gender change in children...
and it turns out, I would be against governmental overreach too.
Go figger.
And a bill providing for both ought to be vetoed.
But that is merely my speculation, taking Hutchinson at his word...
And also a moot point since the legislature overrode his veto.
So it is law. And when it is challenged we shall both see that I was right all the way along.
-
Excuse, @Right_in_Virginia ? I don't see an excuse. His intent was not against you, with some exception for those already undergoing transformation... He said he was *FOR* all that.
What does this jackassery even mean @roamer_1 ?
What he balked at was an overbroad authority granted to the state - And if that is true, I AGREE
What he balked at was fabricated to try and cover his ass. Whoever called him with a warning will be outed soon enough.
-
This is not the practice of medicine.
That's odd, it involves injections of drugs and surgery under anesthesia and it's being taught in medical schools as the appropriate "treatment" for gender dysphoria, with a lot of them silencing faculty who suggest that treating gender dysphoria in the same way we treat other psychiatric ailments involving delusions is more appropriate.
Your argument vitiates the state's ability to suppress harmful quackery of any sort.
-
roamer_1
And just like that, we've moved from a psychological dysphoria to a direct intrusion on faith. Millions of Christians circumcise because Yah said to do it... It has never been physically necessary. It is a tradition or rite which has been maintained for millennia. But if you were the state - and many states are already hostile toward the Judeo-Christian religion - You would now have the authority to intercede, purportedly on the child's behalf, and curtail the religious practice and expression of faith it represents.
Thank you for making my point.
Maybe I am living under a rock, but I do not know a single Christian faith that has the practice of circumcision. Not one! Yes, folks that are Jewish and Muslim, that is a part of their thing, but not one Christian faith.
Now I went out and searched it, and the net said Coptic Christians, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians practice circumcision. All three of these Christian religions are small numbers when considering the global population.
The USA is the ONLY COUNTRY that practices circumcision, and we are slowly moving away from it. At this time, only about half of America is having it done on their male children. It is mutilation, plain and simple.
I have one son. When my wife was pregnant, the woman teaching the Lamaze class suggested to the future parents in the room, which there were about 15 couples, like father, like son when asked what one should do. My son was born on a Friday, and I brought my wife home on Monday, and flew out to my consulting project that night halfway across the country. My mother in law was there to help my wife. I flew back in early on Friday. We sat down and had lunch. The baby was in his crib while we ate. And he started to stir. I was done eating so I went to check on him.
He was wet, so I went to change his diaper. When I laid the front part of the diaper against his body, he laid there and went OUUUUGH!, lips pursed in pain, like the diaper merely brushing up against his penis caused him severe pain. I knew then I had just done the worst thing I could have ever done to my son. We had two more kids, and I told my wife no more circs if we have a boy. She wanted to fight with me over it, and I said over my dead body.
We are doing so many things wrong in this nation to harm folks. The argument that children do not feel the circumcision, so it is no problem, THAT IS A BLATANT LIE. I saw it first hand with my son. It is mutilation, and no other nation does this.
-
Right_in_Virginia
Are you referring to gender reassignment with this statement? @jafo2010
Geez, I am talking about abortion!!!
ABORTION!
ABORTION!!
ABORTION!!!
-
And to the person that said that circumcision causes no harm, you need to do some reading. I once read that the difference between a circumcised penis and one not circumcised is the difference between black and white TV and a colored TV. The destruction of hundreds if not thousands of nerve endings has a huge impact from what I read.
Circumcision is mutilation.
Taking children and giving them drugs to alter the development of their body is also mutilation.
But since when did we ever care about our children in this country? We are allowing teacher unions to keep students out of classes for 1.5 years and counting. Idiocracy is not just a movie title!!!!!!!! The lives of millions of children are most likely destroyed, permanently!
And the science of it all, documented data, shows that children are not transmitters of the disease, and are not vulnerable to the disease. So the science party continues with its ever loving lies.
-
Exactly wrong. Asa Hutchison has been a Reaganite stalwart all the way along.
Not any more.
Conservatives recognize the role of the state exists to protect children, both born and unborn.
PC RINOs do not. All they care about is stopping American in its tracks.
And your Argument From Authority is a clear fail, anyway. I know what a conservative is because I are one. I know what a conservative is not, and one of the exclusionary criteria is permitting the abuse of children for any reason.
Oh. You didn't realize you were playing the Argument From Authority Game. You lost it anyway. Everyone that plays that game loses.
-
This is not the practice of medicine - That is precisely Hutchinson's point If you will listen to what he said, he said he would have signed that in an instant.
This is authority of the state imposing and usurping the authority of the parents.
Shall the state impose the same stricture against male circumcision, regardless of religious belief? That will be next. Goose/gander.
