posted
That is so blantently, obviously inappropriate and illegal I don't even know why anyone would propose such a thing.
(not to mention the appalling fact that since someone DID propose it, someone out there wants it to happen. I think I've read this dystopia a couple times...)
Seriously... what do they want with this? Do they think they will garner approval?
God, what if they *do* garner significant approval?
Basically, this just scares me to death for so many reasons. I (and of course many others) treasure the lifestyle that is free from both coat hangers AND diapers.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know my local state senator is apposed to this, absolutely furious! I really am moving out of this state so fast.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the sentiment behind it. I think children ought to be born into stable, two-parent households. I recognize this is an effort to make this happen more of the time.
But to legislate something like that seems scary and wrong to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.
The elitist part of me thinks this is a brilliant idea that should be implemented worldwide for the betterment of mankind*, but the Libertarian part of me tells the elitist part to kill itself.
*Assuming (incorrectly) that "marriage" includes formalized union between homosexual couples, thereby discriminating only on the basis of parenting ability, not sexuality.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing dumber than dumb people saying dumb things is the dumber things that dumber people say in reply to those dumb people.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...So, of course they're going to fund DNA testing to hunt down and prosecute the men responsible for children being born outside of marriage, too, right? RIGHT!?
...
...Backward, bone-headed, retrograde, pond-scum sucking <disintegrates into Yosimite Sam style swearing>...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get it. What are they gonna do to unmarried women who get pregnant? How on earth would they enforce this without getting really, really scary?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't seem like they've throught this through very well. If they were actually going to enforce that to the point that people would want to avoid penalty, I bet an immediate effect would be an increase in abortion rates. Granted, the lawmakers may not see anything wrong with that, but I kind of doubt it.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.
From what I can tell, although there is definitely language about how not being married and having a baby is against he law, the specifics of this particular bill seem not to be about tracking down all the unmarried women who give birth, but rather restricting access to fertility treatments to only married women. Just saying.
One thing that I thought was pretty odd, was that some of the people supporting this bill are framing it as a way to stregthen the prohibitions against surrogate mothers. Can someone explain to me what's so bad about surrogate mothers? I don't see why that would be such an issue.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all our names are being added to a masterlist somewhere in Indianapolis, headed with the phrase "People To Kill".
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda doubt that infertility falls under the scope of the ADA. Which is not to say that there aren't tons of reasons why what they're trying to do isn't legal.
But then I don't think that the people behind this have any expectation that they're going to be able to pass it. I think they're likely going through the motions so that they can sell it as Christianity/good morals being under attack.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can someone explain to me what's so bad about surrogate mothers?"
Its impossible to regulate contracts for surrogate mothers, and surrogate motherhood can lead to a lot of nasty contract disputes (and felonies).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've been known to say - jokingly - that some peole shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but this is not what I had in mind.
This proposal has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Big Brother, here we come (and I don't mean the "reality" show).
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, Sure there's that, but I was wondering about why it's a bad thing from a moral angle, which is how it seems these people are regarding it. Do many Christians see surrogate motherhood as immoral?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I understand the sentiment behind it. I think children ought to be born into stable, two-parent households. I recognize this is an effort to make this happen more of the time.
I strongly, strongly doubt that is the real sentiment. If it were, they would not have that huge GLARING loophole allowing for women to get pregnant out of wedlock through normal sexual intercourse. They aren't trying to protect kids, they're trying to prevent gay people from having kids.
quote:Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
It was in the first paragraph. That's blatant. This law has NOTHING to do with protecting children from anything save being born in a household with gay parents.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, at the moment, I am extre mely glad I managed to get the hell out of that state. New York is so much better... or maybe that's just me living on the campus of a small liberal arts school in New York... *ponder*
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with beverly that children should be born into a stable family but I think that they're treating evil with more evil. I don't believe that woman should be punished for giving life, but that you need a certificate in order to undergo artificial semination is just as bad. I am adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization. Extremely so, so the fact that they're trying to put out a fire by pouring on gas is quite ridiculous.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you explain why you are adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization? I mean, I'm pretty against aggressive fertility treatments because of the abortion angle, but run of the mill in vitro and surrogate mothering doesn't bother me a bit.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's things like this that make me appreciate the oasis that is Bloomington in the land of Indiana.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
I came out of the Serenity thread and read this thread's title as: "Inara - Only the married should reproduce".
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
**checks calendar** It's not April Fool's Day already, is it? This is too bizarre to be serious.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't the law, its how to carry it out. I agree that children shouldn't be conceived if there is no marriage, but that is just my religious POV. How would you enforce this law? I just cannot fathom a Free Country U. S. of A. where having children without permission is against the law. The only idea that I would agree on is that there should be a child bearing license. What I mean with this is that there should be an examination where your psyche is analysed to see if you are right in the head to be a loving parent. There could be some sort of mechanism implanted from an early age that prevents conception. I know that would probably persuade lots of people into having sex as a joke and further spread STD's, but you people know what I mean. As long as the person is right in the head, there should be no authority that says you cannot have a child because you are gay, single, divorced, etc. Your marital status does not determine your parenting skill.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just cannot fathom a Free Country U. S. of A. where having children without permission is against the law. The only idea that I would agree on is that there should be a child bearing license.
