Indiana Republicans are attempting to ban pregnancy outside of marriage

[Warriorbird]

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf

[Tromp]

Who woke up in the morning and thought that would be a good plan?

Never happen. Lets hope the republicans support this one. Can only be positive for us liberal democratic wack jobs.

[Fission]

Okay... seriously.

Where are you getting an attempt to ban pregnancy out of wedlock from an attempt to provide legislation dealing with surrogate mothers?

[CrystalTears]

After rereading the article, and seeing Fission's comment, I'm not sure what you're getting at either, WB. I didn't see where pregnancy was getting banned. And where did you get Republican from? Are you assuming again? This was about assisted pregnancies and didn't see anything banning pregnancy outside of marriage. Please elaborate?

[Tromp]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
After rereading the article, and seeing Fission's comment, I'm not sure what you're getting at either, WB. I didn't see where pregnancy was getting banned. And where did you get Republican from? Are you assuming again? This was about assisted pregnancies and didn't see anything banning pregnancy outside of marriage. Please elaborate?

Yeah what she said.

[Atlanteax]

He's polishing up his yellow journalism skills... :smug:

[Warriorbird]

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.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational
certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the
pregnancy. 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.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who
knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction
procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized
reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be
the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of
artificial reproduction."

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for
motherhood and criminalizing "unauthorized reproduction" was
introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly's
Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the
bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this
month.

Republican Senator Patricia Miller is both the Health Finance
Commission Chair and the sponsor of the bill. She believes the new
law will protect children in the state of Indiana and make parenting
laws more explicit.

According to Sen. Miller, the laws prohibiting surrogacy in the
state of Indiana are currently too vague and unenforceable, and that
is the purpose of the new legislation.

"But it's not just surrogacy," Miller told NUVO. " The law is vague
on all types of extraordinary types of infertility treatment, and we
wanted to address that as well."

"Ordinary treatment would be the mother's egg and the father's
sperm. But now there are a lot of extraordinary thing s that raise
issues of who has legal rights as parents," she explained when asked
what she considers "extraordinary" infertility treatment.

Sen. Miller believes the requirement of marriage for parenting is
for the benefit of the children that result from infertility
treatments.

"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should
allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child
raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we
do want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.

When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be a
requirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill's
intention, Sen. Miller responded, "Yes. Yes, I do."

[Warriorbird]

And yeah... Atlanteax inspired me. It does limit in vitro fertilization and fertility treatments to married couples, however. I don't believe either of those should be considered any differently than normal pregnancy.

[Keller]

Did you post the wrong link?

[Warriorbird]

Nope. Merely pulling an Atlanteax.

[CrystalTears]

You're a dumbass. Just post the intended article next time please? kthx.

[Keller]

Maybe I'll go home (Indy) and become a man-whore for all the militant feminist commie females who want to become single mothers.

Now that I've considered this for a good 20 minutes I've concluded: What a fucking retarded piece of legislation.

[Latrinsorm]

Here's the great weakness of quotes: one cannot simply put any old thing they want inside them.

For instance:
WRONG:
According to Jesus, "Fuck y'all I'mma cap yo' asses."

RIGHT:
According to Jesus, "Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."

WRONG:
"petition for parentage"
"gestational certificate"
"who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure"

[Tromp]

Can anyone interpret what the heck Latrinsom is saying? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Kreon]

This piece of legislation would never pass constitutional scrutiny. It interferes with the right to privacy, which, at least until the new Roberts Court gets its hand on a case involving this right, is a constitutional right that demands strict scrutiny to abridge.

The legislation *might* make it past the "Is this a compelling state interest", but it certainly won't make it past the "Is this method the least intrusive way to meet that state interest?"

Bottom line: People in good ol' Indy need to learn to read. It'll make it easier for them to pass constitutional legislation.

[Warriorbird]

You're a dumbass. Just post the intended article next time please? kthx. -CrystalTears

Gosh... and yet calling anti war protestors terrorists doesn't bother you. I love the dulcet tones, too.

[Jazuela]

So what are they gonna do if a woman gets caught? Force her to have an abortion? Oh wait - that would be against the agenda too.

Gotta love politics.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
WB's first page quote that is so damn long...

