Mickey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The idea that if you concede to the state the right to force a pregnancy to come to term, you cede to the state the right to forbid a pregnancy to continue or even to start has, in the past, been met with incredulity because "it'll never happen.." Apparently "never" has come sooner than we thought. Indiana is seeking to control who can and can not use fertility techniques to become pregnant. Lesbians will not be allowed and in fact, all women seeking to use these techniques will have to fill out an application to demonstrate their baby-worthiness to the state. I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. Forced abortion perhaps? Maybe let the pregnancy come to term and then just take custody of the baby from its mother in the delivery room and hustle it off to be adopted by a good christian family? Nah, it'll never happen. Indiana, salt of the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. 466496[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Discrimination based on sexuality or participation in "faith based" activities you can quibble with. The rest? No way. If a couple wants to acquire a baby through adoption, you have to prove your "baby worthiness". And from what I understand, its quite the stringent process and things as small as whether or not you have your sockets child protected affect the outcome of the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 It is a bill submitted to the state legislature. You act like it is been signed into law. Bills as loony from the left get submitted here in CA all the time. Unfortunately, a lot of them were signed by the former gov. At least Arnold has the sense to veto idiotic bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 The idea that if you concede to the state the right to force a pregnancy to come to term, you cede to the state the right to forbid a pregnancy to continue or even to start has, in the past, been met with incredulity because "it'll never happen.." Apparently "never" has come sooner than we thought. Indiana is seeking to control who can and can not use fertility techniques to become pregnant. Lesbians will not be allowed and in fact, all women seeking to use these techniques will have to fill out an application to demonstrate their baby-worthiness to the state. I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. Forced abortion perhaps? Maybe let the pregnancy come to term and then just take custody of the baby from its mother in the delivery room and hustle it off to be adopted by a good christian family? Nah, it'll never happen. Indiana, salt of the earth 466496[/snapback] Thanks for pointing this out Mick, as I'm not the type of guy who frequents 'gay news' sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 its only a matter of time before Motherment decides who is/isn't fit to have a child or raise a child and sets up a department similar to the DMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Thanks for pointing this out Mick, as I'm not the type of guy who frequents 'gay news' sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... 466712[/snapback] If you are a taxpayer footing the STD cost, there is a lot wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 its only a matter of time before Motherment decides who is/isn't fit to have a child or raise a child and sets up a department similar to the DMV 466746[/snapback] There already is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 If you are a taxpayer footing the STD cost, there is a lot wrong with it. 466750[/snapback] I'm thinking that heterosexual transmission of std's is probably a much bigger problem when it comes to taxpayers footing the bill in terms of numbers than homosexuals. Does that mean there is a lot wrong with heteorsexuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Discrimination based on sexuality or participation in "faith based" activities you can quibble with. The rest? No way. If a couple wants to acquire a baby through adoption, you have to prove your "baby worthiness". And from what I understand, its quite the stringent process and things as small as whether or not you have your sockets child protected affect the outcome of the decision. 466548[/snapback] This isn't just adoption we are talking about. They are writing laws determining who can and who can not avail themselves of various fertility techniques. These are used by infertile couples to try and get a viable pregnancy going. They are also used by women for other reasons, such as lesbians. My wife had a history of miscarriages so we saw a fertility specialist who was also good at helping women carry to full term as some of the techniques are helpful to prevent miscarriages. Two kids later, I became a big fan of these specialists. Don't kid yourself, the application of this law won't be limited to lesbians. The idea that a husband and wife who are having fertility problems would have to demonstrate their baby-worthiness and that they have the right religion before they would be allowed to undergo a medical procedure designed to overcome their fertility problem is plainly freakish. But then again, since to some there is no constitutional right to privacy, how would it be stopped if it was passed? Withholding medical treatment based on one's religious affilitations or lack thereof, yeah, who could "quibble" with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 It is a bill submitted to the state legislature. You act like it is been signed into law. Bills as loony from the left get submitted here in CA all the time. Unfortunately, a lot of them were signed by the former gov. At least Arnold has the sense to veto idiotic bills. 466629[/snapback] Which is why we mock out California all the time. Now its Indiana's turn. What is your opinion on the law? Good, bad, indifferent? Constitutional or not? Suppose the laws of physics were suspended and the space time continuum suffered a massive rupture which together resulted in you being named to the Supreme Court, how would Chief Justice Wacka rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Thanks for pointing this out Mick, as I'm not the type of guy who frequents 'gay news' sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... 466712[/snapback] When I saw the source for this story I knew I was asking for trouble linking to it. I know you are kidding but seriously, I bet that some state senator in Indiana is thinking right now about whether he should let this thing pass or vote against it and risk being called gay or gay friendly by his opponent in his next election. I can see the oppo-ad now: "Senator Blufnfuss voted in favor of sexual perverts raising test tube babies. Isn't it time for a change?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Slippery slope. You take away the rights of some and the next step is to take away the rights of another group. Government intervention bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I'm thinking that heterosexual transmission of std's is probably a much bigger problem when it comes to taxpayers footing the bill in terms of numbers than homosexuals. Does that mean there is a lot wrong with heteorsexuals? 467071[/snapback] No, it means we outnumber them by 9-to-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Slippery slope. You take away the rights of some and the next step is to take away the rights of another group. Government intervention bad. 467141[/snapback] Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Which is why we mock out California all the time. Now its Indiana's turn. 467110[/snapback] When I mocked California here you didn't seem to take quite the same attitude (see post #5). I'm just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 When I mocked California here you didn't seem to take quite the same attitude (see post #5). I'm just sayin 467268[/snapback] no legislation proposed vs legislation actually proposed Besides, I see a big difference between taxing trash bags in a city like San Francisco and the State Senate of Indiana telling people they can't have babies. I think one warrants far greater and earlier concern than the other. Then again, your particular need for large numbers of trash bags might be of greater concern to you though I hesitate to imagine why this would be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Perfectly fine with me. Single women shouldn't be allowed to "acquire" a child this way either. Don't most liberals rail about 'population control'? If anything else, homos are natures way of keeping the population down, why should we help them have something that by their actions is forbidden to them? Isn't it rather hypocritical in the grand scheme of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 no legislation proposed vs legislation actually proposed Besides, I see a big difference between taxing trash bags in a city like San Francisco and the State Senate of Indiana telling people they can't have babies. I think one warrants far greater and earlier concern than the other. Then again, your particular need for large numbers of trash bags might be of greater concern to you though I hesitate to imagine why this would be so. 467288[/snapback] I use the garbage bags to pick up and throw out all the hairs you split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Perfectly fine with me. Single women shouldn't be allowed to "acquire" a child this way either. Don't most liberals rail about 'population control'? If anything else, homos are natures way of keeping the population down, why should we help them have something that by their actions is forbidden to them? Isn't it rather hypocritical in the grand scheme of things? 467306[/snapback] By the same token then should the state be able to forcibly abort the pregnancy of a lesbian woman who got pregnant by sleeping with a man rather than through a fertility procedure? You do realize that this law is not restricted in its application to just lesbians? It would also subject an infertile couple desiring to take advantage of a medical procedure that would effectively "cure" their infertility. Even they would apparently have to prove their baby-worthiness including that they practice what the state sees as the proper religion. Why should an infertile couple have to go through a state mandated screening process to have a baby while a fertile couple does not? Is there something inherent in infertility that warrants that their reproductive future be placed in the hands of the state? Maybe your position is that the state should be able to interfere in all pregnancies, not just those that originate from fertility techniques? If you beleive the state should be able to decide who does and who does not have babies, say so and we can address that position first before we move on to under what conditions should the state be able exercise the power you would grant them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts