I don’t think the point is whether or not it’ll get passed(honestly, I doubt it will, but I could never help but worry). The point is that people are trying to make it into law and there’s no question that others will either look the other way or support it outright.
I don’t see how the outrage is “wank fest”. I don’t blame people for being upset or worried. You can’t expect people to just shrug something like that off and just assume it won’t pass.
I’m well aware that it applies to “non-sexual” intercourse, but that doesn’t mean I should just pass it off as “eh, it’s not as bad as it could be”.
I agree. The issues that you cited should be addressed. I disagree with the direction taken, however. I see no reason legislation cannot be written to address those issues even where a marriage is not involved. And, even for those married (from Jurhael’s second link, in post #):
Right, why should the public have any knowledge or involvement in the affairs of the legslature before these laws have even been passed. Surely we should just allow the legislature to do what needs to be done to protect the interests of America without the troubling meddlesome influence of public opinion. Once laws have been passed is the appropriate time for the public to show any outrage or involvement in the process so that maybe, at some point in the future, someone can consider amending the total fuck-up of a law that has been passed.
There’s a very stupid Indiana legislator out there somewhere that needs to find a new occupation, and you’re doubt about the, “public outrage wank-fest,” is asinine.
Bricker, this law does virtually nothing to address thorny practical issues of fertility treatment like you’ve described. It’s solely about limiting reproductive access to the bill’s sponsor’s ideas about, “acceptable citizens.”
Things like this:
Why don’t we go ahead and just start sterilizing people that we deem unacceptable for reproduction, you know people that pose a threat to the National Community or whatnot.
Some of the scenarios you bring up are covered in the ream of contracts that are signed when a couple agrees to a procedure. Some of the others (embryo placed in wrong woman for instance) there is at least legal precedent for, if that matters. Anyway they have nothing to do with the OP.
Are you on board with the idea that a married couple that wishes to conceive naturally is not required to obtain a Certificate of Parentage, but a married couple that wishes to conceive using certain assisted reproduction methods is required to obtain a Certificate of Parentage?
I would hope that such a thing doesn’t even come close to happening.
Honestly, some of the things listed I can see, but Values? Hobbies and Talents? Physical Description? Family of Origin? In these cases, what on earth would be “acceptable”?
No, what’s asinine is getting all worked up when some moronic state lawmaker merely proposes a monumentally stupid law. This happens all of the time, in every state. For shits and giggles sometime you should actually review all of the laws that are proposed that never make it to the floor. There is some wacky, wacky stuff there. It seems to me that you don’t understand they dynamic of being a state representative. It’s not a high bar, some of them are crazy, some of them are ideological extremists, some of them are elected by a geographic pocket of citizens with a belief system far from the mainstream and sometimes they introduce legislation that has no chance of passing, knowing it has no chance, as a favor to a particular campaign contributer. The point is that reactions like
are really, really, really, really premature, if not downright hysterical, assuming that they are called for at all. If this thing had been marked up, passed through committee and was up for a floor vote in the Indiana, then I would say that then there was a legitimate and serious grounds for concern. As it is, this is all a big hoorah over nothing. It’s not making a mountain out of a molehill, it’s making a mountain out of a no hill.
Not entirely covered by contract law. Can a judge order specific performance of a pregnancy? Is a contract purporting to establish damages for breach consistent with public policy?
Depends. I might be. There are results of certain assisted reproduction methods that need to be handled. I would be on board with a couple that used IVF being required, as a matter of law, to plan for the disposition of any unimplanted embryos before beginning the process. That strikes me as good public policy. Is that something that the “Certificate of Parentage” might require?
Just to play Devil’s Advocate, here’s the part that does make sense to me:
It doesn’t seem right that a woman (with or without a husband) who walks into an adoption agency should be subject to far more strenuous scrutiny than a woman who walks into a sperm bank.
Well, that’s the best I could come up with. Yeah, dumb law.