It's actually, if I read it correctly, a blow to homosexual women having artifically-inseminated children.

-M

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It's actually, if I read it correctly, a blow to homosexual women having artifically-inseminated children.

-M

It was confusing, but that was my initial take on it also

[ElanthianSiren]

The last paragraph where she says "mother and father" gives it away.

-M

edit gives not give. excellerated english worked for me too.

[Edited on Wed, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Warriorbird]

That's just one of the dirty implications of this piece of legislation. A cousin of mine, already twice divorced, was having infertility troubles with her current boyfriend. They don't plan on getting married but they do plan on having a child. They're both in their late 30's. They're fortunate they're not living in Indiana as they're trying IVF as we speak.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Keller
Now that I've considered this for a good 20 minutes I've concluded: What a fucking retarded piece of legislation. Totally.

Talked with my girlfriend about it and her first thought was the same as ES's.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Nope. Merely pulling an Atlanteax.

Bah, I'm nowhere near as obtuse like that.

[Warriorbird]

Your dog and tie disagree.

;)

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's just one of the dirty implications of this piece of legislation. A cousin of mine, already twice divorced, was having infertility troubles with her current boyfriend. They don't plan on getting married but they do plan on having a child. They're both in their late 30's. They're fortunate they're not living in Indiana as they're trying IVF as we speak.


Yes, but the reason that comes to mind is your cousin at least has the option of getting married and thus "qualifying" under the guidelines set forth in this laughable legislation.

[xtc]

Having children within marriage what a horrible concept.

[Warriorbird]

Because getting married is clearly both an option and appealing to everyone.

[xtc]

Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.

This comes from a study posted on urban.org's website. A non-partisan urban economic and social policy research institute.

STUDY (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/409295_discussion99-16.pdf)

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

You're a dumbass. Just post the intended article next time please? kthx. -CrystalTears

Gosh... and yet calling anti war protestors terrorists doesn't bother you. I love the dulcet tones, too.

Quit pulling shit out of your ass and putting words in my mouth. When have I EVER defended that line of reasoning and WTF does it have to do with this thread? You just love to make up this shit because you know it annoys me.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by xtc
Having children within marriage what a horrible concept.

Iron-fistedly instructing people on how to live their lives and criminalizing them for not sharing your view on utopia is a concept I find fault with, yes.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tromp
Can anyone interpret what the heck Latrinsom is saying? Inquiring minds want to know. WB's posted article has several quotes. One of them is simply a misquote that doesn't catastrophically destroy the quote's original intent, but several of the others simply do not appear in the actual legislation.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by xtc
Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.

This comes from a study posted on urban.org's website. A non-partisan urban economic and social policy research institute.

STUDY (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/409295_discussion99-16.pdf)



While this difference is statistically
significant and non-negligible, differences in a mother’s education, work status, and whether she
lives with other adult relatives are all stronger predictors of child poverty.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's just one of the dirty implications of this piece of legislation. A cousin of mine, already twice divorced, was having infertility troubles with her current boyfriend. They don't plan on getting married but they do plan on having a child. They're both in their late 30's. They're fortunate they're not living in Indiana as they're trying IVF as we speak.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

Wow, I'm going to start calling you the Jazuela of Politics because you always seem to have this inside knowledge on all things politics. You're speshul.

[Warriorbird]

Funny. I didn't get what that had to do with politics. I learned about providing examples for what I'm talking about a good while back. I also think your tirade is kind've ironic considering your position.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[ElanthianSiren]

I'd honestly have less of a problem with the legislation if we didn't have those pesky laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying or if they changed the legislation to include domestic partnerships as legal partnerships.

Until they do away with them, however or expand the rights of people in monogomous same-sex relationships, I'm going to call bullshit on using this study here, as being homosexual does not necessarily indicate that you are going to be a single parent in the most literal sense of the word. The study that you use, however, labels all couples who are not heterosexual as single parents.

Is the next proposed law to prohibit divorce? If you get divorced, do they kill your babies? Great idea, good for 50% raw population control.

-M

[DeV]

ES wins hard.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny. I didn't get what that had to do with politics. I learned about providing examples for what I'm talking about a good while back. I also think your tirade is kind've ironic considering your position.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

But you know darned well she did not agree with what even Atlanteax said was a tongue in cheek title to a thread.

