Indiana to make unwedded pregnancy a crime...

[Mountain-God]

That's impossible for them to do. It's like saying, "Two magnets with the north end facing each other can stick together". They can only adopt, which I don't really support either.

I think I'm the only one here who supports such legislation.

I find it disturbing how may people take the same attitude.

How often is religion a simple excuse to advance petty and bigotted hatreds?

Okay for you to impose your beliefs and values on others - irreguardless of whether they effect you in any way but your own imagination?

Presumably people advocating in that direction would support my 'right' to impose restrictive laws on them - and generally espouse theory denying them equal status in citizenship and humanity?

I doubt it

 

[Bootstoots]

Get me out of here!

 

[Bootstoots]

Would you let someone with no income, no job, and no education adopt a child?

Forbidding that is fine by me; the problem arises when a law is carefully construed to shut out single mothers and lesbian couples who have an education and a steady income, and cast suspicion over atheists trying to adopt (according to the line Renata quoted).

 

[FriendlyFire]

Is encouraging single parenthood really a positive value for America?

If that were its sole noble aim then the legistration would match that goal ?
I see several things wrong with it. Such as enforcement issues, penalties and scope.

example:
The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit “unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction.”

This is just wacky

 

[DBear]

Cheez, if the Indiana Republicans wanted to pass a law forbidding lesbians to have children, JUST SAY SO. Don't put it in this bureaucratic gobbledigook.

 

[bathsheba666]

Exactly how long is it before you re-introduce burning witches at the stake?

 

[Homie]

As many said in another thread:

Good for Indiana!

(only in the other thread it was: Good for Connecticut)

 

[WildWeazel]

Exactly how long is it before you re-introduce burning witches at the stake?

And how does that relate in any way?

 

[amadeus]

Forbidding that is fine by me; the problem arises when a law is carefully construed to shut out single mothers and lesbian couples who have an education and a steady income, and cast suspicion over atheists trying to adopt (according to the line Renata quoted).

I haven't seen any evidence that the aforementioned law would require some sort of religious or volunteering service committment. All it says is that part of the questionnaire will contain personal information.

 

[amadeus]

Exactly how long is it before you re-introduce burning witches at the stake?

About the usual time it takes for you to be arrested by the hyperbole police.

 

[Cuivienen]

That's impossible for them to do. It's like saying, "Two magnets with the north end facing each other can stick together". They can only adopt, which I don't really support either.


I think I'm the only one here who supports such legislation.

Gay men can't, but lesbians can become pregnant and have children from sperm donations - which happens to be a means of becoming pregnant without being married and without having sexual intercourse.

One of my close friends has lesbian mothers - he would not be around if this law had been passed here 17 years ago. This makes me sad.

 

[Chieftess]

I find it disturbing how may people take the same attitude.

How often is religion a simple excuse to advance petty and bigotted hatreds?

Okay for you to impose your beliefs and values on others - irreguardless of whether they effect you in any way but your own imagination?

Presumably people advocating in that direction would support my 'right' to impose restrictive laws on them - and generally espouse theory denying them equal status in citizenship and humanity?

I doubt it

I don't have any hatred of people. It's the act that I don't like.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In the 30s they tried to control drinking through prohibition. How well did that work? Does anyone really think that sex can be controlled by legislation? The system will break down (and corruption take over) the first time a state official's or church pastor's daughter gets pregnant "accidently". Laws have failed to stop speeding, drug use, drinking, sodomy, adultery and many other "sins". Sex? Not a chance.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

If this legislation actually passes, Indiana will be no better then Iran.

 

[JohnRM]

The legislation will never pass, and even if it were to pass, it would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

[wit>trope]

The thread title of course is not quite accurate but that is to be expected since you can only fit so much into the title and the thread initiater in any event made clear with the quotation what was actually at issue.

It's not unwed pregnancy that is being criminalized, but rather certain cases of artificial reproduction by those who are not married. I think this is a good first step. Hopefully one day all forms of artififical reproduction, i.e. all forms that do not involve sexual intercourse, will be criminalized. I don't think the penalty should be overly harsh though. I don't like women being put in jail, so it might be good for the penalty to focus more on the doctors for hire that perform the procedures. You could start the penalty at like one month in jail and see if that is enough of a deterrent or you could even start it as just losing your doctor's license. For the woman, a penalty may not be a good idea if she is already with child unless it were a simple fine (which if she could afford the artificial reproduction, she could certainly afford to pay).

I think I'm the only one here who supports such legislation.

Nope, it looks like there's at least three of us now and apparently three from differing backgrounds and world views so that proves our position is right

 

[Insane_Panda]

What the ****?

Well, it surely is nice that America is such an enlightened nation.

Thank god I live in California

Nothing in the world can stop the primal, instinctive human urge for sex - not even some fundies in Nowheresville

 

[JohnRM]

What the ****?

Well, it surely is nice that America is such an enlightened nation.

Thank god I live in California

Yeah right, and California is so much better.

[/sarcasm]

 

[The Yankee]

Gay men can't, but lesbians can become pregnant and have children from sperm donations - which happens to be a means of becoming pregnant without being married and without having sexual intercourse.

One of my close friends has lesbian mothers - he would not be around if this law had been passed here 17 years ago. This makes me sad.

I've heard the argument for such a law is that children are best raised by a man and woman couple. Yet it doesn't guarantee they will stay together. And I'm sure someone will do a study saying those in households making x amount and more are better off...so, do we ban everyone below that from being able to conceive? Don't like the slippery slope this could lead to...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Everything Igloo said in the last two posts. Doubled.