Well, you're right there. Sexually mutilating children is not medical practice, it's sexually mutilating children.
And clearly the state has the obligation to enact laws to protect them from teachers, quacks and so-called "parents" who want to sexually mutilate a child.
Just like how the sane states ban female circumcisions.
And should ban male circumcisions.
-
@Right_in_Virginia - That is banning a procedure. He specifically said if it was a medical procedure he'd have signed the bill - It is not the procedure that he objected to. He said the bill is broader than that.
Oh.
Giving pills that castrate a child for life is not a "procedure".
So it's okay in your eyes.
You keep saying "he said the bill is broader than that", and assuming he's not referring to the Camel's Butt in Washington, which broad is he referring to and explain how she's wider.
-
And just like that, we've moved from a psychological dysphoria to a direct intrusion on faith. Millions of Christians circumcise because Yah said to do it... It has never been physically necessary. It is a tradition or rite which has been maintained for millennia. But if you were the state - and many states are already hostile toward the Judeo-Christian religion - You would now have the authority to intercede, purportedly on the child's behalf, and curtail the religious practice and expression of faith it represents.
Thank you for making my point.
What's your point again, that the children ARE NOT the property of their parents, because if they were, then they are property in real terms and then the state gets to define how that property is controlled and handled.
So, no. Children are not property, and as sovereign individuals the children should not be mutilated, not as females with clitorectomies nor as males, with circumcisions. It's no big deal to tell the Jews that they can't hack at their baby boys' penises, but they'll have to wait until the bar mitzvah to let the "young man" decide for himself is he wants to bear a physical mark showing his allegiance to his family's God or not.
Or isn't personal choice something we accept around here?
For something more serious, like doing the Full Heaven's Gate thing, the child should certainly not be assisted by doctors or parents. It's child abuse of the worst order. People wanting to go Full Eunuch need serious psychological counseling, not the offer of someone to hold the chainsaw with steady hands and anesthetic.
-
Really? This excuse works for you?
The difference is with gender reassignment there isn't one procedure ... there's a whole host of hormone as well as multiple surgeries required to change a boy into a girl or a girl into a boy. The whole process should be put on hold until the patient reaches the age of consent.
So, really? Asa's excuse works for you?
Hutchinson just trashed true conservative principles to become a SpokesHole for Principled Conservatives, so naturally the Orange-Man-Bad weenies are defending him.
They don't have any logic.
They never do.
That's never stopped them before, why should it start now?
-
Excuse, @Right_in_Virginia ? I don't see an excuse. His intent was not against you, with some exception for those already undergoing transformation... He said he was *FOR* all that.
What he balked at was an overbroad authority granted to the state - And if that is true, I AGREE with him. That is not an excuse. That is a reason. If the language of the bill makes the state the sole arbiter and authority over the children, exluding the parents and the doctors, without charge or trial, that is indeed an overreach. And one am not comfortable with either, as I have expressed upthread.
Turns out I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am certainly for limiting or abolishing the practice of gender change in children...
and it turns out, I would be against governmental overreach too.
Go figger.
And a bill providing for both ought to be vetoed.
But that is merely my speculation, taking Hutchinson at his word...
And also a moot point since the legislature overrode his veto.
So it is law. And when it is challenged we shall both see that I was right all the way along.
The state already has the authority to block medical practices.
Guess what? The Constitution says so.
Why does the state do this? To protect the patients.
Which patients need protecting the most?
The young patient with demented Rodent-voting fad-following fools for parents. Yeah, it's not very likely that normal American, ie conservative, parents want their children mutilated chemically or surgically. But Rodents want that.
-
That's odd, it involves injections of drugs and surgery under anesthesia and it's being taught in medical schools as the appropriate "treatment" for gender dysphoria, with a lot of them silencing faculty who suggest that treating gender dysphoria in the same way we treat other psychiatric ailments involving delusions is more appropriate.
Your argument vitiates the state's ability to suppress harmful quackery of any sort.
Ya know, I recall when they used to recommend, and perform lobotomies to "treat" certain psychological issues.
That's frowned on, now.
But then they want to treat other clearly psychological issues with the knife.
SSDD.
-
Maybe I am living under a rock, but I do not know a single Christian faith that has the practice of circumcision. Not one! Yes, folks that are Jewish and Muslim, that is a part of their thing, but not one Christian faith.
Now I went out and searched it, and the net said Coptic Christians, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians practice circumcision. All three of these Christian religions are small numbers when considering the global population.
The USA is the ONLY COUNTRY that practices circumcision, and we are slowly moving away from it. At this time, only about half of America is having it done on their male children. It is mutilation, plain and simple.
