1. I agree. Minors should not have optional surgeries for mental issues.

   Of course, I wonder how many girls are getting breast expansions before age 18 ?

   1

   1. None. That would be unethical to do on someone who hasn’t finished developing, and besides, it just furthers the sexual objectification of women by trying to make them more attractive to men. The whole practice of breast enhancement should be outlawed!

      [/sarc]

      1

2. “ Might as well go full anarchist and let society sort out the child sexual abuse and mutilation problem with woodchippers.“

   Your terms are acceptable.

   7

3. Agreed. The U.S. Constitution recognizes this and limits government’s power to specific, narrowly-defined powers (commonly referred to as “enumerated powers”) deemed necessary to maintain internal peace and order (including upholding and enforcing citizens’ individual rights), negotiate treaties and alliances with other countries, and enforce our national sovereignty (including waging war when necessary).

   Those are valid concerns and legitimate uses of government power.

   When it comes to mutilating children’s genitalia, that falls directly in line with maintaining internal order and upholding citizens’ individual rights. Children don’t get to make their own decisions specifically because they haven’t developed enough to understand the gravity and longevity of those decisions and consequences. Protecting them from ideological activism/activists is a valid role of government.

   A government so limited that it cannot do that, is simply too small to successfully govern.

4. Transgender BS is the eugenics of the 21st century. I hope to see the day when the monsters pushing this evil are brought to justice, and the children mutilated get some measure of justice.

   2

   1. I’d put it more as the modern equivalent of frontal lobotomies for depression as practiced in the 50’s. Or other well meaning psychological abuse from decades past.

      1

      1. No — it’s a chance for “progressives” to spay and neuter people just like they did when their motto was “three generations of imbeciles are enough”.

5. These sick ba8&$tards are everywhere.

   Who supported it.
   Take there playbook.
   SWARM there house and work.
   Caution Pedophile Supporters here

6. Just to be clear, there does exist a middle ground, halfway between the extremes of “too fucking small” and “full anarchist”. I wouldn’t mind a government that was strictly limited to the “enumerated powers” and NOT involved in ANY other matters whatsoever. Given the ongoing government overreach over the past century and a half, being “too small to govern effectively” frankly seems more like a feature than a bug.

   1. A Federal government obedient to the Federal Constitution would be about 1% its current size.
      That said, the Federal Constitution isn’t the one at issue (for the most part); the subject of the original post is a state law passed under that state’s constitution. States, constitutionally speaking, have a lot more power than the Federal government.

      1

7. “Let me be clear”

   Aint that the rub though? What clear to you isnt necessarily clear to someone else.

   I honestly dont know the answer, we cant have small to the point of private roads and privately owned rivers like some libertarians talk about but we certainly cant have the Leviathan we have today.

Comments are closed.