The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Name:
Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Frankenstein Kids

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is considering a "child-support" (slavery) appeal from a mother (Mrs. Ferguson) who has bound the "sperm donor" father into slavery to support her after her divorce. While she was married, Mrs. Ferguson entered into a "sperm donation" contract with a Mr. Joel L. McKiernan for sperm to fertilize "test tube babies" by method of "in vitro fertilization." Both the trial court and the appellate court have called Mrs. Fergeson's actions "despicable" Bob also believes that the actions of Mrs. Ferguson are despicable, but probably for different reasons.

Writing an opinion piece on Men's News Daily, noted "i" feminist Wendy McElroy says that it's a bad case that will likely result in bad law. Ms. McElroy calls it "bad" because the outcome will likely make it more difficult for single mothers to whelp bastards by purchasing sperm at low cost. To a feminist, any kind of feminist, females ought to be able to have unilateral control over all aspects of child bearing and families. To a feminist all fathers are "sperm donors" who can be used and bought to satisfy a female (a feminist's "person") desire for children. To a feminist, the rights and needs of her child for his father do not matter. To a feminist, the rights and needs of the father for his children do not matter. Fathers, and even children, are not "persons" to a feminist. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Feminists, all feminists, do not consider that any non-people (children and men) have rights, or even matter.

To Bob, and millions of other fathers, what matters is the wellbeing of our children. The whelping of bastards, with or without the aide of Frankensteinian medical measures, is child abuse of the worst kind. Fathers are not just some interchangeable "figure" that females can play with and trade like some "Ken" dolls. Fathers are a very real and very important part of every child's life. When a child is deprived of his own real father, he (or she) is hurt for life in very important ways. Long lists of studies show that children who do not have their own father do worse in every measurable way, worse in school, worse in relationships, worse in drug addiction, worse in crime, worse in every way you can measure. When a child is unavoidably deprived of his father by death or other non-preventable accident it is a human tragedy. When a child is deliberatly deprived of his father by conscious choice, it is willful child abuse and ought to be prosecuted under child abuse statutes. In this case Mrs. Ferguson intended to deprive her children of their father, Mr. McKiernan, and substitute another "father figure," Mr. Ferguson, into their lives. Well, she was worse than that. Her husband, Mr. Ferguson, didn't accept her sexual dalliances and off the rack kids, so he filed for divorce on the same day she bought the test tube kids. She had some imposter attend meetings with Dr. Frankenstein because a real husband wouldn't be so unfeeling. Nevertheless she put Mr. Ferguson's name on the children's birth certificates, expecting to lie to the children about their father's identity. With the help of Dr. Frankenstein she chose to create children in a laboratory, and to raise them without their father. Decent people find that practice completely abhorrent.

Another part of this case that Bob finds very, very troubling is that such Frankenstein kids are now becoming common. More and more females turn to "fertility" clinics because they have followed the feminist life plan and put off their families until their natural fertility is rapidly declining. See Take back the society! in Bob's April 2005 blog archive . Of course, there are plenty of amoral Dr. Frankensteins who will do absolutely anything at all for money. Children created in "test tubes" and "in vitro" in laboratories are deprived of the spiritual union of man and woman that exists when normal children are created. Like the fabled monster in Mary Shelley's original novel, these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul. But unlike the original Dr. Frankenstein, today's doctors have no ethics or moral foundation. Mary Shelley's original Dr. Frankenstein suffered severe remorse for playing God and creating life from body parts in a laboratory. In the end he was driven mad. She could not conceive of the shocking and callous attitude that today's medical industrial complex has toward such horrible and tragic practice. Every day they willfully create life in their laboratories, little Frankenstein kids, kids who are deprived of the spiritual union that comes from the joining of father and mother. The people in the medical industrial complex are without souls and without conscience. They are not driven mad by their crimes against humanity as the original Dr. Frankenstein was.

It is time for good people, people who care about children, people who care about the soul of children, people who care bout families and fathers, all people of good conscience, to put a stop to these inhuman Frankensteinian malpracticing medical mad men. Creating a Frankenstein child in a laboratory is as wrong now as it was when Mary Shelley wrote of the horror that drove Dr. Frankenstein mad. The madness needs to stop. If the medical industrial complex, and their organizations like the AMA are not able to stop themselves, then good people need to make them stop. Grab your pitchforks!

