Unauthorized Reproduction

[Kai]

I'm posting this in the spam forum because it's here to be laughed at by all.

Sometimes I hate living in Indiana.

<p>-------------------------
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." -- Sandman "The Kindly Ones" </p>

[KingOfDoma]

You know what I hate about myself?

When I can see the logic behind a stupid idea. From what I can tell, kids in nuclear families do tend to have a better time of things.

Thank goodness this bill limits human rights, or I'd actually have to be behind it. o.o <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[ikozaedro]

...........you gotta be kidding me. <p><div style="text-align:center"> <span style="color:fuchsia;font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:large;">LAMBO SWIMS LIKE A BRICK!!</span>

my deviant art thingy!
quote:
"I've been to heaven and hell and i still don't know if there is a god or a devil"
-Nny</div>
</p>

[Evil Killer Poptarts]

Next thing you know, they'll make it illegal for a single woman to get pregnant at all. I can see it now- state mandated abortions as a part of the jail time for a woman convicted of getting pregnant without a license. That'll get the churches up in arms. Ought to be interesting, at the least. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[Besyanteo]

Oh god. That's just what we need! The church breaking off from the republican party, because they've gone too far to the right! XD

Anyway: I see a degree of logic to it, but at the same time... no. It reminds me too much of the kind of thought that lead to the Lynchburg Sterilization effort. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[PriamNevhausten]

Why don't they go ahead and start arranging marriages again? It's better for everyone, right? Or how about we put chemical locks on people's genitals! That way we can keep the problem of overpopulation in control, but still get people to make babies if we decide their circumstances are right to be able to support a young human. This plan is FOOLPROOF! <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

[BrainWalker]

The term "unauthorized reproduction" makes my stomach churn.

Still, this really doesn't seem like the worst idea ever. Of course, the execution is entirely laughable. People shouldn't face criminal charges for wanting to be parents. However, it is true that life is tougher on both children of single parents and single parents with children. I think Senator Miller needs to come up with more concrete reasoning than that children raised by two parents "do better." Do better how, exactly, Mr.Miller? I believe that a single parent can do the job right on his/her own, but I also believe that it is a difficult task. Thats' why I liked the part where they mention a screening process being required for a couple seeking artificial insemination. I think as long as a woman can demonstrate that she has the capacity for motherhood, she should be able to be a mother. It's kind of a tricky thing to measure, though. I wonder what exactly is involved in this "screening process"?

Honestly though, instead of creating new life, I kind of wish people would instead adopt a child that's already here but has no family. Orphans need love too, you know. Actually, the wording of the article leads to a little confusion. The law seems to apply specifically to the creation of new life, but the third line seems to suggest that marriage is to become a legal requirement for parenthood. So does that mean a single woman can't even adopt a child? And what of single parents that already exist? Or are they simply using the term "motherhood" to refer to women who have actually given birth?

I liked the part where they felt the need to clarify that it's not just two parents generally, but specifically a mother and a father that is necessary. Nice little jab at the gay communnity there. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[Zemyla]

A cogent paper on a related topic!

And yes, I see why they're doing this. And yes, I can see that it's a massive violation of human rights. <p>-----
Do not taunt Happy Fun Zemyla.

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">I think boobs are the lesser of two evils. - Inverse (Pervy)
Dammit, Dan, I'm not dating a damn NPC! - OOC Will (Will Baseton)
Of course! Anything worth doing is worth doing completely wrong! - Travis English
Ultimately, wizards and clerics don't say, "Gee, I want to become a lich because weapons hurt less and I don't have to worry about being backstabbed; that whole 'eternal life' thing is just a fringe benefit."-Darklion
But this one time I killed a walrus with my bare hands, and I suddenly understood spherical coordinates. - KnightsofSquare
Also, when you've worked a 36-hour shift as an intern you too just might pour yourself a catful of coffee and sit down to cuddle with your travel mug. -eirehound
</span>

Adventurers! | RPG World World | The Phantom Lord's OT Board mkII | Indie Madnesse | Brotherhood of Elitist Bastards</p>

[Archmage144]

The most glaring reason behind it, as far as I can tell, is the prevention of homosexual couples from having children via artificial insemination. Since they can't get married (good luck changing that in Indiana), they can't have kids, even with the marvels of modern science!