I have one son. When my wife was pregnant, the woman teaching the Lamaze class suggested to the future parents in the room, which there were about 15 couples, like father, like son when asked what one should do. My son was born on a Friday, and I brought my wife home on Monday, and flew out to my consulting project that night halfway across the country. My mother in law was there to help my wife. I flew back in early on Friday. We sat down and had lunch. The baby was in his crib while we ate. And he started to stir. I was done eating so I went to check on him.
He was wet, so I went to change his diaper. When I laid the front part of the diaper against his body, he laid there and went OUUUUGH!, lips pursed in pain, like the diaper merely brushing up against his penis caused him severe pain. I knew then I had just done the worst thing I could have ever done to my son. We had two more kids, and I told my wife no more circs if we have a boy. She wanted to fight with me over it, and I said over my dead body.
We are doing so many things wrong in this nation to harm folks. The argument that children do not feel the circumcision, so it is no problem, THAT IS A BLATANT LIE. I saw it first hand with my son. It is mutilation, and no other nation does this.
I was present for the bris on both my sons. I was intimately involved from one end to the other, and I did not see much more than the initial pain, which was over quickly and within a day there was little discomfort. Perhaps you weren't tending to it right.
And the reason 'this country' circumcises is BECAUSE of it's Judeo-Christian (Protestant) identity. ALL the Protestant countries circumcised, pretty much across the board. And I dare say the drop in circumcision directly correlates with that Christian identity diminishing.
But that is all beside the point. The point is a state imposing itself. The illustrative demonstration is how easily a state can move from a legitimate concern to a direct imposition against enumerated rights, given the power to do so.
A good friend of mine was accused of sexual improprieties against his daughters in the course of a divorce.
Without trial and without any recourse as determined in two separate attempts at regaining visitation at the least (which cost him thousands), his parental rights were summarily stripped from him and he didn't see his daughters thereafter for 10 years.
As his daughters grew old enough to become independent each of them in their time, The first thing both of them did was to go back to their dad and rekindle a relationship they had longed for the whole time. I have personally sat with his daughters, and his daughters have told me point blank and without coercion that the entire accusation was bullcrap. The whole thing was a manipulation of them in their naive youth, a concoction of their vindictive mother, and and all too willing state child-welfare system. For the 'safety of the children', his custodial right was summarily overturned, and they took his damn children from him.
That same guy (and many others I can point to) had his fortune taken from him too in the form of a decreed child support payment imposed upon him without recourse, and owed monthly whether he was making enough to cover it or not.
His whole damn life was horror-highway For more than a decade in the midst of his best money-making years as he was all but enslaved. And what little he had left he spent trying to get his daughters back... Hell he may STILL owe the state and lawyers. And his is by no means a story beyond the current norm.
The TOOK his honor, his children and his fortune. TOOK it without recourse.
Giving the state that kind of power is flat wrong, and I will always be damnwell against it. This 'for the children' bullcrap always has to be taken with a bucket of salt. Just because 'children' gives no right to the state to strip persons of their unalienable rights and fortune. And they DO.
-
What does this jackassery even mean @roamer_1 ?
Exactly what it says @Right_in_Virginia
What he balked at was fabricated to try and cover his ass. Whoever called him with a warning will be outed soon enough.
Prove that then.
I have not read the bill. Have you? I have read his statement on the thing. If what he says is true, then I agree.
He is not *FOR* this gender reassignment. He is more sympathetic that I would be, but he is not for it. And some of his sympathies are legit.
What his bitch was about was state overreach. And that should rightly be protected against regardless of the circumstance.
-
Why, why, are people so obsessed with our most private of parts? Those parts need to be left alone! STOP MESSING WITH PEOPLE. This obsession started in turd world countries. It needs to stop. Just stop. GFM in Africa, with razor blades.
-
That's odd, it involves injections of drugs and surgery under anesthesia and it's being taught in medical schools as the appropriate "treatment" for gender dysphoria, with a lot of them silencing faculty who suggest that treating gender dysphoria in the same way we treat other psychiatric ailments involving delusions is more appropriate.
Your argument vitiates the state's ability to suppress harmful quackery of any sort.
As a matter of law, that it is quackery has to be determined. The hitch here is that the medical community has swallowed this one whole, hook, line, and sinker - But it is the medical community that must be employed to refute the practice. And because of that, this will be challenged.
And no, the state has the right to control or ban any medical procedure. Except abortion it turns out. And soon, this too, I bet. Because stuff like this will give the state control over your children against your objections. This is not about controlling medicine. It is about state powers, and that it seems, is Hutch's point.
-
Asa has handed the governorship over to Sanders.
-
Not any more.
Conservatives recognize the role of the state exists to protect children, both born and unborn.
PC RINOs do not. All they care about is stopping American in its tracks.
And your Argument From Authority is a clear fail, anyway. I know what a conservative is because I are one. I know what a conservative is not, and one of the exclusionary criteria is permitting the abuse of children for any reason.
