The SAD Social Experiment

The government is conducting experiments on my children without parental consent. That sentence likely elicited some emotion from you. It should have anyway. Perhaps some readers immediately recalled pre and post WWII eugenics experiments. Some imagined their own children sitting in a sterile room with wires connect to them. These are pretty scary scenarios, indeed. The government passed laws decades ago barring unethical experiments on children, and put into place special protection and procedures. Knowing this, begs the questions, why are family courts allowed to conduct social experiments on children with zero expertise of oversight?

During my last 16 years with the Army I have watched the military conduct large scale social experiments. I would argue that some are worthwhile, but some are quite dangerous. Immediately, the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” comes to mind. This bill allowed homosexuals to openly serve in the military. I believe that it was a good measure, and promotes equality. Equally as important, it set a standard for the rest of the country to follow, and many states quickly followed suit, allowing equal marital rights. The major difference, between this experiment and the ones being conducted on our children, is that adults are aware. Adults have a choice. Adults can fight back. Children merely notice a whirlwind of changes. Children are unable to completely understand why daddy can’t see them more. They don’t understand why mommy insists on moving 2000 miles away. Believe me when I say, these actions are taken advantage of, both by the government, and by alienating parents. To experiment, even socially, on children is ethically and morally irresponsible. (I know that you are waiting for me to explain dangerous military social experiments, but you will just have to use your imagination.)

If the government can openly conduct experiments, even on children, what message does that send to its citizens, and what does it say for our culture? Family courts do not have licensed psychologists on staff who access each situation. Judges certainly are not required to, and do not have any training or education in child psychology. How then, do judges assess what is in the best interest of the children, as they say? In my case, Judge Wiley stated that the mother did not have any emotional support here (Kansas). How could he know that? I could easily argue that she had PLENTY of emotional support in Kansas (while I was at work and school mostly). Why didn’t the judge mention my lack of emotional support in Oregon? What about the immense emotional support that my children lost by moving 2000 miles away from me? This is in the best interest of the children, right?

WRONG. These social experiments only serve the best interest of the state and bar associations. Citizens are beginning to realize how miserably these experiments are failing. Psychologists are expressing dire concerns over the extreme negative impact this corruption is causing innocent children. What impact will these injustices have on our next generation? The statistics are already staggering. Over 200 children lose contact with their father every day in court. One in three children live without their biological father. 40% of children are being raised without a father. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. There is a trend here.

If the government insists on conducting social experiments on our children, they should be for equality, not for profit.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s