Naturally, this is completely unsurprising and all part of the extreme Right's eternal agenda against gays, Jews, women, and college students that aren't in ROTC. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[PriamNevhausten]

One thought I just had with the wording of 'only married couples can bear children' thing--this means that if an unmarried couple conceives, then, legally, they must get an abortion (if such a statute were ever to be on the books). That is pretty amusing. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

[pd Rydia]

"However, it is true that life is tougher on both children of single parents and single parents with children."

I doubt that 'common sense' knowledge to begin with, but for the sake of the argument let's say it's true and ask--why? Because single parents are incapable of raising children well? That seems to be the implication, but I think it's bullshit, personally--old bullshit at that.

Why kind of /events/ create single parents? Divorce, death, rape? Yeah, I can see that leading to tougher lives on children. Doesn't mean that they're necessarily less capable--but they've got a lot more on their plate, that they, and their kids, are going to be handling now.


...Meanwhile, this proposal doesn't address anything like the above. It's designed to prevent single women from getting pregnant through means such as artificial insemination. Hey, maybe I don't /want/ to get married, but I sure want a kid; my own, because some people are like that. OOPS, no can do! I'm not a capable parent without a man! Studies show...


In conclusion: ='( Statistics make baby Jesus cry and crack against the wall in hockey. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

[Besyanteo]

In other news, new statistics show that Milk may give you cancer!

Just food for thought, though I don't have the article anymore. ... I suppose that makes them old statistics, but only by a month. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[pd Rydia]

Sorry, Bes. cho has you beat with "air causes cancer."

I think that came up during the time that PETA got ahold of meat.com... <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

[BrainWalker]

Yes, yes, this particular law is bullshit and all, but the point I'd like to make is that it'd be nice if we could make sure that a single woman who says "Hey, I want a kid." actually has what it takes to stick with and raise that kid. I don't need to read any more news stories about babies being abandoned in trash cans. In a world where children are being neglected or being raised by TV, movies, and music, it'd be nice if we could find some way to make sure that children have parents that can actually be bothered to parent. In the case of single mothers it is more difficult because their ability to work is compromised during pregnancy, and also because the first few weeks and months after birth are incredibly important, and the baby really needs to spend as much of that time as is possible with it's mother. The mother has to strike a balance between taking care of the baby and supporting herself and her child. The success of a single mother hinges on a lot of factors, like an understanding workplace and good friends, and of course the physical and emotional strength of the mother herself. It's not impossible by any means, but it is difficult, and you can't deny that it is more difficult without a dedicated partner. Two heads are better than one, right?

But that doesn't mean it should be illegal. That's crazy. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[pd Rydia]

Brian, you miss my point entirely. No one here who has posted contends that the proposed law isn't bullshit. I'm challenging the idea that 'single parents are inherently worse at their job than coupled parents.' That was the whole point of my post.

"but the point I'd like to make is that it'd be nice if we could make sure that a single woman who says "Hey, I want a kid." actually has what it takes to stick with and raise that kid."

I'm saying--why are single parents being targetted? Coupled parents are very often just as sucktactular--something I've heard many RPGWWers bitch about in the past. The idea of a standardized test for parenthood has been joked about often.

So why are single parents--single mothers, even--being targetted?

More importantly to me, why are people just passively accepting the idea, "Oh yeah, I can see the logic there--single parents ARE bad, but I still opposed this because it limits human rights"...

...not because the logic is flawed all the hell and back? <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

[Animala]

Let's think for a moment about the demographic that can undergo in vitro fertilization.
link

Now, a caveat: "The statistics group together all procedures that constitute assisted reproduction technology (ART), including IVF, GIFT and ZIFT, although IVF is by far the most common."

This information is also from 2000, so prices may have decreased somewhat and success rates increased.

THAT SAID:

"Successful pregnancy was achieved in 30.7% of all cycles."

"About 83% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth."

That's a 25.4% chance of success.

Now, let's look at the cost.

"The average cost of an IVF cycle in the U.S. is $12,400, according to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine."

Insurance coverage for IVF, according to what I've found here, tends to come under the heading of infertility treatment (when it comes at all). I have no experience in this matter, but I imagine there'd be some difficult in convincing an insurance company that a voluntary choice to avoid reproductive sex constitutes an infretility issue.

This seems to disqualifies those who are unable to support a child due to financial incapability, because anyone who has that much money to spare either has a significant cashflow already, or good financial practices and significant dedication.

So, what we're worried about is all the irresponsible, ignorant women who have $12,400 to spare on invasive surgery with an ultimate 25% chance of success and want to be single mothers.