Oh. You didn't realize you were playing the Argument From Authority Game. You lost it anyway. Everyone that plays that game loses.
Exactly wrong. The use of 'protecting the children' is often a thin disguise for the imposition of more state control. Because everyone gets all emotional the minute you say 'It's for the chidren' Hell, that's been the mantra of the left all the way along.
So when y'all come up singing the same song, my ears perk up...
Especially when a Conservative governor, specifically noted for his life long 'small-government' stance says the problem is one of government overreach - Well that makes me wonder what he's talking about.
And when I stand on that question as a point of order, and no one addresses it as that, but keeps beating the conversation back around to 'it's for the chidren' when that is not the point, well... Been there before with the liberals.
So no, the protection of children is not a reason to endanger liberty... And no, liberty need not be sacrificed in order to protect them. The two can coexist. And should.
You would think folks would go find out what Hutch is taking about - hear him out. Just like folks should have done for Noems.
If he says the bill is dangerous, find out why. But I guess it is more fun to go off half-cocked and join the hyena pack. Questioning and investigation ain't the strong suit of forums anymore.
Twitterpated.
-
Oh.
Giving pills that castrate a child for life is not a "procedure".
YES, actually it is.
-
So, no. Children are not property, and as sovereign individuals
Children are not sovereign.
It's no big deal to tell the Jews that they can't hack at their baby boys' penises, but they'll have to wait until the bar mitzvah to let the "young man" decide for himself is he wants to bear a physical mark showing his allegiance to his family's God or not.
The commandment is on the eighth day. Not the eighteenth birthday.
Congress shall make NO LAW... Isn't that what it says?
-
Exactly wrong.
So people DO NOT form governments for protection?
They form them to become slaves?
And what part of child abuse is absent in the practice of chemically castrating or surgically castrating children that makes it abhorrent to you for the government to protect them?
Know who the only other people are who are demanding the unrestricted torture and mutilation of children? The abortion nazis.
-
Children are not sovereign.
The commandment is on the eighth day. Not the eighteenth birthday.
Congress shall make NO LAW... Isn't that what it says?
So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?
Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?
Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Perhaps you didn't know this?
Parents do not own their children any more.
They can't brand them. They can't beat them. What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule: First, do no harm. Hmmmm?
Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts. Get better superstitions.
-
So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?
Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?
Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Perhaps you didn't know this?
Parents do not own their children any more.
They can't brand them. They can't beat them. What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule: First, do no harm. Hmmmm?
Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts. Get better superstitions.
888high58888. Right on.
-
So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?
Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?
There you go again, bending the focus back to child abuse, where there is little argument.
Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Perhaps you didn't know this?
Parents do not own their children any more.
Ahh... That's great. So since sovereignty involves independence, if my kid goes and damages someone's property, HE is liable for it, and not me. What a relief.
And in fact, you've talked yourself right in a circle - because sovereignty also involves self-determination, so if the child is sovereign, the child has the right and free choice to mutilate himself however he sees fit.
But in fact, the child is not sovereign. The child is a dependent. And that is where the argument lies. Historically, and traditionally, throughout all of history, that child is the natural ward of his parents, and of their larger family. The authority over the child rests in his parents. With his family.
Now, it is TRUE that the state has authority to breach that natural authority - To make the child a ward of the state in the case where the natural authority of the parents has grievously failed and endangered the child. But even in such a case, it should be that a formal charge be raised against them with evidence presented at trial, and a chance to challenge their accusers with a defense provided as needed. That is how it is supposed to go. Because the natural authority over the child rests in the parents, and not in the state.
Already now, that is not how it is going. I gave an example for the purpose of demonstrating the overreach of the state as it already exists... And when a stawart Conservative governor says there is another state overreach that is worthy of inquiry.
To extend your argument, to deny the natural authority of the parents and allow the state to become the 'sole authority' - which is Hutchinson's charge in this case - requires the admission that the child is first the ward of the state, above all others which is a very, very dangerous idea.
THAT is our disagreement, not the abuse.
They can't brand them. They can't beat them. What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule: First, do no harm. Hmmmm?
Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts. Get better superstitions.
Ahh... the hubris of modernity... The very same modernity that promotes this gender reassignment... What a conundrum that must be... And in defiance of the very God who legally endows your liberties. Be careful what you wish for. You'll wind up with a chain and a collar around your neck. But you can be assured, your big government will take good care of the children in your stead.
-
So people DO NOT form governments for protection?
They form them to become slaves?
And what part of child abuse is absent in the practice of chemically castrating or surgically castrating children that makes it abhorrent to you for the government to protect them?
Know who the only other people are who are demanding the unrestricted torture and mutilation of children? The abortion nazis.