Your bringing it up over and over as if she wholeheartedly endorsed such an outlandish concept is inflamatory and disingenuous.

[Warriorbird]

When she starts with insults I'm not likely to play nice. It's as simple as that.


You're a dumbass. Just post the intended article next time please? kthx.

Is pretty far away from civil discourse.



[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
When she starts with insults I'm not likely to play nice. It's as simple as that.

Thats fine as long as you know saying things that are plainly untrue only makes you look bad.

But hey, it's your rep.

[Warriorbird]

Well... she certainly didn't complain about that thread. She insulted mine and insulted me. I don't think that's exactly the same as stating something that was "flatly untrue." There's a pretty large double standard.

Then she kept digging further and further. I thought the comparison to Jazuela was particularly lame.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.


Well, then we should certainly require a significant bond before anyone is allowed to have a child, which we could then use to support the child should it become necessary.

Jorddyn

P.S. Correlation is not causation.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Well... she certainly didn't complain about that thread. She insulted mine and insulted me. I don't think that's exactly the same as stating something that was "flatly untrue." There's a pretty large double standard.


I know she posted it. I know she said it before and now here to you.

In any event you know now.

[CrystalTears]

You know what, WB? Cut the shit. You know, as you admitted yourself, that you posted this thread incorrectly intentionally because of what Altanteax did with his anti-war thread. I thought that was a bit stupid. I don't see how this makes anything better by lowering yourself even further to prove some idiotic point to someone. It was dumb. This didn't need to be this way had you posted the intended link and had a reasonable discussion. You chose to be the smartass.

On top of that, making accusations of something that I never said was pathetic and grasping for something to poke at me at best. There are plenty of things to insult me with... inventing things in my political stance is just juvenile. As much as you grate me with your behavior, even I thought that was a bit beneath you. Now I know nothing is.

[Warriorbird]

Funny. Here I thought personal insults were against TOS.

You didn't say a single thing against that other thread that I saw. Show me differently and I'll certainly concede the point. Just because you disagree with my views and agree with his makes it right to let it slide on his end and complain when I do it?

I don't think I'm the one out of line here. I was certainly civil until you dropped your "comment."

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

When I start insulting your family or your real physical handicaps, then it's a personal insult. Insulting for the sake of stating my opinion that you're an incredible jackass, that's all it is.. an opinion. You can call me a bitch. That's your opinion, not a personal insult.

[Warriorbird]

I see. Here I'd been trying to be better about posting.

The Troll Mage link is certainly appropriate.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny. Here I thought personal insults were against TOS.

Hey, you know what? You talk about insulting but thats your whole problem.

I tend to agree with alot of your politics, but you go and screw it all up so often by presenting things in such an arrogant condescending and yes, insulting manner that you turn off many who might otherwise at least pause to consider that your point of view has merit.

Just tone it down a bit and you may get much farther.

[CrystalTears]

Look, I didn't say anything about that particular aspect of the thread because by the time I got to it, you pointed it out, he acknowledged it, it was a done deal. I didn't feel the need to bring it up again, neither did anyone else.

The difference here is that you didn't even post the link that was discussing the republicans and their decision, it was just the legislature itself. So it frustrated me that you specifically went out of your way to duplicate Atlanteax's method. Seemed low and petty.

And now you have issues with my WoW character in my signature? Fucking hell.

[Edited on 10/5/2005 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

I guess requesting a :grouphug: is a bit reaching at this point.

[Warriorbird]

And now you have issues with my WoW character in my signature? Fucking hell.

I have nothing against your WoW character. You seemed to miss it.

I guess it's my overblown sense of injustice at work. I've never been the sterotype of the "meek" or "tame" Democrat, if it's even right to call me a Democrat. I generally drop by here to let go of some frustration rather than seeking validation or common ground. I save that for person to person or real life. Most folks who've even talked to me over AIM could tell you I come off a bit different, much less the people I know face to face.

I didn't think what I did was inflamnatory or out of line if what he did flew.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
I guess requesting a :grouphug: is a bit reaching at this point. I'm always down for a :grouphug:. We (specifically, members of Indiana's legislative body) could always use some more :love: and :hippie:!