So many argumnet here seem to come around to one of the following:
“It hasn’t happened yet. Why are you making such a big deal?”
“This isn’t new. Why are you making such a big deal?”
“It doesn’t have any support. Why are you making such a big deal?”
“Everyone supports it but you. Why are you making such a big deal?”
“It doesn’t affect you. Why are you making such a big deal?”
“It affects everyone. Why are you making such a big deal?”
It appears at times that my timing needs to be perfect, and the demographics need to be just right, before I’m allowed to complain or be worried about some law.
I know, I know. Everyone gets it but me. Why am I making such a big deal?
For years and years now I have hoped for the passage of an “Idiot Reduction Act.” Such an act would refer suspect behavior to a review board, composed of members of the SDMB. The suspect behavior would be reviewed, the history of the perpetrator of the suspect behavior would be reviewed and the likelyhood of future acts of idiocy determined. The punishment for acts of idiocy would be determined by a vote of the members of the review board, with the degree of idiocy weighting the punishment. There would be no limits on the form of punishment, nor any restrictions of any sort other than the banning of the death penalty. All punishment would be administered publically and, in extreme cases of idiocy, would be repeated according to the whim of the review board. I think we now have a prime example of what the “Idiot Reduction Act” would eliminate.
A splendid idea. Of course, the board members will have to be carefully screened. I suggest the following criteria:
(A) Family of origin.
(B) Values.
(C) Relationships.
(D) Education.
(E) Employment and income.
(F) Hobbies and talents.
(G) Physical description, including the general health of the individual.
(H) Birth verification.
(I) Personality description, including the strengths and weaknesses of each intended board member.
You mean can a judge order a woman to carry a baby to term if the woman wants to abort it, for instance? I doubt it. I don’t know for sure, though. I imagine the woman’s going to do whatever she deems best for herself whatever the judge says. I also imagine the parties involved will wind up in front of a judge if they can’t come to some agreement.
Ideally, but what if there isn’t specific public policy? Is the contract worthless?
Disposition of unused embryos in case of divorce, death of one or both spouses is covered in the agreements with the practitioner. Is it not worth the paper it’s printed on?
Besides, that’s irrelevant to the OP because (AFAIK) disposition of a couple’s frozen embryos is independant of the various methods the couple and doctor can use to create those embryos. This particular law does not apply to cases where the intended father is the sperm donor AND the intended mother is the ovum donor. It only applies to other methods of assisted reproduction.
I guess it sounded like that was what I was proposing. I apologize if I have offended.
No, I just meant this law seems just as nutty as the one mandating the teaching of intelligent design (and I won’t dignify it by capitalizing it).
I’m just curious here; I know that Democrats have been labelled as being those who want to pass laws about everything under the sun. There may be a grain of truth in that. But I hardly think that the Republicans can take the moral high ground on this issue, when they seem to have a vested interest in what takes place in a bedroom or behind a doctor’s door.
The writer of the bill was" just thinking of the children…"
If I have a nickel for every time I’ve heard “you need a license to drive a car, cut someones hair, etc. etc. but not to be a parent” - well this is that idea carried to the abort-every-black-baby extreme.
Indiana is a conservative state, but there’s no way this will pass. At least I give my fellow Hoosiers a tad more credit.
Just recently a judge prevented the attorney general from being able to sieze and read confidential Planned Parenthood medical records. In case you’re new to this ploy - one of the anti-abortion movements gripes with Planned Parenthood is that they aid and abet the sexual abuse of children.
They say this because they assist in providing abortions to pregnant girls under the age of consent - ergo. they are protecting the rapists of said children.
What anti-abortionists have yet to deal with (as far as I can tell, it’s not like I’m up on this field) is the fact that abortion is no longer primarily a surgical issue, it is now a medical one. Several legally obtainable drugs, when used extra-labelly and taken in the correct order, will induce abortion in most women.