Massachusetts Bill To Allow The Sale Of Children?

 

The Massachusetts House of Representatives recently voted—unanimously-- to pass a bill that would potentially allow women to sell their unborn children to the highest bidder as if they were nothing more than a watch or a car.

H.4672, A.K.A. the “Parentage Equality Bill,” dispenses with the notion that children should be raised in a loving home by their biological parents, while simultaneously replacing the terms “mother” and “father“ for “person who gives birth,” “other parent,” or “genetic source.”

According to lifesitenews, the bill would redefine parenthood on the basis of a “person’s intent to be a parent of a child.” Remarkably, the despicable bill passed 156-0 and is now headed to the Massachusetts Senate.

If the bill passes there, a woman could, after undergoing the physical and mental health screenings required to become a surrogate, become pregnant via sperm from a sperm bank and then post this information to a surrogacy forum, after which she could legally choose to sell her baby to the couple offering the highest “payment of consideration.” In other words, she could auction off her child, as long as the surrogacy agreement met the requirements outlined in the bill and was validated by a court.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) issued a gleeful post-vote report on the passage of the legislation, celebrating the increased legal rights granted to the LGBTQ community.

Rep. Sarah Peake, a Democrat from Provincetown, rejoiced in the decision, averring, “What we are doing today is giving a tune up to our statutory structure to reflect the modern and contemporary ways that people become parents whether they are straight or gay.” Yes, which now have less and less to do with sexual complimentarity and the Biblical way humans were intended to get pregnant—and more and more to do with technology and unreality.

But Rep. Hannah Kane, Republican co-sponsor of the bill, stated: “At the heart of this bipartisan legislation lies a simple yet profound principle: The recognition of legal parentage should not be contingent upon outdated norms or narrow definitions” Outdated norms and narrow definitions? Like assuming that people who are biologically equipped to be parents should be parents, and that boys are boys, girls are girls, and there is objective truth?

And then there was Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who bluntly-- if oxymoronically-- asserted that the bill was intended to advance “reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights.” (Which is a bit like saying a bill was meant to advance the causes of Hamas and the Anti-Defamation League. Or that a bill was intended to benefit the liquor industry and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.)

If bills such as this are enacted, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day might as well be combined, as there would be no real difference, no substantive distinction, between the two. Whether a person possessed a “front hole,” or not, we could just observe “Genetic Source Day.” How meaningful and elegant!

We have to stop this nonsense...for God’s sake. Literally.

Failing that, I guess we could just update Genesis: “Some with front holes, some with front tubes, but entirely interchangeable genetic sources He created them.”