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by xtc
Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.


Well, then we should certainly require a significant bond before anyone is allowed to have a child, which we could then use to support the child should it become necessary.

Jorddyn

P.S. Correlation is not causation.

I heard a comedian once say that before you can drive a car, you have to go for a written test, you go for driver training which includes hours of classroom and in-car instruction and than finally you go for a road test with the DMV.......but........any 2 assholes can go out and have a kid.

When a preponderance of the evidence points to kids outside of marriage suffering in greater numbers more poverty, lower education levels and inadequate healthcare, I applaud anyone who comes with ideas and a solution no matter how asinine. At least it starts a discussion which may lead to further and better solutions.

[Warriorbird]

I agree that wantedness and family are very important to children. With that said, many people have had a difficult time with marriage and aren't particularly interested in being forced in that direction. Homosexuals, in turn, don't even have the option to be married in Indiana.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I agree that wantedness and family are very important to children. With that said, many people have had a difficult time with marriage and aren't particularly interested in being forced in that direction. Homosexuals, in turn, don't even have the option to be married in Indiana.

I think children need permanence. In Canada 67% of married couples stay married. Before 2 people have a child they need to have a lifelong commitment to each other or at least until the child turns 18.

Gay couples in Indiana can always come to Canada for a quicky gay wedding. We may become the gay Vegas where weddings are concerned.

[Warriorbird]

A new reason for people to sing "Blame Canada!" err, um...

I think they do. I'm not necessarily sure that deifying marriage is the way to achieve that, but I do agree that it's a way to reach for that notion. I'm all for a license to have kids provided said license isn't biased against certain folks.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DeV
I guess requesting a :grouphug: is a bit reaching at this point. I'm always down for a :grouphug:. We (specifically, members of Indiana's legislative body) could always use some more :love: and :hippie:! Actually, fuck them, I'm talking about us (specifically, members of the Players' Corner Forums).

I've got no problem with :hippie: :love: though.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
Gay couples in Indiana can always come to Canada for a quicky gay wedding. We may become the gay Vegas where weddings are concerned.

Indiana will not recognize that marriage.


Originally posted by xtc
When a preponderance of the evidence points to kids outside of marriage suffering in greater numbers more poverty, lower education levels and inadequate healthcare, I applaud anyone who comes with ideas and a solution no matter how asinine. At least it starts a discussion which may lead to further and better solutions.

Census reports show that (in the U.S. )whites graduate high school at a higher percentage than other races. Should only whites have children so that we can ensure all babies will eventually graduate high school? Additionally, why does everyone have to have a high school or college education? Are we somehow going to eliminate unskilled labor?

Young adults are less likely than their older colleagues to have health care. Should people under 25 not be allowed to have children, so we can ensure they have health care? Of course, women over 35 are more likely to have children with birth defects, so perhaps they shouldn't have children either.

Now, someone who lives in Arkansas is three times as likely to live in poverty as is someone in New Hampshire. I'll be generous. Any state with a poverty rate less than twice that of New Hampshire can still have children. Those of you who live in ...

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
DC
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia

... are SOL.

Jorddyn, waiting for her applause

P.S. It goes without saying that you must not be certifiably insane, and not have a huge risk of dying in the process. Duh. :D

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Jorddyn]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DeV
I guess requesting a :grouphug: is a bit reaching at this point. I'm always down for a :grouphug:. We (specifically, members of Indiana's legislative body) could always use some more :love: and :hippie:! Actually, fuck them, I'm talking about us (specifically, members of the Players' Corner Forums).

I've got no problem with :hippie: :love: though.

:love: :grouphug:

Jorddyn, thought it looked fun

[Warriorbird]

North Carolina

Damn. No kids for me!

[ElanthianSiren]

Haha Rocking the Pennsylvania and the college edu-ma-cation.

It doesn't say anything about having to be certifiably sane or not posing a huge risk of dying in the process, so I should be all good. :D


-M

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It doesn't say anything about having to be certifiably sane or not posing a huge risk of dying in the process, so I should be all good. :D


:heart: the edit post feature.