The proposed law, or any law regulating voluntary single parents would be directed towards people who have made a very clear conscious decision, backed up by their wallets, to have a child.

Is this where all our problem parents come from?

-Koss <p>

---

to make the pain go away
i cut the universe
with ribbons
because that makes perfect sense.</p>

[Nakibe]

Eh. This whole thing just pisses me off at a fundamental level. I mean, the next step is automatically aborting every baby born to unmarried people, at least mentally speaking.

Worse, as Mike points out, these are likely NOT even the "problem" parents in general, making this idea morally repugnant AND ineffective. A fun combination.

Also, Maybe I read it wrong, but this seemed to put the most pressure on the mother in the sense that she has to prove that she's married to have a kid in the first place. That thought, though not necessarily true, is why this law amuses me.

After all, if I and a presumed boyfriend had a kid (possibly through a surrogate mother), then assuming that the surrogate was married (somewhat possible), I could in theory break the whole "Man and woman" idea of this law without breaking the law in any sense. Granted, this takes a LOT of assumptions and rolls them into a big ball and tosses them downhill in hopes of a landslide. But its still amusing.

Second, they really need to define "Single Parent" and how EXACTLY two-parent homes are soooo incredibly much better for children that it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL that we invade people's privacy enough to check up on whether they're having kids before they marry. I mean, I personally can actually see supporting this legislation IF I had any confidence that it would achieve its stated goal. And even then the unintentional side effects would eat at me forever.

Even so, I'm amused by the idea of arresting people for running "illegal baby-making factories" in their own homes. I mean, they should be aborting EVERY SINGLE ONE of these babies. OR ELSE.

[Evil Killer Poptarts]

Actually, in China, women ARE required to have paperwork before they can get pregnant. Women caught pregnant without the proper paperwork get an abortion, whether they like it or not. Sometimes they get sterilized. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[Archmage144]

China is an ideal example of what upstanding proponents of human rights should strive for. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[Kai]

*cracks her feet in two and ties them with twine*

<p>-------------------------
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." -- Sandman "The Kindly Ones" </p>

[BrainWalker]

I'm an idealist, and I fully realize that a lot of the stuff I say is impractical, realistically. The concept of a need to present proper documentation or face abortion disgusts me about as much as the concept of child abandonment.

Anyway, I never said single parents were worse at their jobs than coupled parents. I just said it was harder. Never said they didn't rise to the challenge. I've known single mothers, and in my experience, despite this difficulty, there's been just as many good and bad single mothers as there have been good and bad married mothers. All I've said is that parenting is easier with help. Kind of like everything else.

I've actually been wondering why this specific group has been targeted since I first started reading that article. Heck, half my ramblings up there are basically just me trying to figure that much out. Koss made an interesting point. Ultimately, I can't figure out how exactly this law is supposed to solve anything. The only "logic" present in it is an apparent desire to do what is best for the children. Now, I certainly don't believe that what they're doing is best for the children, but wanting kids to have quality parenting isn't a bad thing. Doing something retarded like this that doesn't really help is definitely a bad thing. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[The Great Nevareh]

I think the universe.

HAHAHAHAHAHA Spam forum. <p>[---------------------------]
"There is great disorder under Heaven, and the situation is excellent."
-Mao Tse-Tung

"I eat the talking bees because I am George Washington Christ"
-From "Bob the Ball"</p>

[Besyanteo]

Nev: ... Er. What? <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[Kai]

He said, "HAHAHAHAHAHA Spam forum."

Even I didn't expect this to become any kind of serious discussion. That's why it's here. I'm glad we have some token spamminess so that my expectations weren't totally unfulfilled. <p>-------------------------
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." -- Sandman "The Kindly Ones" </p>

[Choark]

They should just ban babies. I mean, seriously, they cause noise pollution louder then a jack hammer, which is normally something you need ear guards for, they stink to high heaven, so thats, like, smell pollution or something. They cause carreer women/men to either hire maids or dissapear for as long as a year and really thats the biggest crime here.

And they're ugly.

Ban babies. Its for the good of all America!

[Zemyla]

What the hell does Choark care for the good of America? He's a Brit!

Obviously, it's a way for them to lower our population and our defenses so they can take over again! <p>-----
Do not taunt Happy Fun Zemyla.

