Comments on: “Unauthorized Reproduction”

By: The Evangelical Atheist » Blog Archive » Heaven House

The Evangelical Atheist » Blog Archive » Heaven House — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:53:18 +0000

[…] This room is an office. A man in a suit sits behind the desk. A placard reads “Arthur Christensen, CSW.” A woman sits across from him, holding an infant. “Was your husband unable to join us today,” asks the man. “I’m not married,” she responds. “That’s fine. Let me just make a photocopy of your gestational certificate for your file.” “But I don’t have one,” she says. “Then you’re not qualified to be a mother in the state of Indiana. I’m sorry.” The man pushes a button on the desk, and two large men in matching black suits with cross pins in their lapels enter the room and seize the baby. The next room opens. […]

By: rose

rose — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:53:15 +0000

Not so long ago when states rights were practically dictatorial it was common in some states to determine that poor and underage unmarried women should have their babies adopted out and further the women would be sterilized for the good of the state. I blame the patriarchy.

By: Heil Mary

Heil Mary — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 03:09:11 +0000

Republican state Senator Patricia Miller’s law also smacks of Nazi Aryan looksism–she’s maliciously gunning for leftover ethnic minority women, hermaphrodites, disabled, or Munchausen by Proxy disfigured victims like me. My church-going white Catholic married heterosexual parents chemically burned me head to toe to impose spinsterhood on me when I only six. By the time I could afford all the needed plastic surgery, no willing single men were left. My one boyfriend ditched me for child hookers in the same Bangkok brothel Neil Bush frequents! Bitch Miller should target unfit married couples like my parents and pedophile Bushes! Given that the Bushes are determined to kill off America’s best young men in oil wars, single mother, gay couple and polygamous families are our only future.

By: ginmar

ginmar — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:28:04 +0000

Miller has cancelled the measure. Guess she wasn’t expecting the furor that she got.

The fact that they tried it, though, makes me wonder what else they’ve got up their sleeves.

By: Virginia

Virginia — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:27:39 +0000

Ah, another case of rightwingers lying about science. “all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family ““ a mother and a father.” In fact, studies indicate the best environment for a child is 2 involved parents. Period. Parental gender does not show to be a relavent factor any peer-reviewed studies. Children of same-sex couples have been found to be less rigid in their beliefs about what girls and boys are capable of, but I guess that wouldn’t be considered a good thing to some.

I can’t believe people in my home state can be so stupid. Why on earth would we waste time and resources preventing the conception of wanted children while also wasting time and resources forcing the conception and birth of unwanted children?

Oh, silly me, I forgot. Women and their unique ability to create new life must be controlled. We can’t trust women.

By: lizzybeth

lizzybeth — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:06:59 +0000

Tell me if I’m being paranoid:

(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:

…

(2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.

Does this sound to anyone else like women who’ve had an abortion in their past will not be eligible for in vitro?

Also this part:

(8) A verification and evaluation of the intended parents’ marital
17 relationship, including:
18 (A) the shared values and interests between the individuals;

25 (10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents,
26 include a description of individual participation in faith-based or
27 church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
28 (11) The intended parents’ child rearing expectations and values.

Anyone else picturing an army of little Pat Robertsons? *shudder*

By: Lee

Lee — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:19:59 +0000

Oog - sorta like an inside-out Ender’s Game. I wonder if it’s occurred to them that they are encouraging adultery with this law.

By: Jim H from Indiana

Jim H from Indiana — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:57:45 +0000

Oh yes, we have wingnuts in Hoosier land! Afterall, it’s not like there’s anything else going on here: unemployment, lousy test scores in schools, “brain drain” as the best and brightest leave, declining city budgets, privatization screwing everything up just like Governor Mitch Daniels wants, more and more restrictive abortion laws, etc., etc.

I don’t give a rat’s ass who has kids. Miller is barking up the wrong tree: if a couple (forget their genders) can support IVF or similar treatments, they surely have enough money, love, desire to have kids, etc., to more than adequately care and raise the resulting children. I thought it was those unwanted kids or children brought up in poverty that were the main issues! Who knew it was the “unauthorized” children that were the main threats to society!

