I try to admit when I just can’t wrap my mind around thought processes that are so foreign to my own, I get complete brain-lock. Maybe my sheltered, old-fashioned, noggin just can’t modernize enough to get out of ‘the good old days’. But it wasn’t that long ago that children were off limits—off limits for age-inappropriate material, off limits for adults, off limits for nearly everything. The theory at the time was simple: young people were not mentally developed enough, nor had they experienced enough of life, to be responsible decision-makers. Those former boundaries no longer exist in any form, and I have no idea why. Let’s dig.
First, let’s discuss the legal principle, ‘the age of maturity’. Until individuals reach a hallmark age (many States it is 21, many others 18), any contracts they enter into are not binding at all. In fact, most other parties do not enter into such one-way binding agreements, for that same reason. Who wants to be obligated in a contract to another party that is not obligated to their end of the deal? The phrase ‘of sound mind and body, uncoerced’ comes into play here. Children are legally not considered ‘of sound mind’ yet. They are simply unequipped to avoid being completely taken advantage of by smooth talkers or legalese. So, rather than trust the morality of adult entities, contract law makes the blanket statement that children simply are not bound by any contracts they enter into. Children are literally considered as unequipped to perform such adult functions as mentally impaired people. Not exactly nice, but understandable: contract law was intended to protect those that could not reasonably be expected to protect themselves. Sure, there are some exceptional young people, some that are more aware and savvy than many of their older companions—but the rule is in place for everyone else.
Where this line is drawn is certainly up for debate, as it has been for centuries: for many years in the US, 18 year-olds were eligible for the military draft (when it was operational), could and did get sent into battle, yet could not vote! This changed in 1970 with the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution, lowering the legal voting age from 21 to 18. The age of ‘adulthood’ drives many capabilities, including buying alcohol, prescription drugs, cigarettes, attending ‘R’ rated movies, airline tickets, and the like. Some industries, such as car rental outlets, do not allow their products to be purchased until age 25. The point here: at SOME age, children are considered leaving childhood, and entering young adulthood.
Second, one of the many roles of society and civilization is to protect the most vulnerable within its group. Otherwise, those less strong would be overcome in every way by the stronger. Countries build militaries to prevent (or deter) other countries from invading them, and in the US, the legal structures have been in place to shield the weak from the strong domestically in much the same manner. Every State has its own version of Child Protective Services, that attempts to limit the physical and mental damage to children of abusive households. CPS can and does remove children from such situations. Whether CPS does its job well or poorly is likely all over the opinion spectrum, but the intention is clear: save the kids. In decades gone by, schools and teachers also played a necessary role in protecting children. They were trained to spot signs of abuse and neglect of their students, and report any negative findings to the authorities. The Medical community filled yet another role in this process: children admitted to the hospital for suspicious injuries were evaluated for physical abuse, by their parents or others. The common denominator of all of these systems: protect the children as best as society could.
But somewhere along the way, maybe over the last 50 years or so, the protection of children has become not only weaker, but the systems in place not only don’t help the kids, they actively damage them! Liberal ideology has replaced the phrase ‘children are off-limits’ with ‘children are the entry point to push our ideals’! The systems are still in place, but their usage has completely flipped.
Under the auspices of ‘abortion rights’ and ‘trans rights’, each of the systems mentioned above have somehow insinuated themselves between the child and the parent. In the past, the parent had to be suspected of some form of abuse for that dynamic to kick in. But now, it is at the unbridled discretion of those in those systems.
Consider: many ‘teachers’ feel it is their right and responsibility to advise and facilitate their ‘students’ (read: minor children) to get abortions—not only without getting consent from the ’student’s’ parents, but by purposely shielding the parents from any knowledge of the entire ordeal, from discovery of pregnancy to abort. The exact same dynamic is fully operational regarding ‘gender reassignment’ procedures! Weren’t we just arguing the premise of teaching sexual education to children just a few years ago? How did we go from asking ‘what age is this appropriate?’ to ‘teachers have the right to help your kid undergo permanent disfiguration without your knowledge?’ Where did this ‘right’ come from? Where did these ‘teachers’ acquire the necessary skill set to perform such duties? To say this is a far cry from reporting observations of abuse and neglect is a stunning understatement. Just the exclusion of parents should be considered a criminal act, IMHO.
The same medical community that was analyzing suspicious injuries to children is now fully enabling ‘gender reassignment’ procedures, from puberty blockers, to double-mastectomies, to genital mutilation surgery! Where did the Hippocratic oath (Summary: do no harm) go? These medical professionals are destroying perfectly healthy tissue. They are assisted by the Psychiatric professionals, that are purposely advising children to undergo irreversible procedures, knowing full-well the fact that such procedures have exponential suicide rates of patients (some reports show between 6 and 8 TIMES the rates of non-patients), along with possible sterilization. How exactly is this nonsense improving one’s mental or physical health in ANY way? Note that ‘gender dysphoria’ is still listed as a mental illness in DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition). These professions are also abetted by the legal community, as many parents are legally considered ‘abusive’ by disagreeing with the entire ‘trans’ modality! Also note: this ‘trans trend’ has some disturbing characteristics: many kids feel pressured into such decisions, either to relieve ‘confusion’, or to become a ‘sympathetic champion’ to their peer group. The wave may be receding though, as many former patients are now ‘detransitioning’, as many are now adults, and completely reject and regret the decisions they made (with help) as children.
To the point of this writing: I have no idea why we have completely abandoned the protection of our children, as individuals or as a society. I don’t know how or when people with a teaching degree or certificate deemed themselves qualified to make psychological or parental decisions for children, ignoring or evading those children’s actual parents—or why we allow it. When and why did the medical community buy into the idea of destructive surgery on healthy organs? Can it really be just a profit motive? If so, someone is in the entirely wrong field, IMHO. Since this is just my ‘opinion’, here is my summation of the entire process: every individual, including teachers, psychologists, surgeons, et al, participating in the abortion mills of children, or in the ‘gender reassignment’ process, should not only be professionally expelled from their jobs (never to be reinstated, ever), they should be criminally prosecutable as doing ‘harm to a child’, and punished to the most severe extent of the law.
Thank you for taking the time to read my article! Feel free to add comments (good or bad) in the box below. In addition, there is a link at the bottom of the article to view other items I’ve written at Global Liberty Media. Enjoy!