More tubthumping and chest-beating trying to shift the focus back to the abuse. The abuse is not the argument.
-
And the reason 'this country' circumcises is BECAUSE of it's Judeo-Christian (Protestant) identity. ALL the Protestant countries circumcised, pretty much across the board. And I dare say the drop in circumcision directly correlates with that Christian identity diminishing.
You can dare say anything, but you're so wrong. Circumcision coming to the US had nothing to do with the Judeo/Muslim religious custom. Thank Queen Victoria.
http://www.circumcisiondebate.org/past-and-present
-
You can dare say anything, but you're so wrong. Circumcision coming to the US had nothing to do with the Judeo/Muslim religious custom. Thank Queen Victoria.
http://www.circumcisiondebate.org/past-and-present
You might want to check out Geneva.
-
More tubthumping and chest-beating trying to shift the focus back to the abuse. The abuse is not the argument.
The abuse IS the argument.
No wonder you have to insist that it is not.
What's your stance on murdering babies before they are born?
-
You might want to check out Geneva.
Stop digging ... you're wrong.
-
There you go again, bending the focus back to child abuse, where there is little argument.
You defend child abuse. So does Hutchinson.
Just because you both want to pretend otherwise isn't surprising, because all the normal people are opposed to child abuse and don't accept BS excuses to promote it.
-
To extend your argument, to deny the natural authority of the parents and allow the state to become the 'sole authority' - which is Hutchinson's charge in this case -
If you believe this was Asa's charge in this case ... then you must explain why Asa didn't make this charge with female genitalia mutilation and signed a bill banning it.
And spare me the crap that it was due to the differences in procedures. After all, a true principle is etched in stone.
-
The abuse IS the argument.
No wonder you have to insist that it is not.
No it is not. Show me anywhere that I defended abuse - With the exception of circumcision which is not abuse - on that we will no doubt disagree, and in the matter of corporal punishment (within reason) which I also consider a necessary part of child-rearing - On that we may likewise disagree... As to the OP and the horrors of gender reassignment, and especially on children, I have not a single sympathy. I consider the whole issue an entertainment of delusion, and that delusion is broadly indicative of a desperately failing grasp on reality. It's nuts, in a word, and to impose it upon a child should be a criminal matter. It is FAR beyond the pale.
All I have defended is limited government and the natural authority of parents. From the start my arguments have been toward Hutchinson's statement of governmental overreach - A thing he separated from the abuse, and the thing he vetoed the bill for. He said he would sign off on the abuse part of it in a second. He then said there is an overreach leaving the state as the sole arbiter and authority.
That is what I rose to defend against. The state is not the natural guardian of the child, and cannot supplant the natural authority of the parent. if the state does intercede, it should necessarily have to prove its usurpation of that natural right with proffered charges, and a full trial, with the right of the parent to raise a defense, and being represented by council, just like any other matter of law anywhere covered by the Constitution of the United States.
That s the only recourse given to the state in exercising its power against its citizens, as a matter of law. To ordain itself the 'sole arbiter and authority' in any matter is flat wrong, and a direct assault against limited government and the liberty it provides... Regardless of the issue. To do otherwise is operating under the color of law. As I said early on, that structural matter is the problem.
I will not readily destroy Hutchinson for a veto for that reason, separate from the abuse... And in fact, if found to be true, I would agree with him.
What's your stance on murdering babies before they are born?
Wholly against. to include rape and incest. A slight sympathy for the 'life of the mother', where the situation is dire, and the physical life is truly threatened. But something as reasonable as that has proven impossible to provide, as Reagan found out from the get-go.
-
Stop digging ... you're wrong.
No, I am not. But I will cede the point, as it is tangential to the issue in the OP, it would become a religious study against the stated desire of the management, and in order to mount a defense, I would have to go to books, which would take days. Suffice it to say, in a long study toward historically annotating Bible-believing Christians, and tracking the people that 'keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ' through the breadth of two millennia, one of the ancillary indicators was indeed circumcision.
As an aside, in the link you gave me, one of the illustrations showed that circumcision in the United States is most heavily practiced in the South and right across the Bible belt... But I suppose that is merely coincidence. :whistle:
Whether the case. I cede. The point is yours.
-
If you believe this was Asa's charge in this case ... then you must explain why Asa didn't make this charge with female genitalia mutilation and signed a bill banning it.
And spare me the crap that it was due to the differences in procedures. After all, a true principle is etched in stone.
It isn't a difference in procedures. If you go back and watch the vid, he said that if it was a matter of banning procedures he would have signed it in an instant. The banning of procedures was not his problem.
He signed a bill banning female circumcision.
He said he had no problem banning the procedures in this case.
That seems to be consistent to me.
-
You defend child abuse. So does Hutchinson.
