This has to be a JOKE!

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.”

You should see the comments. I would say that 99.999 percent of everyone there is opposed, and those comments helped shed some light on what this law really is about. Course, it should have been obvious in the article.

I mean, what about gay parents? Same sexed parents? Oh, kids in those homes don’t ‘do well’, right? How about those who have no interest in getting married and could easily raise a child, so they’d like a kid of their own? Eh? Oh, that’s just impossible, right? Especially since people like these are easy targets. Obviously the poor are also targets(they tend to be), but they get married and have kids anyway and they probably don’t get infertility treatments.

I don’t think it’s the poor that are targets. I think it’s a very underhanded way of trying to prevent lesbians and gay men from having children. They don’t say that, but if you read between the lines, it’s VERY obvious.

I wish I could come up with something that could wipe the floor with these legislating shitheads, but I’m sure some of you could do much better. Complete with eloquent insults.

And yes, I’m well aware that some of the comments seem paranoid, but I can’t say I blame them.

For those of you worried about the accuracy of a blog entry, an Associated Press article is available on the website of the Indianapolis Star here/. It doesn’t mention whether the bill will require women who get pregnant out-of-wedlock by, erm, traditional means, to get married, and I didn’t read enough of the text of the bill to tell.

Well, I guess that’s one solution to teen pregnancy. Mandatory abortions for everyone!

No, it doesn’t require that. It only applies to medically assisted reproduction. Egregious enough, but not as bad as it could be.

It’s actually part of a larger plan for controlled reproduction. You can read the details here. :rolleyes:

W is worrying about Avian flu spreading in this country? He should take a look at the Mid-West; whatever it is that is infecting Kansas has started to spread to Indiana…

I don’t think that this has much of getting out of the committee, much less passing both houses of the Indiana legislature.

Thanks, SanibelMan, I was just thinking that people might ask for other articles.

What TYM said.

Anyway, Joke threads aren’t supposed to go in the Pit.

Kang and Kodos for President!

My guess is the idiots who put this together are going to find out the hard way how prevalent assisted reproduction is.

Here’s another article on this.


But I’m going to suggest that it’s very appropriate for the state to set some guidelines in this area. The law is way behind technology here.

For example, does a “host mother” have any rights at all to a child she bears? This is a mother who is implanted with another couple’s fertilized ovum and carries the child to term. There is no biological relationship between the woman giving birth and the child she’s birthing. May she abort the child? If she’s been paid to carry the child to term, can she be forced to return some or all of the payment? If she wishes to keep the child after birth, can she?

Suppose a couple has a dozen frozen embryos stored for the purpose of such implantation. Three are used in one attempt, and a pregnancy results. Years later, the couple divorces. Are the embryos martial property? What if, without the husband’s consent, the estranged wife uses the embryos to become pregnant. Is the husband liable for child support? Suppose the embryos are stolen, or mistakenly used in another woman. To which “parents” does that child have inheritance rights, if any?

So I’m on board with the idea of the legislature making some sort of effort to legislate in this area.

Of course not, but lets not let that little fact get in the way of a good public outrage wank-fest.

Certainly. Perhaps the legislature could address those issues in a way slightly more nuanced than “it’s illegal.”

Yeah, I think wanking is still legal, even in Indiana.

Well, in Texas and Alabama, it’s illegal to sell sex toys, so I guess assisted wanking is against the law there. :smiley:

Right, sorry about that. Carry on, everyone.

Sure. Especially because “It’s illegal” doesn’t address the consequences if it does happen anyway, illegal not being a synonym for impossible.

Bolding mine

This also concerns me. What faiths would be acceptable?