You can't have kids unless you're married

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:52 am

At least according to this bill which will be brought forth.

Article which was linked to in this blog.

Link to full draft legislation in pdf format

Yay for the religious right. :icon27:

Post by **MKJ** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:53 am

fanatical police state?

Post by **Ryoki** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:58 am

Incredible.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:59 am

shocking

Post by **4days** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:03 pm

i read the article (not the pdf or the blog) and while the marriage bit is bang out of order, the rest seems pretty sensible.

sort of wonder with things like this if they actually come up with/steal a good idea, then sneak in the loony element - or if the sensible stuff just happens by itself while they give the loony bit form.

Post by **glossy** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm

Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better.

anti-homosexual much?

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:02 pm

4days wrote:i read the article (not the pdf or the blog) and while the marriage bit is bang out of order, the rest seems pretty sensible.

sort of wonder with things like this if they actually come up with/steal a good idea, then sneak in the loony element - or if the sensible stuff just happens by itself while they give the loony bit form.

They make as much of it seem sensible as possible, so their loony bit has a better chance of getting passed.

Post by **plained** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:08 pm

it shoulda been a test

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:31 pm

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.

this is a little confusing. are they outlawing unmarried motherhood thru in-vitro etc or unmarried motherhood in general? it isn't very clear

Post by **4days** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:35 pm

missed that, thought it was just for artificially induced stuff.

why would a republican want to stop the reproduction of illegitimate chavs, surely that's a large part of their voter base?

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:13 pm

Soon it will be that you can be a mother ONLY if you are a registered member of a congregation at a Christian church.....and then soon it will stipulate which denomination of Christianity you can be.

Nuke em.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:17 pm

4days wrote:missed that, thought it was just for artificially induced stuff.

why would a republican want to stop the reproduction of illegitimate chavs, surely that's a large part of their voter base?

That's cause republicans have never been that smart.

You ever mention the words "critical thinking" to a republican? They explode.

The ones that don't claim it's a liberal partisan smear campaign to introduce thought into the human psyche.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:37 pm

No, this is just another step in their crusade against gay families.

Basically, they are trying to make it impossible for gay women to have babies. If this bill were to pass, since gay marriage is illegal (and even if legal unions were legal, it wouldn't be considered marriage), the only option a gay couple would have would be adoption, and I'm sure they would try to make a law against that at some point as well.

Of course it also affects all other single women who want to have babies, but I don't think that is their main goal.
It would also prevent a married couple from asking a single woman to carry their child, if they are unable to have kids themselves.

Post by **Fender** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:03 pm

DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?

ffs

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:08 pm

heh it is kinda stupid, but after being a parent firsthand you really feel sorry for some of the kids out there.

they should be forcefully taken away and the shitty parents sterilized so they don't fuck up again.

woah, that musta been the conservative in me.

Post by **Canis** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:17 pm

Fuck them...that bill passes and I'll find some chick and impregnate her to spite it.

Post by **plained** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:21 pm

Fender wrote:DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?

ffs

mabe they can wear a suit of babies to avoid critism

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:34 pm

Fender wrote:DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?

ffs

Was that directed at me, or at the bill?

Post by **Foo** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:36 pm

Legislating reproduction

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:18 pm

shadd_ wrote:heh it is kinda stupid, but after being a parent firsthand you really feel sorry for some of the kids out there.

they should be forcefully taken away and the shitty parents sterilized so they don't fuck up again.

woah, that musta been the conservative in me.

does your feeling sorry for some of the kids out there extend to giving the state the right to dictate who may and may not have children?

ultimately that's what this about, however much "think of the teh children!!!1111one" hysteria occurs

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:19 pm

plained wrote:
Fender wrote:DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?

ffs
mabe they can wear a suit of babies to avoid critism

i already do

mm, soft, like buttermilk...

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:17 pm

seremtan wrote:
shadd_ wrote:heh it is kinda stupid, but after being a parent firsthand you really feel sorry for some of the kids out there.

they should be forcefully taken away and the shitty parents sterilized so they don't fuck up again.

woah, that musta been the conservative in me.
does your feeling sorry for some of the kids out there extend to giving the state the right to dictate who may and may not have children?

ultimately that's what this about, however much "think of the teh children!!!1111one" hysteria occurs

i wasn't being too serious there. as much as i hate shitty parents the state can fuck right off with that shit.

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:54 pm

lol @ Indiana. They suck.

Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:11 pm

Unfuckingbelieveable. I'll bet Pat Robertson is committing the Sin of Onan like a monkey over this.

Post by **Geebs** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:23 pm

This page just needed a Reiser photo.

Personally, I think people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce until they can prove that they're not a fucking moron.