Just because you both want to pretend otherwise isn't surprising, because all the normal people are opposed to child abuse and don't accept BS excuses to promote it.
No, I most certainly DO NOT.
-
:2popcorn:
-
No it is not. Show me anywhere that I defended abuse -
Chemical castration is harmful to the body.
Children have bodies.
Therefore chemical castration is harmful to children.
Abuse is the deliberate infliction of harm to people, animals or objects.
Therefore chemical castration of children is harmful to children and thus is abuse of children. Abuse of children is also called child abuse.
People do not oppose the chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children.
Since chemical castration of children is child abuse, people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate child abuse.
Asa Hutchinson is a person tolerating child abuse and hiding behind some totally bogus claim of libertarianism to defend the indefensible.
So are other people, apparently.
That's not subject to debate.
The big questions are why Hutchinson is doing this, why others are doing this, and what the heck is wrong with those creatures?
-
It isn't a difference in procedures. If you go back and watch the vid, he said that if it was a matter of banning procedures he would have signed it in an instant. The banning of procedures was not his problem.
He signed a bill banning female circumcision.
He said he had no problem banning the procedures in this case.
That seems to be consistent to me.
He failed to act to protect children.
He supported the position that children are capable of a) changing their sex (they cannot, nobody can, not ever), b) identifying their sex to be something different than what it really is (when they do this, they need psychological treatment to accept what their chromosomes are, not surgery to promote lies), and c) they children don't make mistakes (which is stupid, some of them are going to become Democrats, some of them are going to discover Principles and other such garbage).
Normal people also try to protect children from setting their hair on fire. Hutchinson and the PC crowd clearly don't have a problem with this.
-
No, I most certainly DO NOT.
You are supporting chemical castration of children.
It's no different than someone coming at their balls with a blunt axe. But you're not objecting to the chemical harm to chldren.
What should we call it, besides what it so obviously is?
-
Chemical castration is harmful to the body.
Children have bodies.
Therefore chemical castration is harmful to children.
Abuse is the deliberate infliction of harm to people, animals or objects.
Therefore chemical castration of children is harmful to children and thus is abuse of children. Abuse of children is also called child abuse.
People do not oppose the chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children.
Since chemical castration of children is child abuse, people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate child abuse.
Asa Hutchinson is a person tolerating child abuse and hiding behind some totally bogus claim of libertarianism to defend the indefensible.
So are other people, apparently.
That's not subject to debate.
The big questions are why Hutchinson is doing this, why others are doing this, and what the heck is wrong with those creatures?
To the contrary, Hutchinson said he would ban the procedures.
His problem was with making the state the sole arbiter and authority.
The state is NOT the sole arbiter and authority. To make it so offends the right of the parent and removes the requirement that the state proves its case (against the parent which IS the sole arbiter and authority over the child).
It is not even the right of these addle-headed parents that I am concerned with - It is my own and yours, which hangs in the balance.
-
He failed to act to protect children.
The question there is WHY. If he did so to prevent the state from intruding on liberty (which it sure sounds like to me) then that is a good reason. The children can be protected without eroding liberty and in fact, if that is what happened I will agree with him.
The object of the exercise then becomes whether 'it's for the chidren' is a sufficient reason to allow the state to offend liberty - And that has been the liberal big-government way all the way along. If that is the case, then no wonder he vetoed it.
He supported the position that children are capable of a) changing their sex (they cannot, nobody can, not ever), b) identifying their sex to be something different than what it really is (when they do this, they need psychological treatment to accept what their chromosomes are, not surgery to promote lies), and c) they children don't make mistakes (which is stupid, some of them are going to become Democrats, some of them are going to discover Principles and other such garbage).
PROVE that to me. Because that is not what he said.
Normal people also try to protect children from setting their hair on fire. Hutchinson and the PC crowd clearly don't have a problem with this.
And if the price of that protection is at the cost of liberty, that's alright with you? A state that is the sole arbiter and authority can then demand you put your children into public school for indoctrination, insist you maintain dietary practices ala Moose Obummer to protect the child's health, will make sure there are no nasty guns laying around for children to get a hold of... The list of things the state can come up with is literally endless once it has appointed itself the authority over that child.
Unintended consequences.
-
You are supporting chemical castration of children.
It's no different than someone coming at their balls with a blunt axe. But you're not objecting to the chemical harm to chldren.
What should we call it, besides what it so obviously is?
No, I am NOT. And I certainly DO object. But not at the cost of liberty and allowing the state sole authority. Protections can be affected without cost to liberty.
-
Child Mutilation is a moral evil, so Natural Law decides, not religion, not economics
and emphatally not sanctimonious political horse manure, beloved by the brainless.
Consider this Rule and its contrary:
"Man is forbidden from killing his fellow Man and Man is permitted to kill his fellow Man."