:saint:

Jorddyn

[ElanthianSiren]

Damn, SoL again! :cry:

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by xtc
Gay couples in Indiana can always come to Canada for a quicky gay wedding. We may become the gay Vegas where weddings are concerned.

Indiana will not recognize that marriage.


Originally posted by xtc
When a preponderance of the evidence points to kids outside of marriage suffering in greater numbers more poverty, lower education levels and inadequate healthcare, I applaud anyone who comes with ideas and a solution no matter how asinine. At least it starts a discussion which may lead to further and better solutions.

Census reports show that (in the U.S. )whites graduate high school at a higher percentage than other races. Should only whites have children so that we can ensure all babies will eventually graduate high school? Additionally, why does everyone have to have a high school or college education? Are we somehow going to eliminate unskilled labor?

Young adults are less likely than their older colleagues to have health care. Should people under 25 not be allowed to have children, so we can ensure they have health care? Of course, women over 35 are more likely to have children with birth defects, so perhaps they shouldn't have children either.

Now, someone who lives in Arkansas is three times as likely to live in poverty as is someone in New Hampshire. I'll be generous. Any state with a poverty rate less than twice that of New Hampshire can still have children. Those of you who live in ...

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
DC
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia

... are SOL.

Jorddyn, waiting for her applause

P.S. It goes without saying that you must not be certifiably insane, and not have a huge risk of dying in the process. Duh. :D

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Jorddyn]

Ok if you live in the following states you shouldn't be allowed to have kids. This would remove Bush's support base which is great but poor Jerry Springer wouldn't know where to find potential guests for his show.

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia


I am not for eugenics (the above states excepted :D) but a discussion about how we can improve and strengthen African American families would be a good one.

There is a greater chance if the parent is educated that the child will be as well. Education = opportunity.

Sorry Jordynn no applause

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by xtc]

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc

I am not for eugenics (the above states excepted :D) but a discussion about how we can improve and strengthen African American families would be a good one.
Good education is key. "No child left behind". Right. The determining factor on how well a child will score on the SAT's is not the educational level or even the academic achievenment of their parents, but instead it is family income. It all ties together in the long run.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
I am not for eugenics ...

The line between choosing who can breed and choosing who we assist with breeding is awfully thin, especially with infertility rates as high as they are.

But, since you seem to think since I brought up age and race, I'm talking eugenics, let's go with this question.

Your reason for finding this an acceptable idea was Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.

I would think that couples who are educated and wealthy couples would be more likely to have educated children with better access to health care.

Then, if it is acceptable to require that one be married in order to receive fertility treatment, would it not also be acceptable to require that one be of decent means and have a college education? I'd truly like your answer.

Jorddyn

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Your reason for finding this an acceptable idea was Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.

Slippery slope aside, the above is moronic for a very simple reason. All of those procedures - surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, fertility treatments - they all cost money. They are not covered by Medicaid. If the person has enough money to afford medically assisted pregnancy in the first place, the odds of the resulting children ending up 'poor and uneducated' are minimal.

Show me a study where they focus on single parents with minimum incomes of 50k that show the resulting children to end up living below the poverty line and maybe, just maybe, there will be a case for that particular arguement.

Raven

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Ravenstorm]

[ElanthianSiren]

Raven wins... harder than I.

-M

[Ravenstorm]

And that, as they say, is that. For now.


State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement late Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.

"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission," she said.

Raven

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It's actually, if I read it correctly, a blow to homosexual women having artifically-inseminated children.

-M

Ding ding ding.

Sorry if someone else pointed out her correctness ... but that is one of the impacts.

It basically states that if you're unwed and want a child, gay or straight, for whatever reason ... the state will prevent that from happening.

It's not like professional welfare recipients are lining up for test tube babies. The single rich women that hate men club but aren't gay but still want children has a pretty low membership rate, so that leaves lesbians and lesbian couples that want children.

If they can stop them from adopting, stop them from being foster parents, and then stop them from before they can become pregnant .... well those damn gays will eventually just die off in the state of Indiana.


Originally posted by Skirmisher
While this difference is statistically
significant and non-negligible, differences in a mother’s education, work status, and whether she
lives with other adult relatives are all stronger predictors of child poverty.