McElroy says that the case will be "bad" law because it will stop foolish young men from "donating" sperm to the medical industrial complex for females to use in the Frankenstein programs. Cowshit! It will result in good law because females will no longer be able to buy sperm at the corner "fertility clinic." Old feminist females who turned away from motherhood and didn't bear children when they were young will find it much more difficult to buy a Frankenstein child off the rack.

The bad part of the court case is because it supports the false feminist lie called "child support." The judicial decisions are all based on the feminist hate myth that a female is entitled to be paid by men for bearing children. As Bob has said before, the failed radical feminist experiment called "child support" is hateful and hurtful to children, men, and other living things. It ought to be recognized as the destroyer of families and fraudulent user of children that it is, and thus be ended. Mrs. Ferguson should be severely punished for her destruction of her marriage and family, depriving her children of their own father, her lies when she obtained sperm by false promises, for obtaining of children from Dr. Frankenstein, and for failing to support her kids.

I have little sympathy for Mr. McKiernan either. He made a huge mistake in thinking that he could create children without raising them, and "donated" his sperm to Dr. Frankenstein for use in a laboratory child factory. If this court case puts the brakes on bad fathers like Mr. McKiernan, or causes them to stop participating in this disgusting and immoral practice, it will be good law.

This case is another example of judges doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. The law upon which the case will be decided is based on men being bound into servitude, slavery, to pay females. Feminists like Ms. McElroy hate the outcome because either way it's decided it's likely either to limit a female's right be paid by men, or limit the females' ability to buy children off the rack from the medical industrial complex. The whole case is a sordid example of how truly bad our society has become. Our laws are bad. Our judges are bad. Our medical people have no moral or ethical limits. Our children are the ones who are always hurt.

Bob

Addendum: The voters in Italy have apparently outlawed the creation of Frankenstein kids much to the disappointment of Droctors Frankenstein. Oh that we could have such rational laws here.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Nyuushin said...

well, this is an interesting take on in vitro fertilization. I thorougly enjoyed your fairy-tale spinning of "Frankenstein kids". Truth be told, Frankenstein's monster was a monster because it was hobbled together from human parts, an arm here, a leg there, a head, maybe switching out the nose.

In vitro fertilization simply means that a man's sperm is frozen and protected, and then used later to impregnate a woman. You say this has no "spiritual union" of a man and woman....I daresay it has more of a "union" than a rape victim does who gets pregnant from the forced fertizilation of her aggressor.

In any case, the use of such pregnancy techniques is an option, especially needed for those who either want to raise their children alone, or the man in the relationship is sterile and incapable of providing the needed sperm for pregnancy.

Mrs. Ferguson's case is shameful, but more for the mistake on her part to assume that even before she is pregnant by such techniques, her (former) husband would be responsible for her children, which is not so. No sensible court of law would furnish a verdict in that regard.

Your broad-bank use of "feminisim" as seeing females only as people, and men and children as not, is certainly a minor fringe belief in a verfied minority of feminists, and is certainly not a marker of the majority of those who hold a feminist point of view, which rather would like women to have as much choice as possible in their lives.

I concur that the abuse of child support and other programs is a reality, but that does not retract from its importance, or the importance of those granting such to consider all parts of a situation when making their decision concerning it.

As as aside, calling pregnancies produced through in vitro "test tube babies" is wrong on its face, as the very meaning of the term is a baby created without the use of a womb, but rather a machine to emulate such. You might as well call regular pregnancy "human test tube baby" for all the correlation it would mean.

July 14, 2008 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that where mermaids come from?

July 12, 2009 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" You say this has no "spiritual union" of a man and woman....I daresay it has more of a "union" than a rape victim does who gets pregnant from the forced fertizilation of her aggressor."

In the first instance, there is half of a feminist's spiritual union, but that is the correct half to obtain a toy;
in the latter,there is half of a masculinist's spiritual union, which is ipso facto wrong, notwithstanding the biological fact of feromones being picked up unconsciouly by the agressor.

Both should not happen.

May 04, 2011 2:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home