Machine Antihumanism and the Inversion of Family Law
A child s entry into existence is not as a blank, solitary integer, primordially unaffiliated and just as well distributed for upbringing to any one household as another. To the contrary, children are, in and from their conception, radically relational and immediately and naturally connected to forebears. Throughout life, children will express in their visibility the bond and resemblances with their mother and father from whom they sprang and to whom they are indelibly connected and thus presumptively received and cared for in their vulnerability.
The recognition that a child has an identity bound up in hereditary descent, and that the father-mother-child triad is a profundity central to the human condition therefore meriting unique deference in the law, has been a constant throughout human history. The organic and natural fact of the human person as familial is an orienting and ordering consideration of justice itself. For it is the calling of the law, and the ground of its authority, to say what is true about the human person.
Yet today in the West we find ourselves in the new and troubling condition of seeing our governments (and other institutions of influence) in defiance of all human history redefine marriage and family relations, reconfiguring them in service of a denatured, individualistic, technologically reductionistic, and ultimately statist alternative. And among the questions now upon us in uncomfortably clarifying ways is: To whom do children belong?
N.S. Lyons
Ai chihuahua.