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">I think boobs are the lesser of two evils. - Inverse (Pervy)
Dammit, Dan, I'm not dating a damn NPC! - OOC Will (Will Baseton)
Of course! Anything worth doing is worth doing completely wrong! - Travis English
Ultimately, wizards and clerics don't say, "Gee, I want to become a lich because weapons hurt less and I don't have to worry about being backstabbed; that whole 'eternal life' thing is just a fringe benefit."-Darklion
But this one time I killed a walrus with my bare hands, and I suddenly understood spherical coordinates. - KnightsofSquare
Also, when you've worked a 36-hour shift as an intern you too just might pour yourself a catful of coffee and sit down to cuddle with your travel mug. -eirehound
</span>

Adventurers! | RPG World World | The Phantom Lord's OT Board mkII | Indie Madnesse | Brotherhood of Elitist Bastards</p>Edited by: Zemyla&nbsp; at: 10/5/05 16:30

[Choark]

We made you! We can destroy you! *shakes fist*

[Archmage144]

Actually, we made us. You didn't want us to. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[Choark]

No, we made you to pay taxes and suchlike to us, then you bitched about it and threw our tea into the sea, so we sent you to your country to think about what you done with no supper.

You haven't grown up much since then either. *tut tut's*

[pd Rydia]

I like where this thread is going! <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

[Deeum]

New statistics show that this thread may cause cancer! <p><div style="text-align:center">

---

</div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dragonmistressscv>DragonMistressSCV</A]&nbsp; at: 10/5/05 19:11

[BrainWalker]

I feel like I got pathetically lost in a house of mirros at some county fair somewhere and just got rescued by some good friends.

Stupid mirrors. Makin' me look bad. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[Ganonfro]

*Gets covered in cancer* IT'S TRUE! ;_;

[NebulaQueen]

That's not cancer. You just spent too much time outside in the rain! <p>

---

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>

[Nakibe]

Cancer-flavored rain. Yum. <p><span style="font-size:small;">

---

Currently idolizing - Roger Bacon, Shadow Hearts
Likes : Forbidden magics, Determined people, His teacher
Dislikes : Stupid people, Church officials, People that prey on the weak
Method of Destroying the World : Feh. God can do it for me. >:{
Becomes Super Powerful When : ... well F***. When ISN'T he?</span>

"Lunatic? The sages of EVERY age were called that! Let HISTORY decide whether my actions were good or bad. For now, we must forge ahead!"</p>

[Nakibe]

<span style="font-size:large;">Indiana Bill To Ban Lesbian Pregnancies Dropped</span>
by The Associated Press

(Indianapolis, Indiana) A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.

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.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana. (story)

But Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana called it government intrusion.

"It feels pretty chilling," Cockrum said.

Miller acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."

Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that was to vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.

The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then required "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor could not begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

[pd Rydia]

CANCER. >: <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

[Zemyla]

Quote:

---

Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

---

It's a good thing this was dropped; otherwise, I would have had to break their heads. <p>-----
Do not taunt Happy Fun Zemyla.

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">I think boobs are the lesser of two evils. - Inverse (Pervy)
Dammit, Dan, I'm not dating a damn NPC! - OOC Will (Will Baseton)
Of course! Anything worth doing is worth doing completely wrong! - Travis English
Ultimately, wizards and clerics don't say, "Gee, I want to become a lich because weapons hurt less and I don't have to worry about being backstabbed; that whole 'eternal life' thing is just a fringe benefit."-Darklion
But this one time I killed a walrus with my bare hands, and I suddenly understood spherical coordinates. - KnightsofSquare
Also, when you've worked a 36-hour shift as an intern you too just might pour yourself a catful of coffee and sit down to cuddle with your travel mug. -eirehound
</span>

Adventurers! | RPG World World | The Phantom Lord's OT Board mkII | Indie Madnesse | Brotherhood of Elitist Bastards</p>

[E Mouse]

<p>

---

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">"Their rhetoric... You didn't put communists in his bed did you!" came Amber's indignant reply.

"Why not? All I had to do was open a gate to his bed and stick up a sign saying 'Hot virgin willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of international socialist fraternity.'"</span>

<span style="color:blue;font-size:xx-small;">Excaliburned:</span> <span style="font-size:xx-small;">Ah yes, I'm thinking of having the USS Bob be preserved outside the Arena as a monument of sorts</span></p>

[BrainWalker]

Most of what I got out of that is that "Cockrum" is a funny last name. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>