Which advances the survival/development of our Species and which ensures the
destruction/extinction of our Species?????
The wise Ancients grasped this thru logic and reason while we who assert
"We are the greatest" continue to prove that our head is so far up our rectums
that we are intimately familiar with darkness.
This matter is not remotely debatable even as an academic exercise!!!
-
You are supporting chemical castration of children.
It's no different than someone coming at their balls with a blunt axe. But you're not objecting to the chemical harm to chldren.
What should we call it, besides what it so obviously is?
Right on. :thumbsup:
-
To the contrary, Hutchinson said he would ban the procedures. His problem was with making the state the sole arbiter and authority.
I do not understand your ferocious defense of Asa Hutchinson. He is not upholding any principle with his decision. He took this action with his ban on female genital mutilation -- by making the state the sole authority.
The law in question is not making the state the sole authority forever. Arkansas is simply saying not yet. Arkansas is standing up for the child, giving the child a voice when the age of consent is reached.
I fail to find logic or humanity in your convoluted POV; or reason for your devotion to Asa Hutchinson.
-
A reflection
Pithy, Succinct. :laugh:
-
I do not understand your ferocious defense of Asa Hutchinson.
Neither do I understand your mindless rage.
He is not upholding any principle with his decision.
According to him he is.
He took this action with his ban on female genital mutilation -- by making the state the sole authority.
He banned a procedure. That is within the state's bailliwick, and not asserting sole authority.
He also said he would be happy to have signed this to ban procedure too.
He also protected women's bathrooms from trannies.
He also protected women's sports from trannies.
So he is not protecting gender delusion elsewhere, so what made this different?
I don't know what is in his head, but he has enough of a record on the subject (and a Conservative record a mile long) to want me to understand what his trouble was, rather than going off half-cocked and out for blood.
The law in question is not making the state the sole authority forever. Arkansas is simply saying not yet. Arkansas is standing up for the child, giving the child a voice when the age of consent is reached.
The child is not the question. The child is a dependent. It is the authority of the parents that is being usurped, and standing against doctors orders too I would suppose... That may be the meaning of 'too broad' and 'sole authority'... I don't know... but there must be another dimension to this one considering his record surrounding this subject.
And since the child is dependent, YES it is flatly removing the right of the parent *forever*, as once the child is 18, the child is beyond parental jurisdiction. That is REMOVING the natural parental right for the duration.
And I will assert AGAIN, I don't care about these parents in particular - Their culpability in damaging their children is apparent. But if that is so, ban the procedures, and write law to enforce, and charge the parent properly and bring em to trial like you ought. A summary decree without recourse is not how it s done.
And if that is allowed to stand, which decree will come next, imposed against the natural parental right?
I fail to find logic
The logic is found in what this will turn loose. The matter at hand is not the issue near as much as what it sets as precedent. When the state asserts blanket authority over the natural right of the parent, and that is allowed to stand, then the state can assert that same authority over anything concerning any child within its jurisdiction... Because it has proven itself to be over the parent without any trial or proceeding, with no charges filed... This is no longer regulatory - Rather, it is imposition of power under the color of law.
Such is the same power that denies a father parental rights with no charge or trial, and no means of recourse. This seems to be the same sort of thing.
or humanity
Humanity my ass. Sobbing 'It's for the chidren' is liberal bullcrap. Law is no time for emoting. If it prevents these scurrilous acts against these children at the cost of liberty to countless other (innocent) parents, removing the natural right of the parent by any old thing decreed by the state, then the humanity of the act is rather subjective, ain't it?
If you want to take that right, then make it illegal, and arrest them. At least they'll see their day in court to be judged by their peers. And the natural right is preserved.
in your convoluted
Nothing convoluted about it at all.
Natural right belongs to the parent.
The state cannot take that right (any right) away without charge and trial.
Allowing that to happen is power exercised under the color of law
and creates a precedent that can be used in the future to do it sommore.
That's the thing, and it's a straight line of thought. If that is the cost to 'save the chidren', that cost is way too high, I assure you. There are other ways to do it, that provide charge and trial, that preserve the parental right for the rest of us.
or reason for your devotion to Asa Hutchinson.
Beyond recognizing his great efforts for Conservatism, and defending that record, and because of that, being willing to hear him out and try to understand why this was different, I have no devotion to Hutch at all. Nor to Noems who was recently savaged in a similar fashion.
But neither am I willing to join you in your mindless bloodlust trying to tear the man down. Or Noems for that matter. Neither are RINOs and I will wait to hear them out.
Rather, what I am viciously defending is the natural right of the parent.
-
Neither do I understand your mindless rage.
According to him he is.
He banned a procedure. That is within the state's bailliwick, and not asserting sole authority.
He also said he would be happy to have signed this to ban procedure too.
