In the age of toddlers allegedly coming out as transgender, preteens successfully hounding their parents for hormone-blocking drugs, and dangerous sexual behavior being encouraged by parents and media alike, one could only hope that this sort of abusive behavior towards children is isolated; something that only a few batty old dykes like Pauline (((Moreno))) and Debra (((Lobel))) would engage in.
Unfortunately for everyone of sound mind, it appears these instances of abuse share a common denominator: basic liberal moral cowardice.
This hypothesis isn't new, and certainly there have been plenty of cases in the past to justify the claim, but there is a new and ever more appalling story making the rounds now that highlights the common thread; a 5-year-old girl in Oregon, 4 at the time of 'her decision,' in the language of the empathy addict reporters, has "made an end-of-life decision."
If you're anything like me, your first reaction might be to wonder how a terminally-ill 4-year-old is of sound and mature enough mind to make this decision for herself. The simple and obvious answer is that she isn't. No 4-year-old, especially no 4-year-old riddled with disease and pain, is capable of making a decision to end her own life. A 4-year-old is entirely incapable of conceptualizing death or weighing the value of life with the suffering of a terminal illness. Since it is clear to anyone with a capacity to reason that is in any way at all independent of emotional caprice that these are facts, then how did this little girl arrive at this juncture? How did Julianna Snow of Portland, Oregon find herself denied continuing medical care, sentencing her to a shorter life?
The answer is Julianna's parents. Julianna did not make any decision of her own. WTHR describes what happened.
So her parents asked her if she wants to go to the hospital the next time she gets sick, or stay at home, even though it means "going to heaven without mommy and daddy." Julianna chose heaven.
So the drained parents of a terminally ill toddler put to their small daughter a set of choices: Do you want to go to heaven and be forever happy with God and all the joy that we have told you is there? or do you want to go back to a place that you have associated with pain since your earliest memories? It doesn't take a game theoretician to walk you through the obvious choice a 4-year-old little girl would make and why. You may as well ask a toddler if she wants to go to Disney World or wants to get a tooth pulled. In essence, Julianna's parents, by asking such a question of their daughter, made the decision for their daughter.
"But parents should make this decision! Didn't you just say the girl is incapable of making such a decision for herself?" Yes, and yes. The problem with this story, and the connection it has to cases of the medical and psychological abuse of small children in the transgender cultural circus, is that parents everywhere are trying to pass the buck on their responsibilities off to their small children who aren't fit to bear such responsibilities. When WTHR reports that "[h]er parents, though heartbroken, are honoring her dying request," what is actually happening is that her parents, too emotionally weak and psychologically immature to make a decision that they alone can make and they alone are responsible for, are projecting their decision and its consequences on their small child. Rather than admit to themselves that they wish their child to die, they claim they were no party to the decision. Incapable of accepting the consequences of their decision as theirs alone, they defer. Unable to come to terms with making an important value-judgment, they try their best to float about in a blissfully inconsequential fog of indecision.
When some young parents proudly announce to all who will listen that little 3-year-old Bobby's goal in life is to lop off his pecker, the dispersion of responsibility and inability to make a value-judgment decision is analogous to the case of Julianna and her parents. These parents use their small child to avoid making a decision, deferring instead to a child obviously incapable of such judgments and likely led along similarly to how Julianna was led along. It would be too difficult for these post-modern sycophants to make a decision that could have a profound impact on their child's life, such as instilling in their child the proper gender roles and values. So instead the ramblings of a toddler are canon.
We're headed down a dangerous path. To assert is to judge. To decide is to judge. Judging, of course, is a cardinal sin in the current year. It's one thing if moral cowardice prevents a limpwristed liberal pajama boy from passing judgment on looters and criminals. It's something much worse when these coddled overgrown children become so incapable of judgment that they become incapable parents.
When a parent can avoid the negatives of any decision by projecting, the parent's decision-making process itself is influenced. If a parent can externalize the risk, then the important element of decision-making that is the risk of a negative outcome vanishes. In Julianna's case, the certainty of a shorter life no longer influences the ultimate actions of her parents, because in their perverse self-deceiving minds, the little girl decided that is how it should be. In the case of the tranny toddler, the mutilation and psychological risks associated with the process of trying to look like the other gender no longer influence the parent's decisions because they are able to convince themselves, with the help of the current year's culture warriors, that the toddler weighed those risks and made the decision already.
To conclude: shockingly, convincing people that judgment is bad results in bad judgment.