I think I see an inconsistancy here.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see it too. I guess I meant that the government should not decide who should and should not have children based on their marital status. I think only a thorough psycho analysis can really say that you are qualified to be a parent.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A state senator has changed her mind about sponsoring a bill that would prohibit homosexuals and unmarried people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child. Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis says the issue has become more complex than she thought. So she is withdrawing it from consideration.
Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana. She acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."
The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including artificial insemination, the donation of an egg or embryo and sperm injection.
posted
You know what would be really good for society? To have all the children born out of wedlock to be raised in big orphanages because their parents are in jail. Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you explain why you are adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization? I mean, I'm pretty against aggressive fertility treatments because of the abortion angle, but run of the mill in vitro and surrogate mothering doesn't bother me a bit.
In vitro results in the creation of fertilized eggs that will be discarded. Anyone who justifies an anti-abortion position by believing personhood begins at fertilization will have a hard time consistently supporting in vitro fertilzation.
People who believe personhood begins at implantation and opposes abortion for that reason can support in vitro fertilization consistently.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, As far as I understand it, which is not that far, in vitro doesn't necessitate discarding fertilized eggs. It can be done on a one-to-one basis, although I really don't know anything about how this is done in the real world. I guess, thinking about it, nearly all in vitro procedures would use multiple egss in order to up the chances, but you could conceivibly limit it, based on the abortion angle, to single egg attempts, yes no?
---
I'm still not sure why, granting that you're allowing married people in vitro stuff, what's the big deal about surrogate mothers? I was honestly suprised to read that some people have a major problem with this. Does anyone share this perspective and would be willing to explain where the objection lies?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was vaguely thinking that even if you limit the fertilized eggs in the in vitro procedures that there is still a lot of waste due to the technology not being precise enough or something. Maybe some don't look perfect and get discarded or something? And the cost issue would be difficult to do single attempts. Plus it would greatly lower chances of success to do single attempts. Those are all educated guesses.
I thought Paul answered your question about surrogates.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I understand it, which is not that far, in vitro doesn't necessitate discarding fertilized eggs. It can be done on a one-to-one basis, although I really don't know anything about how this is done in the real world. I guess, thinking about it, nearly all in vitro procedures would use multiple egss in order to up the chances, but you could conceivibly limit it, based on the abortion angle, to single egg attempts, yes no?
The success rate is so low that trying one on one will simply minimize the number killed prior to success, although some will succeed on the first try.
quote:I'm still not sure why, granting that you're allowing married people in vitro stuff, what's the big deal about surrogate mothers? I was honestly suprised to read that some people have a major problem with this. Does anyone share this perspective and would be willing to explain where the objection lies?
Can't help you there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, given a population that believes that multiple egg in vitro is akin to abortion, they could insist on single egg stuff. It's more difficult and costly, but it still increases their chances of a successful pregnancy.
edit: Dag, that's interesting. From my perspective, the fertilized eggs that fail to implant would be similar to the many naturally fertilized eggs that fail to implant. Is it the human intervention that makes it different?
---
Paul answered from what seemed to me to be a logistical concern. It seemed to me that the people quoted in that article thought that surrogate motherhood was obviously morally wrong. I was wondering what the basis for these moral objections is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I see it too. I guess I meant that the government should not decide who should and should not have children based on their marital status. I think only a thorough psycho analysis can really say that you are qualified to be a parent.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Completely ignoring the idea that psychoanalysis is anywhere near precise enough to pin-point specific qualifications for anything, this idea is still horrifying in itself. "Qualified to be a parent" is a very vague term and I bet we could find a different definition for every single registered poster at Hatrack. Who is going to determine what constitutes qualified to be a parent? I think this question even applies to the proposed (and thankfully now un-proposed) law.
If it's valid to argue that two parents is better than one and therefore it should be criminal for a single woman to bear a child why is it not also valid to argue that the "ideal" home is one where the dad makes $75K/year and the mother stays at home with the kids and make it illegal for women to work and for any couple to reproduce until the man makes the minimum income?
I really hate the mentality that holds up a narrow ideal and uses it blindly to judge the worthiness of others. I might agree that it's better to have two parents. I might agree that having those two parents be opposite sex is the ideal, all other things being equal. But the government is not here to enforce the ideal. The government is here to enfore the bare minimum, if anything. That leaves us free to interpret for ourselves what is "ideal".
Heaven help us if we reach a point where one narrow minded view of the perfect life is enforced on the rest of us. Talk about hell on earth.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I cannot understand the Republican mind...*high fives Raia*
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