He also protected women's bathrooms from trannies.
He also protected women's sports from trannies.
So he is not protecting gender delusion elsewhere, so what made this different?
I don't know what is in his head, but he has enough of a record on the subject (and a Conservative record a mile long) to want me to understand what his trouble was, rather than going off half-cocked and out for blood.
The child is not the question. The child is a dependent. It is the authority of the parents that is being usurped, and standing against doctors orders too I would suppose... That may be the meaning of 'too broad' and 'sole authority'... I don't know... but there must be another dimension to this one considering his record surrounding this subject.
And since the child is dependent, YES it is flatly removing the right of the parent *forever*, as once the child is 18, the child is beyond parental jurisdiction. That is REMOVING the natural parental right for the duration.
And I will assert AGAIN, I don't care about these parents in particular - Their culpability in damaging their children is apparent. But if that is so, ban the procedures, and write law to enforce, and charge the parent properly and bring em to trial like you ought. A summary decree without recourse is not how it s done.
And if that is allowed to stand, which decree will come next, imposed against the natural parental right?
The logic is found in what this will turn loose. The matter at hand is not the issue near as much as what it sets as precedent. When the state asserts blanket authority over the natural right of the parent, and that is allowed to stand, then the state can assert that same authority over anything concerning any child within its jurisdiction... Because it has proven itself to be over the parent without any trial or proceeding, with no charges filed... This is no longer regulatory - Rather, it is imposition of power under the color of law.
Such is the same power that denies a father parental rights with no charge or trial, and no means of recourse. This seems to be the same sort of thing.
Humanity my ass. Sobbing 'It's for the chidren' is liberal bullcrap. Law is no time for emoting. If it prevents these scurrilous acts against these children at the cost of liberty to countless other (innocent) parents, removing the natural right of the parent by any old thing decreed by the state, then the humanity of the act is rather subjective, ain't it?
If you want to take that right, then make it illegal, and arrest them. At least they'll see their day in court to be judged by their peers. And the natural right is preserved.
Nothing convoluted about it at all.
Natural right belongs to the parent.
The state cannot take that right (any right) away without charge and trial.
Allowing that to happen is power exercised under the color of law
and creates a precedent that can be used in the future to do it sommore.
That's the thing, and it's a straight line of thought. If that is the cost to 'save the chidren', that cost is way too high, I assure you. There are other ways to do it, that provide charge and trial, that preserve the parental right for the rest of us.
Beyond recognizing his great efforts for Conservatism, and defending that record, and because of that, being willing to hear him out and try to understand why this was different, I have no devotion to Hutch at all. Nor to Noems who was recently savaged in a similar fashion.
But neither am I willing to join you in your mindless bloodlust trying to tear the man down. Or Noems for that matter. Neither are RINOs and I will wait to hear them out.
Rather, what I am viciously defending is the natural right of the parent.
This was a chance for a "conservative" to follow his own precedent and protect our children. Asa failed.
This was a chance for you, @roamer_1 to take action; to support drawing a red line in the proverbial sand against the advancing rot decaying our society. You give the world a word salad. You not only fail, you paint conservatives as unserious and ineffective.
Double fail.
-
The Hill
@thehill
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson: "Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourselves in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion..." http://hill.cm/tYNfQlG
Video:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1381313850755141632
2:31 PM · Apr 11, 2021·Twitter Media Studio
Steve Deace
@SteveDeaceShow
Castrating children isn’t “broad-based†it’s debased. Castrating children isn’t “compassion†it is pure evil. Castrating children isn’t “conservative principles†it’s depraved and insane.
This man’s pastor should call him to public repentance. And he should be impeached.
4:12 PM · Apr 11, 2021·Twitter for iPad
https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1381339379453595654
-
Steve Deace
@SteveDeaceShow
Castrating children isn’t “broad-based†it’s debased. Castrating children isn’t “compassion†it is pure evil. Castrating children isn’t “conservative principles†it’s depraved and insane.
This man’s pastor should call him to public repentance. And he should be impeached.
4:12 PM · Apr 11, 2021·Twitter for iPad
https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1381339379453595654
Agree 888high58888 :patriot: :patriot:
-
This was a chance for a "conservative" to follow his own precedent and protect our children. Asa failed.
This was a chance for you, @roamer_1 to take action; to support drawing a red line in the proverbial sand against the advancing rot decaying our society. You give the world a word salad. You not only fail, you paint conservatives as unserious and ineffective.
Double fail.
You've got one thing right @Right_in_Virginia - I sure as hell don't fit in your twitterpated world. And I never will.
The red line matters of course, but how you draw it matters too. And using the plight of what 100? / 150 ? people - I doubt there are many in Arkansas - Using that plight to attack a basic natural right is just as hideous and immoral as those who molest these children - But with far more impact.