By: LAmom

LAmom — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:06:56 +0000

I was having a conversation once with some of my aunts and uncles, and they were discussing whether or not it’s a good idea for the government to regulate sexual behavior (they are mostly ministers and generally feel that society is going down the toilet). I reminded them that the government could come out with an agenda that they were totally not expecting, like maybe deciding that couples whose income is below a certain level shouldn’t be allowed to have sex without birth control. Of course, if there had been such a law back in the 1930s, none of my aunts and uncles would exist.

I thought I had made up a ridiculous, extreme example, but this proposal isn’t that far off from it.

By: avenir

avenir — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:06:48 +0000

“I personally disagree with any artificial form of reproduction unless there is no other way of having a kid”

When does reproduction become artificial? I’m curious. Suppose you have a couple: wife fertile, husband infertile. Is it ‘artificial reproduction’ for the wife to conceive a baby through intercourse with her husband’s best friend, and then legally claim the baby as belonging to herself and her husband? Or how about if the husband’s best friend provides sperm in a cup, which the wife immediately turkey-bastes into her vagina? Or suppose the donor feels uncomfortable wanking in his best friend’s bathroom, and instead goes to a clinic, where a doctor then transfers the sperm into the wife?

Are these all cases of ‘artifical reproduction’? Or just the situation with the doctor? I was just wondering.

“I think it is selfish and if you want a kid that much adoption or fostering children is a better idea. ”

1. Why is it selfish for a woman with an infertile husband to want a baby that is genetically related to herself, but not selfish for a woman with a fertile husband to want a baby genetically related to herself? Why is it selfish for a lesbian to want a baby genetically related to herself, but not selfish for a straight woman to want a baby genetically related to herself?

Of course there are tons of children in need of adoption in the world, but it can’t ONLY be the infertile women and lesbians who are selfish for not adopting them. Either everyone with a genetically related baby is selfish, or “selfish” and “unselfish” are concepts that have nothing to do with the decision to give birth to, to adopt or to foster a child.

By: AlieraKieron

AlieraKieron — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:36:54 +0000

*twitch*
*twitch*
soooo glad I moved to Wisconsin…
I wonder how the right will respond… illegal reproduction?!?

By: Samantha

Samantha — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:40:27 +0000

I personally disagree with any artificial form of reproduction unless there is no other way of having a kid, I think it is selfish and if you want a kid that much adoption or fostering children is a better idea. That being said I would never want it to be banned, just my personal opinion.
However this disturbs me. Allowing other people to regulate how you have a child is terrifying. It will open up to allowing them to tell you how many children and then who. For some reason it reminded me of the movie fortress.
“Unauthorized Reproduction” is a frightening term.

By: Kyra

Kyra — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:42:21 +0000

I commented on this at Media Girl, asking nine questions about this legislation, four of which were “Are they fucking nuts?!” That was hours agon, and my outrage has since moved to other example of misogynistic reproductive tyranny. Namely, this.
Pandagon links to it also, if you want to vent there as well.

By: Pseudo-Adrienne

Pseudo-Adrienne — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:32:35 +0000

Damn! I’m so sorry Kim–we need telepathy or something :-) But if you have anymore info on this crazy-crap, then by all means whip them out, because I’m trying to find out more about this and the reactions of other politcians here in Indy. Oh, thank goodness Illinois is next door.

By: Kim (basement variety!)

Kim (basement variety!) — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:25:30 +0000

Ahhh, you beat me to the punch, P-A, I was just gathering articles for this one. Isn’t this the most insane bunch of crappola?

I keep hearing conservatives playing the ‘why ever would you think women’s rights are under attack by us’ card, as their fundamental right keeps slipping this sort of propositional crap through to be ‘considered’. While I’m quite positive it will tail-spin into oblivion, what’s the next ‘kinder, more gentle’ legislation they will try that might eventually make it through?

Who is electing these yahoo’s anyways? The American Taliban?