This is what we refer to as pwnt.

The study negates itself pretty much by saying "children of single mothers who are poor and without education will likely turn out the same".

Forgive any repeats of already posted statements.

[Tsa`ah]

It should also be pointed out that this heads off gay men using a serrogate mother in order to become a biological parent.

While it should be obvious from previous posts, you never know when someone is going to pull a lame defense of this measure and claim it isn't ant-gay in any measure.

At the core of it, it is nothing but anti-gay legislation.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by xtc
I am not for eugenics ...

The line between choosing who can breed and choosing who we assist with breeding is awfully thin, especially with infertility rates as high as they are.

But, since you seem to think since I brought up age and race, I'm talking eugenics, let's go with this question.

Your reason for finding this an acceptable idea was Children born outside of marriage are more likely to be poor, lacking in education, and to receive inadequate health care.

I would think that couples who are educated and wealthy couples would be more likely to have educated children with better access to health care.

Then, if it is acceptable to require that one be married in order to receive fertility treatment, would it not also be acceptable to require that one be of decent means and have a college education? I'd truly like your answer.

Jorddyn

I didn't say I was for this idea. I said this which you highlighted in a prior post:

"I applaud anyone who comes with ideas and a solution no matter how asinine"

[Terminator X]

...Somewhere in the great state of Indiana, there lives a spiteful senator who relives the nightmare of the time he had to chase Bobmuhthol out of his 16-year-old daughter's bedroom with the 12 gauge...

"NOBODY TOUCHES MY DAWTER BUT ME!" <shotgun blasts>

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by xtc

I think children need permanence. In Canada 67% of married couples stay married. Before 2 people have a child they need to have a lifelong commitment to each other or at least until the child turns 18.



Is that a law?

So how many children cry themselves to sleep every night listening to their parents scream at each other?

[TheEschaton]

I'm glad I read the whole thread through the first time. Otherwise I would of ranted and raved about anti-gay legislation and the Republicans being all big-brotherish and trying to control our lives. Luckily, there are still reasonable people posting here on the PC. ;-)

I miss all of this, especially at times like this, when I miss home a bit. There's only one-party democracy here, if you disagree with the current government SWAPO (South West African People's Organization), you sure as hell don't say it aloud.

-TheE-

[xtc]

Originally posted by GSLady17

Originally posted by xtc

I think children need permanence. In Canada 67% of married couples stay married. Before 2 people have a child they need to have a lifelong commitment to each other or at least until the child turns 18.



Is that a law?

So how many children cry themselves to sleep every night listening to their parents scream at each other?

Proabably fewer than those who grow up with parents who never married and cry themselves to sleep at night from hunger, poverty and no father.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by GSLady17

Originally posted by xtc

I think children need permanence. In Canada 67% of married couples stay married. Before 2 people have a child they need to have a lifelong commitment to each other or at least until the child turns 18.



Is that a law?

So how many children cry themselves to sleep every night listening to their parents scream at each other?

Proabably fewer than those who grow up with parents who never married and cry themselves to sleep at night from hunger, poverty and no father.


Because there is no way in hell that two people can get a divorce and both love their kid enough to make it work.

Oh, and of course a woman can't support a kid!

:rolleyes:

[xtc]

Originally posted by GSLady17

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by GSLady17

Originally posted by xtc

I think children need permanence. In Canada 67% of married couples stay married. Before 2 people have a child they need to have a lifelong commitment to each other or at least until the child turns 18.



Is that a law?

So how many children cry themselves to sleep every night listening to their parents scream at each other?

Proabably fewer than those who grow up with parents who never married and cry themselves to sleep at night from hunger, poverty and no father.


Because there is no way in hell that two people can get a divorce and both love their kid enough to make it work.

Oh, and of course a woman can't support a kid!

:rolleyes:

You can your roll eyes all you want. Can they both love the kids of course. When you are paying for two residences there is less money for the children. There are lots of deadbeat Dads as well. Divorced kids face unqiue challenges and difficulties. Every divorced person I know is having difficulty with their kids.

Single mothers on average have a hard time making ends meet. The study I posted was clear on income, education, and healthcare.

However this legislation was about couples that haven't married to start with, if I understand it correctly.