Insane_Panda
Deity
Yeah right, and California is so much better.
There WILL be a californian republic one of these days!
Yeah right, and California is so much better.
I think he was probably referring to lesbians getting ahold of someone's sperm either by paying for it or from a sperm bank and then having children that way.Chieftess said: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.
ComradeDavo said:This is really bad. I totally am disgusted by such a policy. Another example of the Republicans trying to run peoples lifes for them. The US really needs to start electing Democrats before the whole country turnsd into one big social conservative nightmare.
Right, because there really is going to be a center party at the next election to vote for with a realistic chance of winning Face it - You have a joice between Social Conservatives driven by fundamentalist christians, or the Democrats.A'AbarachAmadan said:Please! Then we get the eminent domain folks that take away my property and then tax everything I make. Need a nice, intelligent Centrist Party. For now, just split the vote.
Both parties have big problems, and these particular wackos need to go. Can't believe they would try it....yes I do. They are nuts.
rmsharpe said:Is encouraging single parenthood really a positive value for America?
rmsharpe said: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.
I suppose you realize that those chiefly hit by this law would be those who can't conceive naturally?Pikachu said:To let women become pregnant without having sex is a bad idea. Whats the fun in donating to a sperm bank? It is much more fun to give the donation directly into the woman in need. I think sex is a good value that should be preserved, so I fully support this law!
1 - DittoRik Meleet said:I'll control my irritation and just post 2 statements.
1 - The state has no affair in "matters of the heart" - never.
2 - Everyday I get happier and happier I do not live in the USA.
Rambuchan said:Yup, another reason why I'd never live in the US. I pity you guys having to put up with this meddling, theocratic, conservative, condescending, ignorant, patronising, nanny state, crap. But then again - you don't have to put up with it.
Pikachu said:To let women become pregnant without having sex is a bad idea. Whats the fun in donating to a sperm bank? It is much more fun to give the donation directly into the woman in need. I think sex is a good value that should be preserved, so I fully support this law!
Yes but it would be quite out of OT form for me to accept that.IglooDude said:Not all of us in the US are subject to this sort of nastiness. Some states (my own New Hampshire being one) try very hard to avoid nannyness.
The law opens for an exception for them. If the authorities find a couple qualified to be adoptive parents they can get assistance. I dont think it would be appropriate to assist a couple to become parents if the authorities find them unfit as parents, and you cannot call an artificial reproduction procedure an accident. If the authorities find a couple unfit as parents and at the same time nature makes it impossible for them to get a child naturally, then maybe they should take a hint?The Last Conformist said:I suppose you realize that those chiefly hit by this law would be those who can't conceive naturally?
That must never happen!CurtSibling said:One day we might rely solely on technology to produce babies...
Pikachu said:That must never happen!
Rambuchan said:Yes but it would be quite out of OT form for me to accept that.